PREPARATORY SOUNDS IN ENGLISH: Initial Set-Up Sounds That Make English Consonants Seem More Natural

In my ESL teaching experience, I have found that certain sounds tend to prefix or precede English words' initial consonant production in some cases. In addition, they appear to be innate to stressed consonant sound formation and production. Breathing and unintended vocalization (movement of the vocal chords during speech or singing) can produce these subconsciously produced lead-ins and make their barely audible sounds audible. I have also found out that English learners deliberately making these inadvertant sounds in a deliberate manner and over-emphasizing them with gusts or gaffes before their words can help sound production. While getting set up and ready to produce the initial sound of a word beginning in a consonant, using this subconscious routine deliberately can make foreign students' sound production seem even more native-like and help their learning experience. Take the initial "r," "f/fl/fr/ph," "v," and "w/wh", for example. If ESL/EFL learners will setup in the “ooh” position before producing words starting with these consonant sounds, using it for guiding the intial-word position, they can produce a legitimate, native-like consonant-heralding sound. These initial sounds don't seem to be mentioned in any functionally linguistic role in the ESL literature. The one I am talking about particularly for introductory purposes here is perhaps the most obvious one to English speakers: It is the "u" or the long "ooh" sound. It is typically made while closing down the lips naturally while leaving a pencil-thin hole in the very center of the lips. It is done by pursing the lips (closing and slightly rolling them open a bit only at their center – their tip). This leaves an opening about the size of a standard No. 2/HB wooden pencil. That’s 1.5 cm tall. When a non-native English speaker closes his lips and says "ooh" a few milliseconds before saying "right," "fine," "vine," or "white" (and they do sometimes), the lips are set automatically in the ideal position to start the stressed or emphasized consonant sound. The sound-production rule remembered by the student is ideal for instantaneous memory and quick reference/correction: It is a sound rather than a visualized image of mouth anatomy to use. It is less mental a construct and more reflexive in character. In my experience, using such word setup sounds results in more natural, native-sounding consonant production. The heard or audio result is "ooh-right," "ooh-fine," "ooh-vine," and "ooh-white." Of course, the “ooh”is produced quietly and during a very short interval of time to appear more native. But the practice in ESL sets up initial consonants extremely well and soon becomes habitual for the ELL (English Language Learner). Visual images don’t offer this facility or utility. Finally in the science of linguistics there is hope. I am amazed at how well this almost doctored, artificially-imposed sound-preset in ESL alters Eastern European sound production, making it more native-like and satisfying for learners of language groups traditionally not used to achieving such satisfying results. It is very hard to change some language groups' pronunciation practices into native-like-sounding words. Take the Russian, Belorussian, and Ukrainian linguistic group, for example. Their initial-word position “w/wh” and “r” sound has regularly been reported to be very hard to correct in a habitual and classroom practice. There are several reasons for this, but dealing with the causes independently does not seem to help. However, when these students think about producing a word-preceding, setup sound, and habitually add it methodically to their repertoire of initial consonant sounds, their habitual language production really improves. And it is easily and instantly correctable - if that is a word... After overemphasis in preliminary practice, the actual production can be lowered in amplitude and length to make it manageable. Remember - we are training learners' listening and perceptual capacities along with sound production. This type of sound production also gives language learners hope and confidence. Their outer facial reflexes change into more recognizable and teacher-manageable English patterns naturally and not artificially. This is another way of thinking about and going about sound production; not the mere translation of sounds and words, but a much more conscious, natural, realistic sound-making process. There are other initial consonants that can produced in this way: Other initial, setup sound preceding words like "h” and "l" could use "ah." This is because the consonant needs to be pronounced initially with lips stretched wide. "Ah-see," "ah-zoo" and ah-tea" will do this, too. Even more natural is just taking in a loud breath with the lips in the position to make the “ah” preset/sound appear immediately before producing the word. The student doesn't actually have to vocalize the lead-in sound before the consonant/word, though word stress will often do this intuitively in the native. "Ee-yikes" is a commonly known, familiar example. Thus these preset sounds really do occur - at least in stressed native speech. In addition, the nasal-to-rear throat conducted vocalization (throat growl) of "ng" added to the beginning of the initial "c/k," "g," and "j" sound production helps natives at times. Related to this ng sing-song sound is “mm” sound made in the throat and carried into the jaw. It does often precede natives’ production of the "b," "d," "l," "m," and "n" sounds, I have found. Like in all of these word-preceding, initial-position consonant sounds, the activity seems to help speakers get set up or ready for the startup of their consonant production and think in clearer terms for the target language. By contrast, explosive consonants like "h," "p," "t," and "d" need no such leading/preceding sound in either native production or their L2 (second language)-corresponding setup in order to the sounds more natural or like native English. Perhaps this is because they have no lip or jaw involvement at least in an intermediary sounding modulation role. "P" just uses the lips as a gate or pressure-release valve. I hope these notes will help language study and students - especially certain linguistic groups - by offering some practical insights to teachers trying to improve English students’sound production. May it assist language-teaching pedagogy. And may we all “ng-go native”in our English sound production!

THE POTENTIAL OF NATURALISTIC INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN SCIENCE

Darwinists ignore other scientific fields’ definitions of intelligence in attributions of cause for any real-world action or event. Their genetic particle and cloud of nature attribution is an abstraction and construct while denying their assumption of the object of Nature writ large is a construct, too. Their criticisms against intelligent design and creation appear to be no different, viewing them as equivalent from one standard red herring view of all arguments made against any agent of cause or designer. Creationism and ID are loosely linked historically; perhaps that is why. However, pat arguments seem a bit simpleminded, childishly basic, and tantamount to lazy superficiality - putting history above any of the actual theoretical facts. DARWINISM CAN'T SEE OR EXPLAIN COMPLEXITY AND ITS INCREASE. In fact, I believe they are predicated on rubber-stamped arguments attacking all outside-the scope/realm-of-natural, material antecedents (anything appealing to super-normal cause looks the same to an evolutionist – as only religion). They're definitely never looking at intelligence as a cause in anything. However, naturalistic design is not so idealistically constrained. It is not limited to changes from designers alone or even primarily, in fact. The cause (which they cannot abstract enough to see) could simply be intelligent mechanisms in the environment or natural influences analogous to brains or neurons there (Lloyd Humprey's computational model of intelligence could be used here), goal-directed sensory-feedback loops and processes in the environment (Sternberg & Salter's goal-directed adaptive behavior intelligence model would suffice), or adaptive plant behavior (Howard Gardner's problem-solving definition of intelligence could model ID). Evolutionist don't have enough knowledge of AI or computational science to even begin to conceptualize and operationalize variables and constructs for detecting and measuring intelligence, much less attributing increasing complexity to it. It seems to me a statistical skew-based model of evolution (admittedly reductive and particle-based) is not even at the single-neuron level in evolution thinking. Evolution as Darwinists see it is lower at least in terms of intelligence concepts than that of an adding machine or abacus (or even stack of Legos). Still Lloyd Humprey's runaway model of computational intelligence could be used to describe or even encompass it, if evolutionists were FREE FROM FEAR AND BIGOTRY to do it. THEY AREN'T! Neither does naturalistic intelligence have to be limited to mere anthropomorphic models (that evolutionists employ for simile and metaphor in terminology and only at the turn-of-phrase level), traditional models or even precedents found in historical teleology or among any of the current ID views. Naturalistic ID or intelligent explanation of directed drift can be stated and independent of all teleological and historical precedents. It is a new enough notion that it is left to the future discretion of any developers and how they may choose to define its terms. And it is need PRECISELY SINCE EVOLUTIONISTS IGNORE INTELLIGENCE AT ALL LEVELS BENEATH SOCIO-CULTURAL EXPLANATIONS. For instance, the development of intelligence models elsewhere (in the non-evolution-related sciences) have not been so narrowly limited or severely curtailed as evolution proponents frequently state the case to be with ID/creationism. And any naturalistic intelligent design theory would most likely allow for more than the simple appeal to an intelligent organism. ID explanations have already been elaborated beyond the notions of a designer and creators, though not any creationist models in my observations. They must think there is never a need for an appeal to the design/intelligence model in science; that would ignore most of social science. Instead, they appeal to inanimate, incremental particles and force-conceptions (machine-oriented, systemic-functional models) that general materialistic causes will suffice in. I say evolution explanations are at times woefully unempirical (non-predictive and esoteric) and in some cases completely incomplete and inadequate functional mechanizations (as discussed below regarding the trends in increased biological complexity and intelligence as shown developed and elaborated on by the fossil record). You use intelligence AS NO APPEAL. DARWINISTS DON'T ATTRIBUTE CAUSE TO ANYTHING BUT FORCE AND PARTICLE EXPLANATIONS. In certain cases, two levels of explanations could both be right. Intelligence was behind a change, though, it can only be seen empirically in its effects. But it is around observable in constructs. You say this of nature as if it were an object and not abstraction. In fact, your belief and consummate appeal to naturalism as a panacea obviates any chance at making an appeal to idealism with a stated admission of your use of abstraction (such as nature and intelligence are as explanatory constructs). In some cases, we could even both be right; such is the case with behavioristic and phenomenological interpretations of behavior in psychology. It is both intelligence-guided and physical in representation. And naturalistic intelligence design/influence is exclusively natural-materialistic. You won't even hear of it!!! Your field ignores intelligent effect as an explanation; it is highly reductive of phenomena; at times exclusively particlistic. However, the real point I think they are missing in this relationship is that animate causes are materialistic natural causes, too. And the real materialistic choice at the organism's level I think is between random, environmentally-adaptive nudges/remnant-skewed statistical influences and directionally correlated, coordinated forces (more sensory-based and exploitive ones, thus animate). Neither explanation violates science's natural-materialistic paradigm. Thus I think the old ID "goddidit" arguments don't apply to naturalistic design; certainly not in the same way as they do to the Discovery Institute's form of nonmaterialistic ID. Both biological systems and organic functions can be viewed at purely inanimate, atomistic, self-integrating levels or at animate, more functional-systemic ones. And any adaptive or augmenting sensory feedback system or process in or around an organism or even in the environment would count as such (goal-directed, adaptive intelligence, as defined by Sternberg and Salter). And biological succession of forms over time has included trends toward greater integration and complexity, and increased intelligence in forms. One-celled organisms have purportedly led directly to the much the more complex and goal-directed organisms of today. THIS IS BUILT INTO THE NATURE OF ORGANISMS IN NATURALISTIC INTELLIGENT DESIGN as it happens consistently and by necessity. Increased complexity I see as a general intelligence pattern; even a theme. In time, hope or faith in survival could be the watershed - the actual driving and directing cause. And I think natural selection combined with mutations is a far too limited, general, seasonally based, and vague as a paired-mechanism; it is too limited a steering notion to explain such a very large directional weight in the fossil record pattern/skew alone. MultI-universe or so-called multiverse theory would explain such direction-accumulating aggregate patterns better if we have to dispense with observed, measurable causes and rely on statistical models alone (as we do with evolution explanations). Saying that greater complexity and intelligence are more adaptive simply begs the question I think. Historically speaking, such has simply been assumed on the basis of the argument of necessity and not actually demonstrated with evidence. Do bacteria get smarter or more goal-directed over time? Where's the evidence for any step up in their functional complexity? Some critics say ID gives a supernatural designer a blank check. I see atomistic and inanimate explanations of natural-materialistic cause giving natural selection a blank check. Neither can be empirically demonstrated currently to be a universal cause, especially for the increasing overall patterns of diversity and greater systemic integration in biological life. Yet natural selection is treated as the motley, universal cause of biology. You also said early on that a designer "could have done anything whatever -- leaving no means of distinguishing what it allegedly did from anything that might have happened but for which it was not responsible." It appears to me that abiogenesis has no trace evidence either, or any hope for finding such. It has a similar empirical-accountability deficiency. Some things in either theory (the theory of evolution or naturalistic ID as presented here) as a result probably have to be assumed rather than get left alone or ignored.. The rampant feature of rather bare, superficial and subjective criticisms in the creation vs. evolution debate in and of itself makes neither theory less or more scientific. Instead, it reduces considerations here to conceptions rather subjective, guttural and purely emotional. IN OTHER WORDS, DARWINISM DOES NOT HAVE THE CONCEPTUAL, EPISTEMOLOGICAL OR METHODOLOGICAL EXPERTISE IN ITS SPITEFUL BIGOTRY TO ENGAGE IN EXPERT DISCUSSIONS WITH METHODOLOGISTS IN THESE MATTERS. Darwinists typically as a consequence choose rather to cower apart and independent from any discussion of such matters. They as a group feign, deign, categorically ignore, evade critiques, and hide their lack of causal relationships and variable operation rather than to enter into active, pointed methodological discussions of the needs of hypothesis-based science in natural selection. They have no cause on multiple fronts. THEY ARE LOST IN DENIAL, STANDARDS FEINT AND TOPICAL EVASION, AND INTELLIGENCE-BASED ATTRIBUTIONS IN COMPLEX PHENOMENA ARE COMPLETELY LOST THEM.

