Prowler was born with huge genitalia!!

[THORNHEART]

HEYYYYY

THORNHEART HERE....Been away for a bit but I am back.

Pondering stuff as usual. Gld to see my fav topic still has a current thread dedicated to it.

Quick question for the intellectuals---- Before life began and all was just matter and whatver shit was there before the FIRST lifeform ever yeah at that time frame. So ONE day all of a sudden life randomly suddenly and inexplicably BEGINS. Before it was no living matter NOW suddenly its life. Ok question is how did this first lifeform KNOW that it needed to reproduce...its lifespan would have been mere milliseconds because small single cell such as it woulod have been die fast. So it would not have had much time to live and gain experiance and know it must pass on its DNA so the only other option is it had the instinct and capability to reproduce already...well since there was any female around we must conclude it was a asexual reproduction. The only problem is before this first cell life did not exist so when SUDDENLY it changed from matter to life there would be no instinct or previous experience to rely on to KNOW it need to reproduce no examples to learn from in its short millisecond life and ABSOLUTELY NO way for it have reproductive capabilty since a few milliseconds before it had been nonliving and needed no reason to reproduce because its wasn't a life form.

Therefore we must conclude, sadly and with great regret, that life died out and became extinct several milliseconds after its remarkable appearance in the universe. Also sadly should all the circumstances have been perfect for life to occur once again (though this is unlikely) it would once again have died almost imeadiately due to once again that insurmountable gap of jumping successfully from non living to living.

[PLAYER57832]

Now, he did not know the name. I do, it was the Ceolocanth.

Coelacanth, actually. (oh the irony! )

Both spellings were valid at one point.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Haggis,

Is there something specific here that you're willing to discuss in detail...

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

Higher up sections numbered 1-3 addressed here perhaps...

1. Where is there a beneficial mutation here? Was it not simply a case of some E. coli. being less suitable for certain temperatures than other E coli. and being more likely to die off in certain temperatures as a result?

It's kind of like if you bred 2000 generations of Iraqis (Group A) and then bred 2000 descendants of them in Iraq (Group B) and 2000 descendants of them in Iceland (Group C) and 2000 descendants of them in Ethiopia (Group C) and then compared how each of the three groups compared with eachother in regards to surviving in each place maybe. What would locals surviving better have to do with beneficial mutations? It might be that there would be individuals with genes not good for surviving in cold who would be weeded out early on in Group C and individuals with genes not good for surviving in heat who would be weeded out early on in Group D. Nice example for natural selection and not for a beneficial mutation maybe.

2) Can becoming more used to being able to grow in the dark not happen in a single individual without reproduction at all? Was there an actual beneficial mutation? What if there was some unicellular green algae that was better able to grow in the dark than other unicellular green algae in the first place who were better able to survive and pass on successful generations? Nice example for natural selection and not for a beneficial mutation here also maybe.

3) Someone measured an original sample of unicellular green algae and filtered off smaller cells over a course of 40 generations and discovered that they came up with an average size that was greater than an average size of the original sample after the 40 generations? Is that what happened? Would you not expect a larger size on average after 40 generations with or without any mutation? How about imagine breeding dogs and starting off with a 1000 full grown adults of various sizes ranging from a foot to 5 feet long and averaging 3 feet long? If you only allow males over 4 feet in length to reproduce and end up with full grown adult dogs averaging over 3 feet in length after twenty years, what would that have to do with beneficial mutations?

Wait, so you are actually also asserting that we have no proof that beneficial mutations exist? I've been taking a break from CC for almost a year and haven't read back very far on these threads so I don't really know what your stance is.
Also, i didn't actually think anyone would be seriously holding this position, that website is simply the first one that popped up in google and i posted it in response to the guy i thought might be trolling. I'll admit i'm far from a biologist so I'm just interpreting these as i understand them, anyone please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Anyway, let's put the respective quotes here as well so it's easier for other people to follow:

1.

