The Story Told By The Evidence
What is the story told by the evidence of genetics?
There are competing ideas about the origin of life, and in particularly human life. Like conspiracy theories, there seems to be no end to these ideas, and their countless variations. If you listen to all of the contradictory stories, each "proving" the other ones wrong, it does not take long to be overwhelmed with the arguments, to the point of being more uncertain than when you began. The fact is, that the answers which some people give, only create more questions, when you consider them carefully.
Fortunately, this is not some unsolvable mystery.
It is not unlike a "Mystery Dinner" fundraiser that I once attended. We all saw the performers doing various things, then the lights went out for about a minute, and there was a gun shot heard. When the lights came back on, one of the performers laid dead in the center of the room, and the rest of the performers were on opposites sides of the room, from where they had been before. The question that we had to answer, was who shot the victim, and why.
Over the course of our dinner, each performer came to each table, and told their version of what had happened. Then each couple was allowed to ask that performer one question. When it was over, each couple turned in a piece of paper, with who they thought had done it, and why, written on it.
My wife and I were the only couple in attendance to get the right answer. We were not surprised at all, because we had solved the mystery with one hundred percent certainty. When the other guests at our table asked how we knew, I replied, that we had followed the evidence.
Most of the people were focused on the stories, that the performers were telling, instead of objectively examining the evidence. Their questions had been focused on things like, the relationship between the victim and each performer, especially how the performer felt about the victim, which only gave the performer an opportunity to make their story seem more believable.
We were focused on uncovering the truth, about what had happened. So our questions were very much geared towards uncovering evidence, that eliminated wrong people and wrong motives, so we could be left with the right answers. We also did not assume, that each performer was telling the truth, so we examined their version of events against the story told by the evidence.
So a seemingly unsolvable mystery was solved, by looking at the story told by the evidence, instead of the stories told by the story tellers.
The stories of the origins of life, and the development of human life, are a mystery, that many people rarely solve with one hundred percent certainty. Like the other dinner guests, they lack certainty about their conclusions, because they are asking the wrong questions.
People often ask questions, which are focused on the stories that they are being told, instead of asking questions about the evidence. Their questions are focused on things, which only give the story tellers an opportunity, to make their story seem more believable.
In the same way, the mysteries about the origins of life, and particularly human life, can be solved by the same methods, that we used at the Mystery Dinner.
If questions that are asked, are geared towards eliminating wrong answers, then we can be left with the right answer. It is important not to assume, that everyone is telling the truth, but to instead examine their story, against the story told by the evidence.
So this seemingly unsolvable mystery can be solved, by looking at the story told by the evidence, instead of the stories told by the story tellers.
Are the genetics of human beings and other living things improving over time?
There are some theories, that male human beings are passing on less genes in their Y-chromosome, than their ancestors possessed. These theories do not just cover human beings, but all organisms that reproduce through sexual means.
The fact is, that no one has ever observed a single specimen of any species, that has less genes than those of its ancestors. This supposed gene loss has supposedly occurred over millions of years of time, at a rate of about one gene lost every 200,000 years. However, no one actually has a 200,000 year sample of a Y-chromosome, to compare to a modern sample from the same species. There is simply no objective evidence, that this gene loss has ever occurred.
Those who tell these stories, keep changing the details of their stories, especially disagreeing over the number of original genes, and the rate of gene loss. Still, there is no disagreement among them, over which direction the number of genes is trending towards. They make it very plain, that the number of genes is decreasing, if it is changing at all.
Each gene loss represents a loss of genetic information, and abilities for the species. This means that current human beings have no better genetics than previous human beings. If anything, modern human beings are genetically inferior to their ancestors, due to this supposed gene loss.
(If more genes were harmful, then the carriers probably would have not survived to reproduce, or would been sterile, similar to cases where people are born with extra chromosomes today. So it only stands to reason, that if their ancestors had more beneficial genes than modern humans, then they had better abilities, that came from the additional genes, but those abilities were not passed on to their descendants, who had less genes.)
So the story told by the evidence is, that the genetics of living organisms are not improving over time.
Is death programmed into every living organism?
Yes, it is. In fact, it is programmed into every cell of every living organism. There are several processes that bring this about, but the result is the same. Every single living cell will automatically die after a limited number of reproductions.
When the number of cells that are dying, is significantly less than the number of new cells that are being produced, then the organism will grow in size and remain young. When the number of cells that are dying, remain about even with the number of new cells that are being produced, then the organism will remain about the same in size and remain healthy. When the number of cells that are dying, are significantly more than the number of new cells that are being produced, then the organism will be aging. When the number of cells that are dying, compared to the number of new cells that are being produced, becomes great enough, then the organism will die.
So a programmed imbalance between the new cells and the dying cells, is a process that is programmed into every living organism, which leads to first aging, and then death.
This process does not occur at the same speed for all living organisms. This is why some species live much longer than others.
The process is so fast in some species of mayflies, that their entire lifespan is about 30 minutes. This process is so slow in some trees, like bristle cone pines, that there are specimens are over 4,200 years old, which are alive today. Nonetheless, even these trees will eventually die without any external cause, because death is programmed into their very cells.
So the story told by the evidence is, that death is programmed into every living organism.
Does the DNA of all organisms share a common design?
Yes, it does.
In fact, the design of the basic structure of the DNA of every single living organism is exactly the same. What makes one species different from another, or even one member of a species, different from another member of the same species, is the nucleotide sequence, which is present in that identical structure, which is shared by all living organisms.
This is what makes GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) possible. A nucleotide sequence can be removed from one organism, via intentional DNA fragmentation, and recombinant DNA can be placed to bond at the linker site, where the DNA fragment was removed.
So in essence, the DNA of every living organism is like a manufactured Christmas tree, with bulb sequences, with each bulb being one of four colors, attached at the ends of each branch. Each manufactured Christmas tree is exactly alike in form, but the bulb sequences are different.
The manufactured Christmas tree for members of the same species, have almost all of their bulb sequences exactly the same, on almost all of the branches, with only a few branches having different bulb sequences. The manufactured Christmas tree for a different species, has many branches that have different bulb sequences.
Genetic modification basically involves, removing the bulb sequence from one branch of the manufactured Christmas tree for one species, and replacing it with the bulb sequence from one of the branches of the manufactured Christmas tree for another species.
So like manufactured Christmas trees, that come in only one basic model with variation in the bulb sequences, the DNA of every living organism comes in only one basic model with variation in the nucleotide sequences.
So the story told by the evidence is, that all living organisms share the same DNA design.
Do old species produce new species over time?
While there is variation between members of a species, the majority of their attributes defined by their DNA is the same. For example, over 99.9% of the DNA of all human beings, is exactly the same.
In general, the members of a species possesses a specific set of common attributes, which defines the species. This set of attributes defines the boundaries of a species, like a box is defined by its boundaries in three dimensions. So while there are obvious variations between one member of a species, and another member of the same species, all members of the same species fit in the same genetic box.
For example, a female Irish Wolf Hound, and a white, male, Miniature Chihuahua, both fit in the same genetic box, even though they have very many differences in size, color, gender, and other such things. They are part of the same species, the dog, because of the many more things that they have in common, such as their basic body structure.
However, a small, white, male cat, while more similar to the previously mentioned Miniature Chihuahua, in many of the attributes listed above, than the female Irish Wolf Hound, does not fit in the same genetic box. It is part of a different species, because of the many more things that it has different than the Miniature Chihuahua, such its basic body structure.
So for a new species to come from an old species, there would have to be enough changes in the common attributes of their descendants, driven by changes in their DNA, to define a completely new genetic box.
It has been proposed that this has happened over a long period of time, over the course of many generations. When discussing genetics, it is not absolute time that matters, but rather the number of generations.
For example, in Star Trek, there was creature called "the Horta", that only reproduced every fifty thousand years. So for the Horta, a million years would be twenty generations. This would be about the equivalent generational span of four hundred years for human beings. Without controversy, human beings have not changed as a species in any meaningful way over the last four hundred years.
However, there is a real life creature, which has had about three and one half million generations, over the last one hundred and thirty one years. This creature is called "Escherichia Coli", better known as E. Coli, and reproduces asexually by division, about every twenty minutes. It has had about the equivalent generational span of seventy million years for human beings, during the time since it was first discovered. It has been continually observed the entire time.
E. Coli is considerably less complex than a human being, basically looking like a hotdog. Since its genetic box is so small, it would be considerably easier for it to have had enough changes, for it descendants to define a completely new genetic box, than something as complex as a primate.
Yet, after almost three and one half million generations of observation, not one new species has came from E. Coli. In fact, there has never been one observed occurrence of any of the millions of species of documented living organisms, whose descendants became so different, that they were in a completely different genetic box than their ancestors, and thus a new species.
So the story told by the evidence is, that old species do not produce new species over time.
Do different subspecies within a species occur by random selection?
The first thing to consider is, that randomness does not actually occur in the strictest sense.
For example, when you roll a die, the outcome is determined by the laws of physics.
In the same way, computers only emulate randomness through pseudo-random number generators. Randomness is emulated by taking a seed value, typically the number of nanoseconds that have passed since the moment 1970 started in Greenwich Mean Time. A number is then created from that seed value, and the number of possible values in the range of randomness, by an algorithm. (For example, the number six might be created, if the "random" value of a six sided die is being generated.)
So randomness does not really exist, only unpredictability by people, because they lack the means to make an accurate prediction. Once they have the means to make an accurate prediction, the illusion of randomness comes to an end.