SCIENTIFIC TRACE EVIDENCE FOR MAN BEING A DOMESTICATED SPECIES FROM A GARDEN OR YARD IN THE NEAR EAST 083016

It is staggering to me how many findings in paleontology, genetics, and anthropology have turned up over the past twenty supporting in-species, short-term biological change. This is not evolution in spite of what generalists say. To them, all history and change are labelled in the common vernacular evolution by default. The secular and academic worlds worship naturalistic change only, and they reduce everything to particles and waves to barely (ridiculously sometimes) explain it. Can you imaging reducing love and intelligence to atomic theory or the periodic table of elements (to chemistry alone). Maybe a study of pheromones could hold up under such an analysis. But functionalism in systems: No! Oversimplification is what you have to do in order to circumvent the mind, insight, perception, ideas, intelligence and consciousness in all explanations, and ill-summarized phenomena is what you get out. Of course, the tutelage of God is left out of this even though there is ample physical evidence on Earth to demonstrate a higher being or power physically present and influencing matters here at times. Miracles (written up in the AMA Journal of the American Medical Association and the sky-descending White Hand of God visitations witnessed in vehicular rescues) are numerous and logically sufficient evidence to scientifically support by implication the existence of God or some similar higher power. I will show you how the pieces about man fit together best to currently support the whole book of Genesis. Why wouldn't an inquisitive, knowing person want help with that prospect? You probably won't understand all that I give you now. Don't worry; I am just getting started in deciding how to present all of this. But how about at least learning for the next thirty minutes from someone who took four years full time to study man's origins at the doctoral level and then thirty years to sort through the research findings in order to help settle the matter? Well, Prof. Kurt Wise of Truett McConnell University, the only Young Earth Creationist Baptist university in the U.S., should be the best to do that. He is the most respected creationist in America. Deservingly so. Even the top evolution proponent in the world, Dr. Richard Dawkins, speaks highly of his ability and integrity. Dr. Wise received a Ph.D from Harvard in geology (with a specialty in paleontology) studying under eminent paleontologist and vehement anti-creationist Stephen Gould. All the while, he took classes as a self-admitted Young Earther Creationist student. But like many creationists, he doesn't settle the matter by developing a scientific theory of creation. Wise simply admits when hard pressed that he resolutely ignores some scientific traditions (egs., dating methods; the fossil tree of common descent) in order to believe what the Bible says. This admission is what Dr. Dawkins likes most about him. It confirms Dawkins suspicions about creationists. I don't want to comprehensively overlook any particular group of research findings, because many of our kids can't, and they tend to be quite trusting. They view truth as something more basic and intrinsic to integrity than Biblical correctness. Many of them believe evolutionists cannot all be liars. And that is a fair appraisal to make of evolutionists. You can't be so callous about evolutionary proponents and terse with handling the findings if you want to attend college with an open, honest mind. Many evolutionists are frank in private with colleagues, but follow a rigid, official party line - which is very choreographed and even stereotyped in debate. They simply and critically ignore contrary evidence in public to do so, too. Picking up on this practice is crucial to outcomes in actual debates with them. And I speak from experience; I have written over a million words online in debate with them. I know the difference between supposed evolution, or change in species, and epigenetics, breed changes within one species. You should know about it, too. It is now blatantly obvious from the studies of epigenetics AND Genesis that we sprung from one breed into many races. And not from many species, but from one species. Racial changes are much more rapid and empirically validated than purported, highly rationalized common descent of all species from a one-cell organism (evolution) because you don't want to believe in a god/creator. "However, it is also apparent that morphological and physiological changes can occur in captivity ... Skeletons are also viewed as rigid, genetically defined entities; whereas in reality, they are entirely plastic, responding significantly to behavioral and environmental stimuli." (in Mammalian Review, 2005, Vol. 35, No. 3&4, pp. 215-216) Domestication takes concerted effort and a focus to work its marvelous transformations; nature is seasonal and has no such determination. That's why it doesn't turn up/appear as a cause or empirical independent variable in real-world observations. Vocational entities act in that way - more out of concerted effort than their intelligence per se. Genesis shows such a deliberate family-shaping and molding theme! A multigenerational theme could do it! Whole genes, or linear slices of DNA, rapidly turn on in captivity, but they don't tend to turn off in feral, or returning-to-the-wild species. Many domestication scientists publicly fear zoo animals cannot return to the wild after 200 years of inbreeding. This means, I believe, that genetic drift in the wild is not due to DNA mutations, but likely gene switching. Artificial selection forces are also keen, potent, quickly responsive, physically observable in phenotypic all manifestation (and were in Genesis when the occurred), most potent in captivity. On the other hand, purported natural selection forces (evolution's so-called evolutionary "mechanisms") are almost if not completely non-existent as empirical representations in the wild as observables. Darwinists have to rationalize them to imagine them at work and at play. Also, the latter are incapable of being empirically detected, measured, or even actually seen in action, i.e., while in process. This should not be (in science). It is methodologically due to the absence of any causal features. Artificial or domestication pressures have no such hidden data. Natural selection's mere systemic-functional ties or system lies resulting in great or severe observational handicaps/empirical liabilities can only be suggested expost facto to observation in evolutionists' conclusions and evaluations. Changes are fast in captivity; not the unbelievable creeping-crawling, supposedly environmentally selected mutations that evolution rationalizes after the fact as occuring. Domestication process are different. They are about a plastic species changing DUE TO management in captivity. We represent the pinnacle of biological creatures on this planet, yet we bear all of the anatomical trademarks of pets that came from some household. Now, I know that was more than a mouthful to swallow, but I had to get it out in the open ... Some of these fundamental or basic features coming from individuals and turning into large family/community traits are actually referred to in Genesis, including great differences in body size variation being found in a particular breed (giants vs. dwarfs), body hair differences (hairy Esau vs. virtually hairless Jacob), racial markings and color diversity, along with vocational specialization in very large communities. Those features are now being found and studied in modern man as coming to only one species. That fact should supply much encouragement to the creationist origins position. It should also yield biological insights into the actual processes involved in man as a single species that split into numerous races. His racial features are most likely breed features that have developed like those of human pets, but only to a lesser degree with fewer domestication traces in livestock. Man's recent breed characteristics most closely reflects those of pets, not livestock, tame scavengers, or wild species. Genesis traces are written in our bones and races! Still, building a creationist theory closest to the Genesis story can take nearly lifetime of experience, a lot of professional findings cut and paste, and a very difficult time pondering what arguments to actually apply. Herein lies the value in my approach. I have access to those documents and a piqued interest to check them out. I have been looking. Perhaps many creationists just give up and revert to the Bible-only view of life. In the search for scientific creationist arguments, a lot could fall to time and chance: I was an anthropology doctoral student; whereas Wise was a biologist and geologist. Weaving origins findings together into a theory is difficult, however, until you've by chance hit upon a significant body of anthropological and biological findings that fit together In a cluster so astonishing and ideal so as to exhibit a close match with the Genesis account. It took an anthropologist writing a domestication view of man from New Zealand (the late Peter Wilson in The Domestication of the Human Species) to call my attention to the domestication literature and the scientific fact that it applies to man. He saw the pet and livestock parallel represented in man's bone morphology and racial heritage first; long before I did. I just add a slightly different twist or attribution of cause, more traits to form a super-domestication pet complex (vs. mere breeding/lifestock domestication trait list), and its amazing religious parallels (the details mentioned about the first men found in the Book of Genesis). Genesis, by the way, is a family heritage book more than a human family origins book. It is an introduction history to the races of man, as well. And that is how it so closely matches the fossil record as to be astonishing! The domestication view of man being biologically most like pets and not like livestock in the fossil and other anatomical trace evidence is astonishingly good. My interpretation of its cause is precedent-based, and more so than Wilson's view. My racial origins theory talked about here is predicated on the majority view domestication argument in science, i.e., seeing an intelligent entity at the center of the cause. There is important evidence and precedence here for concluding that. My view is a logical increment away from the traditional application of already-established scientific findings drawn out to a logical conclusion that man's process of domestication was the same as was later used with other domesticated species. In general terms, it says that an entity-domesticator's trade expertise or handiwork was the cause. Now that's as much based on scientific and causal precedence in domestication studies as you can get. Notwithstanding, no academician or scientist at the Ph.D level wants to go so far as to say an entity domesticated man; of course. That would be as much as admitting outright that there is physical evidence for God. But that is precisely the conclusion that animal husbandry and breeds' developments draws us out to. It stands one step away. Domestication implies that artificial selection or a designer's hand is a process continually set in motion us, too, i.e., scientifically speaking, that it leads to different breeds in pets and man. This is not natural selection. There is no detectable or observable natural selection as independent variable or cause coming from the environment; no logical cause; only after-the-fact speculation. Natural selection theory is not predictive. At most, what evolutionists see might be called genetic drift. There is no empirically observable antecedant for it. But random drift is best described by epigenetics, the study of genes that are already present