A single clone of E. coli was cultured at 37 C (that is 37 degrees Celsius) for 2000 generations. A single clone was then extracted from this population and divided into replicates that were then cultured at either 32 C , 37 C, or 42 C for a total of another 2000 generations. Adaptation of the new lines was periodically measured by competing these selection lines against the ancestor population. By the end of the experiment, the lines cultured at 32 C were shown to be 10% fitter that the ancestor population (at 32 C), and the line cultured at 42 C was shown to be 20% more fit than the ancestor population. The replicate line that was cultured at 37 C showed little improvement over the ancestral line.

Emphasis added by me. So there weren't some individuals better suited to heat or cold is was a single clone used for the test group and also a single clone used for the two temperatures. So the only reason for their different fitness levels can be mutations.

2.

Chlamydomonas is a unicellular green algae capable of photosynthesis in light, but also somewhat capable of growth in the dark by using acetate as a carbon source. Graham Bell cultured several clonal lines of Chlamydomonas in the dark for several hundred generations. Some of the lines grew well in the dark, but other lines were almost unable to grow at all. The poor growth lines improved throughout the course of the experiment until by 600 generations they were well adapted to growth in the dark. This experiment showed that new, beneficial mutations are capable of quickly (in hundreds of generations) adapting an organism that almost required light for survival to growth in the complete absence of light.

Same thing, we're talking about a clonal line improving at growing in the dark, so there were no individuals better or worse equipped for it, except after mutations had occurred. As for a single individual becoming "used" to the dark, if that was all there is to it than surely the benefit would have been noticed in a single generation or two, not several hundred.

3.

Bell also selected clonal lines of Chlamydomonas for size by passing cultures through a fine filter and discarding the cells that were not retained on the filter. He reports that although this method was not very effective at retaining the largest cells (due to inconsistencies in the filter pore size), after forty generations of this selection technique, the cell diameter had increased by an average of about 1 phenotypic standard deviation.

And again, same thing, clonal line, the initial individuals were the same size.

Want me to go on?

By all means:

How about this one:

Evolution of a Unicellular Organism into a Multicellular Species


Starting from single celled animals, each of which has the capability to reproduce there is no sex in the sense that we think of the term. Selective pressure has been observed to convert single-cellular forms into multicellular forms. A case was observed in which a single celled form changed to multicellularity.
Boxhorn, a student of Boraas,writes:

Coloniality in Chlorella vulgaris
Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella. "

Or even:

Modifying the fucose pathway to metabolize propanediol.


In normal anaerobic E. coli metabolism L-fucose is transported into the cell and converted into dihydroxyacetone phosphate (which is used for further metabolism) and lactaldehyde (which is a waste product). The lactaldehyde is then converted to propanediol which is actively excreted from the cell by a "facilitator" - a chemical that eases movement of another chemical through the cell membrane in either direction. When E. coli lines are exposed to an aerobic environment rich in propanediol, some individuals are able to utilize this former waste as a food source. This is made possible by a change to the enzyme that formerly converted the lactaldehyde to propanediol to reverse its action and convert the propanediol to lactaldehyde. The lactaldehyde can then be processed by the previously existing aerobic pathways that use lactaldehyde as a carbon and energy source.

[Haggis_McMutton]

HEYYYYY

THORNHEART HERE....Been away for a bit but I am back.

Pondering stuff as usual. Gld to see my fav topic still has a current thread dedicated to it.

Quick question for the intellectuals---- Before life began and all was just matter and whatver shit was there before the FIRST lifeform ever yeah at that time frame. So ONE day all of a sudden life randomly suddenly and inexplicably BEGINS. Before it was no living matter NOW suddenly its life. Ok question is how did this first lifeform KNOW that it needed to reproduce...its lifespan would have been mere milliseconds because small single cell such as it woulod have been die fast. So it would not have had much time to live and gain experiance and know it must pass on its DNA so the only other option is it had the instinct and capability to reproduce already...well since there was any female around we must conclude it was a asexual reproduction. The only problem is before this first cell life did not exist so when SUDDENLY it changed from matter to life there would be no instinct or previous experience to rely on to KNOW it need to reproduce no examples to learn from in its short millisecond life and ABSOLUTELY NO way for it have reproductive capabilty since a few milliseconds before it had been nonliving and needed no reason to reproduce because its wasn't a life form.

