More Bob Jones "Biology for Christian Schools" Howlers

A couple of weeks ago, I posted two ridiculous quotes that are found in the Bob Jones textbook that's involved in the California Creationism lawsuit. I'm still wading through these texts and Behe's report explaining why it's really a very good book for high school students to use to learn biology. It's a slow process, and a painful one, but I've found another couple of outstanding quotes to share with you.

This time, I'm including three different types of quote. There are a couple where the authors say things have absolutely nothing to do with science of any kind (and are totally out to lunch even by the standards of a lot of religious people I know). There's one where the book takes a brief detour into right-wingnuttery. I've also got one quote that I'm including as a special treat for those of you who might still want to claim that the book's fine if you just overlook the insane religious stuff - an example of a case where the authors manage to mangle a very basic concept from genetics.

We'll start with the insane, and move from there to the political, then conclude with the merely wrong.

On page 162 we find this:

Some babies die very soon after birth as a result of genetic disorders. It appears that God designed into the genetic mechanism of humans (and most organisms) a genetic screen that eliminates many greatly deformed individuals, preventing major genetic disorders from continuing.

The authors do not explain why God sometimes does this near birth, and at other times (as in cystic fibrosis) over a period of many painful years.

On page 201, "Thought Question" 3 reads:

Compile a list of modern beliefs, practices, or activities that reflect the philosophy of evolution rather than a biblical philosophy.

The answer is found in the Teacher's Edition:

(1) Communism denies the existence of God. (2) Advances in technology will solve all of man's physical and social problems. (3) The ecumenical movement endorses humanism as the world religion. (4) Environmental control is overemphasized, and man's God-given command to exercise dominion is deemphasized.

Moving from the indoctrination in extremist religious beliefs to the political wingnuttery, we find this on page 615:

The level of carbon dioxide (CO2) is normally kept in check by green plants, which utilize it for photosynthesis. The combustion of fossil fuels like coal and petroleum also releases large amounts of CO2, which is known to be increasing in the atmosphere. The earth's temperature is kept warm enough to encourage abundant life as a result of the insulating effect of a layer of CO2 and other gasses. These gases allow sunlight to pass through but also trap the radiation that bounces off the earth, keeping it from returning to space. This is known as the greenhouse effect. Some scientists have analyzed long-term climate data and have noted a slight increase in the earth's temperature over the past century. While the data is far from conclusive, some blame CO2 and other "greenhouse gasses" for the increase. They blame this perceived global warming on car engines, electric power plants, and other major sources of CO2 emissions.

On the same page of the Teacher's Edition, the authors note:

An increase in CO2 has been positively linked to great increases in plant productivity (since it is one of the possible limiting factors for photosynthesis). We may be limiting our ability to produce higher levels of food by limiting the artificial creation of CO2.

To be clear, then, the authors point out that the levels of carbon dioxide are increasing, and claim that limiting the increase might be bad because carbon dioxide is a potential limiting resource for plants. Anyone with the critical thinking skills of a turnip can spot the small issue with that (if it's an actual limiting factor, the levels wouldn't be increasing). Unfortunately, "turnip" seems to be the best description of the level of critical thinking encouraged in the Christian madrassas that use these books.

We've covered the religious fanaticism and the wingnuttery. It's time to move on to the merely wrong. On page 141, we find this:

Not all genetic traits are exhibited as purely dominant or recessive. Many alleles express what is termed incomplete dominance. Incomplete dominance occurs when two or more alleles are expressed, resulting in a phenotype that is intermediate, or a blending, of the two traits. Flower color in snapdragons and other common garden flowers demonstrates this condition. When homozygous red and homozygous white snapdragons are crossed, all of the heterozygous offspring are pink.

Why? In snapdragons neither red nor white is completely dominant; therefore, in a heterozygous flower both alleles express themselves, resulting in a pink color. ..

In incomplete dominance, only one allele is expressed. The pink color of a snapdragon is not the result of one allele making a red color and one allele making a white color. It's the result of one allele that makes a red color, but in different amounts depending on how many copies of the allele are present. If there are two copies, a lot of red is made and the plant looks red. If there's one copy, then not as much red is produced, and the plant looks pink. The confusion that results from this flawed explanation would not be terribly bad, were it not for the fact that the book goes on to compound the error on the next page, when they discuss codominance:

Codominance occurs when two alleles for a gene are both expressed in a heterozygous offspring. This may sound the same as incomplete dominance, but there is a distinct difference. In incomplete dominance, there is a blending of the characteristics in the heterozygous offspring - red + white = pink. In codominance, both alleles are expressed with no blending. For example, hair color in many mammals is a codominant characteristic. If a horse that is homozygous for red hair is crossed with one homozygous for white, a color pattern termed roan - white hairs intermingled with red hairs - is produced...

To begin with, had they defined "incomplete dominance" correctly, it would not sound the same as the definition for codominance. They compound the confusion by bringing "blending" into the picture. It's possible for codominance to result in intermediate appearances. It also makes it harder for them to explain why the A and B blood groups are codominant instead of incompletely dominant, when they cover that a couple of pages down the line.

That concludes our lineup for the moment. Comment to your hearts' content.

78 responses so far

  • raven says:

    Compile a list of modern beliefs, practices, or activities that reflect the philosophy of evolution rather than a biblical philosophy.
    The answer is found in the Teacher's Edition:
    (1) Communism denies the existence of God. (2) Advances in technology will solve all of man's physical and social problems. (3) The ecumenical movement endorses humanism as the world religion. (4) Environmental control is overemphasized, and man's God-given command to exercise dominion is deemphasized.
    These are simply lies.
    1. Communism denies the existence of God. No, the Marxist-Leninist formulation of communism denies the existence of god. There are many forms of communism, social-economic theories that are neutral on religion. Many older human societies were communalistic, i.e native American, ancient hunter gathers. In any event, evolution has nothing to do with politics or communism. Conflating the two is just another lie. Darwin developed his theory in a capitalistic society while Russian communism was quite hostile to it and being a Darwinian evolutionist could and did get you killed.
    2.-3.-.4 Ecumenical movements, advances in technology as panaceas, and environmentalism have nothing to do with evolution. Just more lies.
    Typical death cult lies. As usual they have tossed a few commandments out, the ones against killing and lying and are down to 8. A cult that produces such blatant lies is IMO, just evil.
    That Behe defends these guys, indicates that he needs an extra $20,000 bucks bad enough to prostitute himself out. Or he is really dumb.