Since there is no true randomness, people can create a loaded die, by inserting a denser object in the side that they want to be down, when the die stops rolling. This insertion moves the center of gravity away from the center of the die, and towards the side that they want to be down. So when loaded die is rolled, then the side that they want to be up is more likely to show, than with a regular die. In fact, if the die is loaded correctly, then they can accurately predict the number that will be rolled every time, because the same number will always be rolled.
In the same way, the results of the pseudo-random number generator can always be predicted with one hundred percent certainty, if the seed value, the range value, and the algorithm are all known. The algorithm is the law, which is applied to the variables of seed value and range value, to govern the selection.
So randomness is an illusion, caused by not knowing the laws and variables, which govern the selection. This makes the selection unpredictable, until the laws and variables, which determine how the selection is made, are understood. The results were never random, but only had the illusion of being random.
In the same way, varieties of different species may seem to occur randomly to human beings, but that is only because, they do not know all of the laws and variables, governing the selection. As more of the laws and variables are discovered, the more the illusion of randomness diminishes.
Most long term variation in organisms occurs, due to individuals with a subset of the possible variations, being isolated together, from those that do not share the same variations. There are laws and variables, which govern this selection.
For example, if you have a herd of only Holstein cattle, with their characteristic fur pattern of black spots on white, then all of their calves will have the same fur pattern of black spots on white. You can predict the outcome, because like a load die, only one outcome is possible.
However, if you introduce an equal number of Hereford cattle, with their characteristic fur pattern of red bodies with white faces, into the herd, and allow them to breed together as they desire, then you have introduced unpredictability into the herd, that you might perceive as randomness. You might accomplish this, by allowing the herd of mixed cows to be in a pen with one of each type of bull on alternating days, or even determining, which bull will run with the herd of cows, by rolling a die each day.
The calves will now start appearing in three different fur patterns. Some will have the Holstein fur pattern of black spots on white. Some will have the Hereford fur pattern of red bodies and a white face. There rest will have a fur pattern of black bodies, like the red bodies of a Hereford in the color of the black spots of a Holstein, and the white face of a Hereford. These calves are called "white faces".
However, there is nothing really random about which calves have the Holstein, Hereford, and white face fur patterns. The calves that came from a Holstein bull breeding with a Holstein cow, will always have the Holstein fur pattern. The calves that came from a Hereford bull breeding with a Hereford cow, will always have the Hereford fur pattern. The calves that came from a bull of one breed, breeding with a cow from the other breed, will always have the white face fur pattern.
If you did not know the laws concerning the fur patterns of these two breeds, and you were not paying attention to which bull was breeding with which cow, then the results would be totally unpredictable to you, causing the illusion of randomness.
However, if you monitored and kept track of which cow bred with which bull, then you would be able to accurately predict the fur pattern, which each calf would have, before it was even born. The illusion of randomness would be over, because you knew the laws concerning the fur pattern of these two breeds, and you knew all of the variables, that those laws acted upon.
The fact is, that if you then expanded your herd, by introducing an even amount of cattle from ten other breeds into your herd, and then left the entire herd to its own devices for twenty years, when you returned, you would have a variety of fur patterns among the calves, but almost none with the fur patterns of any particular breed. If you left that herd to your family, and they left it alone for another hundred years, then there would be no calves showing the fur pattern of any of the original breeds.
The fact is, that breeds of cattle are not produced by random selection. They are produced by purposeful selection.
Each characteristic of the breed was achieved by an intelligent outside force, human beings, selecting only individuals with the desired characteristics to breed with each other. As the process continues, with their offspring being purposely selected using the same criteria, the percentage of calves having the characteristics of the breed will increase with each generation. Eventually, this purposeful selection will cause a bull and a cow, with the characteristics that define the breed, to always produce calves, which have those same characteristics. When this occurs, cattle are said to be keeping the breed.
So the new breed of cattle is only created by purposeful selection. A herd of cattle of the same breed will keep the breed, as long as they are purposefully isolated from all cattle, that are outside of the breed. Random selection would actually destroy the breed, not produce it.
Breeds of cattle are formed, by purposely selecting cattle with the same genes, which define the breed. In the same way, different breeds (or subspecies) of wild animals only exist, because each member of each breed has been isolated from the members of other breeds.
If left to random chance (or more accurately, unpredictability), then different subspecies would not form. If a large group of a mixed individuals were to be split into two groups, then they would not randomly split into one group with only one set of characteristics, and then another group with a different set of characteristics. They certainly would not keeping splitting into groups randomly, until there was only members in a particular group, who had the narrower genome that defines a subspecies. No, the randomly split groups would keep containing individuals with the same range of characteristics as the original group. Their collective genome would remain just as wide.
Different breeds or subspecies can only come about by purposeful selection and isolation. It works the same with people. When you have people who have blue eyes isolated from everyone else, their children will always have blue eyes. When you have people with blue eyes, which are not isolated from everyone else, you will end up with a group of people, who have one of three different eye colors.
Those with blue eyes had parents, which did not have brown eyes, because brown eyed people can only pass down a brown eye gene, and those with blue eyes had to get a blue eye gene from each parent. In the same way, those with brown eyes could not have had any parents with blue eyes. Lastly, there are those with green eyes, who have one blue eye gene and one brown eye gene, who could have parents of any combination, except two brown eyed parents or two blue eyed parents.
This condition of mixed eye colors within the group would continue for countless generations, as long as a group of the blue eyed people, or brown eyed people, did not become completely isolated from everyone else.
So in cases, where a gene combination becomes the only available option, it is always a case of isolating those with the correct gene combination from all others. Left to their own devices, no species will randomly isolate the members of the species, with the combination of genes necessary to create a new breed within the species.
So the story told by the evidence is, that new subspecies, within a species, can only come about, by purposely being isolated from the rest of the species.
Do useful mutations occur within a species, which are passed down to their offspring?
Mutations are the result of a difference in the DNA of a particular member of a species, that causes it to exhibit characteristics, that are outside of the normal genetic box of its species.
Mutations occur in one of four varieties.
One is a polymorphic mutation, where a different base nucleotide is present in some members of the species, than the one that is present in most members of the species. It is like most members of the species having a green bulb in the bulb sequence on a particular branch of their DNA Christmas tree, but some members have a red bulb at that location instead. Mutations of this type are usually within the normal genetic box of the species, and only show up as a harmless variation, like a difference in eye color.
The second type is a deletion, where a base nucleotide is missing from the nucleotide sequence. It is like, the bulb sequence on one of the branches of the DNA Christmas tree is missing a bulb completely, causing it to have one less bulb than it should. Deletions can cause an individual member, to exhibit some sort of characteristic, which is outside of the normal genetic box of the species.
The third type is a damaged nucleotide. It is like, the bulb sequence on one of the branches of the DNA Christmas tree is broken. A damaged nucleotide can cause an individual member, to exhibit some sort of characteristic, which is outside of the normal genetic box of the species.
The fourth type is an insertion, where a base nucleotide is added to the nucleotide sequence. It is like, the bulb sequence on one of the branches of the DNA Christmas tree has an extra bulb completely, causing it to have one more bulb than it should. Insertions can cause an individual member, to exhibit some sort of characteristic, which is outside of the normal genetic box of the species.
The fact is, that most mutations are relatively insignificant. Most of the significant mutations are polymorphic, and are inside the genetic box of the species. The rest are radical mutations that exhibit sort of characteristic, which is outside of the normal genetic box of the species.
These radical mutations are the result of a deletion, a damaged nucleotide, or an insertion. This damage usually comes from outside influences like radiation, or chemicals, like those found in cigarette smoke. The radical mutations are never an improvement. In fact, most of them are a detriment to survival for the most part.
Most individuals that have a radical mutation, like say, an extra head, are usually disadvantaged in the competition for nutrition, and die before sexual maturity. These radical mutations also make them more likely to be picked off by predators, before they reach sexual maturity. Even when they reach the age of sexual maturity, usually as a result of being taken captive by humans, most of the time they are sterile. However, even those cases where they are not sterile, their offspring do not possess the radical mutation.
Each reproductive cell, the sperm or egg cell, is only carrying one half of each pair of genetic material, which the individual has in their own DNA. The reproductive cells with missing, broken, or extra nucleotides are frequently killed off by the host body, because their DNA errors causes the host body to mistake them for a foreign organism. It is similar to cells needing a DNA password, to keep them from being killed off by the host body, but their damaged DNA makes their password unreadable, so the host kills them off.
This leaves mostly reproductive cells, which are lacking the damaged DNA necessary to pass on the mutation, as candidates to be used in reproduction. In cases, where there are very few reproductive cells that have survived, then the individual may become effectively sterile.
However, even when a reproductive cell, that is carrying the damaged DNA responsible for causing a radical mutation, reaches the point of fertilization, the missing, broken, or extra nucleotides are not usually passed on. The reproductive cell with the damage DNA cannot bind correctly with the DNA of the partner reproductive cell, because of the damage. So many times, the zygote does not form, and the body aborts the entire attempt.
The damage to the DNA of the organism with a radical mutation, occurs to the reproductive cell of one of the parents. The parent did not possess the damage to the DNA, when they were born, but the damage was done to the reproductive cell, which was used to form the organism with the radical mutation, after the parent reached sexual maturity. The damage to cell was not part of the original replication instructions for forming the reproductive cell of the parent, so it will not be part of the original replication instructions for forming the reproductive cell of the offspring.