Therefore we must conclude, sadly and with great regret, that life died out and became extinct several milliseconds after its remarkable appearance in the universe. Also sadly should all the circumstances have been perfect for life to occur once again (though this is unlikely) it would once again have died almost imeadiately due to once again that insurmountable gap of jumping successfully from non living to living.

Question: According to you, what is life? What is necessary for something to be living?

[THORNHEART]

Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (biology) from those that do not,[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.[3]


thats seems like a nice answer.

[tzor]

And a few hundred before that, you would be hard-pressed to find manywho thought the Earth was round, even fewer who would have thought there was a big continent where I now sit.

I really have to answer this, in part because the history of science has always been deliberately obfuscated for a variety of reasons that are just too complex to really care about (as well as pety and vain). Generally speaking, the Greeks knew the earth was round. (The proof is visible every time you watch an eclipse of the moon; only a sphere can produce the result seen agin and again.) Most people in Europe at the time of Columbus believed the earth was round. Columbus' mistake was that he had an estimate for the size of the earth that was 1/3 what it should be; even though those same Greeks could measure the size of the earth within a percent. Why? We can only speculate.

As for people who may have know about the "New World" before Columbus; we can only speculate. It is possible that there was a group of people who did know about those lands. They would have been the deep sea fishermen of Europe. Deep sea fishing areas would have been, for them, one of their most closely guarded secrets. A whole bunch of them are very near the new world. Did Columbus hear of these lands, assume they were Asia, and fudge his numbers on the size of the earth in order to get royal fundung? (Remember that in order to obtain funding you often have to "adjust" your mission somewhat; he was a third order Franciscan, conversion may have been a primary motivation.)

As I said, the "history" of science is very complex; the Greeks thought "science" was beneath them. (The result was a plethora of notions, some were pure genius and some were pure crap.) The Romans were more engineers than scientists. When the writings of the Greeks were discovered in the Rennisance, their scientific writings were taken more literally than the Bible (thus making a lot of bad science of thre Greeks unquestionable truths for several centuries).

I promise I'm going to get back to the topic at hand. Given this complex history of science (and I did not go far enough back to point out that most of the "science" of the people at the time of the Old Testament came from Babylon) the people of the various times wrote in the scientific mindset of the day. It is the height of arrogance to transpose their knowledge of science to our knowledge of science. In the middle of this we also have the effect of people wanting to make knowledge "secret" (the Greeks considered the irrational nature of pi a state secret) and wanting to fudge data in order to make certain cases (all those inconvenient truths we still see today ... smoke and mirrors).

[PLAYER57832]

And a few hundred before that, you would be hard-pressed to find manywho thought the Earth was round, even fewer who would have thought there was a big continent where I now sit.

I really have to answer this, in part because the history of science has always been deliberately obfuscated for a variety of reasons that are just too complex to really care about (as well as pety and vain). Generally speaking, the Greeks knew the earth was round. (The proof is visible every time you watch an eclipse of the moon; only a sphere can produce the result seen agin and again.) Most people in Europe at the time of Columbus believed the earth was round. Columbus' mistake was that he had an estimate for the size of the earth that was 1/3 what it should be; even though those same Greeks could measure the size of the earth within a percent. Why? We can only speculate.