  • Joshua Zelinsky says:

    Is someone in contact with the university lawyers and experts? It would be a shame to do all this research and then not get it used in the lawsuit.

  • LarryEdward says:

    Mike, I have to disagree with your statement that if CO2 were limiting for photosynthesis, then an increase in CO2 levels could not occur. An input to a reaction is limiting if raising the concentration increases the rate of consumption (it is in excess if the rate stays the same). But if this increase is less than the increase from an external supply (fossil fuel burning), then the concentration will continue to increase.

  • Paul Burnett says:

    "Communism denies the existence of God." Some early Christians were communists:

  • I'm fascinated by your intellect and study material.
    I am wondering if you might be able to help me with some problems that I am having.
    My webpage is the result of study witin 2 organizations over 20 years (a lifetime, it seems).
    I learned more about what I was reading during a moment of insight. I am now trying to communicate what I learned because I think that everyone would appreciate hearing what I found within the literature. After all, the world is often appreciative of Darwin's thinking.
    How do I breakthrough publicly into a candid revelation of the material I've been studying? It is unimportant to me whether or you agree with it or not, only that you hear it.
    Rather than pitting science and religion at odds, it could cause scientists to help and better manage the difficulties that those who are drawn to religion encounter. After all, if there is a girasas kingdom and they are slowly and rather quietly invading the human kingdom, wouldn't you like to know? I predict that there will be many difficulties and in that sense I am thankful that lines of communication have been opened (even though often disdainful) so that a discourse can continue between those who need help and those who are willing and able to help.
    I readily admit that it is the religious mind that needs grounding, tempering, and guiding. I am by no means a spokesperson for this large body of individuals, but would like to ask help for them all the same. Please understand, oftentimes they did not ask for the state that they are in. How could a mere human be responsible for the choice that the girasas makes in selecting a host? We need assistance especially because as the condition progresses, there may be human traits and abilities that we lose. Granted other abilities (girasas-ones) may be gained and added to our makeup, but it doesn't help us to account for the loss that we feel when we are no longer able to communicate or perform as other humans do.
    One of my main purposes in communicating the danger that I find people in, is so that there will be greater understanding between two kingdoms and that those human particularly affected by the descent of the higher kingdom will be studied and their requests will be heard.
    Personally, my biggest request is that my work receive attention by those who publish. Second, if there are funds, I would like to provide places of worship for those who need to share the energy that they are receiving from a higher kingdom as sort of some plan of theirs to eventually include all human beings in their ascent.
    Do you know of any reward for my work?
    Thank you,
    Brenda Tucker

  • tinyfrog says:

    I while back, I went and looked up a kid's magazine (intended as teaching material) that was used in my Christian school. You can find a lot of right-wing conservative wing-nuttery in the copy that I looked at, too. Here's a little excerpt and a link to my post:
    http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2007/07/20/its-gods-world/

    French Tantrums
    (Are Protesting Students Hurting Their Own Future?)
    -
    After two months of rebellion in the streets, they finally did it. Disruptive labor unions and angry student mobs forced French President Jacques Chirac to give in.
    ...
    French youths have been taught to believe they have a right to a job for life - that France owes them a living. They want the government to guarantee them a paycheck. And they'll riot in the streets to protect that "right" - even if they end up with no jobs.
    They seem more interested in what others can do for them than what they can do for others.
    ...
    Nations with irresponsible governments and irresponsible people are weak nations. French socialism is hurting French business and driving the nation dangerously into debt. France is in trouble. Widespread lawlessness and foolish labor laws are just two of many symptoms.
    France and its people have slipped far from biblical decision-making.

  • Jim Heffernan says:

    LarryEdwards is correct in his interpretation of the relationship between increasing concentrations and CO2-limitation of plant-growth. BUT...
    (1) studies documenting increased plant growth in response to CO2 (Free Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) Experiments) have almost universally shown this to be a short-term response. Within a few years, other factors (light, soil nutrients, water) become more limiting and the CO2 response disappears.
    (2) Increasing temperatures generally have a net positive effect on CO2 flux (i.e. they cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere than occurs at lower temperatures) because decomposition also increases, only more so than plant growth.
    (3) Another problem with the food argument is changing ecological stoichiometry. Plants growing at higher CO2 will generally have lower nutrient content, as tissue composition reflects the changing relative availability of resources. So we may grow a little more food for a little while, but it will be less nutritious.

  • kc says:

    Second, if there are funds, I would like to provide places of worship for those who need to share the energy that they are receiving from a higher kingdom as sort of some plan of theirs to eventually include all human beings in their ascent.
    Do you know of any reward for my work?

    I think you're on your own vis-a-vis this site. Try here: http://www.discovery.org/

  • The Discovery Institute is so filled with their own agenda. I am sure I have written to them (as I have so many others) over these 12 years with no response. My latest thrust was with a blog at myfoxla (channel 11)
    News people don't really make their own selections for news, do they? Would this become a global newstory of major importance?

  • kc says:

    Rather than pitting science and religion at odds, it could cause scientists to help and better manage the difficulties that those who are drawn to religion encounter.

    The problem is that scientists (as scientists) have difficulty "manag[ing]" the problems that those "who are drawn to religion encounter" when it comes to understanding science and the natural world. The latter tend to dismiss the scientific method, which is their prerogative, but once they take that position they shouldn't expect scientists to be able (or in many cases, willing) to help them reconcile the inconsistencies that result.

  • Part of the understanding of this theory is the use of the symbolic. For instance, we are told that we are in the fourth round (of the seven globes) on the middle globe. We are also told that the next round will be using science as the keynote similar to the way in which the fifth race uses science as the keynote. The fourth keynote is art and music. By implication, we won't be able to appreciate the fullest use of science until the next round, when science will become a major endeavor, although during this fifth race it is the most prominent of disciplines.
    My field was psychology, but I dropped out of college when I was 19, went back at 23 to night school and didn't graduate until I was 25. Psychology strives to be scientific and in my work as an appraiser, I try to be unbiased in my observations.
    It is a struggle for everyone to attain scientific standing.

  • GvlGeologist, FCD says:

    Ever wonder why fertilizer includes phosphate and nitrates? Generally, these are the limiting nutrients, not carbon dioxide. In the ocean at least, iron is also a limiting nutrient. But generally, it is my understanding that there is enough CO2 in the atmosphere to support normal photosynthesis.
    A classmate in the lab that I worked in at the University of Florida did a study where she grew plants (Soy, I think?) in greenhouses with various CO2 concentrations up to several times today's concentration. As I recall, she found no difference between growth rates.
    This was at least 10 years ago, and I certainly don't know where the research was published. If anyone has further info, I'd love to hear it.