turning on and off; not created by mutated DNA. Epigenetics as such has profound implications for creationism. I think the field is as rich a reservoir of findings as the systemic-functional evidence for designer necessity in cells and organs, i.e., the mainly Baptist-Methodist intelligent design (ID) view couched as a predictive blueprint of life that's implicit in the very structure of DNA and cell formation. ID is also a pretty good, functional view supporting the argument for a Creator. The professional reluctance in academia to admit a biological designer being implicit and precedented in physical, scientific interpretations of life is based on political, career-professional, and job-protection considerations based on an only materialistic view of the world. That didn't work with communism. But academicians still get ostracized by a highly visible, vocal, political, naturalist lobby. An idealist or pure theorist just can have no role to play in science these days unless it is an argument politically in vogue (or he is in cosmology or particle physics - scientific disciplines that are highly theoretical). My view here of there being ample biological trace evidence directly reflecting God's handiwork demonstrates numerous scientific features that closely mirror what is portrayed in the Genesis about early humans and their racial developments. It is more of an argument than a full-blown theory. Yet there is sufficient genetic and anatomical evidence. Giants are explained by breeds (races), as are dwarfs, and the Pigmies of Africa; Cain's Mark is near the top of the list, too; and especially notable is the import and consequences that Cain read into his physically obvious mark. Perhaps it was like former USSR Premier Mikhail Gorbachev's skin mark or Michael Jackson's pigmentation anomaly. If not, it was actually breed difference. The bone and biological distinctiveness of modern man also follows the Genesis storyline and matches its template: settlement and subsistence (work;industry;produce) practices do, for instance, occur only in modern man. Agriculture and pastoralism are limited to modern man also, and developed almost instantaneously in the Genesis account; taxonomic and analytic mental skills, too; cities, nations, industry, and social hierarchies and vocations all resulted and explained by it to a more limited degree. Yet these only appear in modern man in both Genesis and prehistorical evidence. And by now they can all be predicated on fossil (or mineral deposition preserving bone features) evidence found in genes switching on or off! Epigenetics may turn into a great watershed for creationists. Our time as creationists for obtaining government and scientific legitimacy has come, I believe! In addition, Darwin proponents (evolutionists who promote Darwin's natural selection and purely naturalistic common descent model over an intelligent design target, religious model, or even feedback-guided naturalistic one) get frantically enraged upon learning of it. This taught me a lesson. What agitates them most apparently scares them, though they cannot believe that psychological perspective of their reaction could be correct. How so? I think they are so used to hearing Bible verses quoted back to them that they don't know how to react to a new interpretation of their own findings handed them logically on a silvered-findings platter. I've suffered through numerous soul-wrenching personal struggles and flurries of reactionary verbal abuse from evolutionists as they gradually become aware that a creationist is reinterpreting rock solid and crystal-clear (in science) domestication-of-modern-man findings. It's a view in anthropology that was originally presented by the late New Zealand Anthropology Professor Peter Wilson. My addition is extending cause to its most scientifically logical outgrowth and most rational conclusion; I apply evolutionists' most frequent historical precedent and general cause to it. That precedent is that traditional pet and livestock interpretations in domestication focus on an entity (man) as cause. They often become emotionally unhindged while hearing it unravelled in findings-support fashion before them. Their consequent irrational and abrupt shift into a simple and scientifically empty derogation of my own application/position is a blatant tip-off that this explanation of well-documented scientific facts must have struck a nerve somewhere. I think it is an upset in their science, and religious antipathy. But I am only attributing cause just like what they do with other creatures domestication findings. Notwithstanding, I am methodologically well-trained enough in science and statistics to recognize when I'm being dealt a highly emotional snow-blower job, an intellectual rip off, or a cheap academic chop shop when polemically looking right at them. Just hearing for the first time the domestication theory of man by Peter Wilson exploited to its most scientific consistent conclusion of there being a an entity-domesticator for humans, too, as well as for pets and livestock makes most Darwin believers fly into a frantic rage of talking to themselves. They typically become first silent, then ingenuous, and then harshly sarcastic, and after that spiteful - in that precise order. It's like going through shock for them. And that's on one of their good days. This highly animate emotional response sequence is the most telling feature for revealing their switch into a defensive posture and ingenuous intellectual mode. Seeing that irrational process over and over again is another reason why I am presenting this argument publicly. Even if I am wrong and find insufficient support to cite later for some of these details, the thesis and trait package seen in general terms remains valid. It's main thrust is secure, already being supported (though that will now go into hiding, based on evolutional traditional political policy) by many evolutionist. Its just the source and explanation of this trait complex in man as well as pets that will come under fire! They cannot question its parallels in Genesis: giants, races, regional migrations, global impact, cities, armies (huge social organizations), institutions of society, metallurgy, industries/trades and magnificent linguistic and writting recording capacity. These are not found in so-called proto-men. However, after finding this scientifically hidden, theoretical prospect of the reinterpretation of a group of their findings, one still has to contend with Joseph's brothers. You have other creationists' defense responses to fend off or deal with. Most notably, you have to face the cautious constraints that try to keep evangelicals believing ONLY in pat, traditional views as stated in the form of traditional platitudes and people believing only in Bible-derived truth. These people do not believe in science unless it supports what they intuitively believe. The literally interpreted Bible is not the only formidable challenge you have to confront; narrow-mindedness, too. I am a literal Bible believer myself. That is why I am providing this new interpretation from science. But not every tradition-based, literal interpretation is apt or correct, just as not every scientific one is either. Men are men - and I one. What is most important in this area of contention is this, I think: The information I want to present here gets the closest yet I think scientifically to the Genesis account that origins studies and science in academia will logically and methodologically allow currently. And it is VERY close. But not in the way you might think. It has to accept epigenetics (genes switching on and off) and breed/races changing. This is evidenced in Genesis! I think literal-Bible believing people will have no problem accepting the concept of pet breeds and man's races being from the same process. But epigentics put it in the place of DNA mutation changes/evolution may present a problem. I just want to say that it works well in that use. Why? It accurately describes in a scientific manner what must of happened with man in Genesis without using evolution (natural selection, gene flow, mutation, genetic drift, etc., at all). Doing that was the underlying, fundamental research finding and theoretical premise in my search for a scientific Genesis theory here. We have races (righteous "seed," a strange breed, Cain's mark, etc.) mentioning in Genesis, with size-variety exploding into giants as one result, subsistence differences, and interbreeding causing a new human variety (a noble race of giants). We also have very large societies, social stratification, trades, professions, metallurgy, prisons, international travel, well digging, architecture, mathematics, schools, storage facilities, preservation techniques, grainaries, warehouses, cities, armies, nation states, civilization, slavery, and mass warfare. I believe in a worldwide flood around 4,000 years ago. Kurt Wise has the massive and extensive volcanic eruption evidence to support the view of global, mile-high tsumanis then and justify a good explanation for the milder, more spotty pattern of eruptions of volcanoes worldwide since then. And our own Dr. Arlo Moehlenpah of Stockton, CA has presented recent living tree-ring records that go back only that far. That's great scientific evidence for a global flood - in both cases! It makes Darwinists irrate, too. The real emotional challenge is getting them to rationally deal with any findings contrary to their fundamental paradigms of gradualism and naturalism. My domestication of man explanation here is another thorn in the flesh for them. My view as herein described shows that a plethora of scientific, anatomical finds does show what Genesis says. But it only works scientifically because man has the same distinct domestication trace group of features as animals he has affected, i.e., an extensive line or complex of features that trace the development of the domesticated dog, cat, horses, sheep, and pigs. They did not evolve, but developed breedal characteristics as shown in epigenetics instead. Such variety was already built into their species' genes that were turned on or off. However, domesticated species including man have exhibited a great tendency to display varying anatomical features and differentiate significantly within a broad range of the concept/notion of "kinds." Kurt Wise has spent a lifetime looking for research findings that support the traditional 6 twenty-four hour days Young Earth Creation view. I agree with him that man is only 6,000 years old since the geneologies of Adam to Christ leave little room for doubt. YEC people such as Wise believe it could range up to 10,000 years. I don't care about dating; only the processes used to get man to where he is now and where the Bible said he went concern me. Perhaps I am as admittedly blind as Wise, but only when it comes to dating methods of strata and fossils in them. Or maybe I just don't think that's where Genesis' thrust is at all. It's all about origins and the nature of man to me; not choosing between millions or thousands of years. The Bible says "day," not years. That's why I am of the Old Earth Creationist school of belief. I believe man is young (even all evolutionists including the Darwinists admit that - relative to other species); the Earth is old. Wise and Frank Marsh developed the "baramin" or kinds view in the 1990s. That is the creationist taxonomy system I hold to. A baramin is the "kind" of Genesis ranging from a species collectively to a genus. For example, to a YEC and Wise, the lion and tiger are of one feline baramin. Not to me. The horse, donkey, and zebra comprise another. I agree with them on that. Species within the same baramin can all interbreed and produce at least infertile offspring. But somewhere in-between what we know as species and the larger genera lies a vague and almost imperceptible dividing line. It