As for people who may have know about the "New World" before Columbus; we can only speculate. It is possible that there was a group of people who did know about those lands. They would have been the deep sea fishermen of Europe. Deep sea fishing areas would have been, for them, one of their most closely guarded secrets. A whole bunch of them are very near the new world. Did Columbus hear of these lands, assume they were Asia, and fudge his numbers on the size of the earth in order to get royal fundung? (Remember that in order to obtain funding you often have to "adjust" your mission somewhat; he was a third order Franciscan, conversion may have been a primary motivation.)

As I said, the "history" of science is very complex; the Greeks thought "science" was beneath them. (The result was a plethora of notions, some were pure genius and some were pure crap.) The Romans were more engineers than scientists. When the writings of the Greeks were discovered in the Rennisance, their scientific writings were taken more literally than the Bible (thus making a lot of bad science of thre Greeks unquestionable truths for several centuries).

I promise I'm going to get back to the topic at hand. Given this complex history of science (and I did not go far enough back to point out that most of the "science" of the people at the time of the Old Testament came from Babylon) the people of the various times wrote in the scientific mindset of the day. It is the height of arrogance to transpose their knowledge of science to our knowledge of science. In the middle of this we also have the effect of people wanting to make knowledge "secret" (the Greeks considered the irrational nature of pi a state secret) and wanting to fudge data in order to make certain cases (all those inconvenient truths we still see today ... smoke and mirrors).

Well, I probably should have picked a better example, you are correct. Copernicus was condemned for insisting that the Earth revolved around the sun. Of course, people in other cultures already believed this, but the fact remains that many within Christianity considered it "blasphemy", because it would have meant that humans were not God's special creation (to paraphrase). This is exactly the kind of back-handed "logic" that young earth creationists who rely on Genesis put forward. They claim that saying God used evolution would diminish us, among other arguments. God is not limited by human beings' narrowness of thinking.

The fact is that the evidence shows the Earth to be very, very old. I said 4.5 billion years earlier, but I just read something saying the estimate is now over 13 billion years. The more we learn, the older Earth appears to be, not the reverse. Even the Bible itself actually provides a good deal of proof for an older Earth, but those who have already decided the Earth is young won't see it that way.

[tzor]

Copernicus was condemned for insisting that the Earth revolved around the sun.

Once again, I have to point out that the history of science (especially after the "Reformation") is often obfuscated by political agendas. This was clearly not the case. I know many people don't like references like this but here is a quote from Wiki

Some time before 1514 Copernicus made available to friends his "Commentariolus" ("Little Commentary"), a forty-page manuscript describing his ideas about the heliocentric hypothesis. It contained seven basic assumptions. Thereafter he continued gathering data for a more detailed work.

About 1532 Copernicus had basically completed his work on the manuscript of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium; but despite urging by his closest friends, he resisted openly publishing his views, not wishing—as he confessed—to risk the scorn "to which he would expose himself on account of the novelty and incomprehensibility of his theses."

In 1533, Johann Albrecht Widmannstetter delivered a series of lectures in Rome outlining Copernicus' theory. Pope Clement VII and several Catholic cardinals heard the lectures and were interested in the theory. On 1 November 1536, Cardinal Nikolaus von Schönberg, Archbishop of Capua, wrote to Copernicus from Rome:

Some years ago word reached me concerning your proficiency, of which everybody constantly spoke. At that time I began to have a very high regard for you... For I had learned that you had not merely mastered the discoveries of the ancient astronomers uncommonly well but had also formulated a new cosmology. In it you maintain that the earth moves; that the sun occupies the lowest, and thus the central, place in the universe... Therefore with the utmost earnestness I entreat you, most learned sir, unless I inconvenience you, to communicate this discovery of yours to scholars, and at the earliest possible moment to send me your writings on the sphere of the universe together with the tables and whatever else you have that is relevant to this subject ...

By then Copernicus' work was nearing its definitive form, and rumors about his theory had reached educated people all over Europe. Despite urgings from many quarters, Copernicus delayed publication of his book, perhaps from fear of criticism—a fear delicately expressed in the subsequent dedication of his masterpiece to Pope Paul III. Scholars disagree on whether Copernicus' concern was limited to possible astronomical and philosophical objections, or whether he was also concerned about religious objections.