  • Joshua Zelinsky says:

    Gvl, my impression is that CO2 alters some species' growth rates significantly but not others. For example see http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/103/24/9086 which discusses increase growth of poison ivy in a high CO2 environment. The article also gives a number of references to other species (especially various vines) that had increased growth in response to increased CO2. I don't have a reference at the moment, but if I recall correctly no such increase has been found in a variety of other species. So the result seems to be species specific. Also, keep in mind that in many of these papers, the CO2 level need to be very high before there is a significant change in plant growth levels (so there may be a more complicated relationship than a simple limiting growth factor).

  • katie says:

    Hi GvlGeologist..
    A friend of mine did something similar with spruce samplings and increased CO2 last summer. From what I hear, they tended to grow a lot taller and thinner in an increased CO2 atmosphere, but there wasn't a significant net increase in biomass. Also, apparently the water consumption went really up, which I'd imagine would be a big problem in a lot of the world...

  • raven says:

    Some babies die very soon after birth as a result of genetic disorders. It appears that God designed into the genetic mechanism of humans (and most organisms) a genetic screen that eliminates many greatly deformed individuals, preventing major genetic disorders from continuing.

    This is just .10 of the story.
    Many horrible genetic disorders only manifest themselves after individuals have reproduced. Such as huntington's chorea, ALS, early onset alzheimers, cancer predispositions, heart disease susceptibility loci and so on. They are not selected out of the population by differential reproduction.
    "a genetic screen that eliminates many greatly deformed individuals," This genetic screen designed by god doesn't exist. Children with genetic defects die because their defect is not able to function well enough for life to continue. It is simple biology, ad hoc for each such defect.
    Lesch Nyhans die from purine metabolic defects, SCIDS die from immunodeficiency, b-thals from anemia and iron overload, hemophiliacs from bleeding, sickle cell from sickle cells, etc. Ironically, modern medicine without recourse to the false god's screen theory of genetic defects can now treat many of these diseases by knowing the underlying mechanisms. Hemophiliacs are fine with recombinant factor VIII replacement etc..
    This isn't even pseudoscience. It is also bad theology. Who are these poseurs to decide what god meant or wanted? Especially since they got it wrong anyway.
    These people are simply evil. While the existence of god is controversial in some circles, IMO, the existence of evil and evil spirits is much, much stronger. Just look at Bob Jones U. Then tell me satan doesn't exist. Without laughing.
    All this would just be pathetic except they are teaching this to children. Sigh, while some would call this child abuse, the law calls it parental rights. BJU might have the excuse of ignorance at best. What is Behe's excuse for defending this nonsense? I guess he needs the money more than he needs self respect or ethics.

  • Dale Husband says:

    "To be clear, then, the authors point out that the levels of carbon dioxide are increasing, and claim that limiting the increase might be bad because carbon dioxide is a potential limiting resource for plants. Anyone with the critical thinking skills of a turnip can spot the small issue with that (if it's an actual limiting factor, the levels wouldn't be increasing)."
    Well, I'm not a turnip, so I'd like someone to clarify that matter for me. Don't plants need CO2 for photosynthesis, and therefore more CO2 would enable more photosynthesis, causing plants to grow faster and more abundantly?

  • raven says:

    Re: CO2 and plant growth. Not an expert but follow the literature loosely on this. Results seem to vary depending on the species and experimental conditions. Not too sure how relevant it is to food production anyway.
    For crops, it depends on what is rate limiting. For much of the world it is water. Think of what cropland in much of the western USA would be like without irrigation. A lot of it would be desert or arid. Same thing in much of the midwest wheat and corn belts. Mostly the year to year variation is about rain, when it falls and how much.
    No one would expect BJU to let facts get in the way of anything, no surprise here. I doubt if they are acredited in much of anything.

  • raven says:

    Don't plants need CO2 for photosynthesis, and therefore more CO2 would enable more photosynthesis, causing plants to grow faster and more abundantly?

    Your question was answered above on the basis of theory and also experiments testing the idea. Just read them and you will be even less of a turnip.
    Briefly, if plants solely depended on one input, CO2 then plant growth would be proportional to CO2. But they don't just require CO2. They require numerous miconutrients, three macronutrients (NPK, i.e fertilizer), soil, water, and sunlight. If any of the inputs are rate limiting, then increasing CO2 won't have any effect.
    There is plenty of CO2 in the air in the Sahara, Gobi, Mohave, Great Basin and other deserts. So what? Without water you get sand and rock.

  • GvlGeologist, FCD says:

    Joshua, Katie, Raven,
    Thanks for the updates. So poison ivy grows faster in higher CO2. Great. Just great.

  • Donnie B. says:

    Not only does poison ivy grow faster in high CO2 environments, it also produces relatively more urushiol, the oil that causes the allergic skin reaction.
    So not only can we sufferers expect more poison ivy, it will be more poisonous too.

  • If the conditions that I am reporting to you are true, then please be aware that people of any intelligence within the range of intelligence are affected by the descent of the girasas kingdom.
    What this kingdom does is destroy "wrongdoing" in humans. What this kingdom doesn't appear to be doing is selecting only the most intelligent of humans or the most evil. It is choosing human beings and then forcing their purification. Where this kingdom appears to be able to come and go at will, there is little predictability in the kingdom's applying the rule of "destruction of evil" regularly and without rest.
    Once the kingdom's presence is discerned by the human host, a change in constitution is mistaken to be an entire lasting change in a person's makeup due to a misunderstanding of the laws at work. People don't yet even see that there are two separate living, willing, beings at work so how would anyone come to realize that the change in themselves might be 1) momentary, 2) without second, 3) uncontrollable and 4) intermittent.
    Until we can publicly declare a life of vastly greater abilities with a separate plan than that of the humans, how can those people be expected to know why they are able to have "moments" of clarity, specialness, and grandeur without the entire "immersion" of the human under the girasas influence.
    If one is able to leave me at their chosen time and action, it could place me in an awkward position if I have come to depend upon them for their input. The could leave at a crucial point in my presentation, causing me to resort back to strictly human measures, often full of errors.
    If we can't rely upon science to keep us out of a mess, we have to do the best we can without scientific analysis.

