Subject: white skin Gene

From: "Bobby Nelson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 12:36:02 -0500

I have seen that recently DNA experts at Penn State Uni. have discovered the "white skin Gene" how does this new discovery compare with Darwin's theories? Here is a link http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501728.html . This seems to suggest Darwin was wrong as why haven't the "skin gene" mutated in the last 50,000 years? It mutated at least twice before that but in the last 50,000 years or so nothing? This is very damaging to the Darwin Theory. Thank You for your time. Bob

---

From: "Bobby Nelson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 08:57:37 -0500

It invalidates Darwin for the simple reason of your explanation is wrong. 
The 1st White skin gene was found in Africa not after years and years and 
years of African people moving further North it was BAM instantly. This 
would lead one to believe that Cataclysmic Evolution is a better Theory of 
what has happened in Earth's past more than the "slow trickle down" of 
Darwin.  Thanks again for your time Bob Nelson.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Info Person" <[email-masked]>
To: "Bobby Nelson" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: white skin Gene

> Dear Bob,
>
> I'd heard a radio report of this discovery, but thank you for the URL of 
> an actual lengthy report.
>
> The usual idea of mutations is that they occur randomly, and often have no 
> effect, if they lead to another of the 3 letter 'codons' in the genetic 
> code that cause the same amino acid to be included at the same location as 
> the unmutated code section.
>
> Mutations can be lethal, harmless, or slightly helpful, or slightly 
> harmful for creatures that live in a particular environment.  There is no 
> general "survival of the fittest", only better survival for the creatures 
> best fitted to A PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENT.  Since the brown skinned people 
> trying to live in the northern latitudes needed to get more sun exposure 
> to avoid the vitamin D deficiency, the first person (first in Europe and 
> apparently another in Asia) to have less sunlight blockage by melanin had 
> a relative advantage.  So he or she would have more children who could 
> reproduce, and gradually the more useful white skin would become the most 
> common (or only) kind of skin in the area of low sunlight.  That's how the 
> universal biological process of evolution works, with this skin gene as a 
> particular example.  A similar selection for the best balance of sunlight 
> and protection makes most of the people who live in sunny lands near the 
> equator have brown or black skin pigmentation, for higher protection from 
> excessive sunlight.
>
> As it becomes cheaper to sequence people's entire DNA, I expect we will 
> find evidence of other mutations that have occurred but didn't matter 
> enough to be easily found.  Right now it's too expensive to do much 
> individual person sequencing.
>
> Soooo, it's not clear that there were not other mutations during the past 
> 50,000 years --- there probably were many.  But this particular one has 
> been found due to something similar being in the zebra fish pigmentation 
> system.
>
> If you still believe that this research invalidates evolution, could you 
> please send me an explanation of how you see it invalidating what Darwin 
> first suggested.
>
> Thanks for a thoughtful question.  I hope you can attend one of the Darwin 
> Day events in February.
>
>   - Info Person at Darwin Day Celebration
>
> Bobby Nelson wrote:
>>  I have seen that recently DNA experts at Penn State Uni. have discovered 
>> the "white skin Gene" how does this new discovery compare with Darwin's 
>> theories? Here is a link 
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501728.html . 
>> This seems to suggest Darwin was wrong as why haven't the "skin gene" 
>> mutated in the last 50,000 years? It mutated at least twice before that 
>> but in the last 50,000 years or so nothing? This is very damaging to the 
>> Darwin Theory. Thank You for your time. Bob
>

---

From: "Bobby Nelson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 10:06:51 -0500

I would just like to add Darwin's own words which are these: If it could be 
demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have 
been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would 
absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species " So it looks like by more recent 
discoveries, like the "white skin gene", that Darwin himself said he was 
wrong. The White Skin Gene didn't come from "numerous, successive, slight 
modifications but from one Gene INSTANTLY. So Darwin himself said his Theory 
on Evolution was disproved.