Must have a myostatin mutation, like double muscled cows.

if you view this video with a western theosophy perspective,in which god is externalized,then yes..this clip makes no sense.
but if you view this with a more eastern theosophy,where god/gods are internalized,then this woman would not be so confusing.

the olsteens preach the 'prosperity gospel".though they deny it when asked directly,but thats what they preach,with a side order of mutated gnosticism.

see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology
see:http://www.sacred-texts.com/gno/

If you want to focus on science, then whatever God you prefer - intelligent designer, whatever you want to call it - is completely out of the discussion. If anyone wants a scientific assessment of God, then it goes like this - "I cannot measure it with any instrument, i cannot infer its presence by its effect on something else. There is no way i can measure or quantify any aspect of God or the effect God might have on the physical universe, so why are you asking me about it?"

What is your point? I don't think Dawkins has ever said that he can prove "God" doesn't exist, and if he did he's wrong because you can't prove anything about something that doesn't exist; if it can't be measured or inferred or otherwise observed, it doesn't exist to science, because science is simply our way of understanding what our senses tell us. A non-measurable entity does not form part of that understanding if it has no measurable effect on anything we can sense. It's like asking how loud a smell is - it doesn't have that dimension to it, it's not a measurable quantity.

I'd also like to add that "i refuse to respond to responses to this" is about as arrogant a statement as you can make. "This is what i think, and regardless of any new information i can access about the situation, i will not have my mind changed and i will not even listen to the thing that may change my mind." That statement is pretty much anti-knowledge and anti-understanding and clearly demonstrates the futility of discussing science with someone who believes in so called "intelligent design."

As for talking about Dawkins being able to "create" the "tools for evolution of a giraffe".....? What on earth are you talking about? You just told the man to stick to science - but we have a working scientific explanation for evolution with gene mutation, time and selective breeding. You're the one injecting anthropomorphism into the mix (and worse, implying that Dawkins needs to disprove that nonsense explanation in order to stand so firmly behind the SCIENCE of evolution), he IS sticking to the science. When he gets asked about "God", he dismisses it - because it is out of the question when it comes to science, and he sticks to science like you ask!

If it were done as a single nerve in a direct route, it would be subject to damage from a jerking head motion. This way, the slack (and bundling) adds protection to individual nerves. And again, it works just fine, in ALL mammals.

Let's coin a new term. How about 'stress relief'?

Another point. The heart is functional before it descends into an expanding chest cavity, taking ancillary nerves along for the ride.

And lastly, the evidence points to incremental phenotypic alterations along with some jumps here and there. The first is indicative of environmental adaptations, with possible genetic manipulations [ID] on occasion.

In fact, we ourselves are on the cusp of being able to alter phenotypic outcomes, by PCR, electrophoresis, and subsequent spicing to alter structures and codes. For our progress at this point, search 'genetic engineering'.

While not proof of prior gene altering to alter phenotypes, it is at least evidence that it can be done, while at this juncture, no substantiating evidence exists for random mutations, HGT, and genetic drift to radically alter body plans. Just for minor quantitative adaptive alterations [pigmentation, bone density, fur and hair content, metabolism rates, and yes, cephalic index, essentially brain size increases].

IOW, the evidence clearly points to both microevolution, a likely 'designed-in' function to aid in survival, as well as ID for radical re-designs, possibly by multiple intelligentsia over vast time. Google MDT for more on that possibility.

Ok guys, Genetically Modified Organism refers to both "artificial selection" and "genetic engineering". But both are not the same. Artificial selection has gone on for millennia while genetic engineering has been going on for only a few decades. Genetic engineering comes in many forms: gamma ray bombardments for chaotic mutations, splicing and dicing genes, implanting and hormonal reproduction of clones can indeed create many monsters both visible and invisible. The invisible monsters and the toxins they can create with their genes are the threat here. The manufacture of biological warfare, virus engineering and playing with the elements that make up life without understanding the consequences is the threat here. The bullying of corporations playing God and patenting their spreading genes are the threat here. Not the fact that apples or cows are bred to be bigger and juicier. Give me a fucking naive simpleton break, gawd that was disappointing.