  • mark says:

    Do you know of any reward for my work?

    Yeah--a big bowl of Sugar Pops and a padded cell. Or you could be elected to Congress.
    (from here🙂

    Hi. I've got something to tell you that might help you with the concept of prayer. I am out telling people about a theory of evolution I found written about and supported. You can visit my webpage for a fuller picture. However, the short version implies that prayer is based on some amount of human interest in joint endeavors.
    If Darwin would have made his discoveries and then very carefully tried to figure out how his "truth" could also meet a seemingly different "truth" found in religion, it might have resulted in his discovering a more compatible form of evolution, like the one that I claim to know of.
    If we have to deal with animals on a downward arc - get them totally off the earth globe for awhile and then participate in an upward arc involving the next higher kingdom of nature - which deserves a name, so I gave it one - girasas. Because this girasas is a considerable distance ahead of the human being, perhaps a distance equal to the one between the human and the dinosaur, we attempt to work out rules of engaging each other's participation. We don't know what kind of language they speak if any. They perhaps can translate the human language since they are a good deal more advanced then we are.
    What the girasas wants from us is to get the human beings off earth. They are instrumental on sending us back to the animal bodies living on the next globe in a series of 7 rounds on 7 globes. (I would prefer that the scientific mind calculate some of this if not all of it by reading religion as a start.) We are following an evolutionary path and so are they. The girasas are no longer tied to this process of evolving by races and rounds. The humans are the last of seven kingdoms that must make this kind of journey.

    California universities should not discriminate against this point of view!

  • leakyboat says:

    Communism denies the existence of God. No, the Marxist-Leninist formulation of communism denies the existence of god. There are many forms of communism, social-economic theories that are neutral on religion.
    Posted by: raven | September 29, 2007 12:36 PM

    I don't know that this is entirely accurate. I know of no direct reference to either Marx or Lenin that professed their atheism. What is clear, though, is that both men felt that a religious practice had the effect of distorting an awareness of one's material circumstances...
    Much in the same way that evangelical christianity can distort one's sense of political, social, economic, and biological place on this planet...

  • Arjuna says:

    I agree on the awesomeness of the giraffe's ass and I believe it is prudent that any human who sees the giraffe's ass descending in his direction move quickly out of the way, lest he pay the price for his sinfulness. For some reason this seems to happen most frequently to zookeepers. They must be an abomination unto the lord!
    It only makes sense that if we get all the animals off the planet we will no longer need to fear the descent of the giraffe's ass.
    We can all fantasize all we want about what plan might exist "outside" of our observable universe. It is our right as humans. To suggest that scientists, whose job it is to seek the most accurate description of this universe, have some sort of obligation to speculate on how their findings might relate to someone's religious beliefs is just silly. It is like suggesting that your plumber has an obligation to give you a thesis on the relationship of your clogged toilet to your beliefs on the sacred nature of human waste prior to unplugging it for you. The 2 fields are unrelated. There are hundreds of religious systems in existence. Would science be required to reconcile their work with all systems of religious thought? Then there are probably hundreds of thousands of people with a detailed individual fantasy such as the giraffe's ass or girasas or whatever, expounded above. Is science also required to relate their work to these fantasies. How would one propose that science do this?
    If the giraffe's ass story is helping you live a good life, then enjoy. Have a good time. Why must you try to get science, which has nothing to do with your fantasy, to agree with a story from your imagination?
    If anyone wishes to ascribe the creation of this reality to their particular imaginary being, than it would seem to serve your purpose to change the story you've made up to assert that your imaginary being created the world we see and that science describes. Trying to ask science to turn a blind eye to reality so that someone's fantasy can be supported is simply psychotic. Maybe that is why we live in such a psychotic world.

  • hoary puccoon says:

    Getting back to the textbook in question, I find it ironic that this is claimed to teach students critical thinking. What happens when a kid asks, 'if God is perfect, why does he make his creatures have mutations at all? Why don't we reproduce perfectly?'
    The teacher has either got to start questioning her/his faith, or shrug and say, 'God works in mysterious ways.' Which is a brick wall as far as critical thinking is concerned.

  • Arjuna says:

    Along the lines of the reasoning that proposes that "god" created the mechanism by which children with genetic defects would perish, I propose the following additions to the textbook:
    1) god created the the limited life of my automobile so that the auto-workers might flourish. Ah, such benevolence.
    2) god created the mechanisms through which abortion is accomplished so that unwanted babies would perish. After all, who would suffer more a genetically imperfect baby who was wanted and loved or a genetically perfect baby who was unwanted?
    The major advantage of these mental exercises is that they can be used to justify any position under any system. They are intellectually vacuous. Scientifically, what we perhaps need to understand better is why people are so prone to use them/fall for them.

  • You all seem to be beautifully balanced positive thinkers with so much love. I applaud you, but I still have to pound out the keys because I think there are huge gaps in your knowledge of this theory (especially if all you have heard is what I have written here).
    The animals and plants that we see around us are "operated" by a third group of beings that we at some point need to discuss and ponder. That group of beings is termed "angelic kingdoms." It is possible that when the evolving animals are ascended off the earth by humans, that all of the angels which accompany the animals exit with them and that the human kingdom has a group of angels which occupy the forms that we consider necessary (or that nature considers essential) for our lifestyles. The angels are not evolving. The angels "grow" in the opposite direction to evolving kingdoms.
    The angelic kingdoms are occupied with a reverse in direction to evolution. Therefore, it would help to understand that when a form is "improved" it is antagonistic to the life that is in that form currently. The only solution is that whereas a girasas kingdom is descending into earth life so are their accompanying angels and so these angels may be able to produce a form that is a so called improvement over the ones we currently have for plants and animals and for our human use of them.
    Angelic kingdoms may be able to pass from one evolving kingdom's domain into anothers. We may be able to choose which angels we are prepared to transfer to the animals the next time we meet them (on our next descent). We may also have some bargaining power in the number and types of angels that we are willing to receive from the girasas that will join our "circle of friends."
    I wanted to speak further about the way in which one race "develops" into another race. (Please refer to THE SECRET DOCTRINE for further information) Just because the fifth race shista or Adam was buried after the 3rd round for us to "reignite" during this 4th round, does not mean that the sixth race will also have a shista at some time in the future uncovered as a starting point for our sixth race. It's logical that it will become available in the same manner, but we can't be sure. I'm curious to know whether it would behoove us to work and watch for a buried treasure such as a "new" human might make use of or whether we just need to work with other tools. In any event, the way that the Adam of this fifth race came into existence is a marvelous thing. That race began when the fourth race was only half over. The overlap of the fourth and fifth races was for long ages, millions of years and the overlap of the fifth and sixth races could also be for long ages.