So for these reasons, individuals with radical mutations do not pass down their radical mutations to their offspring, if they are not effectively sterile.
For example, if a two headed turtle mates with another turtle, none of its offspring will possess two heads. In cases, where co-joined twins (Siamese twins) have married other co-joined twins, none of their children were born as co-joined twins.
The other noteworthy thing about radical mutations is, that they are never radically different in their basic form. A two headed turtle will have two turtle heads, not one turtle head, and the head of another species that is completely different. In like manner, a turtle will never be born with the head of snake, or even the head of another species of turtle. It will only be born with the head of the species of turtle, which it belongs to, no matter how many heads it is born with.
In the same way, a turtle will not be born with a better version of anything else, like say a foot. It will only be born with a foot, that is defined by its species. This is true, even if that foot has an issue, like say, being shriveled up. The same is true about every part of every individual of every species.
It is worth noting that as the genome narrows into subspecies, the number of mutations also narrows. If you have a group of people with blue eyes, they are far less likely to have a noticeable variation in eye color, than a mixed group of people with the entire spectrum of human eye colors. That is because the number of gene combinations is smaller, since the children will automatically inherit the blue eye gene from both parents.
The fact is, that in over 200 years of observation of millions of documented living organisms, there has never been one useful mutation ever observed. This makes sense, since such mutations are the result of damaged DNA in the reproductive cells. Also, there has never been one instance of a radical mutation, useful or harmful, that has been observed as continuing to be passed down from generation to generation of any species.
So the story told by the evidence is, that useful mutations do not occur, and are not passed down from parents to offspring.
Did all people come from just one man, and just one woman?
Years of examination and comparisons of the Y-Chromosome of men of every race from all over the world, shows that all men inherited their Y-Chromosome from a common male ancestor. This man has been dubbed as Y-Chromosome Adam. The time of his existence was initially put in at about 600,000 years ago, based on the fact, that he had to be relatively close in existence to Mitochondrial Eve, since all of his descendants got all of their mitochondrial DNA from her.
Study of the mitochondrial DNA of people of every race from all over the world, shows that all people have inherited their mitochondrial DNA from a common female ancestor. This woman has been dubbed as Mitochondrial Eve. The time of her existence was originally put in at about 600,000 years ago, based on a previous defined timeline of human evolution.
The genetic mutation rate, needed to arrive at 600,000 years, was not based on any observable evidence at the time. Indeed, there was no genetic mutation rate of mammals, that had been established based observation of mutations, used in their calculation of her age. The genetic mutation rate used for Mitochondrial Eve, was calculated as the genetic mutation rate needed to make her 600,000 years old, without any real proof that the rate was accurate.
However, the Russians did an experiment with silver foxes, that created data, which could be studied to determine a genetic mutation rate based on actual observation.
The Russians used silver foxes to make coats. Wild silver foxes were hard to trap, and the ones in fox farms were hard to handle. People frequently ended bitten by the silver foxes, but the Russians noticed, that not all silver foxes behaved the same.
So the Russians decided to purposely select silver foxes, based on their flight or fight behavior, when threatened. They took a sharp stick and poked at the silver foxes in each cage. Those that fought back, became coats. Those that cowarded back, became breeding stock for a tamer version of the silver fox.
However, the Russians soon found themselves with totally unexpected results. Within just a few generations, the silver foxes started having floppy ears, curly tails, and barking like dogs. They also began coming in various coat colors, that had never been observed among silver foxes, like white with black spots.
This experiment showed that mutations come in clusters, often seemingly unrelated. The Russian had purposely selected and isolated silver foxes for one behavioral attribute, tameness, but had ended up with a host of unexpected taxonomical (structural) changes, like floppy ears.
In the end, this experiment showed two things. Since the wild silver foxes, or even those in captivity, never showed any of these changes, when allowed to breed without purposeful selection, it showed that such changes do not come about by random selection, but rather purposeful selection. Second, it established for the first time, actual data from observable events, which could be used to establish a genetic mutation rate for mammals, based on actual observation.
The data derived from this experiment made two things apparent. First, the number of mutations does not remain stable from generation to generation, but rather lowers as the genome is narrowed, for the reasons previously discussed. Second, the formula for determining the number of generations, to produce the number of observed mutations, is not a flat rate, but is more of a hyperbolic curve, when plotted out.
When this formula is applied to the number of mutations, which have occurred since the time of the backward engineered mitochondria of Mitochondrial Eve, you do not come up with anything close to the number of generations, which would have occurred in 600,000 years. Instead, you come up with the number of generations, which would have occurred in about 6,000 years.
This is basically one percent of the number of generations, which was predicted by applying an arbitrary flat rate of mutation, originally used. This flat rate was solely based on making the age of Mitochondrial Eve, fit into the desired place in a preconceived timeline.
The same is true for Y-Chromosome Adam, since he had to have lived about the same time as Mitochondrial Eve.
So Mitochondrial Eve lived about 6,000 years ago, as well as Y-Chromosome Adam, based on actual observable evidence.
So the story told by the evidence is, that every person on Earth came from just one man and one woman, who lived about 6,000 years ago.
Did the first people have black skin and come out of Africa?
The fact is, that men whose Y-Chromosome belongs to different haplogroups, sometimes have different colors of skin, although it is nothing like a skin color per haplogroup. (A haplogroup is a group of genes inherited from a single parent.)
The people with the darkest skin were assigned to haplogroup A. In general, as each haplogroup was discovered, the haplogroups for darker skin men were assigned to the beginning of the haplogroup alphabet, and the lighter skinned men were assigned the further down the haplogroup alphabet.
The alphabet designation indicates the position of the haplogroup in the phylogentic tree.
The phylogentic tree is a diagram, that is created from the inferred relationships among different species, or in the case of the human Y-Chromosome, the relationship between different haplogroups. This tree is structured based on the inferred position, that the characteristics of those possessing a particular haplogroup, would have in a preconceived timeline. There is no objective genetic evidence, that any particular haplogroup belongs to where it is assigned in the phylogentic tree.
In other words, haplogroups are assigned a position in the phylogentic tree, so they will fit int a preconceived timeline, just like Mitochondrial Eve was assigned a time when she lived, to fit into the same preconceived timeline.
So, instead of building a phylogentic tree based on the evidence, the evidence has been arranged to fit into the phylogentic tree. This is another case of interpreting evidence based on a pre-existing theory, instead of having the evidence shape the theory, as it is discovered.
So people with the blackest skin were assigned A haplogroups, and other haplogroups were shown as coming from this haplogroup. This assignment was completely arbitrary, based on a preconceived timeline, and has no basis in objective evidence. So in short, the placement of the A haplogroup at the beginning of the phylogentic tree, was made, because those making the tree, had already constructed a timeline, which placed people with black skin, occurring at the beginning of their timeline.
Like blue eyes, black skin come from a narrowing of the genome. If a black skin person marries a white skin person, they produce a person with an intermediate skin color. Their descendants will now produce children of varying skin tones. This is why in the same African American family, one child can have really dark skin, while their sibling can have really light skin.
As previously discussed, a narrowing of the genome comes from a group of individuals with a particular characteristic being isolated, from those who do not share that characteristic, like isolating Holstein cattle from all other cattle to keep the Holstein fur pattern. People in Africa have had consistently black skin, because they have been isolated from those with other skin colors.
When a group of people with various skin colors live together, and are able to marry as they see fit, then there will be the entire range of skin colors among the group. It is the same as when, there is a mixed group of people with brown, blue, and green eyes, who are allowed to marry as they see fit.
As discussed before, the group with the wider genome, like the wild silver foxes, are always the originating group. The groups with the only narrower genome, come from isolating members with the narrower genome, from those who do not share the distinguishing genetic trait. This is like the silver foxes with dog-like characteristics, came from isolating those silver foxes that had tameness, from other silver foxes.
The genetic history of the haplogroups with the widest genome for skin color has been identified from mummies, ancient tombs and like, where actual genetic material has been collected for analysis, and a timeline can be objectively determined, based on actual evidence. The history of these haplogroups, all show these haplogroups started in the middle of Iraq, and then migrating out from there. Like many African Americans, the people whose Y-Chromosome these belongs to these haplogroups, were often carriers of a mixture of genes for regulating skin color.
Individuals with the genes necessary for black skin color could have then have been isolated from those, who did not possess those genes. In other words, the haplogroups for people with black skin color could have been formed out of the haplogroups for people, who had the genes for a variety of skin colors, but not the other way around. It is like blue eyed children can come from two parents with green eyes, but green eyed children cannot come from two parents with blue eyes.
This means that the people, who had their genome narrowed to the point of producing only children with black skin, migrated into Africa from the Middle East, where they were isolated from those, who would have widen their genome through intermarriage.
So the story told by the evidence is, that the first people were of a medium skin color, and migrated out from the middle of Iraq.
Is there a story that matches the story told by the evidence?
Like the stories told by the performers at the Mystery Dinner, the best way to tell the truth from the fiction, was to compare their stories to the story told by the evidence.
So the best place to begin to do that, is to summarize the entire story told by the evidence, so it can easily be compared to competing stories, that contradict each other.