separates species in the past and those of the present that could by interbreeding still produce virile offspring (the traditional, passe' definition of same species). Breeds (races), not species, are what is important to me; they tell us much about Genesis. But classification of kinds (baramins) is still mostly a hypothetical paper exercise currently - even for the best geneticists, evolutionists, and creationists. You can't interbreed genomes on paper or in a computer simulation program (yet). Somewhere in the baramin or Biblical "kinds" lies the answer, however. So Wise and Marsh are onto something and solving problems with their taxonomy. I think I have found the key to where the Genesis cause of the origin of man is: Domesticated trace evidence. Domestication trace evidence is a very distinctive biological pattern that is only present in a particular group of creatures with a very typical experience. It is not present other animals. It is a very rare biological marker in animals, numerically speaking: a complex of features in bone structure and other anatomical features that reflect experience and the processes they developed from - both in their lifetimes and forming multi-generationally into races/breeds. Man did the same. Forensics (the study of deceased bodies) and fossil studies shed scientific light on the Genesis account by focusing on such life-experience and breed-developing traits. How does this relate to man? This is a group of skeletal traits and racial development pattern that shows than man was in a garden or like place - a palace's arborem, zoo, stockade, corral, yard, oasis, farm, or terrarium. It also shows that he lived a captured, restricted, highly controlled existence with a caretaker of comparative superior intelligence and stature, and in a long-lasting relationship. That is because it can very convincing be argued before high schoolers that humans are MOST LIKE dogs, cats, sheep, and pigs in their most recently acquired breedal traits. I have the trait list to support it and back up that as the best view!! The following goal was stated in the Genesis account: God gave man a purpose to take "dominion." He was told that he would rule over the rest of creation (which was lowered in its scope or extent in the curse after his fall). The domesticated trait package he has is formidable and enlightening in this sense. It means he was shaped in the image God had in his mind. This trait complex in domesticated animals and is a big deal - of great scientific import and Biblical significance to the origin of man! Also shedding light on man's origins - the earliest fossils of modern man are found in the Israel; almost double the age of the earliest ones found in Ethiopia. These factors collectively place his origins in what the Book of Genesis calls a garden of sorts in the Near East Crescent. The science of domestication studies now backs the Biblical view up, though no one yet has written about it as God-controlled. The anti-religious scientists I have dealt with arbitrarily substitute culture for this grand knight in only the case of modern man to avoid discussions about God doing the domestication in His image (design intent, plan, or imagination). Yet man is put at center of the focus in all other full domestication scientific cases, and not his culture. The quirkish, experimental preferences of a series of caretaker individuals are the cause, in fact! Of all things! How scientifically unprecedented and small-minded/bigoted to make an ennobled savage exception of man in stark contrast to all other fully domesticated creatures able to live in a domestic, social setting! We are almost godlike if not just God-appointed (all-pervading and all-encompassing our environs) in our dominion over this Earth, yet no domesticated breed has ever made itself before man or without man. Why should man's own origin be viewed as a scientific anomaly? Isn't science supposed to be consistent in its explanations? The answer of why a domesticator is not included in the origins of modern man is anti-religious bias. Worship of man in the form of humanism or as the noble savage is why. But such an idealistic and romanticized view of man's role to exalt/lift up himself in the past as epitomized best in Levi-Strauss' The Savage Mind is scientifically passe'! Most evolutionists say culture or living in large groups did it. I don't. I think the biology as outlined in the Book of Genesis did!! HOW UNBELIEVABLY IRONIC THAT NEW GENESIS-TRACE CREATIONISM IS BASED ON DIRECT BIOLOGICAL-TRACE EVIDENCE AND MODERN-MAN EVOLUTION IS FOUNDED PRIMARILY ON ABSTRACTIONS ABOUT CULTURE. This distinct package of garden-variety or derived/raised/grown bone and racially diverse biological traits can best be described as a designer's palette of personal selection opportunites. Species rate notoriously as mailable/flexible breed selection options and opportunities in captivity (but not in the wild), though also quite prototypical (general-type fixed or core-centered) in terms of what produces virile young. Domestication changes happen much, much faster than purported evolution of species. Domestication traces in man as well as pets and livestock taken as an interlocking complex show a potent process of intensive, intelligent selection at work: resulting in trace evidence features not found biologically in the wild. In man's case, it is not even in preceding modern-man-like forms such as Cro-Magnon man, Neanderthals, Denisovans, Homo habilis, or Homo erectus! This could be the creationist's answer to evolution in general! This I think is a revolutionary and phenomenal scientific discovery. It resets the scientific clock back to the Biblical view in Genesis on the subject of man's origins! Darwinian natural selection was not and is not at work in the creation of modern man! This is what the biological domestication evidence on man's origins as initially and too succinctly portrayed by Prof. Peter Wilson shows. He attributed the trait complex in man to sedentary or only domicile living. That is making an exception in domestication studies of man; not working from a logical, historical extension of cause as an entity as universally attributed in other domestication studies, but from outside the discipline, i.e., an anti-religious, naturalistic tradition-only based view of man. Anthropologists must always professionally place culture in the role/place of God lording over matters. So man led at least a corralled, protected existence by a benefactor of regal standing controlling his life at first. That's what the biological and genetic trace evidence of modern man shows. In these last days, God's presence has returned in the form of influence has returned of Christ and His Spirit to complete this highly selective, artificially (mentally orchestrated), kingly process of perfecting man. The listed species three paragraphs above are fossils of real animals that our children as students have to bicker over with evolutionists as being pre-human/proto-human. Certain facts from domestication studies could help us understand the scientific origins of man and the Bible a little better. For instance, modern man is the only Homo or man-like animal/form to have spread globally, reflecting considerably superior intelligence, technology, and social complexity compared to any creatures coming before him and/or looking like him. This is remarkable. No other single species has such global distribution and artificially induced biological variability - able to fill nearly any environmental niche and intellectually and technologically adapt to any condition / even the barreness outer space. I just saw another Japanese astronaut take off this morning for the International Space Station! How appropriate: from the most domesticated race of man, biologically speaking! Man's expansive distributional march across the globe was unstoppable given his physical and intellectual trait package. And the evidence show it was selected by a Domesticator. Also, modern man has agriculture (started with Cain in the Bible) and animal husbandry/pastoralism (with Able in Genesis). It precipitated Cain’s jealousy and assault. There is no need to question this. Homo species before man did not and could not achieve agriculture. They didn't have the technology, social complexity, or linguistic sophistication for it. In addition, we also have much more gracile/soft contour bone features (most typically reflected in the smooth bone transitions at the edges, currently in their most pronounced form in Asians – Asians are the most domesticated having little body hair, smooth bone edges, reduced size and skull features). We are also multi-breeds/races (smoothed bone-feature contours, diverse hair and skin colors not found in the wild or in hunting/gathering man-like species at all before Adam). This feature comes in domestication from God or man shaping forms either consciously or unconsciously in his own image (preplanning; imagination), not from society or cultural mores. Individuals did this including aesthetics and desired fumctions as goals. Racial features are not found in wild/undomesticated creatures, i.e., creatures not raised in captivity or similar circumstances. A sampling of one or two domesticated features are found in tame, human-tolerant scavenging species. Dog, cat, sheep, and pig breeds have this intense, many-featured domestication complex. They were raised under intensely controlled conditions of captivity and manipulation. Modern man evidently, scientifically-speaking according to trace features, was, too. He has many biological traits or features/traces showing he was raised the same or a very similar (not noticeably different scientifically) manner. Asians have lost most body hair just like domesticated pigs and some breeds of dogs have. It is unlikely that culture caused this in man because caretaker preferences for the most part caused it in domesticated animals, not enculturation, socialization, or social mores. They were more personal knowledge and preferences with some selective purpose or end goal in mind. So with man. Let's look at some more super-domestication trait features not found in the wild species (and best typified by man, dog, cats, sheep, and pigs). These very domesticated species display less sexual dimorphism (the feature of marked physical differences between the genders - esp. shown by the absence of heavy skeletal edges and bony protuberances) and reduced head/cranium size compared to any foregoing, wild, similar-resembling species. It’s like they’ve all been skeletally remolded from the wild into a softer, smaller, more variable, graceful form. After this, pigmy and giant breeds appear. The same was true in man. The former is in Homo florensis. The latter are in Genesis, Joshua, Genesis, and other historical accounts. The skull and brain are smaller in modern man than any preceding, similar forms, but like Einsteinwas, the latter are more intelligent and socially-technically superior. (In man, this is especially the case when comparing to the directly preceding Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon man.) Their social abilities, group size, hunting patterns and toolkits were inferior! This shows there was no direct common descent coming from the Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon man to modern man. Instead, it took a Domesticator to get involved, just as it did with other intensely domesticated animals. A domesticator is caretaker-captor, a manager and shaper of lives and generations who is in close and intense control. They much more intelligent so as to be protective of them from wild conditions and selective in their breeding partners. There is strong indications in Genesis that the first families of modern humans were managed in this way. Such captivity and micro-management is why these animals are called domesticated species. Man was raised (micro-managed) in a similar way to dogs, cats, pigs, and sheep. His biological traits reveal this. I believe the trace evidence show it was an intelligence directly at work, our Creator, our own intelligent Domesticator – just as there has always been in the development of other domesticated species. Man should be no exception. It is simply on the basis of an adore of nature and worship of godless naturalism that a super intelligence as in the case of dogs and cats, etc., is not considered .He is the first cause in everything. Here is the central scientific truth of the man-origins matter: Man was in God’s image, made under similar biological conditions that can be traced in modern dogs, sheep, and cats. Many of their refined physical traits do not resemble the crude, non-distinctive features borne by any wild species. We still bear the complex of traits that is the domestication footprint – God's handiwork stamp or fingerprint. Then, after being shaped in God's image, we proceeded in similar manner to create our own breeds from the models of wild species in our own, not God's image. The process/trace package is there to prove it! Man was raised under controlled conditions to fit some superio's authoritarian goal and own imaginative purpose, artificial and unnatural a mental notion! Natural selection was not involved or even on the mix. Superior, aesthetic, controlling images are! The bible inasmuch as says this in Genesis, too. Modern man also show a broad range in overall body size and height much larger than in the wild varying from dwarf and pygmy size (Homo foresiensis) to giants with six fingers and toes (as no other creature other than a domesticated animals has). This great size variation is due to domestication/animal husbandry and is best known to the public as occurring in the form of large and very small dog breeds. Only modern men had and have cities, too (as was mentioned throughout Genesis). City origins as well as human origins are found in the Near East. This is significant. Only modern man had the intelligence to develop highly complex and extensive social orders and the extensive agriculture, sanitation, and irrigation needed to support the development of cities with populations numbering over 20,000 people. Paleontologists, biologists, geneticists, and anthropologists considered all the above domestication traits to be racial or breed differences 30 years ago in one much larger and longer-lasting Homo species before, but now are starting to conclude the distinctive package is in a much smaller group, only in modern man, with a much shorter history. They go so far now as to say that modern man is a linguistically separate (Chomsky, Bickerman, and Phil Lieberman at Wash. U.), physically distinct, revolutionary new species, but they won’t admit that a domesticator Was at work – since it reveals a God in existence and involved. But with all other domesticated species, a Godlike species in control was the case in their development, and it is shown in their bone structure traces. Why would man be treated differently as to the first cause of his biological domestication process? Ans., Only anti-religious bigotry. Creationists now have the biological trace evidence and are consistent in their handling of explanations of it consistent with other heavily domesticated species (vs. wild species traits and distributions). . I think discovering and reporting these facts about man’s Domesticator-derived origins, i.e., shaped by the hand of God, is on par with the Star of David/Bethlehem planet-alignment reinterpretation of 40 years ago for Christianity. Similarly, it is also based on new scientific discoveries applied to and paired up with an incident or incidents in the Bible narrative or storyline. I think man growing up in the yard of a palace, dwelling, or similar (the worldwide typical niche for domesticated dogs and cats) best explains modern man's existence - at least in terms of his very distinctive structural form including bone modeling/morphology. Domestication (captivity) and forensic (grave/cemetery tissue and bone markers) actually trace such situations and environments as reflected in the bones of breeds (races) – even typical events in the life of one individual – accumulated in just in one generation. If they are a farmer or husbandman/shepherd, it is revealed in their bones through observation after death and even in fossilization. In the near future, we may find that pelvis bones and upper leg joints (in the groin/loin region) reflect in lifestyle-bone forensics that hunter/gathers sat squat with the ground as Asians tend to do to this day, and that western modern men sat on seats and stools (with the implication being covered dwellings). That would be the next place to look for these markers in bone in relation to man's origin, I think. The point of this is that science does back up the Genesis story of man’s creation and family progress. He is different and superior in many respects to any creature God put on this Earth - in both records. Science is only recently coming around to that view. (Science is slow; domestication is not - relatively speaking.) We can even tell much about current people’s lives and daily habits by just looking at their bones using a Ct scan - just as much as we can the first anatomically modern humans uncovered in the Near East. We can trace events in Genesis; the record/story/trace is also written in their bones! Genesis teaches us that a captivating God watches over and improves a family, their lives, their fortunes, their values, and their bodies! A family directed and at times controlled by God is one major theme of Genesis. Genesis is the Book about God's household; God's family - foremost. Our ministers and children need to understand what discoveries scientists are holding back/hiding from us (but appearing in their professional journals) due to the discoveries’ similarity with the Bible and traditional Christian beliefs. This withholding is most likely being unconsciously done due to a shared prejudice/group standard among the evolutionists in America. I have debated them to the tune of a million words. The spite creationists receive from them is most likely due to their competition with and hatred of religion in general. Ministers and children alike need to know why men ought to be convinced with certainty nowadays in the accuracy of the message of Genesis and the Bible in general as Christians are presenting them. That is why I have attempted to make clear in scientific terms a clarification of some of Genesis features and human family origins in this position paper. If we are to characterize Adam's instantaneously created features as they were intended to be revealed in his bones and later racial developments in Genesis, this is how it looks and worked during the time of Genesis. This is perhaps a novel Biblical interpretation of the theme of races. But races are the same as breeds, and that is an old biological story shown more or less in many domesticated creatures. Or, this could be only a restatement of someone's old family position. In Genesis, this thesis maintains that some entity (which we'll call God for now) controlled marriages, family interbreeding, subsistence, locations, migrations, and resource access. It's about as good a thesis as saying man, domiciles, or material culture caused them by blindsiding selection. There are also the convincing signs/markers for all of this. Man was a pet. All markers of artificial selection, management, and control are there. So it doesn't really matter what we characterize it generally as at this level; for what shows most is the historical and physical trace evidence of selective actions done aforetimes. It is reflected in BOTH the Genesis narrative and the biological traces. At minimum,it is indeed a modern biological fact. The physical or idealistic import of intelligence shown in selection is the only real remaining mystery. WAS IT CAUSED BY AN ENTITY OR NOT? All other artificial selection is! It is also a multidisciplinary description of the trace evidence as it relates to the science, story, and process of racial beginnings that is shown here. It that can be found in evidence abundantly in Genesis narrative form; in bones sufficiently; not just a thematic form in the Book of Genesis. Genesis is a story of racial developments. It is also a story that is shown in our formative biology. And that is a central point for Christianity. It certainly shows us a wonderful religious AND scientific lesson: You really can't get away from the family influence, connections, and ultimate control of God. Breed diversity is what we began with and have always had since we came in contact with a higher entity or power, needed for protection to cause racial diversity. God's provision and direction are in his life-management change. Let's wax poetic here if not simply a bit religious as cosmology and astrophysics does: In it and through it we were born, reared and bred. That is the premier message of Genesis. "For in him we live, and move, and have our being..." (Acts 17: 28). Our racial developments are not completely over yet, so to speak. We as a people are intended for more. The rest of the Bible and some of science teach us that. That God will make a new breed out of mankind again is foretold and well-precedented, too. And in eternal life, we can all be included in the bodily change. He beckons to us to transform us yet again: "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." 1 John 3:2 God is at the center of all of His family's changes. He is the God of all races and breeds; of all of life and times. We are on the journey of a lifetime. He is our Father and our intended destination. Genesis teaches us this lesson more than once, and it is written very well. It is written in His Word as well as inscribed on our hearts. It is even written within the message of our skin and bones.

A Naturalistic Intelligent Design Morning Thought

The Earth itself is intelligent, righting our wrongs... This, too, is both a Biblical view and view of Biblical proportions. And what Mother Earth cannot do, faith, hope, and love can do in balancing and optomizing matter(s into...

ADMIXTURE THEORY OF NATURALISTIC INTELLIGENCE

The basic unit of intelligence is a pair. That means the fundamental element of intelligence is a spinning bipolar mass attracting mass and energy and some form of secondary weaker linear force interfering with it over time through attraction/expulsion in a non-arbitrary, beneficial manner, or essentially the accumulated summed over the means squared beneficial affects of any such primary and secondary force pair. Example: waves or momentum through space being offset by gravity distortion/waves. Benefits: bent light and an orbit. Second/interfering/basic intelligence forces which serve to repell/deter weakly: light, momentum, magnetism, electricity, reactions, thought... These dual-interacting forces lend direction, or intelligence to mass and space. Everything simple and complex above the quantum level is built on and made more complex by that essentially dialectic principle of momentum being offset by a bias/offset(viz., elemental intelligence): atoms, star systems, systemics, function, health/sickness, repair/breakdown, the tree of life, ideas, institutions, the senses, marriage/divorce. At quantum levels, we only have particle energy and probabilities. A GRADUAL BIAS TOWARDS INTEGRATION IS BUILT INTO EVERYTHING IN NATURE WITH CONTRAVENING DISINTEGRATIONS BEING THE RARE EXCEPTIONS DOWN TO THE ATOMIC LEVEL AS A RESULT - AND THUS INTELLIGENCE, or interference with momentum - makes things more more or less complex - not accidents!!! This is one of the fundamental positions of naturalistic intelligent design - not godless - but naturally assistive to the point of being God-like. SOMETHING SUBTLE, THOUGH DESIGN-ORIENTED ON EARTH WAS AND IS!!