  • April says:

    Well thanks Brenda for setting me straight. Here I was thinking that all human beings' actions (especially their blogging actions) were shaped by innate confirmation bias, whereby we gravitate towards those people/blogs/books etc. that will further our understanding of stuff we already agree with. However, having read your posts I am forced to consider a new theory that incorporates the possibility of "missionary bias", which causes people to seek out those who explicitly do not share our worldview, in order to attempt conversion. I say attempt, because this is a doomed enterprise - its prime purpose seems to be not conversion of the other per se, but rather to engender a feeling of superior futility in the missionary. "Well, those who rejected my message won't be coming to the kingdom, I'll just sit there on my cloud/magic carpet/dragon's tail and laugh, because they had the opportunity and didn't listen." This emotional matrix seems to be stronger in some individuals than others.

  • Seems like the text, regardless of its metaphysical bent, has enough errors of fact or irrelevancy to not qualify as acceptable. Curious choice, really: for all its faults, Pandas would be quite a bit more defensible, with its religious bias largely disguised.
    Though, of course, the bit about the whales (no transitional forms, Pandas says) has never been corrected and makes them look more than a bit ridiculous.

  • David Marjanović says:

    Nations with irresponsible governments and irresponsible people are weak nations. French socialism is hurting French business and driving the nation dangerously into debt.

    What BS. France has higher productivity than the USA, and the USA are incredibly deep in debt.

    Widespread lawlessness

    LOL! Guess where I live. Not in some US downtown that has South African murder rates.

  • numi says:

    Imagine the hoops one must jump through in order to come up with this creationist drivel. Imagine the brain farts that lie in the future for any of these students that find themselves in professions that rely on the science and technology that the creationists abhor.
    Since old Tom Edison said "Religion is all bunk", I think it only fair that creationists remove all light bulbs from their homes and places of business. After all, they were invented by an evil scientist. Ditto for medicines. IDjits.

  • Brian X says:

    Brenda:
    You may wish to look for some small Fortean journal to publish (if there are any...). I don't think you'll find much audience for your hypotheses anywhere else.

  • Peter says:

    For goodness's sake! Can this get much worse?
    Having read through swaths of Morris and Gish I am unsurprised by the inaccuracies. But the wingnuttery and global warming denialism is suicidal.
    Thanks for keeping us up to date.

  • david says:

    Brenda,
    You have your reward.

  • moioci says:

    Re: CO2 and plant growth. I believe it's widely accepted that there's been much deforestation over the last 150 years and that ambient CO2 levels were lower then than now. If that's true, the planet can support significantly larger plant biomass with lower [CO2], disproving the limiting concentration hypothesis. Right?

  • It is very rewarding to have people to talk to. Honest. I want you to know that I started travelling this path that I am on (are we all here?) without knowing what I know now. How many others are out there who are unsuspecting about where these choices that we are making lead us?
    There may be an emotional matrix in there somewhere. What researches can you think of who were dealing with dynamite unawares? Marie Curie?
    Even if no one thinks through their past decisions in the light of new evidence, even if no one out there is capable of rescuing "Heaven's Gate," even if people still trustingly walk a path which they do not fully understand, there are some who will HEAR WHAT I HAVE TO SAY and be forewarned that what they picture for themselves may be hindered by the presence of others who have agendas different from the ones humans adhere to.
    While I may prefer to entice scientists, it is only because they are needed. The organizations where I learned what I know, betrayed me and turned their backs on me when I needed them most. I was "new age" and now I am back to square one with a Christian church because ? Because they have enough members to stand as a unified voice or force against TOO MUCH AT ONCE from a girasas. Maybe it's better to hold back and let those experts come forward when they are needed.

  • Brenda says:

    Mike, May I really comment to my heart's content?
    I'm sure you like stories about little birds. Some people are very clever about reconciling the birdie's needs with our own. There seems to be so much work in store for animal biologists and evolution experts.
    But how about sharing a little bit of this major field of study with some needy humans? How much work would result from this new version of evolution being accepted en masse? Much of the thinking on behaviors may have to be done over again as we try to decipher "directionally" rather than with too little purpose. The study of baby bats being located by their mothers is fun and challenging, but it's over too soon. If we could get the girasas to tell us things we need to know (on the otherhand) we'd have data that would be ready to launch. Data that is not lounging and languishing, but opportune (or we could hope for such).
    I am reading EVOLUTION FOR EVERYONE by David Sloan Wilson. He has a nice approach, not thorough, but nice. I sometimes instruct another person on appraising, a trainee, and I recognize that I sometimes use generalities, waiting for the proper moment to introduce specifics.
    Do young people with limited attention to and use for genetics have to have all of the details? Is it possible to present just the information we can use and not be overwhelmed by a science textbook?
    Wouldn't someone like yourself easily be able to straighten out any misnomers passed on through the text by advanced study? While, granted, you have no possible use for the text, what "concepts" do the students receive that are in line with Christianity?
    I'm lucky to learn the term allele, to pair elements with photosynthesis, and to thank God occasionally for what He did do for us.
    The genetic screen? That's not needed. I think what we need is a girasas who may be altering our structure so that they can better make use of it. And remember. It took us millions upon millions of years to accomplish what we wanted to do with the ascent of the animals. How tedious each activity of engineering forms must have been for the 1st race humans.
    "Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater" is more to my liking. Look for bargaining chips which could help us deal more effectively with a higher kingdom. Identify and engage helpful people with natural talent in communicating with the girasas. Ask questions? Compile books. Work on understanding what's in the books. Look intently at natural circumstances as if girasas and their angels are there - making their way into material existence. Try to use analogy to help us better understand our own process of materialization through animals.
    Re-present old findings in new ways.

  • truth machine says:

    It appears that God designed into the genetic mechanism of humans (and most organisms) a genetic screen that eliminates many greatly deformed individuals, preventing major genetic disorders from continuing.
    I.e., it appears that God arranged things so that fatal conditions kill.
    Brenda: I want you to know that I started travelling this path that I am on (are we all here?) without knowing what I know now.
    No, your babbling isn't knowledge. You have no grasp of what knowledge is or how one obtains it. You are operating far outside of rational processes, which is why no one intelligent and sane pays any attention to your nonsense other than to ridicule it. If you want a reward, go do something useful like finding lost pets.