And here is a very interesting quote from wiki on Galileo

Cardinal Bellarmine had written in 1615 that the Copernican system could not be defended without "a true physical demonstration that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun." Galileo considered his theory of the tides to provide the required physical proof of the motion of the earth. This theory was so important to Galileo that he originally intended to entitle his Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems the Dialogue on the Ebb and Flow of the Sea. The reference to tides was removed by order of the Inquisition.

For Galileo, the tides were caused by the sloshing back and forth of water in the seas as a point on the Earth's surface speeded up and slowed down because of the Earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the Sun. Galileo circulated his first account of the tides in 1616, addressed to Cardinal Orsini. His theory gave the first insight into the importance of the shapes of ocean basins in the size and timing of tides; he correctly accounted, for instance, for the negligible tides halfway along the Adriatic Sea compared to those at the ends. As a general account of the cause of tides, however, his theory was a failure.

If this theory were correct, there would be only one high tide per day. Galileo and his contemporaries were aware of this inadequacy because there are two daily high tides at Venice instead of one, about twelve hours apart. Galileo dismissed this anomaly as the result of several secondary causes, including the shape of the sea, its depth, and other factors. Against the assertion that Galileo was deceptive in making these arguments, Albert Einstein expressed the opinion that Galileo developed his "fascinating arguments" and accepted them uncritically out of a desire for physical proof of the motion of the Earth.

Galileo dismissed as a "useless fiction" the idea, held by his contemporary Johannes Kepler, that the moon caused the tides. Galileo also refused to accept Kepler's elliptical orbits of the planets, considering the circle the "perfect" shape for planetary orbits.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear. Copernicus was a visionary; Galileo was a pompous ass; Kepler got it right but never got the credit. This is the true history of science; the inconvenient truth.

[PLAYER57832]

True. My point was simply that the church's views of origins and our Earth are swayed by people's pre-concieved views of what "must be" more than by what the Bible actually says. The Bible itself is pretty "open" the subject.

[Lionz]

Tzor,

What did you mean to break to me? I might have come across wrong.

Player,

What is meant here...

First, your most IS by "scrambling" the same basic protein combinations. This is, in fact a big piece of evidence that suggests a single creation. However, there have been new inserts, new creations.

Who's forced a wedge into a church regardless of who has thought earth was not round? By the way, Isaiah 40:22 makes it pretty clear that earth is round perhaps... maybe people should and should have paid more attention to it.

http://yahushua.net/scriptures/isa40.htm

What about earth looks old to you? Is there a way He could have instantly created earth out of nothing without you thinking as though it looked old? You said stuff in response to those without actually answering them maybe.

I've presented nothing that points toward a young Earth to you specifically maybe, but you might have already suggested that you thought believing something made it true... you can simply tell yourself something is not evidence and fool yourself into thinking it's not as a result of doing that maybe.

I've brought up numerous examples of evidence for the earth being young depending on definition of young and we should be careful to try to avoid lying perhaps.

See Evidence from Space, Evidence from Earth and Evidence from Biology sections here with points laid out under them? How about respond to them if so?

http://www.connectionmagazine.org/2002_ ... idence.htm

And how about address this if you claim the earth moon system is billions of years old?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... 4/moon.asp

What have you done to address either? If you feel you already refuted either in a post can you refer to a post as opposed to simply claiming you addressed something and claiming I ignored something? You did refer to an answersincreation and ncse site in response to the first that do little to nothing in regards to addressing those maybe.

What about knowledge of how water works suggests Grand Canyon was not the result of a world-wide flood? And when did I call something a whirlpool? You tried to suggest a cylindrical depression 6,654 or so feet above sea level in an arid location was the result of a puddle melting rock and provided little to nothing to back it up maybe. How could a puddle of water carve a cylindrical depression in rock if it could do that somehow?