This is the story told by the evidence:
The genetics of living organisms are not improving over time. Death is programmed into every living organism. All living organisms share the same DNA design. Old species do not produce new species over time. New subspecies, within a species, can only come about, by purposely being isolated from the rest of the species. Useful mutations do not occur, and are not passed down from parents to offspring. Every person on Earth came from just one man and one woman, who lived about 6,000 years ago. The first people were of a medium skin color, and migrated out from the middle of Iraq.
Now consider the story told by those who espouse evolution, and see how it compares.
The story told by evolution is this:
The genetics of living organisms are improving over time. Death is a random occurrence, that happens to every living organism by chance over time. All living organisms do not share a common design. Old species produce new species over time. New subspecies, within a species, can come about by random selection. Useful mutations randomly occur, and are passed down from parents to offspring. Every person on Earth came from just one man and one woman, who lived about at least 250,000 years ago. The first people were of a black skin color, and migrated out of Africa.
Of course, this is only a basic outline of the story told by those who espouse evolution. They do not agree on all of the details, and frequently tell different versions of this story, that contradict each other. Also, this only the most recent version of the story. As evidence that contradicts their story is discovered, they keep changing their story.
They are like those performers at the Mystery Dinner, who were plainly lying to cover up something, which they did not want to come to light. Their stories contradicted each other, and they kept changing their story, anytime evidence was presented that contradicted their story. Like those performers, the story told by the evidence, contradicts the story told by these play actors in ever manner.
The first thing lie that they would have you believe, is that all scientist believe their story. The truth is, that many scientists have come realize, what a far fetched tale their story is, when they compared it to the story told by the evidence. They have come to understand, that it is the greatest fairy tale ever told.
Many of those who tell this story, are trying to cover up many things, which they do not want to come to light. For example, their views on people with black skin.
In their story, the earlier versions of a species are inferior to the later versions of the species. Since the originators of this story in modern times all have white skin, they want to the story to say, that white skin people are the ones with the improved genetics. So they place people with black skin at the base of the phylogentic tree, because that makes black skin people to be the most inferior version, which everyone else is an improvement upon.
This position in the phylogentic tree makes black skinned people to being the closet in DNA to the supposed common ancestor of people and the Rhesus Macaque monkey. (Which ironically has white skin.) This narrative has lead to terrible racial epithets against black people, like "porch monkeys", while supporting the theory that white people are "the master race".
It is little wonder, that Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, and the like, all endorsed various versions of this story. This story makes it impossible to treat all people as being equal, because it plainly teaches that all people have not evolved equally. Every kind of atrocity against those with supposed inferior genetics, is justified by their story, because it is the evolutionary right and responsibility of those with superior genetics, to replace those with inferior genetics.
The greatest lie of all, is that they will try to get people to believe, that this story sets people free from religion. The truth is, that this story, which contradicts the story told by the evidence, is the creation story of their religion. Everyone has a religion of some sort, including them.
All religions seek to answer three basic questions about the human race: A) How did we get here? B) Why are we here? C) Where are we going?
You can define any religion by the answer to these three questions. The answers to these three questions that define their religion is: A) By accident, B) No reason - our existence is pointless, C) Extinction.
This has got to be the most depressing religion ever devised by mankind. So what is the appeal to their message?
Wallace, who proposed this story at the same time as Darwin, was once asked near the end of his life, why he was so sure that his story was correct, given the lack of evidence to support it. His response was that it had to be, otherwise there was a God, who demands righteous behavior, and he would need to repent.
So this wild yarn that they have spun, that keeps changing every time someone points out a flaw, like the work of a seasoned con man, was never based on evidence at all. It was only based on a desire to do whatever evil came to their mind, without any concern about needing to answer to a just and righteous God for their behavior.
There is a competing story, that is worth examining to see if it will hold up as being true. A story that is true, does not change. A story that is true, holds up to close scrutiny. A story that is true, does not contradict the story told by the evidence.
This story is the story found in the Book of Truth (The Bible). This is that story:
The genetics of living organisms are not improving over time. Originally, every organism had perfect DNA (Genesis 1:11-25). Man changed the world, so that the DNA of every organism was no longer perfect (Genesis 3:17-19). Now the DNA of every organism is in a state of decay (Romans 8:20-22).
Death is programmed into every living organism. The Father of Truth (YHVH aka God aka THE LORD) put man in charge of the fate of every living organism (Genesis 1:26-28). Man was warned, that death would be programmed into every living organism, if he rebelled (Genesis 2:15-17). Man disregarded the warning, and death was programmed into every living organism (Romans 5:12-14).
All living organisms share the same DNA design. The Father of Truth created everything (Genesis 2:1-3). He uses an intricate design, that contains the instructions to build an organism, before it comes into existence (Psalm 139:13-16). There is a common design to the DNA of all organisms, because all organisms have a common Designer (1 Corinthians 15:37-39).
Old species do not produce new species over time. Every organism that grows up out of the earth produces only organisms of the same species (Genesis 1:11-12). Every organism that lives in the water or flies in the air produces only organisms of the same species (Genesis 1:20-22). Every organism that lives on the land produces only organisms of the same species (Genesis 1:24-25).
New subspecies, within a species, can only come about, by purposely being isolated from the rest of the species. People began forming different groups of people (nations) by marrying those with similar characteristics, thus narrowing the genome of their descendants (Genesis 10). The Father of Truth, an external intelligent force, used language as His tool to get these groups of people, who shared a common genome, to separate themselves from other groups, who did not share their genome (Genesis 11:1-9). He isolated these groups with a common narrower genome, from groups that did not share their narrower genome, by putting them in lands far from each other, so they would retain the narrower genome, which the defined the characteristics of their subspecies (Deuteronomy 32:8).
Useful mutations do not occur, and are not passed down from parents to offspring. All living organisms, including human beings, create offspring that are no better than their parents (Genesis 5:3). In fact, the mutations that have came about from damaged DNA, have only lowered the survivability of every organism, including human beings (Genesis 47:9). All living organisms, including human beings, have the same basic DNA as their parents (1 Corinthians 15:45-49).
Every person on Earth came from just one man and one woman, who lived about 6,000 years ago. Every person on Earth came from just one woman (Genesis 3:20). Every person on Earth came from just one man, who from came from the husband of that one woman (1 Chronicles 1:1-23). The husband of that one woman lived about 4,000 years before the Man of Truth (Yeshua HaMashiach aka Jesus Christ), making the time of that one woman to be about 6,000 years ago (Luke 3:23-38).
The first people were of a medium skin color, and migrated out from the middle of Iraq. All people were once together in the plains of Shinar, in the middle of Iraq (Genesis 11:2-4). They migrated out of the middle of Iraq to every land on Earth (Genesis 11:8-9). They all came from the one man, who had a genome wide enough to extract from it, the narrower genomes of all subspecies of the human race, which would have included medium colored skin (Acts 17:26).
So the story told by the Book of Truth, is identical to the story told by the evidence. This is a story that has held up under close scrutiny, as century after century, its critics have failed time after time, to discredit it, and found the book that contains it, to be the indestructible book, when they tried to destroy it. This is a story that has not change in the least detail, because it has been proven to contain the incorruptible word.
So the story of the origins of life, particularly human life, that is found in the Book of Truth, passes these three tests of truthfulness. The Book of Truth has solved the mystery of the origins of life, particularly human life, with one hundred percent certainty. This seemingly unsolvable mystery has been solved, by looking at the story told by the evidence, instead of the stories told by the story tellers.
The story told by evolutionists, was not based on objective evidence at all, but it was fabricated, because they do not want to believe the story told by the evidence (Romans 1:19-21). These fools created a story, where they came from genetically inferior creatures, so they could call themselves wise (homo sapiens means "wise man") by comparison, instead coming from a vastly superior Creator (Romans 1:22-23). They made mankind into an idol, even calling their religion "secular humanism", because they wanted to do every evil thing that they desired (Romans 1:24-25). They rejected the story told by the evidence, because they did not want their actions to be restrained, by acknowledging the Father of Truth (Romans 1:26-32).
These fools do every wicked thing, because they have deluded themselves into believing, that everything just created itself (Psalm 14:1). These fools do every wicked thing, because they have deluded themselves into believing, that they will not have to answer to the Father of Truth (Psalm 53:1). These fools rejected His wisdom and instruction, when they rejected the story told by the evidence (Proverbs 1:7).
The Book of Truth does not just tell the story of the origins of life, particularly human life, but it also tells how the human race can regain perfect DNA. You have reason to believe the story that has yet to be played out, because the story that it says has already happened, is the same as the story told by the evidence. Now that you have heard the story told by the evidence, it is time for you to begin to act wisely, by believing the rest of the story told by the Book of Truth.
The Father of Truth is not asking you, to believe a story that is contrary to the evidence, but is pleading with you to act reasonably, because of the story told by the evidence (Isaiah 1:18-20).
Those who believe the story told by the evidence, will turn from doing these wicked things (Job 28:28). Those who believe the story told by the evidence, will strive to obey the commandments of the Father of Truth (Psalm 111:10). Those who believe the story told by the evidence, will restrain their actions, because they will have to one day answer to the Father of Truth for their actions (Hebrews 9:27).
You need to come into the House of Truth, because no one can be found righteous, when judged by the standard of the Father of Truth (Romans 3:22-24). Every human being has inherited the same defective nature, as the man whom they all came from (Romans 5:12-14). You need to put the Man of Truth in charge of your life, because you believe that the Father of Truth raised him from the dead (Romans 10:9). You need to come into the House of Truth, because you believe the story told by the evidence (Hebrews 11:1-3).
Come into the House of Truth!