It's a clever rationalization of hypocrisy. If it's going to be taboo to observe patterns in groups of people demarcated by visible characteristics they were born with, be consistent about it. But I'd argue against that taboo.

What makes racism bad is treating people as specimens of a group rather than unique individuals. Group averages may differ slightly but there's tons of overlap. Common usage of the word "racism" unfortunately conflates a moral aspect (how to treat people) with an epistemological aspect (dogma that all groups are created exactly equal in every way). Epistemology shouldn't be moralized. I could give you lots of examples of sociological and psychological research getting muddled on account of an inflexible dogma that there couldn't be any heritable differences between groups other than the obvious superficial ones. I'd rather conceive of the word racism as a verb describing harmful actions towards people due to their group membership, not a noun denoting a thoughtcrime or speechcrime. Like church and state, or science and religion, epistemology and morality don't go together.

A priori based on generation times and mutation rates you should expect there could be 1/10 as much variation between historically isolated groups of humans as there is between breeds of dogs, since the most recent common ancestor of all domestic dogs is half as far back as humans' most recent common ancestor is (or rather was before 16th and 17th century explorers spread their sperm across the globe) but dogs breed a lot faster. Breeds of dogs demonstrably vary in many behavioral and psychological traits. It's not far fetched to suppose that a variety of environments over the past 100,000 years of humanity pushed population means of behavioral traits in various directions.

This guy, unexplicably, evolved into a guy with a diploma. It's a natural mutation that will not be selected for the next generation.

Let's assume your god exists for the purposes of this argument.

If so, I am 99% certain that It (surely something as outside the human experience as God doesn't have a gender?) definitely "did evolution".

Why?

Evidence. An absolutely ungodly (pun intended) amount of it. There's no need to rehash it here, it's been documented and debated here, there and pretty much everywhere on the web. And it's done. Settled question. Evolution, like gravity, is real. There is no argument. At least, none that you, me or any creationist is qualified to make.

And here's the next part... you personally, are absolutely entitled to your opinion that evolution is wrong. And that makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the reality of the universe.

As for the guy in the video... I have no idea how he became a professor, because he fails to answer the most basic question a student has for him (hint: mutations don't produce "beneficial" changes, they just produce changes. it's the environment that selects the beneficial changes)

Tarrantino's mash-up samples in his flicks are the greatest homage to other director's styles as well, it's what I can appreciate about his work the most...however hackneyed or stale, he mutates enough to stay on the grid, he's frikkin' full-blown and always will be the crazed genius.
Oh, and Jackie Brown kicks ass-

Mosura-kaiju, is mutation not explained in natural evolutionary model-Mothra is result of the atom's rage against nature's imbalance....


モスラ

Wow, just wow.

Where is there any proof of this? Find me one type I diabetic who eliminated their diabetes without a pancreatic transplant, and I'll give them the world's greatest human trophy.

So far, ever in the history or medicine, no one has had their type I diabetes eliminated by belief. Please show me where this has happened and I'll say you're right. Again, I'm a Type I, and I take very good care of myself. I have poor genetics, which caused cancer in my saliva glands, but it was poor genes, not a poor life style.

The only time I've been in a hospital was for the diagnosis of diabetes and the surgeries for cancer. Aside from those three incidents, I lead a damn great and healthy life style. Where in your theory did I get my illness from. Science tells me it was poor genes and mutations, the second cancer was from the radiation to treat the first one. A risk I had to take into account.

Where do you get your information from? It is flawed and not based in reality. It's that kind of decision making that makes the world a dangerous place.

If you're going to make a claim like that, even when it flies in the face of logic and reason, you better have some damn good proof to back it up.