SCIENTIFIC TRACE EVIDENCE FOR MAN BEING A DOMESTICATED SPECIES FROM A GARDEN OR YARD IN THE NEAR EAST

It is staggering to me how many findings in paleontology, genetics, and anthropology have turned up over the past twenty supporting in-species, short-term biological change. This is not evolution in spite of what generalists say. To them, all history and change are labelled in the common vernacular evolution by default. The secular and academic worlds worship naturalistic change only, and they reduce everything to particles and waves to barely (ridiculously sometimes) explain it. Can you imaging reducing love and intelligence to atomic theory or the periodic table of elements (to chemistry alone). Maybe a study of pheromones could hold up under such an analysis. But functionalism in systems: No! Oversimplification is what you have to do in order to circumvent the mind, insight, perception, ideas, intelligence and consciousness in all explanations, and ill-summarized phenomena is what you get out. Of course, the tutelage of God is left out of this even though there is ample physical evidence on Earth to demonstrate a higher being or power physically present and influencing matters here at times. Miracles (written up in the AMA Journal of the American Medical Association and the sky-descending White Hand of God visitations witnessed in vehicular rescues) are numerous and logically sufficient evidence to scientifically support by implication the existence of God or some similar higher power. I will show you how the pieces about man fit together best to currently support the whole book of Genesis. Why wouldn't an inquisitive, knowing person want help with that prospect? You probably won't understand all that I give you now. Don't worry; I am just getting started in deciding how to present all of this. But how about at least learning for the next thirty minutes from someone who took four years full time to study man's origins at the doctoral level and then thirty years to sort through the research findings in order to help settle the matter? Well, Prof. Kurt Wise of Truett McConnell University, the only Young Earth Creationist Baptist university in the U.S., should be the best to do that. He is the most respected creationist in America. Deservingly so. Even the top evolution proponent in the world, Dr. Richard Dawkins, speaks highly of his ability and integrity. Dr. Wise received a Ph.D from Harvard in geology (with a specialty in paleontology) studying under eminent paleontologist and vehement anti-creationist Stephen Gould. All the while, he took classes as a self-admitted Young Earther Creationist student. But like many creationists, he doesn't settle the matter by developing a scientific theory of creation. Wise simply admits when hard pressed that he resolutely ignores some scientific traditions (egs., dating methods; the fossil tree of common descent) in order to believe what the Bible says. This admission is what Dr. Dawkins likes most about him. It confirms Dawkins suspicions about creationists. I don't want to comprehensively overlook any particular group of research findings, because many of our kids can't, and they tend to be quite trusting. They view truth as something more basic and intrinsic to integrity than Biblical correctness. Many of them believe evolutionists cannot all be liars. And that is a fair appraisal to make of evolutionists. You can't be so callous about evolutionary proponents and terse with handling the findings if you want to attend college with an open, honest mind. Many evolutionists are frank in private with colleagues, but follow a rigid, official party line - which is very choreographed and even stereotyped in debate. They simply and critically ignore contrary evidence in public to do so, too. Picking up on this practice is crucial to outcomes in actual debates with them. And I speak from experience; I have written over a million words online in debate with them. I know the difference between supposed evolution, or change in species, and epigenetics, breed changes within one species. You should know about it, too. It is now blatantly obvious from the studies of epigenetics AND Genesis that we sprung from one breed into many races. And not from many species, but from one species. Racial changes are much more rapid and empirically validated than purported, highly rationalized common descent of all species from a one-cell organism (evolution) because you don't want to believe in a god/creator. "However, it is also apparent that morphological and physiological changes can occur in captivity ... Skeletons are also viewed as rigid, genetically defined entities; whereas in reality, they are entirely plastic, responding significantly to behavioral and environmental stimuli." (in Mammalian Review, 2005, Vol. 35, No. 3&4, pp. 215-216) Domestication takes concerted effort and a focus to work its marvelous transformations; nature is seasonal and has no such determination. That's why it doesn't turn up/appear as a cause or empirical independent variable in real-world observations. Vocational entities act in that way - more out of concerted effort than their intelligence per se. Genesis shows such a deliberate family-shaping and molding theme! A multigenerational theme could do it! Whole genes, or linear slices of DNA, rapidly turn on in captivity, but they don't tend to turn off in feral, or returning-to-the-wild species. Many domestication scientists publicly fear zoo animals cannot return to the wild after 200 years of inbreeding. This means, I believe, that genetic drift in the wild is not due to DNA mutations, but likely gene switching. Artificial selection forces are also keen, potent, quickly responsive, physically observable in phenotypic all manifestation (and were in Genesis when the occurred), most potent in captivity. On the other hand, purported natural selection forces (evolution's so-called evolutionary "mechanisms") are almost if not completely non-existent as empirical representations in the wild as observables. Darwinists have to rationalize them to imagine them at work and at play. Also, the latter are incapable of being empirically detected, measured, or even actually seen in action, i.e., while in process. This should not be (in science). It is methodologically due to the absence of any causal features. Artificial or domestication pressures have no such hidden data. Natural selection's mere systemic-functional ties or system lies resulting in great or severe observational handicaps/empirical liabilities can only be suggested expost facto to observation in evolutionists' conclusions and evaluations. Changes are fast in captivity; not the unbelievable creeping-crawling, supposedly environmentally selected mutations that evolution rationalizes after the fact as occuring. Domestication process are different. They are about a plastic species changing DUE TO management in captivity. We represent the pinnacle of biological creatures on this planet, yet we bear all of the anatomical trademarks of pets that came from some household. Now, I know that was more than a mouthful to swallow, but I had to get it out in the open ... Some of these fundamental or basic features coming from individuals and turning into large family/community traits are actually referred to in Genesis, including great differences in body size variation being found in a particular breed (giants vs. dwarfs), body hair differences (hairy Esau vs. virtually hairless Jacob), racial markings and color diversity, along with vocational specialization in very large communities. Those features are now being found and studied in modern man as coming to only one species. That fact should supply much encouragement to the creationist origins position. It should also yield biological insights into the actual processes involved in man as a single species that split into numerous races. His racial features are most likely breed features that have developed like those of human pets, but only to a lesser degree with fewer domestication traces in livestock. Man's recent breed characteristics most closely reflects those of pets, not livestock, tame scavengers, or wild species. Genesis traces are written in our bones and races! Still, building a creationist theory closest to the Genesis story can take nearly lifetime of experience, a lot of professional findings cut and paste, and a very difficult time pondering what arguments to actually apply. Herein lies the value in my approach. I have access to those documents and a piqued interest to check them out. I have been looking. Perhaps many creationists just give up and revert to the Bible-only view of life. In the search for scientific creationist arguments, a lot could fall to time and chance: I was an anthropology doctoral student; whereas Wise was a biologist and geologist. Weaving origins findings together into a theory is difficult, however, until you've by chance hit upon a significant body of anthropological and biological findings that fit together In a cluster so astonishing and ideal so as to exhibit a close match with the Genesis account. It took an anthropologist writing a domestication view of man from New Zealand (the late Peter Wilson in The Domestication of the Human Species) to call my attention to the domestication literature and the scientific fact that it applies to man. He saw the pet and livestock parallel represented in man's bone morphology and racial heritage first; long before I did. I just add a slightly different twist or attribution of cause, more traits to form a super-domestication pet complex (vs. mere breeding/lifestock domestication trait list), and its amazing religious parallels (the details mentioned about the first men found in the Book of Genesis). Genesis, by the way, is a family heritage book more than a human family origins book. It is an introduction history to the races of man, as well. And that is how it so closely matches the fossil record as to be astonishing! The domestication view of man being biologically most like pets and not like livestock in the fossil and other anatomical trace evidence is astonishingly good. My interpretation of its cause is precedent-based, and more so than Wilson's view. My racial origins theory talked about here is predicated on the majority view domestication argument in science, i.e., seeing an intelligent entity at the center of the cause. There is important evidence and precedence here for concluding that. My view is a logical increment away from the traditional application of already-established scientific findings drawn out to a logical conclusion that man's process of domestication was the same as was later used with other domesticated species. In general terms, it says that an entity-domesticator's trade expertise or handiwork was the cause. Now that's as much based on scientific and causal precedence in domestication studies as you can get. Notwithstanding, no academician or scientist at the Ph.D level wants to go so far as to say an entity domesticated man; of course. That would be as much as admitting outright that there is physical evidence for God. But that is precisely the conclusion that animal husbandry and breeds' developments draws us out to. It stands one step away. Domestication implies that artificial selection or a designer's hand is a process continually set in motion us, too, i.e., scientifically speaking, that it leads to different breeds in pets and man. This is not natural selection. There is no detectable or observable natural selection as independent variable or cause coming from the environment; no logical cause; only after-the-fact speculation. Natural selection theory is not predictive. At most, what evolutionists see might be called genetic drift. There is no empirically observable antecedant for it. But random drift is best described by epigenetics, the study of genes that are already present turning on and off; not created by mutated DNA. Epigenetics as such has profound implications for creationism. I think the field is as rich a reservoir of findings as the systemic-functional evidence for designer necessity in cells and organs, i.e., the mainly Baptist-Methodist intelligent design (ID) view couched as a predictive blueprint of life that's implicit in the very structure of DNA and cell formation. ID is also a pretty good, functional view supporting the argument for a Creator. The professional reluctance in academia to admit a biological designer being implicit and precedented in physical, scientific interpretations of life is based on political, career-professional, and job-protection considerations based on an only materialistic view of the world. That didn't work with communism. But academicians still get ostracized by a highly visible, vocal, political, naturalist lobby. An idealist or pure theorist just can have no role to play in science these days unless it is an argument politically in vogue (or he is in cosmology or particle physics - scientific disciplines that are highly theoretical). My view here of there being ample biological trace evidence directly reflecting God's handiwork demonstrates numerous scientific features that closely mirror what is portrayed in the Genesis about early humans and their racial developments. It is more of an argument than a full-blown theory. Yet there is sufficient genetic and anatomical evidence. Giants are explained by breeds (races), as are dwarfs, and the Pigmies of Africa; Cain's Mark is near the top of the list, too; and especially notable is the import and consequences that Cain read into his physically obvious mark. Perhaps it was like former USSR Premier Mikhail Gorbachev's skin mark or Michael Jackson's pigmentation anomaly. If not, it was actually breed difference. The bone and biological distinctiveness of modern man also follows the Genesis storyline and matches its template: settlement and subsistence (work;industry;produce) practices do, for instance, occur only in modern man. Agriculture and pastoralism are limited to modern man also, and developed almost instantaneously in the Genesis account; taxonomic and analytic mental skills, too; cities, nations, industry, and social hierarchies and vocations all resulted and explained by it to a more limited degree. Yet these only appear in modern man in both Genesis and prehistorical evidence. And by now they can all be predicated on fossil (or mineral deposition preserving bone features) evidence found in genes switching on or off! Epigenetics may turn into a great watershed for creationists. Our time as creationists for obtaining government and scientific legitimacy has come, I believe! In addition, Darwin proponents (evolutionists who promote Darwin's natural selection and purely naturalistic common descent model over an intelligent design target, religious model, or even feedback-guided naturalistic one) get frantically enraged upon learning of it. This taught me a lesson. What agitates them most apparently scares them, though they cannot believe that psychological perspective of their reaction could be correct. How so? I think they are so used to hearing Bible verses quoted back to them that they don't know how to react to a new interpretation of their