There are competing ideas about the origin of life, and in particularly human life. Like conspiracy theories, there seems to be no end to these ideas, and their countless variations. If you listen to all of the contradictory stories, each "proving" the other ones wrong, it does not take long to be overwhelmed with the arguments, to the point of being more uncertain than when you began. The fact is, that the answers which some people give, only create more questions, when you consider them carefully.
Fortunately, this is not some unsolvable mystery.
It is not unlike a "Mystery Dinner" fundraiser that I once attended. We all saw the performers doing various things, then the lights went out for about a minute, and there was a gun shot heard. When the lights came back on, one of the performers laid dead in the center of the room, and the rest of the performers were on opposites sides of the room, from where they had been before. The question that we had to answer, was who shot the victim, and why.
Over the course of our dinner, each performer came to each table, and told their version of what had happened. Then each couple was allowed to ask that performer one question. When it was over, each couple turned in a piece of paper, with who they thought had done it, and why, written on it.
My wife and I were the only couple in attendance to get the right answer. We were not surprised at all, because we had solved the mystery with one hundred percent certainty. When the other guests at our table asked how we knew, I replied, that we had followed the evidence.
Most of the people were focused on the stories, that the performers were telling, instead of objectively examining the evidence. Their questions had been focused on things like, the relationship between the victim and each performer, especially how the performer felt about the victim, which only gave the performer an opportunity to make their story seem more believable.
We were focused on uncovering the truth, about what had happened. So our questions were very much geared towards uncovering evidence, that eliminated wrong people and wrong motives, so we could be left with the right answers. We also did not assume, that each performer was telling the truth, so we examined their version of events against the story told by the evidence.
So a seemingly unsolvable mystery was solved, by looking at the story told by the evidence, instead of the stories told by the story tellers.
The stories of the origins of life, and the development of human life, are a mystery, that many people rarely solve with one hundred percent certainty. Like the other dinner guests, they lack certainty about their conclusions, because they are asking the wrong questions.
People often ask questions, which are focused on the stories that they are being told, instead of asking questions about the evidence. Their questions are focused on things, which only give the story tellers an opportunity, to make their story seem more believable.
In the same way, the mysteries about the origins of life, and particularly human life, can be solved by the same methods, that we used at the Mystery Dinner.
If questions that are asked, are geared towards eliminating wrong answers, then we can be left with the right answer. It is important not to assume, that everyone is telling the truth, but to instead examine their story, against the story told by the evidence.
So this seemingly unsolvable mystery can be solved, by looking at the story told by the evidence, instead of the stories told by the story tellers.
Are the genetics of human beings and other living things improving over time?
There are some theories, that male human beings are passing on less genes in their Y-chromosome, than their ancestors possessed. These theories do not just cover human beings, but all organisms that reproduce through sexual means.
The fact is, that no one has ever observed a single specimen of any species, that has less genes than those of its ancestors. This supposed gene loss has supposedly occurred over millions of years of time, at a rate of about one gene lost every 200,000 years. However, no one actually has a 200,000 year sample of a Y-chromosome, to compare to a modern sample from the same species. There is simply no objective evidence, that this gene loss has ever occurred.
Those who tell these stories, keep changing the details of their stories, especially disagreeing over the number of original genes, and the rate of gene loss. Still, there is no disagreement among them, over which direction the number of genes is trending towards. They make it very plain, that the number of genes is decreasing, if it is changing at all.
Each gene loss represents a loss of genetic information, and abilities for the species. This means that current human beings have no better genetics than previous human beings. If anything, modern human beings are genetically inferior to their ancestors, due to this supposed gene loss.
(If more genes were harmful, then the carriers probably would have not survived to reproduce, or would been sterile, similar to cases where people are born with extra chromosomes today. So it only stands to reason, that if their ancestors had more beneficial genes than modern humans, then they had better abilities, that came from the additional genes, but those abilities were not passed on to their descendants, who had less genes.)
So the story told by the evidence is, that the genetics of living organisms are not improving over time.
Is death programmed into every living organism?
Yes, it is. In fact, it is programmed into every cell of every living organism. There are several processes that bring this about, but the result is the same. Every single living cell will automatically die after a limited number of reproductions.
When the number of cells that are dying, is significantly less than the number of new cells that are being produced, then the organism will grow in size and remain young. When the number of cells that are dying, remain about even with the number of new cells that are being produced, then the organism will remain about the same in size and remain healthy. When the number of cells that are dying, are significantly more than the number of new cells that are being produced, then the organism will be aging. When the number of cells that are dying, compared to the number of new cells that are being produced, becomes great enough, then the organism will die.
So a programmed imbalance between the new cells and the dying cells, is a process that is programmed into every living organism, which leads to first aging, and then death.
This process does not occur at the same speed for all living organisms. This is why some species live much longer than others.
The process is so fast in some species of mayflies, that their entire lifespan is about 30 minutes. This process is so slow in some trees, like bristle cone pines, that there are specimens are over 4,200 years old, which are alive today. Nonetheless, even these trees will eventually die without any external cause, because death is programmed into their very cells.
So the story told by the evidence is, that death is programmed into every living organism.
Does the DNA of all organisms share a common design?
Yes, it does.
In fact, the design of the basic structure of the DNA of every single living organism is exactly the same. What makes one species different from another, or even one member of a species, different from another member of the same species, is the nucleotide sequence, which is present in that identical structure, which is shared by all living organisms.
This is what makes GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) possible. A nucleotide sequence can be removed from one organism, via intentional DNA fragmentation, and recombinant DNA can be placed to bond at the linker site, where the DNA fragment was removed.
So in essence, the DNA of every living organism is like a manufactured Christmas tree, with bulb sequences, with each bulb being one of four colors, attached at the ends of each branch. Each manufactured Christmas tree is exactly alike in form, but the bulb sequences are different.
The manufactured Christmas tree for members of the same species, have almost all of their bulb sequences exactly the same, on almost all of the branches, with only a few branches having different bulb sequences. The manufactured Christmas tree for a different species, has many branches that have different bulb sequences.
Genetic modification basically involves, removing the bulb sequence from one branch of the manufactured Christmas tree for one species, and replacing it with the bulb sequence from one of the branches of the manufactured Christmas tree for another species.
So like manufactured Christmas trees, that come in only one basic model with variation in the bulb sequences, the DNA of every living organism comes in only one basic model with variation in the nucleotide sequences.
So the story told by the evidence is, that all living organisms share the same DNA design.
Do old species produce new species over time?
While there is variation between members of a species, the majority of their attributes defined by their DNA is the same. For example, over 99.9% of the DNA of all human beings, is exactly the same.
In general, the members of a species possesses a specific set of common attributes, which defines the species. This set of attributes defines the boundaries of a species, like a box is defined by its boundaries in three dimensions. So while there are obvious variations between one member of a species, and another member of the same species, all members of the same species fit in the same genetic box.
For example, a female Irish Wolf Hound, and a white, male, Miniature Chihuahua, both fit in the same genetic box, even though they have very many differences in size, color, gender, and other such things. They are part of the same species, the dog, because of the many more things that they have in common, such as their basic body structure.
However, a small, white, male cat, while more similar to the previously mentioned Miniature Chihuahua, in many of the attributes listed above, than the female Irish Wolf Hound, does not fit in the same genetic box. It is part of a different species, because of the many more things that it has different than the Miniature Chihuahua, such its basic body structure.
So for a new species to come from an old species, there would have to be enough changes in the common attributes of their descendants, driven by changes in their DNA, to define a completely new genetic box.
It has been proposed that this has happened over a long period of time, over the course of many generations. When discussing genetics, it is not absolute time that matters, but rather the number of generations.
For example, in Star Trek, there was creature called "the Horta", that only reproduced every fifty thousand years. So for the Horta, a million years would be twenty generations. This would be about the equivalent generational span of four hundred years for human beings. Without controversy, human beings have not changed as a species in any meaningful way over the last four hundred years.
However, there is a real life creature, which has had about three and one half million generations, over the last one hundred and thirty one years. This creature is called "Escherichia Coli", better known as E. Coli, and reproduces asexually by division, about every twenty minutes. It has had about the equivalent generational span of seventy million years for human beings, during the time since it was first discovered. It has been continually observed the entire time.
E. Coli is considerably less complex than a human being, basically looking like a hotdog. Since its genetic box is so small, it would be considerably easier for it to have had enough changes, for it descendants to define a completely new genetic box, than something as complex as a primate.
Yet, after almost three and one half million generations of observation, not one new species has came from E. Coli. In fact, there has never been one observed occurrence of any of the millions of species of documented living organisms, whose descendants became so different, that they were in a completely different genetic box than their ancestors, and thus a new species.
So the story told by the evidence is, that old species do not produce new species over time.
Do different subspecies within a species occur by random selection?
The first thing to consider is, that randomness does not actually occur in the strictest sense.
For example, when you roll a die, the outcome is determined by the laws of physics.
In the same way, computers only emulate randomness through pseudo-random number generators. Randomness is emulated by taking a seed value, typically the number of nanoseconds that have passed since the moment 1970 started in Greenwich Mean Time. A number is then created from that seed value, and the number of possible values in the range of randomness, by an algorithm. (For example, the number six might be created, if the "random" value of a six sided die is being generated.)
So randomness does not really exist, only unpredictability by people, because they lack the means to make an accurate prediction. Once they have the means to make an accurate prediction, the illusion of randomness comes to an end.