  • GuyIncognito says:

    I often wonder if the religious zealotry of people like Barbara Tucker could be considered a mental disorder? Supposedly there were at least 4 million members in Guy Ballard's "I AM" cult. I mean I know I'm not 100% rational in every decision I make, but... christ on a bike, some people are just bat-sh*t crazy?!?
    source: http://www.saintgermainfoundation.org/

  • hoary puccoon says:

    numi says, "old Tom Edison said 'Religion is all bunk.' "
    Whoa. The creos can't accept evolution because Richard Dawkins said it makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. And now, they can't accept electric lighting, because Tomas Edison was, you know, one of THEM.
    And since BOTH Mark Twain and Dave Barry were/are nonbelievers, I guess they can't have a sense of humor, either, can they?
    On second thought, I already knew that about them.

  • Leni says:

    Mike D. wrote:

    The authors do not explain why God sometimes does this near birth, and at other times (as in cystic fibrosis) over a period of many painful years.

    That was hilarious. I keep laughing about it.
    Brenda, I'm pretty sure you aren't going to find scientists interested in your hypothesis because your hypothesis doesn't make any sense. You don't seem to be aware of how far outside the realm of rational it is. And I am not at all saying this to be mean, but you sound like you might have some psychiatric problems. You should try to get help.

  • Mr_Christopher says:

    "Some babies die very soon after birth as a result of genetic disorders. It appears that God designed into the genetic mechanism of humans (and most organisms) a genetic screen that eliminates many greatly deformed individuals, preventing major genetic disorders from continuing."
    So it's God (and NOT Darwin) who's behind the eugenics movement! I shoulda known.
    Interesting how god kills off his design mistakes. What a sick bastard. What an idiot for a designer.

  • bybelknap, FCD says:

    So it's God (and NOT Darwin) who's behind the eugenics movement! I shoulda known.
    Interesting how god kills off his design mistakes. What a sick bastard. What an idiot for a designer.

    Mr_C, you evilushunists are all the same. Mutations are a result of the Fall! Eve was the root of all evil and her SIN has stained all of everything forever. And don't go trying to ask why if our Lord God is Mary Poppins Perfect he set Eve up to pluck fruit from the forbidden tree in the first place. Don't be a Nosy Rosie Mr Know-it-all. So, Cystic Fibrosis sufferers can all blame Eve for their pain and suffering. It isn't God's fault. Or something.

  • bybelknap, FCD says:

    Brenda:
    Straight up, get some help. Or become a Pastafarian. Let the FSM's noodley appendage touch you, too. At least then normal people will get the joke. And if it's true, what could be cooler than beer volcanoes in the afterlife?

  • FutureMD says:

    Brenda I say this with compassion and not in attempt to discredit you: your writings look like the beginnings of a psychological disorder.

  • Let's get a few facts.
    A book was written (by a woman) and published in 1888. She asserted that she wrote the book with the help of two (or more) adepts, i.e. masters, perfected humans. This was book was scorned and tossed out of literary and scientific circles.
    The book should be reexamined. Isn't it true that women were lesser citizens at that time?
    In any regard, her work was and still is an answer to Darwin's work. I begin reading theosophy after dropping out of college. THE SECRET DOCTRINE was an is a brilliant dissertation. I studied literature and practiced with groups of people for over 20 years. When the idea behind what I was reading took shape, I began to tell others what I had learned.
    This knowledge is not common knowledge. I found something "hidden" in THE SECRET DOCTRINE, beating all odds. Many people, theosophists themselves, say often when reading this book that they don't understand it. H.P. Blavatsky thought that someone would come in the last 1/4 of the century who would help to bring some light to humanity. I waited and watched for this person, but when that person didn't arrive for me (and when I had this new insight in 1994 after the birth of my son), I began the course that I am on, spilling my guts to scientists about the literature that they have shunned and passed over.
    One reason you perhaps do not have the same experience that a religious person has is that the girasas may not have penetrated each human at the same rate and speed. You may not have their hand on your life as someone immersed in religion does. It makes sense that a race would start with one person or a few people and that the numbers would grow. It makes sense that people who do not feel this presence disbelieve those who do feel and understand this presence and what it can mean for humanity as a whole.
    Open up your insides and let someone in to destroy what you are and replace it with themselves? Do you dare? Would you be able to live. Perhaps you would die on this type of cross between two kingdoms also.

  • When people with odd situations or symptoms present themselves to those who are scientific experts and capable of discerning and reporting anomalies, how does it benefit humanity that you want to lock them up somewhere?
    Come out into the light and be wary of what could be happening that you still may not see.

  • Tim Fuller says:

    Brenda wants to replace the old religion with this newfangled one? Am I reading this right? Some girasis thingy? Too funny.
    Begs the question? WHY???
    I'd suggest a good dose of Sam Harris.
    Enjoy.

  • Is dangerous for science advancement include religious dogmas en teaching.God dont make the Universe en seven days and Adan -Eva the Sunday.I think the best to creacionist is learn and know his approach to creation and evolution of Thelhard de Chardin,the french priest and paleantolog.Of course banned by Catholic Church.

  • I want people to be able to follow their dreams, meaning that those who object to girasas or sixth race existence, can easily remain as 5th race. All of the subraces are open to humans who want them, it seems to me. You could even be a second subrace (perhaps India) and gather information and appreciation for the half human-half animal.
    No one is taking that basic inclination that a human feels away from them with this theory. You can still be free.
    But to do away with the intellectual superiority that some people claim and feel for themselves would be a victory because our path doesn't appear to be based on intellect. Perhaps it is based on adaptation and if we could survive with the girasas living inside of us, that would be a great feat and while they are the more intelligent and loving of the two beings, we can still try to comprehend and direct. Our lives could still be fulfilling, just not with superiority as a basis for credit.

  • Mr_Christopher says:

    Brenda, you will probably have a hard time here selling your ideas. These people are all whacked out materialists. You should join forces with progressive minds, like those found within the Intelligent Design movement. Better still the ID movement has a big ideological tent, they do not discriminate against ideas, unless those ideas are rooted in materialism that is.
    The ID movement does not even require evidence and in fact, they loath scientists or other who demand that theories have evidence.
    So I'd suggest you contact the Discovery Institute, or even William Dembski at http://www.uncommondecent.com. They will greet you and your ideas with open arms.
    Best of luck!