own findings handed them logically on a silvered-findings platter. I've suffered through numerous soul-wrenching personal struggles and flurries of reactionary verbal abuse from evolutionists as they gradually become aware that a creationist is reinterpreting rock solid and crystal-clear (in science) domestication-of-modern-man findings. It's a view in anthropology that was originally presented by the late New Zealand Anthropology Professor Peter Wilson. My addition is extending cause to its most scientifically logical outgrowth and most rational conclusion; I apply evolutionists' most frequent historical precedent and general cause to it. That precedent is that traditional pet and livestock interpretations in domestication focus on an entity (man) as cause. They often become emotionally unhindged while hearing it unravelled in findings-support fashion before them. Their consequent irrational and abrupt shift into a simple and scientifically empty derogation of my own application/position is a blatant tip-off that this explanation of well-documented scientific facts must have struck a nerve somewhere. I think it is an upset in their science, and religious antipathy. But I am only attributing cause just like what they do with other creatures domestication findings. Notwithstanding, I am methodologically well-trained enough in science and statistics to recognize when I'm being dealt a highly emotional snow-blower job, an intellectual rip off, or a cheap academic chop shop when polemically looking right at them. Just hearing for the first time the domestication theory of man by Peter Wilson exploited to its most scientific consistent conclusion of there being a an entity-domesticator for humans, too, as well as for pets and livestock makes most Darwin believers fly into a frantic rage of talking to themselves. They typically become first silent, then ingenuous, and then harshly sarcastic, and after that spiteful - in that precise order. It's like going through shock for them. And that's on one of their good days. This highly animate emotional response sequence is the most telling feature for revealing their switch into a defensive posture and ingenuous intellectual mode. Seeing that irrational process over and over again is another reason why I am presenting this argument publicly. Even if I am wrong and find insufficient support to cite later for some of these details, the thesis and trait package seen in general terms remains valid. It's main thrust is secure, already being supported (though that will now go into hiding, based on evolutional traditional political policy) by many evolutionist. Its just the source and explanation of this trait complex in man as well as pets that will come under fire! They cannot question its parallels in Genesis: giants, races, regional migrations, global impact, cities, armies (huge social organizations), institutions of society, metallurgy, industries/trades and magnificent linguistic and writting recording capacity. These are not found in so-called proto-men. However, after finding this scientifically hidden, theoretical prospect of the reinterpretation of a group of their findings, one still has to contend with Joseph's brothers. You have other creationists' defense responses to fend off or deal with. Most notably, you have to face the cautious constraints that try to keep evangelicals believing ONLY in pat, traditional views as stated in the form of traditional platitudes and people believing only in Bible-derived truth. These people do not believe in science unless it supports what they intuitively believe. The literally interpreted Bible is not the only formidable challenge you have to confront; narrow-mindedness, too. I am a literal Bible believer myself. That is why I am providing this new interpretation from science. But not every tradition-based, literal interpretation is apt or correct, just as not every scientific one is either. Men are men - and I one. What is most important in this area of contention is this, I think: The information I want to present here gets the closest yet I think scientifically to the Genesis account that origins studies and science in academia will logically and methodologically allow currently. And it is VERY close. But not in the way you might think. It has to accept epigenetics (genes switching on and off) and breed/races changing. This is evidenced in Genesis! I think literal-Bible believing people will have no problem accepting the concept of pet breeds and man's races being from the same process. But epigentics put it in the place of DNA mutation changes/evolution may present a problem. I just want to say that it works well in that use. Why? It accurately describes in a scientific manner what must of happened with man in Genesis without using evolution (natural selection, gene flow, mutation, genetic drift, etc., at all). Doing that was the underlying, fundamental research finding and theoretical premise in my search for a scientific Genesis theory here. We have races (righteous "seed," a strange breed, Cain's mark, etc.) mentioning in Genesis, with size-variety exploding into giants as one result, subsistence differences, and interbreeding causing a new human variety (a noble race of giants). We also have very large societies, social stratification, trades, professions, metallurgy, prisons, international travel, well digging, architecture, mathematics, schools, storage facilities, preservation techniques, grainaries, warehouses, cities, armies, nation states, civilization, slavery, and mass warfare. I believe in a worldwide flood around 4,000 years ago. Kurt Wise has the massive and extensive volcanic eruption evidence to support the view of global, mile-high tsumanis then and justify a good explanation for the milder, more spotty pattern of eruptions of volcanoes worldwide since then. And our own Dr. Arlo Moehlenpah of Stockton, CA has presented recent living tree-ring records that go back only that far. That's great scientific evidence for a global flood - in both cases! It makes Darwinists irrate, too. The real emotional challenge is getting them to rationally deal with any findings contrary to their fundamental paradigms of gradualism and naturalism. My domestication of man explanation here is another thorn in the flesh for them. My view as herein described shows that a plethora of scientific, anatomical finds does show what Genesis says. But it only works scientifically because man has the same distinct domestication trace group of features as animals he has affected, i.e., an extensive line or complex of features that trace the development of the domesticated dog, cat, horses, sheep, and pigs. They did not evolve, but developed breedal characteristics as shown in epigenetics instead. Such variety was already built into their species' genes that were turned on or off. However, domesticated species including man have exhibited a great tendency to display varying anatomical features and differentiate significantly within a broad range of the concept/notion of "kinds." Kurt Wise has spent a lifetime looking for research findings that support the traditional 6 twenty-four hour days Young Earth Creation view. I agree with him that man is only 6,000 years old since the geneologies of Adam to Christ leave little room for doubt. YEC people such as Wise believe it could range up to 10,000 years. I don't care about dating; only the processes used to get man to where he is now and where the Bible said he went concern me. Perhaps I am as admittedly blind as Wise, but only when it comes to dating methods of strata and fossils in them. Or maybe I just don't think that's where Genesis' thrust is at all. It's all about origins and the nature of man to me; not choosing between millions or thousands of years. The Bible says "day," not years. That's why I am of the Old Earth Creationist school of belief. I believe man is young (even all evolutionists including the Darwinists admit that - relative to other species); the Earth is old. Wise and Frank Marsh developed the "baramin" or kinds view in the 1990s. That is the creationist taxonomy system I hold to. A baramin is the "kind" of Genesis ranging from a species collectively to a genus. For example, to a YEC and Wise, the lion and tiger are of one feline baramin. Not to me. The horse, donkey, and zebra comprise another. I agree with them on that. Species within the same baramin can all interbreed and produce at least infertile offspring. But somewhere in-between what we know as species and the larger genera lies a vague and almost imperceptible dividing line. It separates species in the past and those of the present that could by interbreeding still produce virile offspring (the traditional, passe' definition of same species). Breeds (races), not species, are what is important to me; they tell us much about Genesis. But classification of kinds (baramins) is still mostly a hypothetical paper exercise currently - even for the best geneticists, evolutionists, and creationists. You can't interbreed genomes on paper or in a computer simulation program (yet). Somewhere in the baramin or Biblical "kinds" lies the answer, however. So Wise and Marsh are onto something and solving problems with their taxonomy. I think I have found the key to where the Genesis cause of the origin of man is: Domesticated trace evidence. Domestication trace evidence is a very distinctive biological pattern that is only present in a particular group of creatures with a very typical experience. It is not present other animals. It is a very rare biological marker in animals, numerically speaking: a complex of features in bone structure and other anatomical features that reflect experience and the processes they developed from - both in their lifetimes and forming multi-generationally into races/breeds. Man did the same. Forensics (the study of deceased bodies) and fossil studies shed scientific light on the Genesis account by focusing on such life-experience and breed-developing traits. How does this relate to man? This is a group of skeletal traits and racial development pattern that shows than man was in a garden or like place - a palace's arborem, zoo, stockade, corral, yard, oasis, farm, or terrarium. It also shows that he lived a captured, restricted, highly controlled existence with a caretaker of comparative superior intelligence and stature, and in a long-lasting relationship. That is because it can very convincing be argued before high schoolers that humans are MOST LIKE dogs, cats, sheep, and pigs in their most recently acquired breedal traits. I have the trait list to support it and back up that as the best view!! The following goal was stated in the Genesis account: God gave man a purpose to take "dominion." He was told that he would rule over the rest of creation (which was lowered in its scope or extent in the curse after his fall). The domesticated trait package he has is formidable and enlightening in this sense. It means he was shaped in the image God had in his mind. This trait complex in domesticated animals and is a big deal - of great scientific import and Biblical significance to the origin of man! Also shedding light on man's origins - the earliest fossils of modern man are found in the Israel; almost double the age of the earliest ones found in Ethiopia. These factors collectively place his origins in what the Book of Genesis calls a garden of sorts in the Near East Crescent. The science of domestication studies now backs the Biblical view up, though no one yet has written about it as God-controlled. The anti-religious scientists I have dealt with arbitrarily substitute culture for this grand knight in only the case of modern man to avoid discussions about God doing the domestication in His image (design intent, plan, or imagination). Yet man is put at center of the focus in all other full domestication scientific cases, and not his culture. The quirkish, experimental preferences of a series of caretaker individuals are the cause, in fact! Of all things! How scientifically unprecedented and small-minded/bigoted to make an ennobled savage exception of man in stark contrast to all other fully domesticated creatures able to live in a domestic, social setting! We are almost godlike if not just God-appointed (all-pervading and all-encompassing our environs) in our dominion over this Earth, yet no domesticated breed has ever made itself before man or without man. Why should man's own origin be viewed as a scientific anomaly? Isn't science supposed to be consistent in its explanations? The answer of why a domesticator is not included in the origins of modern man is anti-religious bias. Worship of man in the form of humanism or as the noble savage is why. But such an idealistic and romanticized view of man's role to exalt/lift up himself in the past as epitomized best in Levi-Strauss' The Savage Mind is scientifically passe'! Most evolutionists say culture or living in large groups did it. I don't. I think the biology as outlined in the Book of Genesis did!! HOW UNBELIEVABLY IRONIC THAT NEW GENESIS-TRACE CREATIONISM IS BASED ON DIRECT BIOLOGICAL-TRACE EVIDENCE AND MODERN-MAN EVOLUTION IS FOUNDED PRIMARILY ON ABSTRACTIONS ABOUT CULTURE. This distinct package of garden-variety or derived/raised/grown bone and racially diverse biological traits can best be described as a designer's palette of personal selection opportunites. Species rate notoriously as mailable/flexible breed selection options and opportunities in captivity (but not in the wild), though also quite prototypical (general-type fixed or core-centered) in terms of what produces virile young. Domestication changes happen much, much faster than purported evolution of species. Domestication traces in man as well as pets and livestock taken as an interlocking complex show a potent process of intensive, intelligent selection at work: resulting in trace evidence features not found biologically in the wild. In man's case, it is not even in preceding modern-man-like forms such as Cro-Magnon man, Neanderthals, Denisovans, Homo habilis, or Homo erectus! This could be the creationist's answer to evolution in general! This I think is a revolutionary and phenomenal scientific discovery. It resets the scientific clock back to the Biblical view in Genesis on the subject of man's origins! Darwinian natural selection was not and is not at work in the creation of modern man! This is what the biological domestication evidence on man's origins as initially and too succinctly portrayed by Prof. Peter Wilson shows. He attributed the trait complex in man to sedentary or only domicile living. That is making an exception in domestication studies of man; not working from a logical, historical extension of cause as an entity as universally attributed in other domestication studies, but from outside the discipline, i.e., an anti-religious, naturalistic tradition-only based view of man. Anthropologists must always professionally place culture in the role/place of God lording over matters. So man led at least a corralled, protected existence by a benefactor of regal standing controlling his life at first. That's what the biological and genetic trace evidence of modern man