Since there is no true randomness, people can create a loaded die, by inserting a denser object in the side that they want to be down, when the die stops rolling. This insertion moves the center of gravity away from the center of the die, and towards the side that they want to be down. So when loaded die is rolled, then the side that they want to be up is more likely to show, than with a regular die. In fact, if the die is loaded correctly, then they can accurately predict the number that will be rolled every time, because the same number will always be rolled.
In the same way, the results of the pseudo-random number generator can always be predicted with one hundred percent certainty, if the seed value, the range value, and the algorithm are all known. The algorithm is the law, which is applied to the variables of seed value and range value, to govern the selection.
So randomness is an illusion, caused by not knowing the laws and variables, which govern the selection. This makes the selection unpredictable, until the laws and variables, which determine how the selection is made, are understood. The results were never random, but only had the illusion of being random.
In the same way, varieties of different species may seem to occur randomly to human beings, but that is only because, they do not know all of the laws and variables, governing the selection. As more of the laws and variables are discovered, the more the illusion of randomness diminishes.
Most long term variation in organisms occurs, due to individuals with a subset of the possible variations, being isolated together, from those that do not share the same variations. There are laws and variables, which govern this selection.
For example, if you have a herd of only Holstein cattle, with their characteristic fur pattern of black spots on white, then all of their calves will have the same fur pattern of black spots on white. You can predict the outcome, because like a load die, only one outcome is possible.
However, if you introduce an equal number of Hereford cattle, with their characteristic fur pattern of red bodies with white faces, into the herd, and allow them to breed together as they desire, then you have introduced unpredictability into the herd, that you might perceive as randomness. You might accomplish this, by allowing the herd of mixed cows to be in a pen with one of each type of bull on alternating days, or even determining, which bull will run with the herd of cows, by rolling a die each day.
The calves will now start appearing in three different fur patterns. Some will have the Holstein fur pattern of black spots on white. Some will have the Hereford fur pattern of red bodies and a white face. There rest will have a fur pattern of black bodies, like the red bodies of a Hereford in the color of the black spots of a Holstein, and the white face of a Hereford. These calves are called "white faces".
However, there is nothing really random about which calves have the Holstein, Hereford, and white face fur patterns. The calves that came from a Holstein bull breeding with a Holstein cow, will always have the Holstein fur pattern. The calves that came from a Hereford bull breeding with a Hereford cow, will always have the Hereford fur pattern. The calves that came from a bull of one breed, breeding with a cow from the other breed, will always have the white face fur pattern.
If you did not know the laws concerning the fur patterns of these two breeds, and you were not paying attention to which bull was breeding with which cow, then the results would be totally unpredictable to you, causing the illusion of randomness.
However, if you monitored and kept track of which cow bred with which bull, then you would be able to accurately predict the fur pattern, which each calf would have, before it was even born. The illusion of randomness would be over, because you knew the laws concerning the fur pattern of these two breeds, and you knew all of the variables, that those laws acted upon.
The fact is, that if you then expanded your herd, by introducing an even amount of cattle from ten other breeds into your herd, and then left the entire herd to its own devices for twenty years, when you returned, you would have a variety of fur patterns among the calves, but almost none with the fur patterns of any particular breed. If you left that herd to your family, and they left it alone for another hundred years, then there would be no calves showing the fur pattern of any of the original breeds.
The fact is, that breeds of cattle are not produced by random selection. They are produced by purposeful selection.
Each characteristic of the breed was achieved by an intelligent outside force, human beings, selecting only individuals with the desired characteristics to breed with each other. As the process continues, with their offspring being purposely selected using the same criteria, the percentage of calves having the characteristics of the breed will increase with each generation. Eventually, this purposeful selection will cause a bull and a cow, with the characteristics that define the breed, to always produce calves, which have those same characteristics. When this occurs, cattle are said to be keeping the breed.
So the new breed of cattle is only created by purposeful selection. A herd of cattle of the same breed will keep the breed, as long as they are purposefully isolated from all cattle, that are outside of the breed. Random selection would actually destroy the breed, not produce it.
Breeds of cattle are formed, by purposely selecting cattle with the same genes, which define the breed. In the same way, different breeds (or subspecies) of wild animals only exist, because each member of each breed has been isolated from the members of other breeds.
If left to random chance (or more accurately, unpredictability), then different subspecies would not form. If a large group of a mixed individuals were to be split into two groups, then they would not randomly split into one group with only one set of characteristics, and then another group with a different set of characteristics. They certainly would not keeping splitting into groups randomly, until there was only members in a particular group, who had the narrower genome that defines a subspecies. No, the randomly split groups would keep containing individuals with the same range of characteristics as the original group. Their collective genome would remain just as wide.
Different breeds or subspecies can only come about by purposeful selection and isolation. It works the same with people. When you have people who have blue eyes isolated from everyone else, their children will always have blue eyes. When you have people with blue eyes, which are not isolated from everyone else, you will end up with a group of people, who have one of three different eye colors.
Those with blue eyes had parents, which did not have brown eyes, because brown eyed people can only pass down a brown eye gene, and those with blue eyes had to get a blue eye gene from each parent. In the same way, those with brown eyes could not have had any parents with blue eyes. Lastly, there are those with green eyes, who have one blue eye gene and one brown eye gene, who could have parents of any combination, except two brown eyed parents or two blue eyed parents.
This condition of mixed eye colors within the group would continue for countless generations, as long as a group of the blue eyed people, or brown eyed people, did not become completely isolated from everyone else.
So in cases, where a gene combination becomes the only available option, it is always a case of isolating those with the correct gene combination from all others. Left to their own devices, no species will randomly isolate the members of the species, with the combination of genes necessary to create a new breed within the species.
So the story told by the evidence is, that new subspecies, within a species, can only come about, by purposely being isolated from the rest of the species.
Do useful mutations occur within a species, which are passed down to their offspring?
Mutations are the result of a difference in the DNA of a particular member of a species, that causes it to exhibit characteristics, that are outside of the normal genetic box of its species.
Mutations occur in one of four varieties.
One is a polymorphic mutation, where a different base nucleotide is present in some members of the species, than the one that is present in most members of the species. It is like most members of the species having a green bulb in the bulb sequence on a particular branch of their DNA Christmas tree, but some members have a red bulb at that location instead. Mutations of this type are usually within the normal genetic box of the species, and only show up as a harmless variation, like a difference in eye color.
The second type is a deletion, where a base nucleotide is missing from the nucleotide sequence. It is like, the bulb sequence on one of the branches of the DNA Christmas tree is missing a bulb completely, causing it to have one less bulb than it should. Deletions can cause an individual member, to exhibit some sort of characteristic, which is outside of the normal genetic box of the species.
The third type is a damaged nucleotide. It is like, the bulb sequence on one of the branches of the DNA Christmas tree is broken. A damaged nucleotide can cause an individual member, to exhibit some sort of characteristic, which is outside of the normal genetic box of the species.
The fourth type is an insertion, where a base nucleotide is added to the nucleotide sequence. It is like, the bulb sequence on one of the branches of the DNA Christmas tree has an extra bulb completely, causing it to have one more bulb than it should. Insertions can cause an individual member, to exhibit some sort of characteristic, which is outside of the normal genetic box of the species.
The fact is, that most mutations are relatively insignificant. Most of the significant mutations are polymorphic, and are inside the genetic box of the species. The rest are radical mutations that exhibit sort of characteristic, which is outside of the normal genetic box of the species.
These radical mutations are the result of a deletion, a damaged nucleotide, or an insertion. This damage usually comes from outside influences like radiation, or chemicals, like those found in cigarette smoke. The radical mutations are never an improvement. In fact, most of them are a detriment to survival for the most part.
Most individuals that have a radical mutation, like say, an extra head, are usually disadvantaged in the competition for nutrition, and die before sexual maturity. These radical mutations also make them more likely to be picked off by predators, before they reach sexual maturity. Even when they reach the age of sexual maturity, usually as a result of being taken captive by humans, most of the time they are sterile. However, even those cases where they are not sterile, their offspring do not possess the radical mutation.
Each reproductive cell, the sperm or egg cell, is only carrying one half of each pair of genetic material, which the individual has in their own DNA. The reproductive cells with missing, broken, or extra nucleotides are frequently killed off by the host body, because their DNA errors causes the host body to mistake them for a foreign organism. It is similar to cells needing a DNA password, to keep them from being killed off by the host body, but their damaged DNA makes their password unreadable, so the host kills them off.
This leaves mostly reproductive cells, which are lacking the damaged DNA necessary to pass on the mutation, as candidates to be used in reproduction. In cases, where there are very few reproductive cells that have survived, then the individual may become effectively sterile.
However, even when a reproductive cell, that is carrying the damaged DNA responsible for causing a radical mutation, reaches the point of fertilization, the missing, broken, or extra nucleotides are not usually passed on. The reproductive cell with the damage DNA cannot bind correctly with the DNA of the partner reproductive cell, because of the damage. So many times, the zygote does not form, and the body aborts the entire attempt.
The damage to the DNA of the organism with a radical mutation, occurs to the reproductive cell of one of the parents. The parent did not possess the damage to the DNA, when they were born, but the damage was done to the reproductive cell, which was used to form the organism with the radical mutation, after the parent reached sexual maturity. The damage to cell was not part of the original replication instructions for forming the reproductive cell of the parent, so it will not be part of the original replication instructions for forming the reproductive cell of the offspring.
