Why do humans have genes for full body hair?

[Brian2]

Chance is surely involved.

I would even argue it is involved either way.

Consider this your own existence for example.................

I'll take myself as an example.

It's 1953. My dad's family are political refugees, ending up in Austria. There, they have a choice between 3 countries as their final destination: Canada, Germany or Belgium.

They chose Belgium and end up in Brussels, in a rather ghetto type area. That's where my dad grows up.
My mom is from Antwerp. Her mom, while pregnant, barely escaped a german bombing during WW2.

In the early 70s, they end up in the same place at a festival in Brussels. There's a spark and eventhough they come from vastly different backgrounds, they end up together. Against all odds I might add, as back in those days, it was really not "the norm" for a white middle class woman from Antwerp to begin a relationship with an 11-year younger muslim political refugee from the ghetto's of Brussels. And neither was it for that muslim for that matter...... His dad basically ended up kicking him out of the house over it.

Fast forward another decade. As a couple, they have sex. Each time, millions of sperm cells are deposited. Among those millions, plenty of "potential" humans exist. Only one of them will end up being "me". And likely also only at that particular time. The "odds" of me, or anyone else, being born knowing how many sperm cells are deposited are already on par with winning the lottery.

Then add the pre-history to that of the odds of 2 such people actually meeting up and ending up together. We can go a step further even and add all the odds also of each of their ancestors, which made them exist in the first place.

Go back just 200 years and contemplate the odds of me existing.
They are nothing short of astronomical.

What were the chances of all those ancestors meeting up and ending up together?
What were the chances of each and every one of those ancestors being born in context of the millions upon millions of sperm cells?



So you see.... in that sense "chance" is part of everyday life.
Every day, millions of "unlikely" things happen.

You could even make a case that almost everything that happens at any time, happens by chance (in the sense of every individual event, in the greater scheme of things, having astronomical low odds of ever occurring).


So really.............. I wonder why you think that "chance" is an argument against reality and "for" your god.

The above is true regardless of your god existing or not.
The a priori probability of me (or you, or anyone else) actually existing was astronomically small to the point where we would consider it as good as "impossible".

This goes for any human.

Consider getting dealt a poker hand. The odds of getting a royal flush are really small. Yet, the odds of getting any other specific hand, is just as small.

Think about it.
EVERY outcome you would get, would be equally (un)likely as any other.

Just chance does mean that there is no purpose however. It just happened not only through chance throughout time but even at the beginning, it all just happened.
A bit hard to explain how it all just happened naturally through chance but God supplies purpose and intelligence in design and an agency to do the creating.
I guess if you need more knowledge than that about how then you aren't going to get it through science but could always ask God. But skeptics/atheists are ever optimistic and think that we might know one day and if not than it does not matter anyway. It does not matter until it comes to leaving those things that God said He did up to God,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, then it's, "we need more knowledge than that".
(skeptics/atheists are not really optimistic )

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Post 234
Wildswanderer said: Did the chemicals and rules create themselves?
TagliatelliMonster said: Again, they didn't require any "creating".

Maybe you spoke about laws but it looked like chemicals also.
But my question applies to just laws also.

Chemicals are formed by atoms in chemical reactions.
The atoms are forged under the pressure of stars through fusion.

Atheists and skeptics seem to be good at double talk. But fair enough, we just see mathematical formulas as laws

No. We (might) use math to represent laws. This math is, again, descriptive, not prescriptive.

Do you understand the difference between those terms?
It sounds like you don't.

For example, I could use math to calculate and predict the trajectory of an object floating through space. That math is a description of the trajectory under influence of various gravitational fields. The math is not like a "guiding system" for the object. The object just acts under the influence of gravity.
The math merely models the gravity and describes what occurs / will occur.

They have always been. But I hear that the laws break down close to the BB so it seems they did come into being with the BB and they could possibly have been other laws, interactions, between things.

Maybe, maybe not.
We don't know.
I don't think we know if they could have been different.
I think that at best we have hypothesis (like string theory, inflation with multi-verses, etc) which allow for that possibility or even predict such... But we just as well have models where that isn't the case.

