Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham

I'll grant that it's possible for a rare mutation to occur like this, but I also don't see why that original person didn't simply have a rarely occurring allele that was yes an "original part of the human genome."

Why couldn't this one person have simply inherited it and passed it on.

What makes it HAVE to be a mutation?

Such a protective function by the way I'd expect to have been part of the original genome because people were so much more healthy in Noah's time, though very likely lost in the Flood bottleneck or through deleterious mutations later. Perhaps mutations sometimes reinstate a formerly lost sequence. just a thought.

In any case the occasional fluke of a beneficial mutation is no proof that mutations are normally beneficial at all.

Have you ever thought whether you actually might be doing a disservice to your co-religiosistas with your complete and utter lack of a) honesty and b) ability to accept that scientists are doing their work well and without preconceived motives?If faith is so weak that it can only survive on distortion, lying and general doshonesty, what does it tell about that faith?

Me writes:You said that it is only a minority that denies science but isn't it actually so that 40 percent of Americans believe that everything was created in 6 literal days according to Gilgamesh

Epic of Gilgamesh writes:So the goddess conceived an image in her
mind, and it was of the stuff of Anu of the firmament. She dipped her
hands in water and pinched off clay, she let it fall in the wilderness, and
noble Enkidu was created.

Thanks for digging things up - my main point however was to wonder how 40 percent of Americans have such a strong conviction in any mythology.

In my country's epic the creation story is such that the world was born out of a bird's egg (bluebill or scaup to be exact).

How do people reconcile the reality and their faith when the difference is gigantic?

Another point I'd like to understand is how these peeps reconcile their self-assumed moral superiority

and their compulsory need to lie deceit and distort to support their resident mythology.

why should it?

Henry Morris' "The Beginning Of the World" (1991) writes:The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories, and their inventions, and then developed them and utilized them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.

The thing about evolution is that the idea implies different levels of evolution between races, implying in those days inferiority versus superiority, at least it did to those who first encountered the idea right after Darwin, including Darwin himself.

Well then I stand corrected on the "no one got shot" statement of mine, but the rest is true. It has only been the recent, mass shootings in the U.S. schools that have inspired costly measures to try to prevent them from happening in the future, and unlike most of your examples that were the results of a single conflict, recent school massacres have involved shootings of people unknown to the shooter, where the shooter then takes their own life. Kind of like the shooter thought humans to be of no more importance than animals, that life is all just random chance.

It's very simple, Christians generally admit that they have unchangeable beliefs, and atheists aren't honest in likewise admitting their own beliefs are unchangeable.

They were less frequent, had less volume of innocent victims, and were more explainable in terms of a personal conflict.

"2012 is tragic, but mass shootings not increasing, experts say" L.A. Times, 18 Dec 2012 writes:Although some indications suggest the American public has reached a breaking point after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting -- yet another tragic mass shooting in a particularly tragic year -- such attacks have long been a part of American history, and some experts say they are happening not much more often than usual."There is one not-so-tiny flaw in all of these theories for the increase in mass shootings," James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University in Boston, wrote for Boston.com in August. "And that is that mass shootings have not increased in number or in overall body count, at least not over the past several decades."Fox cited a particularly broad set of FBI and police data that counted shootings between 1980 and 2010 in which four or more people were killed: The average pace was about 20 mass murders per year, with a death toll of about 100. Casualty counts fluctuated wildly -- some years would have almost 125 dead, but then be followed by a year with fewer than 50 mass shooting fatalities. Far steadier was the number of attacks, which usually stayed at fewer than 25 per year.This year has been especially bloody, though. According to a running tally by Mother Jones magazine, whose counts slightly differ -- the magazine excluded robberies and gang violence, to some criticism, and limited the tally to public attacks -- 2012 has been the deadliest year for mass shootings since 1982 by far, with almost 80 dead.The overall number of casualties, when injuries are included, made 2012 almost twice as bloody as the next-worst years: 1999 and 2007, when massacres at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., and Virginia Tech University in Blacksburg, Va., respectively, inflated the numbers.Mass shootings make up only a small fraction of the country's overall gun crime. Between 2007 and 2011 -- which saw an almost unprecedented drop in violent crime -- the U.S. experienced an average of 13,700 homicides, with guns responsible for 67% of the killing, according to the FBI's crime reports.But experts say it's the spectacular nature of the attacks that give public mass shootings such impact beyond the affected communities, with intense media coverage lending extra piquance: five or six or even seven attacks in one year may not be statistically significant, but they're emotionally resonant."What we’ve seen after Aurora and what we’ve seen after Newtown is kind of the typical response that we’ve seen over the last 50 years following high-profile mass public shootings," said Grant Duwe, a criminologist for the Minnesota Department of Corrections who's written a book on the history of mass murders since 1900.Duwe has counted 21 mass shootings between 1900 and 1966, which was the year Charles Whitman took to the University of Texas tower in Austin, part of a rampage that killed 15 people, including a pregnant woman. Two weeks before, Richard Speck had killed eight student nurses at the University of Chicago.Both of these cases tripped off an emotional maelstrom that marked a new era of public killings in the United States; the two attacks became central points of reference in public debate and started a period when guns became more prominent weapons for such killings.We had mass public shootings before 1966, but the frequency with which those cases occurred is less than what we’ve observed since the mid-1960s," Duwe said.The country saw an increase in mass public killings during the 1980s and '90s, but Duwe's tallies showed that mass shootings had decreased since then. The 26 public shooting massacres he tallied between 2000 and 2009 were significantly down from the 43 cases he counted in the 1990s. (Duwe counts shootings in public places that result in four or more dead, but he excludes robberies and gang violence.)

Since 1900, the highest mass murder rate was in 1929. Mass public shootings are one of several types of mass murder and generally account for roughly 10-15 percent of all mass killings in the U.S.," Duwe said.

He considered the "savage" human races to be inferior due to not having evolved as far as the white races. Sure seems apparent to me that he thought of his theory in terms of grades of inferior to superior.

I don't consider it trashing Darwin to mention his racist attitude.

Faith writes:He considered the "savage" human races to be inferior due to not having evolved as far as the white races.

Charles Darwin, 'Descent of Man' writes:The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest alliesbetween the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

Fine. Who cares? I wouldn't think a simple fact would generate this much rancor. Good grief. We KNOW that the Nazis used evolution to justify the Holocaust;

Mein Kamf writes:A folk-State should in the first place raise matrimony from the level of being a constant scandal to the race. The State should consecrate it as an institution which is called upon to produce creatures made in the likeness of the Lord and not create monsters that are a mixture of man and ape

and we KNOW that Margaret Sanger used it to justify promoting abortion among blacks as an inferior race.

And when I read Origin of Species not too long ago I was actually shocked at whatever Darwin wrote along the same lines, which Dr. A says he didn't say but I remember being shocked at SOMETHING he said along these lines.. I'll have to look for it later.

Doesn't this look to you like Darwin put the different races on a hierarchy of inferiority to superiority?

I know what he was saying. You don't seem to want to admit the hierarchy of superiority he was implying.