So for these reasons, individuals with radical mutations do not pass down their radical mutations to their offspring, if they are not effectively sterile.
For example, if a two headed turtle mates with another turtle, none of its offspring will possess two heads. In cases, where co-joined twins (Siamese twins) have married other co-joined twins, none of their children were born as co-joined twins.
The other noteworthy thing about radical mutations is, that they are never radically different in their basic form. A two headed turtle will have two turtle heads, not one turtle head, and the head of another species that is completely different. In like manner, a turtle will never be born with the head of snake, or even the head of another species of turtle. It will only be born with the head of the species of turtle, which it belongs to, no matter how many heads it is born with.
In the same way, a turtle will not be born with a better version of anything else, like say a foot. It will only be born with a foot, that is defined by its species. This is true, even if that foot has an issue, like say, being shriveled up. The same is true about every part of every individual of every species.
It is worth noting that as the genome narrows into subspecies, the number of mutations also narrows. If you have a group of people with blue eyes, they are far less likely to have a noticeable variation in eye color, than a mixed group of people with the entire spectrum of human eye colors. That is because the number of gene combinations is smaller, since the children will automatically inherit the blue eye gene from both parents.
The fact is, that in over 200 years of observation of millions of documented living organisms, there has never been one useful mutation ever observed. This makes sense, since such mutations are the result of damaged DNA in the reproductive cells. Also, there has never been one instance of a radical mutation, useful or harmful, that has been observed as continuing to be passed down from generation to generation of any species.
So the story told by the evidence is, that useful mutations do not occur, and are not passed down from parents to offspring.
Did all people come from just one man, and just one woman?
Years of examination and comparisons of the Y-Chromosome of men of every race from all over the world, shows that all men inherited their Y-Chromosome from a common male ancestor. This man has been dubbed as Y-Chromosome Adam. The time of his existence was initially put in at about 600,000 years ago, based on the fact, that he had to be relatively close in existence to Mitochondrial Eve, since all of his descendants got all of their mitochondrial DNA from her.
Study of the mitochondrial DNA of people of every race from all over the world, shows that all people have inherited their mitochondrial DNA from a common female ancestor. This woman has been dubbed as Mitochondrial Eve. The time of her existence was originally put in at about 600,000 years ago, based on a previous defined timeline of human evolution.
The genetic mutation rate, needed to arrive at 600,000 years, was not based on any observable evidence at the time. Indeed, there was no genetic mutation rate of mammals, that had been established based observation of mutations, used in their calculation of her age. The genetic mutation rate used for Mitochondrial Eve, was calculated as the genetic mutation rate needed to make her 600,000 years old, without any real proof that the rate was accurate.
However, the Russians did an experiment with silver foxes, that created data, which could be studied to determine a genetic mutation rate based on actual observation.
The Russians used silver foxes to make coats. Wild silver foxes were hard to trap, and the ones in fox farms were hard to handle. People frequently ended bitten by the silver foxes, but the Russians noticed, that not all silver foxes behaved the same.
So the Russians decided to purposely select silver foxes, based on their flight or fight behavior, when threatened. They took a sharp stick and poked at the silver foxes in each cage. Those that fought back, became coats. Those that cowarded back, became breeding stock for a tamer version of the silver fox.
However, the Russians soon found themselves with totally unexpected results. Within just a few generations, the silver foxes started having floppy ears, curly tails, and barking like dogs. They also began coming in various coat colors, that had never been observed among silver foxes, like white with black spots.
This experiment showed that mutations come in clusters, often seemingly unrelated. The Russian had purposely selected and isolated silver foxes for one behavioral attribute, tameness, but had ended up with a host of unexpected taxonomical (structural) changes, like floppy ears.
In the end, this experiment showed two things. Since the wild silver foxes, or even those in captivity, never showed any of these changes, when allowed to breed without purposeful selection, it showed that such changes do not come about by random selection, but rather purposeful selection. Second, it established for the first time, actual data from observable events, which could be used to establish a genetic mutation rate for mammals, based on actual observation.
The data derived from this experiment made two things apparent. First, the number of mutations does not remain stable from generation to generation, but rather lowers as the genome is narrowed, for the reasons previously discussed. Second, the formula for determining the number of generations, to produce the number of observed mutations, is not a flat rate, but is more of a hyperbolic curve, when plotted out.
When this formula is applied to the number of mutations, which have occurred since the time of the backward engineered mitochondria of Mitochondrial Eve, you do not come up with anything close to the number of generations, which would have occurred in 600,000 years. Instead, you come up with the number of generations, which would have occurred in about 6,000 years.
This is basically one percent of the number of generations, which was predicted by applying an arbitrary flat rate of mutation, originally used. This flat rate was solely based on making the age of Mitochondrial Eve, fit into the desired place in a preconceived timeline.
The same is true for Y-Chromosome Adam, since he had to have lived about the same time as Mitochondrial Eve.
So Mitochondrial Eve lived about 6,000 years ago, as well as Y-Chromosome Adam, based on actual observable evidence.
So the story told by the evidence is, that every person on Earth came from just one man and one woman, who lived about 6,000 years ago.
Did the first people have black skin and come out of Africa?
The fact is, that men whose Y-Chromosome belongs to different haplogroups, sometimes have different colors of skin, although it is nothing like a skin color per haplogroup. (A haplogroup is a group of genes inherited from a single parent.)
The people with the darkest skin were assigned to haplogroup A. In general, as each haplogroup was discovered, the haplogroups for darker skin men were assigned to the beginning of the haplogroup alphabet, and the lighter skinned men were assigned the further down the haplogroup alphabet.
The alphabet designation indicates the position of the haplogroup in the phylogentic tree.
The phylogentic tree is a diagram, that is created from the inferred relationships among different species, or in the case of the human Y-Chromosome, the relationship between different haplogroups. This tree is structured based on the inferred position, that the characteristics of those possessing a particular haplogroup, would have in a preconceived timeline. There is no objective genetic evidence, that any particular haplogroup belongs to where it is assigned in the phylogentic tree.
In other words, haplogroups are assigned a position in the phylogentic tree, so they will fit int a preconceived timeline, just like Mitochondrial Eve was assigned a time when she lived, to fit into the same preconceived timeline.
So, instead of building a phylogentic tree based on the evidence, the evidence has been arranged to fit into the phylogentic tree. This is another case of interpreting evidence based on a pre-existing theory, instead of having the evidence shape the theory, as it is discovered.
So people with the blackest skin were assigned A haplogroups, and other haplogroups were shown as coming from this haplogroup. This assignment was completely arbitrary, based on a preconceived timeline, and has no basis in objective evidence. So in short, the placement of the A haplogroup at the beginning of the phylogentic tree, was made, because those making the tree, had already constructed a timeline, which placed people with black skin, occurring at the beginning of their timeline.
Like blue eyes, black skin come from a narrowing of the genome. If a black skin person marries a white skin person, they produce a person with an intermediate skin color. Their descendants will now produce children of varying skin tones. This is why in the same African American family, one child can have really dark skin, while their sibling can have really light skin.
As previously discussed, a narrowing of the genome comes from a group of individuals with a particular characteristic being isolated, from those who do not share that characteristic, like isolating Holstein cattle from all other cattle to keep the Holstein fur pattern. People in Africa have had consistently black skin, because they have been isolated from those with other skin colors.
When a group of people with various skin colors live together, and are able to marry as they see fit, then there will be the entire range of skin colors among the group. It is the same as when, there is a mixed group of people with brown, blue, and green eyes, who are allowed to marry as they see fit.
As discussed before, the group with the wider genome, like the wild silver foxes, are always the originating group. The groups with the only narrower genome, come from isolating members with the narrower genome, from those who do not share the distinguishing genetic trait. This is like the silver foxes with dog-like characteristics, came from isolating those silver foxes that had tameness, from other silver foxes.
The genetic history of the haplogroups with the widest genome for skin color has been identified from mummies, ancient tombs and like, where actual genetic material has been collected for analysis, and a timeline can be objectively determined, based on actual evidence. The history of these haplogroups, all show these haplogroups started in the middle of Iraq, and then migrating out from there. Like many African Americans, the people whose Y-Chromosome these belongs to these haplogroups, were often carriers of a mixture of genes for regulating skin color.
Individuals with the genes necessary for black skin color could have then have been isolated from those, who did not possess those genes. In other words, the haplogroups for people with black skin color could have been formed out of the haplogroups for people, who had the genes for a variety of skin colors, but not the other way around. It is like blue eyed children can come from two parents with green eyes, but green eyed children cannot come from two parents with blue eyes.
This means that the people, who had their genome narrowed to the point of producing only children with black skin, migrated into Africa from the Middle East, where they were isolated from those, who would have widen their genome through intermarriage.
So the story told by the evidence is, that the first people were of a medium skin color, and migrated out from the middle of Iraq.
Is there a story that matches the story told by the evidence?
Like the stories told by the performers at the Mystery Dinner, the best way to tell the truth from the fiction, was to compare their stories to the story told by the evidence.
So the best place to begin to do that, is to summarize the entire story told by the evidence, so it can easily be compared to competing stories, that contradict each other.
This is the story told by the evidence:
The genetics of living organisms are not improving over time. Death is programmed into every living organism. All living organisms share the same DNA design. Old species do not produce new species over time. New subspecies, within a species, can only come about, by purposely being isolated from the rest of the species. Useful mutations do not occur, and are not passed down from parents to offspring. Every person on Earth came from just one man and one woman, who lived about 6,000 years ago. The first people were of a medium skin color, and migrated out from the middle of Iraq.