There is much left to learn and discover before we can conclusively answer that.

And really, possibly way back then the laws, interactions, were different. But that just complicates things and we would not want to do that, that would mean more things to answer when science has enough things as it is and which it cannot answer.

??

You make it sound as if science is "scared" of not knowing something.
Are you aware that in fact THE raison d'être of science is the fact that there are unknowns?

Science exists ONLY because there are things we don't know.
Why would you think science would run from unanswered questions?
Unanswered questions is the whole reason why science exists.....................................................

You are seriously projecting.
It's you who's scared of saying "i don't know". Which is why you appeal to undetectable, unsupportable entities to plug those pockets of ignorance with "god dun it", as if that explains anything.

I'm very fine with "i don't know".
Would I like to know? SURE.
Would scientists like to know? YES. That's in fact the entire reason why they are scientists.... to try and find out.

But if we don't know, then we don't know. The only remedy to that is rolling up your sleeves and get to work to try and find out. Not by handwaving it away with useless religious "god dun it" claims, as if that solves anything.

We aren't that stupid, we can understand what you guys are saying.

And yet, you keep yapping about "lawmakers".

We can also understand that you don't know that the laws did not require any creating (that they are descriptive only).

That didn't make any sense at all.

Regardless of how the universe came to be, the universe is going to have certain properties. The stuff in the universe is going to have certain properties. These properties are going to have manifestations. Those manifestations are going to affect one another.

Laws are no more or less then descriptions of such affections.
That's it.

This would be the case with an artificially created universe and it would be the case with a universe of natural origins.

We have discovered an orderly universe governed by laws and Western science began with scientists predicting this because of their belief in an orderly creator who is not capricious in what He does and how He does things and so desired to find out the truth of that prediction, based on that God. Sounds like a scientific prediction of a God hypothesis, and guess what, it is true.

That "prediction" is not indicative of a god model at all, because it's firstly completely trivial (there aren't any observations of any gods or god-creation processes from which such a prediction would naturally flow) and secondly because it's not exclusive to a god model at all.

To give you an equivalent analogy of this "prediction", consider the following:

I claim that undetectable pixies make grass grow.
So I predict that if such pixies exist, that grass should grow.

Upon investigation, I observe that grass indeed grows.

Is that then scientific evidence that undetectable grass growing pixies exist?

See the problem? The problem is that the initial claim is not a proper scientific hypothesis. That the predictions don't flow naturally from the model. And the prediction isn't exclusive to the model (which isn't actually a model to begin with) either.

So this is no more then circular reasoning with an assumed conclusion.

But no, we need more than that, we need evidence for this God before we can even speak about Him in science these days, so toss that true prediction out.

Yes. Just like I would need evidence for those grass growing pixies and actually demonstrate the causal link between those pixies and growing grass, instead of just asserting it in circular terms with an assumed conclusion.

 

[Brian2]

It does not and you are replying to a post where it is explained how it does not.

It explains why science cannot find answers to those questions (but lets give it time)
It explains that there was no naturalistic mechanism.
God to theology and God for knowledge about God.

Your argument from incredulity / ignorance, is noted.

How does a scientific prediction from a hypothesis turn into an argument from incredulity/ignorance?
But I admit that it is a prediction that is proving a negative,,,,,,,,,,,,,, hard to do.

So, that proves that it has zero explanatory power.

No it doesn't.

And the explanatory power would be just as non-existent.
The point. You keep missing it.

Consider for example the original code of Windows.
"bill gates did it".

Could you replace "bill gates" here with "michael jackson" while having the same merit?

No, you could not. The reason is simple... there's actual evidence / explanatory value in the Bill Gates claim, because that claim does not consist of just "bill gates did it". It is instead followed by "...here's how we know that and how he did it..."

Which is stuff that is not present if we say "Michael Jackson did it".

The Bill Gates claims as explanatory power.
The Michael Jackson claim, does not.
And in fact in this case, we actually KNOW that BOTH Bill Gates and Michael Jackson are actually real entities............

