Evolution, Christian Darwin's Theory, Now Proven Wrong

huh, no, incest has nothing to do with that. Incest doesn't cause genetic mutation, it causes defective genetic material. It's very different.


A mutation is changing the value of a gene to something else. A defective gene is incapacity of a gene to be read normally. It's essentially scrambled DNA and it causes all kind of defects.

The only times incest can cause mutations is when a genes supersede another gene in normal cases and the normally superseding gene is defective, causing the superseded gene to take over.

A good example is webbed hands. In fetal stages, humans generally develop webbed hands at first until the genes get rid off the webbing to give us the hands almost every humans have.



You don't always need to be the first through mutations. Sometimes, a new species occur from the mix of two different species (lots of dogs are that way).

"

faerwin wrote:

I said incest is what spreads a successful mutation, not what causes mutation. It's as if I said "people use cars to deliver pizzas" and you responded with "no, silly, people don't bake pizzas with car engines, that messes up the pizza."

"

faerwin wrote:

You don't always need to be the first through mutations. Sometimes, a new species occur from the mix of two different species (lots of dogs are that way).

Somebody does need to be first. You can't cross two breeds of dog before the source breeds come into being.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

faerwin wrote:

if evolution wasn't real and we all came from adam and eve, then explain why there's so many different looking population across the world.

Blacks, latinos, europeans, native americans, inuits, arabs, asians (even asians have vastly different traits based on their country/region).

Why is it that blonde hair suddenly appeared, same with blue eye or red hair?

If anything, THAT'S proof of evolution.

What's funny about that is: evolution involves massive amounts of the type of inbreeding you'd see from "Adam and Eve." Mutations are rare occurrences, so new subspecies only occur when "mutant zero" makes a LOT of babies and there's a shitload of incest within that second generation. For all of those genetic adaptations you point to -- the blonde hair, the blue eyes, the differences in skin tone -- there was most likely only one Adam and, realistically, an entire harem of Eves. That why men have both types of chromosomes and women only have Xs, by the way.

Therefore, if you believe in evolution, Adam is a pretty woke take on how humanity started. Somebody had to be the first homo sapiens. Not bad for 3000 years before Darwin.

No, incest wouldn't be what cause a mutation to spread, that's silly. The mutation would spread from mating with multiple female that aren't related to the mutated. Incest breeding in this case would lower by a lot the spread of a mutation because a defective product resulting from incest would have very little odds of reproduction.

I looked up the definition of "incest" and realized I might be using the term inappropriately; it's kind of difficult to tell. But what I mean is step-siblings getting each other pregnant. Not full siblings, parent/child or any of that other crap. (I'm assuming no powerful tendancy towards strict monogamy among the evolutionarily successful, hence many instances of step-siblings.)

then yes, you have been using the term incorrectly. Because the way I thought you meant was directly related (parent/sibling/children)

However, monogamy has been observed in many species so it would be fair to believe it has almost always existed although in most likely varied percentage of species (can't really say for extinct species, you know).

The fuck is this?

"

I_NO wrote:

The fuck is this?

A fun way to say that it's impossible for evolution to not exist and believe that adam and eve were the original 2 humans.

Does Op think that or what lol

"

faerwin wrote:

then yes, you have been using the term incorrectly. Because the way I thought you meant was directly related (parent/sibling/children)

However, monogamy has been observed in many species so it would be fair to believe it has almost always existed although in most likely varied percentage of species (can't really say for extinct species, you know).

In many species? Do tell about these monogamous animals.

Even in human history, monogamy has been an institution for raising children, not siring them. Bastards are common enough that they have their own word, and medieval lords had first dibs on the wives of their underlings on the very night of the wedding.

a quick google search:

https://www.rd.com/culture/animals-mate-for-life/