  • I thought my own organizations would greet me, but they didn't. I thought religion would be glad to be the victor in the debate, but they didn't want me. You think others are going to find a way to promote me, when they can't even promote themselves adequately.
    No. I think that I should go where the wind blows. Numbers are growing. I found out that I had to speak to people one by one and, well, it's a long life. . . . .
    Each time I reach someone with clout, I think maybe those around that person would welcome a change. Do you think this could grow even into a U.S. Constitution change?

  • Brenda Tucker says:

    Doesn't anyone want to just post nonsense to try to win that prize?
    Got any silly stuff?

  • Brenda Tucker says:

    We could open a competition to see if someone has a better idea for a descriptive word to use in place of girasas. How many others here have ever made a word?

  • Brenda Tucker says:

    Oops I didn't read. We each only have one entry. They just do a drawing when they reach that number.

  • Rev.Enki says:

    Let's see if I have that insane quote straight... God created genetic disorders in order to get rid of people with genetic disorders. Yeah, I think that's what it actually says. That is absolutely f**king insane.
    Thank god he doesn't exist.

  • James Stein says:

    On page 162 we find this:
    Some babies die very soon after birth as a result of genetic disorders. It appears that God designed into the genetic mechanism of humans (and most organisms) a genetic screen that eliminates many greatly deformed individuals, preventing major genetic disorders from continuing.
    The authors do not explain why God sometimes does this near birth, and at other times (as in cystic fibrosis) over a period of many painful years.
    ---
    And why, then, would one pray to god for healing? Isn't that asking him to undo his great work?

  • Mr. Gunn says:

    This is why we need a sustained effort to fund elementary education in science.

  • AJ Milne says:

    Let's see if I have that insane quote straight... God created genetic disorders in order to get rid of people with genetic disorders. Yeah, I think that's what it actually says. That is absolutely f**king insane.
    It's one of them thar' holy mysteries, don'cha know.
    Oh, and honest, it makes perfect sense. See, it's the same as with all horrible, lethal conditions that kill you agnoizingly slowly. The god doesn't want for there to be skin cancer. It just came up with skin cancer so you have a reason to pray to it. You pray, you got no more cancer. It's win win! The god gets its prayer (and listen, this god, it's kinda high maintenance, gets lonely easy, you know how it is), you get no more cancer.
    Same with motor vehicle accidents. People get hit by semis purely so they can prove their faith by praying it away.
    Unless, of course, the god ignores your prayer. Which presumably means you weren't praying hard enough. Loser.
    "But," you protest, "I couldn't pray! After the motor vehicle accident, I was in a coma!"
    Ah... But you could have prayed earlier! Clearly the god ordered up the semi to crush your rib cage purely because you missed matins!
    Maybe, for that matter, if you'd seen it coming in time you coulda even got out a quick "God, save meee..." before the collision between your skull and the bumper knocked you senseless...
    Reaction time, with this maneuver, is key. Think of it as a sorta theological video game.
    What? You wasted those precious instants trying to get out of the way?! What were you thinking?! You had a whole .1 second to shriek that "Save meee..." in that time. Surely you coulda got some of it out. Mebbe your god would have taken it into account, just given you a mild coma...
    Or, possibly, your being in the hospital is part of the god's plan to show the world how beautiful is its mercy... See, all those people who hear about your plight upon the news will think: "Hey! No one I know or love has been hit by a semi recently! My god is merciful!"
    ... Also, a nurse and an orderly coincidentally meeting in your room while you're lying there drooling like a vegetable will fall in love. Isn't life beautiful? All part of the plan.
    Oh. What. You're annoyed that you're still in a coma in this scenario?
    Wimp. What are you complaining about, anyway? Soon, you will be with your maker. In heaven. Playing checkers with the holy ghost. Be glad.
    Oh. Except that we won't let your family pull the plug...
    Sorry. But euthanasia is against our religion 'round here.

  • HGTV ID on a dime says:

    Hmmm....I'm thinking Brenda might find a more friendly ear at her local neighborhood $cientology shrine.

  • SteveRichaRDSONThefourth says:

    REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEWRite wat I am trying to do is look for things that consist of what is happening with me in order to to know whhat is happening vs. through each time this happens you must deccide whetther or not its happening if u decide its not then it wont but if u decide it will then it will., so now how do u know what is the right one , first u hace to find out who is first, who was first, what is still around , then u decide whats going on like how accurate is this many transcripts allow easch of these things happen to in order to show how smart someone is or how folly someone is full of folly or full of smarts we decide this on looking at things and not leaving other things out , also it is crucial to not add data unless the data is being retrieved from a reliable soursse ,, what source is then reliable sha,ll I ask u then I shall te,ll u wat asaoursvc e is accutrrate if I do not know what source is accurat then I will start to get things to wrong however if I know what source is weite then I will get thhings witrite eitehr way I got to do what God allows me to do if I don

  • Brad says:

    Thankyou steve for you insight.

  • Josh says:

    The people who are having insest with each other, are the ones that are creating the flipper Grandkids among us in my opinion. Not God

  • Pierce R. Butler says:

    Sometime more than a quarter-century ago, I read of some experiments NASA had done with growing plants in varying atmospheric mixes.
    IIRC, they found that they got the best growth rates when they reduced the proportion of the gas produced as a waste product by plant metabolic processes. That's right: growth was maximized when about half the oxygen was removed.
    No report on whether they tested this plant-optimized air on astronauts.

  • Steve says:

    hoary puccoon wrote:
    "What happens when a kid asks, 'if God is perfect, why does he make his creatures have mutations at all? Why don't we reproduce perfectly?' The teacher has either got to start questioning her/his faith, or shrug and say, 'God works in mysterious ways.'"
    Unfortunately, YECs have an answer for this. "Mutations are a punishment for the sins of Adam." In their eyes, this solves the problem; no need to question your faith. Sad, but there it is.

  • gregwrld says:

    It seems as if in the last year or so science blogs like this one, PT and others are being inundated with posts from creos and other silly loons -yes, Brenda I mean you, too. I presume this is the result of more people having access to the internet. I kinda miss the old days, though when it was easier to learn something without having to sort through so much garbage...

  • Sarah says:

    I remember the Bob Jones "science" books...I remember there being a theory that Adam communicated with the animals telepathically in the Garden of Eden, and that scientists would attempt to breed people with lower intelligence into working classes...good ol' Bob Jones.
    I'm glad I started as a biology major, didn't stick to it, but I've never learned more than what I learned in evolutionary biology.