Yet, your god claim is completely on par with any other unfalsifiable thing your imagination can produce

This is why it is not an explanation and instead just an empty assertion without meaning, value or explanatory power. Aka, not an "explanation". Instead, just a random unsupported empty unfalsifiable claim. Utterly useless.

You atheists/skeptics like to disassemble posts and answer minute bits with meaningless stuff. Meaningless because you are not answering the whole idea, just an extract.

No, there isn't. Beliefs aren't evidence. Claims aren't evidence.
Beliefs and claims require evidence. And you don't have any.

I like multiple witness reports saying very similar things about what happened as evidence for Jesus and what He did.
I like hundreds of fulfilled prophecies as evidence for a God.
I know skeptics have made up stuff about why these are not true, and it boils down to "It is easier to accept naturalistic explanations for anything than to see it as evidence for God". So you go around the world and preach your bad news about "no God" to everyone when the reality is that it is all from human imagination and not from historical records.

Nobody says that. Creationist strawman arguments notwithstanding, off course.

What does that even mean?
When water freezes into ice, did the ice then "came about by itself" because there is no conscious entity manufacturing the ice with pre-planned intent?

You don't seem to know that science only has hypotheses about how the universe came to be.
When water freezes into ice God designed it to float on top of water so that life could survive under the water. There was pre planned intent.

It has none.

Aw, you just say that because any naturalistic explanation is better than a supernatural explanation, so you just throw out the evidence for God and say only evidence that is testable is even evidence.
But that is not true.

 

[Brian2]

Chemicals are formed by atoms in chemical reactions.
The atoms are forged under the pressure of stars through fusion.

How lucky are we that this happened.

No. We (might) use math to represent laws. This math is, again, descriptive, not prescriptive.

Do you understand the difference between those terms?
It sounds like you don't.

For example, I could use math to calculate and predict the trajectory of an object floating through space. That math is a description of the trajectory under influence of various gravitational fields. The math is not like a "guiding system" for the object. The object just acts under the influence of gravity.
The math merely models the gravity and describes what occurs / will occur.

The maths is describes and the gravity prescriptive.

??

You make it sound as if science is "scared" of not knowing something.
Are you aware that in fact THE raison d'être of science is the fact that there are unknowns?

Science exists ONLY because there are things we don't know.
Why would you think science would run from unanswered questions?
Unanswered questions is the whole reason why science exists.....................................................

You are seriously projecting.
It's you who's scared of saying "i don't know". Which is why you appeal to undetectable, unsupportable entities to plug those pockets of ignorance with "god dun it", as if that explains anything.

I'm very fine with "i don't know".
Would I like to know? SURE.
Would scientists like to know? YES. That's in fact the entire reason why they are scientists.... to try and find out.

But if we don't know, then we don't know. The only remedy to that is rolling up your sleeves and get to work to try and find out. Not by handwaving it away with useless religious "god dun it" claims, as if that solves anything.

God solves the problem of intelligence behind the design, of life and consciousness in matter, of anything being at all.
But really we do not know in science if the descriptive math was any different billions of years ago.

That "prediction" is not indicative of a god model at all, because it's firstly completely trivial (there aren't any observations of any gods or god-creation processes from which such a prediction would naturally flow) and secondly because it's not exclusive to a god model at all.

To give you an equivalent analogy of this "prediction", consider the following:

I claim that undetectable pixies make grass grow.
So I predict that if such pixies exist, that grass should grow.

Upon investigation, I observe that grass indeed grows.

Is that then scientific evidence that undetectable grass growing pixies exist?

See the problem? The problem is that the initial claim is not a proper scientific hypothesis. That the predictions don't flow naturally from the model. And the prediction isn't exclusive to the model (which isn't actually a model to begin with) either.

So this is no more then circular reasoning with an assumed conclusion.

I think you are right.

Yes. Just like I would need evidence for those grass growing pixies and actually demonstrate the causal link between those pixies and growing grass, instead of just asserting it in circular terms with an assumed conclusion.