How about help me follow money and figure out what young earth creationism has to do with money or power? Got a link?

What is meant here...

Evolution is not the sole issue, but it is a big one. Why? Why did this one issue suddenly become one of "the" issues when there are so many issues about which the Bible is absolutely clear?

Note: I left stuff from you outside quote things in error and said stuff wrong earlier maybe.

What do you refer to if you claimed the Bible itself actually provides a good deal of proof for an older Earth? Got some examples you can share?

Maybe I'm misquoting in here for all I know.

Haggis,

I might not be sure what anyone has proof of, but I'm adamantly asserting nothing and I'm not even claiming there's never been a beneficial mutation maybe.

Beneficial can be defined more than one way and we can argue that there have at least been mutations that have led to people being taller and better able to dunk on ten foot basketball rims perhaps, but when has a mutation created something new that was not simply the result of a scrambling of pre-existing information?

1) Does a single clone of E. coli not actually contain multiple organisms? Either way, if a single living organism was moved to 32 C and a single living organism was moved to 42 C, natural selection would help weed out genes less suitable for those temperatures after 2000 generations even without any mutation at all maybe.

2) Living organisms with genetics better suited to grow in darkness than others would be more likely to survive and reproduce in darkness than the others even without a single mutation required perhaps. There were genes detrimental to growing in darkness that were weeded out as a result of natural selection maybe.

3) Maybe I'm missing something here. Someone measured an original sample of unicellular green algae and filtered off smaller cells over a course of 40 generations and discovered that they came up with an average size that was greater than an average size of the original sample after the 40 generations? Would you not expect a larger size on average after 40 generations with or without any mutation?

Unicellular to Multicellular section?) If we define cell division as a mutation then there have been beneficial mutations perhaps, but what does cell division have to do with increased genetic complexity? There might not be anyone arguing that we can't breed things to be larger and have extra parts and missing parts, but we're not going to take frogs and end up with feathered descendants of them even with a trillion years unless we transfer in genetic information from an outside source maybe. Maybe I said one or more thing wrong earlier and we should not be surprised if there are already descendants of mice with wings. There might be some pretty crazy lab stuff going on.

Propanediol metabolization section?) What if there's actually a natural E. coli gene for converting propanediol to lactaldehyde that appears in a minority and it's not the result of a mutation? Does the section not suggest that it's quite common for some individuals in E. coli lines to utilize propanediol as a food source?

[TheProwler]

This thread is all very large and I can't be bothered to read it...

So I have no idea if this applies to what you are discussing now, but it is an interesting fact.


When I was born, they thought I had a third leg.

They studied me....and one scientist was sure my middle leg was actually an elephant trunk.


Then I was circumcised and the mystery was solved.

[Army of GOD]

This thread is all very large and I can't be bothered to read it...

So I have no idea if this applies to what you are discussing now, but it is an interesting fact.


When I was born, they thought I had a third leg.

They studied me....and one scientist was sure my middle leg was actually an elephant trunk.


Then I was circumcised and the mystery was solved.

It was your twin brother?

[TheProwler]

Two heads are better than one.

[Timminz]

Two heads are better than one.

Unfortunately, men only have enough blood to run one at a time.

[nietzsche]

How do you guys have the patience to deal with this?

I mean, we go repeating and repeating the same thing to them and they come back with their idiotic ideas and imaginary friends and never pick up a book.

[TheProwler]

I read somewhere that sometimes books are wrong.


Where did I read that again?



Oh yeah, it was in a book.

[army of nobunaga]

I dont know how you can read any of this crap personally.

Its basically arguments all over the internet cut and pasted into a huge wall of text for our ummm .. enjoyment?

[tzor]

I dont know how you can read any of this crap personally.

We are supposed to read this crap? I usually skim through it until myt eyes glaze over and then it's easier to skim.