  • hoary puccoon says:

    Steve replies, to my question "What happens when a kid asks, 'if God is perfect, why does he make his creatures have mutations at all? Why don't we reproduce perfectly?' " with the YEC response (which, he's quoting, NOT endorsing) "mutations are a punishment for the sins of Adam."
    But, you know, that kind of makes my original point. This doesn't teach kids critical thinking. "WHY are mutations a punishment for the sins of Adam? Why would God make a little baby suffer for something somebody else did six thousand years ago?" Any kids who starts asking questions like that is eventually going to get the "God works in mysterious ways," line, which is santimonious for "sit down and shut up."
    Compare that to the responses to creationist questions on TalkOrigins, where the questioner is simply inundated with facts and logic, and practically begged to think it through. So who's really encouraging critical thinking skills?

  • I'm all for biology and science. I want them to investigate in a methodical, precise, and comprehensive manner these life forms that I think they can get access to if they try.
    While evolving animals are essential to our health, I am suggesting that there are no evolving animals on earth at this time, but that they preceded the human kingdom and traded places with the descending humans during their last 3 races and our first 3 races. (new def for race). Now what we are considering to be evolving animals are living things that have totally different plans for their futures than we so far have been able to discern.
    Scientists are suffering from the "grand illusion" that since animals were evolving in the past, they must still be evolving. If this theory is sound, animals are at the point that would be their greatest attainment during their 4th race before humans got to the earth about 300 million years ago. Maybe someone can figure out what type of body that would be. And from that point on everything that exists can be seen as the future of the animal during their last 3 rounds on earth before making human status.
    We can also watch as the girasas descend around us and how they are able to change the humans into forms that can be useful both to them now (we're kind of mystified) and to the future humans. If we can learn something from what they are showing us we can reach for it on our next journey - keep it as a goal to strive for - both body and ensouling life. We want to improve, well, they can be key to our deciding for ourselves what it is we would like to accomplish once we view the vast array of choices. There is still so much work to do as if we can't rely or trust them to make our decisions for us. We have to willingly set our course toward a stage between what they are and what we are.
    I want everyone to know I'm dumb and that their fields and knowledge can bless what I know immensely. I need people. I don't want to work out this situation alone. I don't want to face a girasas without some guiding human group on earth. I think even if I developed strange powers like the literature suggests will happen if I continue doing yoga, that I wouldn't be able to describe to others what happened because you don't know the simplest of premises behind the work I'm doing.

  • RC says:

    Does anyone have one of those little white "coats?" I think Brenda would look so fashionable in one of those. Sheesh. That anyone is even replying to this certificable psycho... It's obvious that no amount of logic can penetrate her addled mind.
    "Don't pray in my school, and I won't think in your church!"

  • When I spoke to one of the persons of authority at the "I Am" Temple or Saint Germain Foundation about my plan to communicate this theory of evolution, their response to me was very memorable.
    This person said to me that if I intended to accomplish the introduction of this new theory of evolution that I would have to first rid the earth of the sinister force. The sinister force is a term that they use frequently as something that can be removed by decrees (witin boundaries).
    So that is what I decided I would do. That doesn't seem to be too big of a project, does it? Wouldn't people be glad to have it gone?
    It's just so remarkable how Jesus Christ could pay for all of our sins with his death on the cross.
    I think when it comes time for you, for instance, to do something for the rest of the world, that you will find that people don't have the means to pay for your contribution. And then you will be able to experience the truth of how one person is able to pay the price for all of the other people.

  • Have you ever heard a theory of evolution that could even account for witchcraft within its tenants? It's amazing that here I am praying for something as the lesser being telling the greater being what to do?
    By nature, it is like the wrong giving the right commands. It certainly can explain why some people feel so low and regretably smitten.
    Likewise, this theory explains a state or condition of bliss that accompanies religion. How is it that an experience of such joy and elation so beyond what most humans experience is available to a few? Well, when we ask the girasas to manifest in our world, they bring with them their greater qualities and feelings and by right we somehow are privileged to partake of them in our lives.
    What should we ask for in our prayers? We should ask to know them, that they love us, and that they destroy all wrong on the earth without the human qualification of what wrong is because at some point wrong is beyond our ability to discern.

  • jasonmitchell says:

    FYI - story on this was front page of Monday's(Oct 8) Chicago Tribune

  • sex shop says:

    Getting back to the textbook in question, I find it ironic that this is claimed to teach students critical thinking. What happens when a kid asks, 'if God is perfect, why does he make his creatures have mutations at all? Why don't we reproduce perfectly?'
    The teacher has either got to start questioning her/his faith, or shrug and say, 'God works in mysterious ways.' Which is a brick wall as far as critical thinking is concerned.

  • Sarah says:

    Actually, their definitions for incomplete dominance and codominance are fine. Simplified, but fine. It's the exact same thing I learned in my AP Biology class a couple months ago.
    Incomplete dominance = neither allele completely expressed. They mix together. RR [red] mixed with WW [white] = RW [pink]. You can see the separate colors [red and white] in a microscope.
    Codominance = both alleles are expressed. You can see the separate colors with your naked eye.
    Seriously, those are the exact same examples we used. I'm all for nitpicking, but on a 101 level, at least, there's nothing wrong with those definitions.

  • Abie says:

    I am suggesting that there are no evolving animals on earth at this time, but that they preceded the human kingdom and traded places with the descending humans during their last 3 races and our first 3 races. (new def for race).
    I didn't read any further. Because the reaction you'll get fro

  • Ann says:

    Sarah, that doesn't really make any sense. Was your instructor actually saying that the difference between the two forms of dominance is whether you can see the expression without a microscope?? That's a totally bogus distinction.

  • andrew says:

    Sarah,
    discovered by Gregor Mendel in 1860, incomplete dominance is a heterozygous genotype that creates an intermediate phenotype. In this case, only one allele (usually the wild type) at the single locus is expressed, and the expression is doseage dependent. It must be stressed, that codominance causes EVERY cell to expresses the same phenotype in the F1 generation which is therefore UNIFORM. So there are absolutely no microscopic differences in phenotype between cells!
    In codominance, neither of two heterozygous alleles is recessive, so that each cell expresses both alleles. A common example is the ABO blood group system. Also in this case EVERY single cell expresses both phentotypes simultaneously and does not differ from others in appearence!