There was not any assumed conclusion. There was a presumed reason for beginning and answers gave encouragement to continue the search in science with the idea that the mind of God was being seen with each discovery.

But there is evidence for God, it is just that you don't like it as evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"God did it" does not explain how God created everything exactly no.
"God did it" explains where life came from and that life is spirit based.
We are here and we got here whether we believe God did it or not.
We don't know that we could be here without a God and we don't know we could be alive without a God.

No,it is not an explanation at all. It is just an unevidenced claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How lucky are we that this happened.



The maths is describes and the gravity prescriptive.




God solves the problem of intelligence behind the design, of life and consciousness in matter, of anything being at all.
But really we do not know in science if the descriptive math was any different billions of years ago.




I think you are right.



There was not any assumed conclusion. There was a presumed reason for beginning and answers gave encouragement to continue the search in science with the idea that the mind of God was being seen with each discovery.

But there is evidence for God, it is just that you don't like it as evidence.

Wow!! Two long posts that only demonstrate desperation and an inability to reason rationally. Your level of skepticism (actually denial) towards the sciences is at an extreme high. If you had a consistent level of denial towards your God beliefs you would be the staunchest atheist here.

Part of reasoning rationally is maintaining a consistent level of skepticism.

 

[Brian2]

No,it is not an explanation at all. It is just an unevidenced claim.

I was talking about what a conclusion of "God did it" might explain.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is getting tiring since all you do is doubling down and repeating your bare claims.....
So I'll just reply to a few obvious highlights.

It explains why science cannot find answers to those questions (but lets give it time)
It explains that there was no naturalistic mechanism.
God to theology and God for knowledge about God.

None of these are explanations
All of those are mere claims.

How does a scientific prediction from a hypothesis turn into an argument from incredulity/ignorance?

That's not a "scientific prediction".
Instead, it's just an appeal to ignorance that science doesn't know.

Even if science never finds out, that doesn't automagically make your bare unsupported claims correct.

I like multiple witness reports saying very similar things about what happened as evidence for Jesus and what He did.

Hearsay and anecdotes.
According to that "standard" of evidence, you should also believe in Loch Ness monster, bigfoot, alien abduction, voodoo, healing crystals, poltergeists, leprechauns, fairies, etc etc etc.

But I bet you will only find such bad evidence convincing when it concerns things you already believe religiously.

I like hundreds of fulfilled prophecies as evidence for a God.

Funny how only those who already believe in the religion are impressed by such vagueness and ad hoc rationalizations that are neither here nor there.

You don't seem to know that science only has hypotheses about how the universe came to be.

?????

I think I flat out said that literally, that we don't know and only have hypothesis none of which are conclusive.

More evidence of your lack of reading comprehension I guess.

When water freezes into ice God designed it to float on top of water so that life could survive under the water. There was pre planned intent.

ow dear.....................................................................................


It's hard to argue with people who make stuff up on the spot with no evidence at all.
We don't follow the same rules of engagement... I am of the opinion I should support what I claim.
You on the other hand, seem to think that anything goes as long as you invoke "faith" to make your wild unsupported religious claims.

If this is how it has to go down, then any conversation with you on the topic is like an exercise in futility.

Aw, you just say that because any naturalistic explanation is better than a supernatural explanation

No. Any explanation that is actually supported by evidence is better then empty claims that has no evidence, no detail, nothing to verify, nothing to check and ZERO explanatory power.

, so you just throw out the evidence for God and say only evidence that is testable is even evidence.
But that is not true.

I don't consider hearsay and anecdotes to be evidence of anything other then those making those claims believing them.

Because that's what your "testimonies" are: THE CLAIMS. Claims that require evidence.
Your claims aren't correct just because you can point at people who make those claims and / or believe them.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How lucky are we that this happened.

Actually, stars creating those chemicals was inevitable.

The maths is describes and the gravity prescriptive.

That makes zero sense.

God solves the problem of intelligence behind the design

What "intelligence"? What "design"? What "problem"?