Doesn't seem to be an inordinate amount of obese folks in the Bulgarian herd, eh? Lesse...Fit, healthy, have their own language, a culture intact after how many centuries? Peeps have been in that region since way before Al the great and Rome fucked-em over, quite the rich, intact history.

Compare to my country with fast-food sense of culture, a language hi-jacked by hip-hop, mumblers, and newsspeak (can't decide which irks me most), and a history of ass-raping sans lube....3 of the many reasons the U.S. might make it to 250 years-old...Sooooo, 13 years left.

Empires don't die, they mutate like blobs in B-Movies.

Sickle-Cell Anemia is similar with a slight twist. The disease is caused by a mutation of a gene for haemoglobin, which deforms and causes the red blood cells to take on a sickle shape. In the case of SCA the gene has more than one dominant allele, known as codominance (I think thats also why hair colours "mix", but dont quote me on that). As a result carriers of the disease have one copy of the mutated gene and one healthy copy. They produce healthy AND deformed sickle shaped red blood cells. Carriers with this heterozygous form are practically free from symptons of the full disease and while not immune to malaria they are more resistant. Strangely, and for reasons I dont fully understand, those with the full disease are still vulnerable to Malaria, or at least malaria makes the symptoms of SCA worse.

Unsurprisingly SCA is fairly common in parts of Africa where Malaria claims a lot of lives. It would be a pretty amazing adaption if it were not for the 25% chance that any child between two carriers suffered from the full disease.

Now for my somewhat related story:
I tried the "natural" Malaria remedy in Kenya. The Masai guide had this huge grin on his face when he offered it to me that in hindsight should have definitely tipped me off. I'm guessing it was quinene based because it was so bitter that I wretched it and a fair portion of my breakfast up and out on the spot. He made it up later when he found some wild honey (you know, as you do - Masai ftw) to take the taste away.

Interesting. I've got a semi-relevant story, but I get long winded so feel free to skip to the next comments if you like.

My wife (Thai) and I (American) had our first daughter this year. When she first got pregnant, one of the doc's first priorities was to get us both tested for "Thalassemia", which I had never heard of before. Apparently it is a blood disorder that affects hemoglobin production and therefore red blood cells -- if both parents carry the (rather rare) recessive gene, it can be a pretty bad deal.

It turned out that my wife is in the 1% or so of Thais that carry the gene (but she doesn't express / suffer from it, it is recessive and she has the dominant gene also). I had to get tested as well, but they said it would be incredibly unlikely that I'd be positive and I wasn't. So, our daughter has a 25% chance of being a carrier like my wife but zero chance of suffering from the effects of it.

Anyway, I was curious about the disease and asked the doc why it is a big deal here (every pregnant couple MUST get screened for it here when getting hospital/prenatal care) but I'd never even heard of it in the US. It turns out that the disease / genetic mutation arose only in places with high rates of malaria. As it happens, the genetic effect on your blood cells that the mutation has makes you more resistant to malaria -- full-on exhibitors of it (two recessive genes) are far less likely to die of malaria than people that don't have the gene. That is, assuming that you don't have the extreme variants of it that make it very unlikely to survive early childhood. Basically, if you have the disease and yet are healthy enough to survive to adulthood, you're close to malaria immune (that's overstating it, but ballpark). The malaria parasite can't survive and reproduce properly on your funky Thalassemia-affected red blood cells.

I thought that was a pretty interesting evolutionary response that must have arisen from some populations being pretty much decimated by malaria back in pre-recorded history. Current carriers like my wife are probably the descendants of lucky folks that survived a deadly outbreak in history by virtue of having a disease/mutation that is, under normal circumstances, slightly or even extremely bad in species survival / reproductive fitness terms. I thought that was kinda cool -- but I'm glad that neither my wife nor my daughter are/can be full-on expressors of the gene.

I was afraid that Harlem Shake had mutated into the new Rickroll.

That was close...