shows. In these last days, God's presence has returned in the form of influence has returned of Christ and His Spirit to complete this highly selective, artificially (mentally orchestrated), kingly process of perfecting man. The listed species three paragraphs above are fossils of real animals that our children as students have to bicker over with evolutionists as being pre-human/proto-human. Certain facts from domestication studies could help us understand the scientific origins of man and the Bible a little better. For instance, modern man is the only Homo or man-like animal/form to have spread globally, reflecting considerably superior intelligence, technology, and social complexity compared to any creatures coming before him and/or looking like him. This is remarkable. No other single species has such global distribution and artificially induced biological variability - able to fill nearly any environmental niche and intellectually and technologically adapt to any condition / even the barreness outer space. I just saw another Japanese astronaut take off this morning for the International Space Station! How appropriate: from the most domesticated race of man, biologically speaking! Man's expansive distributional march across the globe was unstoppable given his physical and intellectual trait package. And the evidence show it was selected by a Domesticator. Also, modern man has agriculture (started with Cain in the Bible) and animal husbandry/pastoralism (with Able in Genesis). It precipitated Cain’s jealousy and assault. There is no need to question this. Homo species before man did not and could not achieve agriculture. They didn't have the technology, social complexity, or linguistic sophistication for it. In addition, we also have much more gracile/soft contour bone features (most typically reflected in the smooth bone transitions at the edges, currently in their most pronounced form in Asians – Asians are the most domesticated having little body hair, smooth bone edges, reduced size and skull features). We are also multi-breeds/races (smoothed bone-feature contours, diverse hair and skin colors not found in the wild or in hunting/gathering man-like species at all before Adam). This feature comes in domestication from God or man shaping forms either consciously or unconsciously in his own image (preplanning; imagination), not from society or cultural mores. Individuals did this including aesthetics and desired fumctions as goals. Racial features are not found in wild/undomesticated creatures, i.e., creatures not raised in captivity or similar circumstances. A sampling of one or two domesticated features are found in tame, human-tolerant scavenging species. Dog, cat, sheep, and pig breeds have this intense, many-featured domestication complex. They were raised under intensely controlled conditions of captivity and manipulation. Modern man evidently, scientifically-speaking according to trace features, was, too. He has many biological traits or features/traces showing he was raised the same or a very similar (not noticeably different scientifically) manner. Asians have lost most body hair just like domesticated pigs and some breeds of dogs have. It is unlikely that culture caused this in man because caretaker preferences for the most part caused it in domesticated animals, not enculturation, socialization, or social mores. They were more personal knowledge and preferences with some selective purpose or end goal in mind. So with man. Let's look at some more super-domestication trait features not found in the wild species (and best typified by man, dog, cats, sheep, and pigs). These very domesticated species display less sexual dimorphism (the feature of marked physical differences between the genders - esp. shown by the absence of heavy skeletal edges and bony protuberances) and reduced head/cranium size compared to any foregoing, wild, similar-resembling species. It’s like they’ve all been skeletally remolded from the wild into a softer, smaller, more variable, graceful form. After this, pigmy and giant breeds appear. The same was true in man. The former is in Homo florensis. The latter are in Genesis, Joshua, Genesis, and other historical accounts. The skull and brain are smaller in modern man than any preceding, similar forms, but like Einsteinwas, the latter are more intelligent and socially-technically superior. (In man, this is especially the case when comparing to the directly preceding Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon man.) Their social abilities, group size, hunting patterns and toolkits were inferior! This shows there was no direct common descent coming from the Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon man to modern man. Instead, it took a Domesticator to get involved, just as it did with other intensely domesticated animals. A domesticator is caretaker-captor, a manager and shaper of lives and generations who is in close and intense control. They much more intelligent so as to be protective of them from wild conditions and selective in their breeding partners. There is strong indications in Genesis that the first families of modern humans were managed in this way. Such captivity and micro-management is why these animals are called domesticated species. Man was raised (micro-managed) in a similar way to dogs, cats, pigs, and sheep. His biological traits reveal this. I believe the trace evidence show it was an intelligence directly at work, our Creator, our own intelligent Domesticator – just as there has always been in the development of other domesticated species. Man should be no exception. It is simply on the basis of an adore of nature and worship of godless naturalism that a super intelligence as in the case of dogs and cats, etc., is not considered .He is the first cause in everything. Here is the central scientific truth of the man-origins matter: Man was in God’s image, made under similar biological conditions that can be traced in modern dogs, sheep, and cats. Many of their refined physical traits do not resemble the crude, non-distinctive features borne by any wild species. We still bear the complex of traits that is the domestication footprint – God's handiwork stamp or fingerprint. Then, after being shaped in God's image, we proceeded in similar manner to create our own breeds from the models of wild species in our own, not God's image. The process/trace package is there to prove it! Man was raised under controlled conditions to fit some superio's authoritarian goal and own imaginative purpose, artificial and unnatural a mental notion! Natural selection was not involved or even on the mix. Superior, aesthetic, controlling images are! The bible inasmuch as says this in Genesis, too. Modern man also show a broad range in overall body size and height much larger than in the wild varying from dwarf and pygmy size (Homo foresiensis) to giants with six fingers and toes (as no other creature other than a domesticated animals has). This great size variation is due to domestication/animal husbandry and is best known to the public as occurring in the form of large and very small dog breeds. Only modern men had and have cities, too (as was mentioned throughout Genesis). City origins as well as human origins are found in the Near East. This is significant. Only modern man had the intelligence to develop highly complex and extensive social orders and the extensive agriculture, sanitation, and irrigation needed to support the development of cities with populations numbering over 20,000 people. Paleontologists, biologists, geneticists, and anthropologists considered all the above domestication traits to be racial or breed differences 30 years ago in one much larger and longer-lasting Homo species before, but now are starting to conclude the distinctive package is in a much smaller group, only in modern man, with a much shorter history. They go so far now as to say that modern man is a linguistically separate (Chomsky, Bickerman, and Phil Lieberman at Wash. U.), physically distinct, revolutionary new species, but they won’t admit that a domesticator Was at work – since it reveals a God in existence and involved. But with all other domesticated species, a Godlike species in control was the case in their development, and it is shown in their bone structure traces. Why would man be treated differently as to the first cause of his biological domestication process? Ans., Only anti-religious bigotry. Creationists now have the biological trace evidence and are consistent in their handling of explanations of it consistent with other heavily domesticated species (vs. wild species traits and distributions). . I think discovering and reporting these facts about man’s Domesticator-derived origins, i.e., shaped by the hand of God, is on par with the Star of David/Bethlehem planet-alignment reinterpretation of 40 years ago for Christianity. Similarly, it is also based on new scientific discoveries applied to and paired up with an incident or incidents in the Bible narrative or storyline. I think man growing up in the yard of a palace, dwelling, or similar (the worldwide typical niche for domesticated dogs and cats) best explains modern man's existence - at least in terms of his very distinctive structural form including bone modeling/morphology. Domestication (captivity) and forensic (grave/cemetery tissue and bone markers) actually trace such situations and environments as reflected in the bones of breeds (races) – even typical events in the life of one individual – accumulated in just in one generation. If they are a farmer or husbandman/shepherd, it is revealed in their bones through observation after death and even in fossilization. In the near future, we may find that pelvis bones and upper leg joints (in the groin/loin region) reflect in lifestyle-bone forensics that hunter/gathers sat squat with the ground as Asians tend to do to this day, and that western modern men sat on seats and stools (with the implication being covered dwellings). That would be the next place to look for these markers in bone in relation to man's origin, I think. The point of this is that science does back up the Genesis story of man’s creation and family progress. He is different and superior in many respects to any creature God put on this Earth - in both records. Science is only recently coming around to that view. (Science is slow; domestication is not - relatively speaking.) We can even tell much about current people’s lives and daily habits by just looking at their bones using a Ct scan - just as much as we can the first anatomically modern humans uncovered in the Near East. We can trace events in Genesis; the record/story/trace is also written in their bones! Genesis teaches us that a captivating God watches over and improves a family, their lives, their fortunes, their values, and their bodies! A family directed and at times controlled by God is one major theme of Genesis. Genesis is the Book about God's household; God's family - foremost. Our ministers and children need to understand what discoveries scientists are holding back/hiding from us (but appearing in their professional journals) due to the discoveries’ similarity with the Bible and traditional Christian beliefs. This withholding is most likely being unconsciously done due to a shared prejudice/group standard among the evolutionists in America. I have debated them to the tune of a million words. The spite creationists receive from them is most likely due to their competition with and hatred of religion in general. Ministers and children alike need to know why men ought to be convinced with certainty nowadays in the accuracy of the message of Genesis and the Bible in general as Christians are presenting them. That is why I have attempted to make clear in scientific terms a clarification of some of Genesis features and human family origins in this position paper. If we are to characterize Adam's instantaneously created features as they were intended to be revealed in his bones and later racial developments in Genesis, this is how it looks and worked during the time of Genesis. This is perhaps a novel Biblical interpretation of the theme of races. But races are the same as breeds, and that is an old biological story shown more or less in many domesticated creatures. Or, this could be only a restatement of someone's old family position. In Genesis, this thesis maintains that some entity (which we'll call God for now) controlled marriages, family interbreeding, subsistence, locations, migrations, and resource access. It's about as good a thesis as saying man, domiciles, or material culture caused them by blindsiding selection. There are also the convincing signs/markers for all of this. Man was a pet. All markers of artificial selection, management, and control are there. So it doesn't really matter what we characterize it generally as at this level; for what shows most is the historical and physical trace evidence of selective actions done aforetimes. It is reflected in BOTH the Genesis narrative and the biological traces. At minimum,it is indeed a modern biological fact. The physical or idealistic import of intelligence shown in selection is the only real remaining mystery. WAS IT CAUSED BY AN ENTITY OR NOT? All other artificial selection is! It is also a multidisciplinary description of the trace evidence as it relates to the science, story, and process of racial beginnings that is shown here. It that can be found in evidence abundantly in Genesis narrative form; in bones sufficiently; not just a thematic form in the Book of Genesis. Genesis is a story of racial developments. It is also a story that is shown in our formative biology. And that is a central point for Christianity. It certainly shows us a wonderful religious AND scientific lesson: You really can't get away from the family influence, connections, and ultimate control of God. Breed diversity is what we began with and have always had since we came in contact with a higher entity or power, needed for protection to cause racial diversity. God's provision and direction are in his life-management change. Let's wax poetic here if not simply a bit religious as cosmology and astrophysics does: In it and through it we were born, reared and bred. That is the premier message of Genesis. "For in him we live, and move, and have our being..." (Acts 17: 28). Our racial developments are not completely over yet, so to speak. We as a people are intended for more. The rest of the Bible and some of science teach us that. That God will make a new breed out of mankind again is foretold and well-precedented, too. And in eternal life, we can all be included in the bodily change. He beckons to us to transform us yet again: "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." 1 John 3:2 God is at the center of all of His family's changes. He is the God of all races and breeds; of all of life and times. We are on the journey of a lifetime. He is our Father and our intended destination. Genesis teaches us this lesson more than once, and it is written very well. It is written in His Word as well as inscribed on our hearts. It is even written within the message of our skin and bones.