, of life and consciousness in matter, of anything being at all.

Bare claims aren't explanations or solutions to imagined problems.

But really we do not know in science if the descriptive math was any different billions of years ago.

We actually do know that.
Whenever we look through a telescope, we are looking at the past.

There was not any assumed conclusion.

Off course there is.
Here's your argument in a nutshell:

- gods create universe
- i see a universe
- therefor a god exists that created it.

Just like with my pixies.
- pixies make grass grow
- grass grows
- therefor, pixies exist that make it grow

But there is evidence for God, it is just that you don't like it as evidence.

Correct.
I don't like hearsay and anecdotes or mere claims as "evidence".
To say otherwise would require me to believe in bigfoot, loch ness monsters, etc.

Just believing what people claim, is a very good way to end up with false beliefs.
I have higher standards of evidence then that, thank you.

And I submit that you probably do to, when it comes to any other subject.

 

[Wildswanderer]

The more of your stuff I read, the more convinced I am that you don't understand what scientific theories and laws are. They are not judicial laws. They describe phenomena.

Which obviously has order and purpose.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Which obviously has order and purpose.

How come it's not obvious to scientists who actually study this stuff for a living?
How come it's only ever obvious to people who are dogmatically committed to a priori religious beliefs where believing in "purpose" is literally a requirement for them from that religious belief?

Could there perhaps be a connection there between the religion and the mandated beliefs that come with it? Hmm?

 

[Brian2]

This is getting tiring since all you do is doubling down and repeating your bare claims.....
So I'll just reply to a few obvious highlights.

The highlights are less boring.

That's not a "scientific prediction".
Instead, it's just an appeal to ignorance that science doesn't know.

Even if science never finds out, that doesn't automagically make your bare unsupported claims correct.

True.

Hearsay and anecdotes.
According to that "standard" of evidence, you should also believe in Loch Ness monster, bigfoot, alien abduction, voodoo, healing crystals, poltergeists, leprechauns, fairies, etc etc etc.

But I bet you will only find such bad evidence convincing when it concerns things you already believe religiously.

Why would I deny that things have happened which make people believe those things and that evidence for some is stronger than for others.
You are the one who denies anything that science has not verified. You even deny that witness reports for those things that you mentioned is evidence. And of course you deny that fulfilled prophecy of the Bible is evidence. Why? Because anything is a better explanation than God and/or the supernatural.
You and other skeptics just deny evidence.
If you said "That is not good evidence" that would be more acceptable than to just deny what is plainly evidence. You want evidence that the evidence is evidence.

Funny how only those who already believe in the religion are impressed by such vagueness and ad hoc rationalizations that are neither here nor there.

That is like saying that the gospel writers actually believed what they wrote about Jesus therefore it is untrustworthy.
But it is funny that only those who do not believe in the religion call the prophecies "vague and ad hoc rationalizations".

?????

I think I flat out said that literally, that we don't know and only have hypothesis none of which are conclusive.

More evidence of your lack of reading comprehension I guess.

It must be evidence of something. But it is evidence even if it is a bunch of words on a page.

ow dear.....................................................................................


It's hard to argue with people who make stuff up on the spot with no evidence at all.
We don't follow the same rules of engagement... I am of the opinion I should support what I claim.
You on the other hand, seem to think that anything goes as long as you invoke "faith" to make your wild unsupported religious claims.

If this is how it has to go down, then any conversation with you on the topic is like an exercise in futility.

I didn't think you would be able to refute that.

No. Any explanation that is actually supported by evidence is better then empty claims that has no evidence, no detail, nothing to verify, nothing to check and ZERO explanatory power.



I don't consider hearsay and anecdotes to be evidence of anything other then those making those claims believing them.

Because that's what your "testimonies" are: THE CLAIMS. Claims that require evidence.
Your claims aren't correct just because you can point at people who make those claims and / or believe them.