Why isn't this thread about cute babies?

[army of nobunaga]

I dont know how you can read any of this crap personally.

We are supposed to read this crap? I usually skim through it until myt eyes glaze over and then it's easier to skim.

Why isn't this thread about cute babies?

I mean the first post was like something about a guys wife being on vacation so the baby came out tan... I think he was joking but I wasnt sure.

Then I see the familiar wall of texts from the obvious suspects... I skip them of course though I do look at the pictures .

Then I see at the end someone saying "Why do we try because they came back with the same broke logic:"

And I couldnt hold it in.

Its all a broke damn logic and broke argument thread.

But please carry on. There are a few of us that have bets on how many pages , who will post the largest wall of text, etc. So its all good.

[army of nobunaga]

We spent a month and a half in Australia, New Zealand and Egypt when my wife was pregnant and our son was born very dark. We being mostly scottish with some Irish, brit, norwiegian, german and polish ancestory are nice and pasty. As a newly formed person he has slight traits due to the enviroment his mother lived in while he was being developed.

I think you are joking. And If you are not Im about to piss you off I guess. But If this is the case, I think you need to be looking at the dark milkman and asking questions.

This was the only interesting thing about this thread imo.

Ill sit back and watch now.

[Lord and Master]

We spent a month and a half in Australia, New Zealand and Egypt when my wife was pregnant and our son was born very dark. We being mostly scottish with some Irish, brit, norwiegian, german and polish ancestory are nice and pasty. As a newly formed person he has slight traits due to the enviroment his mother lived in while he was being developed.

I think you are joking. And If you are not Im about to piss you off I guess. But If this is the case, I think you need to be looking at the dark milkman and asking questions.

This was the only interesting thing about this thread imo.

Ill sit back and watch now.

Is that what he meant about the webbed feet, that if his wife had lived in a hot-tub for 9 months the kid would have gills too?
Instant genetic engineering, genius!

[tzor]

I mean the first post was like something about a guys wife being on vacation so the baby came out tan... I think he was joking but I wasnt sure.

Yes, I seem to recall that. As the old saying about the "department of the overly obvious" the whole thing sort of went without saying. On second thought, it's damn annoying when no one actually says it. (I'm really half considering dropping the whole google thing and text KGB, but I'm too damn cheap.) Basically speaking UVA can penetrate well into the body. While such penetration would not be a factor for any internal organs, I can't find any source to indicate that it would not trigger a melanin production in the pre-born child. I generally doubt that, but I can't throw that baby out with with bathwater.

[The Bison King]

army of nobunaga wrote:

2dimes wrote:
We spent a month and a half in Australia, New Zealand and Egypt when my wife was pregnant and our son was born very dark. We being mostly scottish with some Irish, brit, norwiegian, german and polish ancestory are nice and pasty. As a newly formed person he has slight traits due to the enviroment his mother lived in while he was being developed.




I think you are joking. And If you are not Im about to piss you off I guess. But If this is the case, I think you need to be looking at the dark milkman and asking questions.

This was the only interesting thing about this thread imo.

Ill sit back and watch now.

It's cool I already covered that,

The Bison King wrote: There is a simple scientific explanation for this effect. Your wife had sex with a black man.

[2dimes]

We spent a month and a half in Australia, New Zealand and Egypt when my wife was pregnant and our son was born very dark. We being mostly scottish with some Irish, brit, norwiegian, german and polish ancestory are nice and pasty. As a newly formed person he has slight traits due to the enviroment his mother lived in while he was being developed.

I think you are joking. And If you are not Im about to piss you off I guess. But If this is the case, I think you need to be looking at the dark milkman and asking questions.

This was the only interesting thing about this thread imo.

Ill sit back and watch now.

The milk man is a jew. The boy's not circumsized so obviously he's not the father.

[natty dread]

The milk man is a woman. The boy has a penis so obviously she's not the father.

Thanks & have a good day.