Now consider the story told by those who espouse evolution, and see how it compares.
The story told by evolution is this:
The genetics of living organisms are improving over time. Death is a random occurrence, that happens to every living organism by chance over time. All living organisms do not share a common design. Old species produce new species over time. New subspecies, within a species, can come about by random selection. Useful mutations randomly occur, and are passed down from parents to offspring. Every person on Earth came from just one man and one woman, who lived about at least 250,000 years ago. The first people were of a black skin color, and migrated out of Africa.
Of course, this is only a basic outline of the story told by those who espouse evolution. They do not agree on all of the details, and frequently tell different versions of this story, that contradict each other. Also, this only the most recent version of the story. As evidence that contradicts their story is discovered, they keep changing their story.
They are like those performers at the Mystery Dinner, who were plainly lying to cover up something, which they did not want to come to light. Their stories contradicted each other, and they kept changing their story, anytime evidence was presented that contradicted their story. Like those performers, the story told by the evidence, contradicts the story told by these play actors in ever manner.
The first thing lie that they would have you believe, is that all scientist believe their story. The truth is, that many scientists have come realize, what a far fetched tale their story is, when they compared it to the story told by the evidence. They have come to understand, that it is the greatest fairy tale ever told.
Many of those who tell this story, are trying to cover up many things, which they do not want to come to light. For example, their views on people with black skin.
In their story, the earlier versions of a species are inferior to the later versions of the species. Since the originators of this story in modern times all have white skin, they want to the story to say, that white skin people are the ones with the improved genetics. So they place people with black skin at the base of the phylogentic tree, because that makes black skin people to be the most inferior version, which everyone else is an improvement upon.
This position in the phylogentic tree makes black skinned people to being the closet in DNA to the supposed common ancestor of people and the Rhesus Macaque monkey. (Which ironically has white skin.) This narrative has lead to terrible racial epithets against black people, like "porch monkeys", while supporting the theory that white people are "the master race".
It is little wonder, that Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, and the like, all endorsed various versions of this story. This story makes it impossible to treat all people as being equal, because it plainly teaches that all people have not evolved equally. Every kind of atrocity against those with supposed inferior genetics, is justified by their story, because it is the evolutionary right and responsibility of those with superior genetics, to replace those with inferior genetics.
The greatest lie of all, is that they will try to get people to believe, that this story sets people free from religion. The truth is, that this story, which contradicts the story told by the evidence, is the creation story of their religion. Everyone has a religion of some sort, including them.
All religions seek to answer three basic questions about the human race: A) How did we get here? B) Why are we here? C) Where are we going?
You can define any religion by the answer to these three questions. The answers to these three questions that define their religion is: A) By accident, B) No reason - our existence is pointless, C) Extinction.
This has got to be the most depressing religion ever devised by mankind. So what is the appeal to their message?
Wallace, who proposed this story at the same time as Darwin, was once asked near the end of his life, why he was so sure that his story was correct, given the lack of evidence to support it. His response was that it had to be, otherwise there was a God, who demands righteous behavior, and he would need to repent.
So this wild yarn that they have spun, that keeps changing every time someone points out a flaw, like the work of a seasoned con man, was never based on evidence at all. It was only based on a desire to do whatever evil came to their mind, without any concern about needing to answer to a just and righteous God for their behavior.
There is a competing story, that is worth examining to see if it will hold up as being true. A story that is true, does not change. A story that is true, holds up to close scrutiny. A story that is true, does not contradict the story told by the evidence.
This story is the story found in the Book of Truth (The Bible). This is that story:
The genetics of living organisms are not improving over time. Originally, every organism had perfect DNA (Genesis 1:11-25). Man changed the world, so that the DNA of every organism was no longer perfect (Genesis 3:17-19). Now the DNA of every organism is in a state of decay (Romans 8:20-22).
Death is programmed into every living organism. The Father of Truth (YHVH aka God aka THE LORD) put man in charge of the fate of every living organism (Genesis 1:26-28). Man was warned, that death would be programmed into every living organism, if he rebelled (Genesis 2:15-17). Man disregarded the warning, and death was programmed into every living organism (Romans 5:12-14).
All living organisms share the same DNA design. The Father of Truth created everything (Genesis 2:1-3). He uses an intricate design, that contains the instructions to build an organism, before it comes into existence (Psalm 139:13-16). There is a common design to the DNA of all organisms, because all organisms have a common Designer (1 Corinthians 15:37-39).
Old species do not produce new species over time. Every organism that grows up out of the earth produces only organisms of the same species (Genesis 1:11-12). Every organism that lives in the water or flies in the air produces only organisms of the same species (Genesis 1:20-22). Every organism that lives on the land produces only organisms of the same species (Genesis 1:24-25).
New subspecies, within a species, can only come about, by purposely being isolated from the rest of the species. People began forming different groups of people (nations) by marrying those with similar characteristics, thus narrowing the genome of their descendants (Genesis 10). The Father of Truth, an external intelligent force, used language as His tool to get these groups of people, who shared a common genome, to separate themselves from other groups, who did not share their genome (Genesis 11:1-9). He isolated these groups with a common narrower genome, from groups that did not share their narrower genome, by putting them in lands far from each other, so they would retain the narrower genome, which the defined the characteristics of their subspecies (Deuteronomy 32:8).
Useful mutations do not occur, and are not passed down from parents to offspring. All living organisms, including human beings, create offspring that are no better than their parents (Genesis 5:3). In fact, the mutations that have came about from damaged DNA, have only lowered the survivability of every organism, including human beings (Genesis 47:9). All living organisms, including human beings, have the same basic DNA as their parents (1 Corinthians 15:45-49).
Every person on Earth came from just one man and one woman, who lived about 6,000 years ago. Every person on Earth came from just one woman (Genesis 3:20). Every person on Earth came from just one man, who from came from the husband of that one woman (1 Chronicles 1:1-23). The husband of that one woman lived about 4,000 years before the Man of Truth (Yeshua HaMashiach aka Jesus Christ), making the time of that one woman to be about 6,000 years ago (Luke 3:23-38).
The first people were of a medium skin color, and migrated out from the middle of Iraq. All people were once together in the plains of Shinar, in the middle of Iraq (Genesis 11:2-4). They migrated out of the middle of Iraq to every land on Earth (Genesis 11:8-9). They all came from the one man, who had a genome wide enough to extract from it, the narrower genomes of all subspecies of the human race, which would have included medium colored skin (Acts 17:26).
So the story told by the Book of Truth, is identical to the story told by the evidence. This is a story that has held up under close scrutiny, as century after century, its critics have failed time after time, to discredit it, and found the book that contains it, to be the indestructible book, when they tried to destroy it. This is a story that has not change in the least detail, because it has been proven to contain the incorruptible word.
So the story of the origins of life, particularly human life, that is found in the Book of Truth, passes these three tests of truthfulness. The Book of Truth has solved the mystery of the origins of life, particularly human life, with one hundred percent certainty. This seemingly unsolvable mystery has been solved, by looking at the story told by the evidence, instead of the stories told by the story tellers.
The story told by evolutionists, was not based on objective evidence at all, but it was fabricated, because they do not want to believe the story told by the evidence (Romans 1:19-21). These fools created a story, where they came from genetically inferior creatures, so they could call themselves wise (homo sapiens means "wise man") by comparison, instead coming from a vastly superior Creator (Romans 1:22-23). They made mankind into an idol, even calling their religion "secular humanism", because they wanted to do every evil thing that they desired (Romans 1:24-25). They rejected the story told by the evidence, because they did not want their actions to be restrained, by acknowledging the Father of Truth (Romans 1:26-32).
These fools do every wicked thing, because they have deluded themselves into believing, that everything just created itself (Psalm 14:1). These fools do every wicked thing, because they have deluded themselves into believing, that they will not have to answer to the Father of Truth (Psalm 53:1). These fools rejected His wisdom and instruction, when they rejected the story told by the evidence (Proverbs 1:7).
The Book of Truth does not just tell the story of the origins of life, particularly human life, but it also tells how the human race can regain perfect DNA. You have reason to believe the story that has yet to be played out, because the story that it says has already happened, is the same as the story told by the evidence. Now that you have heard the story told by the evidence, it is time for you to begin to act wisely, by believing the rest of the story told by the Book of Truth.
The Father of Truth is not asking you, to believe a story that is contrary to the evidence, but is pleading with you to act reasonably, because of the story told by the evidence (Isaiah 1:18-20).
Those who believe the story told by the evidence, will turn from doing these wicked things (Job 28:28). Those who believe the story told by the evidence, will strive to obey the commandments of the Father of Truth (Psalm 111:10). Those who believe the story told by the evidence, will restrain their actions, because they will have to one day answer to the Father of Truth for their actions (Hebrews 9:27).
You need to come into the House of Truth, because no one can be found righteous, when judged by the standard of the Father of Truth (Romans 3:22-24). Every human being has inherited the same defective nature, as the man whom they all came from (Romans 5:12-14). You need to put the Man of Truth in charge of your life, because you believe that the Father of Truth raised him from the dead (Romans 10:9). You need to come into the House of Truth, because you believe the story told by the evidence (Hebrews 11:1-3).
Come into the House of Truth!
posted by The House Of Truth @ November 10, 2016
<< Home