Witness claims are evidence in a court and for the miracles and resurrection of Jesus. That they are witness statements is supported by the early church.
So skeptics come along and say that the gospels must have been written after 70AD because the supernatural prophecy of the Temple destruction is not true. So the people who wrote them did not know Jesus and were not witnesses. The actual evidence is that the synoptics were written before 70 AD. and by the people who knew and/or saw Jesus. So the witness statements are not hearsay.

 

[Brian2]

How come it's not obvious to scientists who actually study this stuff for a living?
How come it's only ever obvious to people who are dogmatically committed to a priori religious beliefs where believing in "purpose" is literally a requirement for them from that religious belief?

Could there perhaps be a connection there between the religion and the mandated beliefs that come with it? Hmm?

There is obviously order there. There is also purpose in those things we see in nature and science tries to tell us what that purpose is. But taking "purpose" a step further, it is believers who see God as having put purpose into the design and it is non believers who say that is not true because there is no designer.
Science is neutral on this theoretically but if someone in science says that something indicates an intelligence behind it, it is called pseudo science even if some things do look like they have had an intelligence behind them. So even neutral science mandates that evidence for an agent in the design of things is not allowed to be called out for what it is.

 

[Wildswanderer]

How come it's not obvious to scientists who actually study this stuff for a living?

I think it is. They often use language that indicates design.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Because that's what they are.

That's what we call them, yes. And we aren't even sure they operate the same in every part of the universe.

 

[SkepticThinker]

"God did it" does not explain how God created everything exactly no.

Right.

"God did it" explains where life came from and that life is spirit based.

You just agreed with me that "God did it" doesn't have any explanatory power.
And now you're stating the opposite. So how does "God did it" explain where life came from and that "life is spirit based?" How did you get to that conclusion. Oh, and what's a spirit?

We are here and we got here whether we believe God did it or not.

Yep.

We don't know that we could be here without a God and we don't know we could be alive without a God.

And we don't know that we need a God at all. And as agreed above, "God did it" doesn't offer any explanatory power whatsoever. Good thing we have the scientific method.

You know what does offer explanatory power? Scientific theories like evolution and germ theory of disease. Stuff we got from doing science. In fact, that's where we've come up with all the explanations we currently hold about everything around us. "God did it" doesn't explain a single thing. Plus, you get to just decide God exists without any demonstration whatsoever.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is true however that without a creator that it is not through purpose or design that we and everything exists, it is through chance.

What if there is a Creator and he/she/it created us by accident?

 

[metis]

What if there is a Creator and he/she/it created us by accident?

That's how some say I was created.

After all, accidents cause people.

 

[SkepticThinker]

When we get to the end of the line when it comes to naturalistic explanations then the God explanation explains a lot.

Wait, so all of a sudden, now "God did it" has explanatory power because some other explanation doesn't? "God did it" doesn't suddenly become explanatory when some other explanation seems to fail. That's nonsense.

If people want to test whether they can do what God said He did then that is a testable prediction, the prediction being that they won't be able to do it. But it might take a long time before people give up trying to do things that God said that He did. Present day Science, in such a situation, would just say that they already know that God did not do anything because God has not been detected and science cannot accept the Bible as evidence. Certainly atheists and skeptics would be saying that.

You mean like prayer? Which is "answered" at the same rate as chance?

Yes, so?

So, as the poster pointed out, it's completely lacking in explanatory power if you can plug any old thing into it in place of "God."

You could replace "god" with ""spaghetti monster" and you would just be saying that God is a spaghetti monster.
There of course is zero evidence that a spaghetti monster is real but there is evidence that a god is real.

Yep, see how "God did it" is useless as an explanation for anything? Just as useless as inserting "the flying spaghetti monster" into it.

There is no evidence that all of this came to be all by itself.
All this means that "God did it" has the most evidence.

No, it doesn't. "God did it" has no good evidence and no explanatory power whatsoever. Again, you seem to think you win by default if some other explanation is unsatisfactory.
Well no, I'm sorry, that's not how it works. You still have to demonstrate the veracity of your claim and explain why we should believe it and what it actually explains.

 

[wellwisher]

Via a WaPo article I read this morning, I came across this paper: Complementary evolution of coding and noncoding sequence underlies mammalian hairlessness | eLife (elifesciences.org).

The gist of the paper is an exploration of the genetic basis for, and evolutionary history of, hair loss in some mammals. Now, like most scientific papers that are about prehistoric events, the paper uses words such as "likely", "possibly", "putative", etc. But I don't want this thread to turn into yet another (unsuccessful) attempt to explain to creationists that that's how science works, so let's try and avoid all that. Plus, those parts of the paper aren't relevant to the point of this thread.

As the paper describes, humans do indeed have all the genes and regulatory sequences necessary for full body hair, but due to a series of mutations, they've been disabled, which is why humans don't have full body hair (with some very rare exceptions) like most other mammals.

So the question to creationists is....why? Do you believe Adam and Eve were fully-haired and we just lost all that due to mutations that occurred after "the fall"? Do you believe God deliberately created A&E with this genetic material but also disabled it for some reason (thus A&E were not fully-haired)? Do you think this is an example of "design"? If so, how did you reach that conclusion?

As the paper describes, evolutionary theory provides an explanation. We all know creationists reject that explanation, but you can't deny that at least the explanation exists. So what's your alternative explanation?

I look at the main difference between Evolution and Creation, as being about a contrast between physical biology; nature, and advances in neural firmware; nurture. For example, we; humans, have taught apes sign language. One ape learned more than 1000 words. It is not in their genes or their natural environment, to develop an advanced sign language, or it would already be here. However, humans can advance the behavior in the apes, beyond their existing genetic output, through teaching. Human will and choice drives this.

The rise of the first permanent civilization, occurs along the line of the Creationist's time scale. Did human have civilization genes, before civilization? This would be sand in the gears in natural selection and evolution, since it would imply natural selection began inside the brain, and not from outside. How do you learn to have civilization before civilization occurs naturally for natural selection? Civilization was about nurture; learning, altering human nature. God is spirit. This is an ancient hint that means neural information leading matter. The invention of written language was key, since it could compile spontaneous innovation that would be needed so they could be collective, studied, practiced and learned.

Civilization created was a unique situation, where a million years of pre-human evolution, in biology and migratory behavior suddenly detours in a way not explained by natural selection from the natural outside.

Civilization was where cultural learning starts to supersede natural instinct that came from evolution. Can anyone tell us all our natural human instincts, based on the million year evolution of humans and their DNA? Where did they go? They may still be part of our human DNA, like the body fur genes, but they are also mostly inactive.

The ego has will and choice and civilization can cause the new ego to chose differently; new type of human appears not connected to original evolution. He appears from the inside out; nurture over nature. This inner processes by the ego, allows man to alter the environment, to suit his needs; define selective pressures you want instead of wait for nature to make a natural selection.

This topic says we still have genes for full body hair. Why are these genes no longer active? My guess is advances in clothes, needed to hide the naked natural human, shut off the natural genes. As the Bible story goes, Eve saw she was naked, and covered up. This was not from a natural mind. The coverup became a source of need and then a type of social status; fancy clothes. This reduced the need for full body fur; mind over matter shut off those genes. Will and choice, led to a new type of human with a new neural operating system. Genesis describes this change into the first modern humans. To translate the ancient symbols one only needs to smooth the edges for the modern audience.

If I wore a cast on my leg for a year, the muscle in that leg would atrophy. My genes should say, I should have two similar legs. But mind over matter; doctors advise, would lead to a conflict in the genetic theory and observation. This mind over matter was connected to the new "first", modern humans about 6000 years ago.

I was born thin. As a young child, I was called pencil mark, by the adults, because of my name, good grades and my thin frame. As an adolescent, I wanted to bulk with muscles, so I exercised with weights and became different from my innate DNA; being thin. This mind over matter is part of the modern human way. Religion is about not ignoring your natural genes; inner nature. But to find a natural balance. This often requires down sizing the ego, so it does not alter the natural too much, in favor of the artificial; gender bending.