Mysteries :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
I don't understand Collins' ideas. He says there may be something about high-speed cosmic rays from one particular stellar point source (in this case, Cygnus X-3) being responsible for evolutionary changes in humans because they're fast enough to penetrate deep into the Earth.

What is the correlation? If a cosmic ray strikes a particular part of a gene, it can damage it and that genetic 'flaw' can, if the gene is in a reproductive cell, be passed on to offspring. No argument there; I think most mainstream scientists have believed that radiation is a big if not the big factor in mutation.

And I think just about everyone agrees that 99.999 percent of these mutations are either useless or lethal; only a very few result even in the offspring being born; fewer still will have enabled that particular ofspring to better exploit the environment, which makes the mutation a "survival-prone" or "beneficial' one.

But I don't understand what it is about the particular energy source from Cygnus X-3 that could drive "good' as opposed to 'bad' mutations. If a high speed particle hits a gene, a mutation might occur. What does the energy source (or, for that mattrer, the energy level) have to do with whether or not that mutation is a positive one?



"Given any kind of real choice as children, we'd all be Christians because they have hot dogs with mustard and pickle-relish."

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
The missing link is still missing 128 Citizen Attorney 29-Nov-06 13:29
I don't believe thre's a missing link per se. 333 Duncan Kunz 29-Nov-06 16:49
Re: I don't believe thre's a missing link per se. 165 Susan Doris 29-Nov-06 20:00
Reed Richards as the Missing Link? 64 Me 30-Nov-06 00:59
Brother Dawkins 78 Duncan Kunz 30-Nov-06 16:52
Re: Brother Dawkins 86 Susan Doris 30-Nov-06 19:20
Well-said, Duncan. 81 AndyBlackard 30-Nov-06 22:12
Re: Well-said, Duncan. 95 Duncan Kunz 01-Dec-06 16:04
Re: Well-said, Duncan. 73 AndyBlackard 01-Dec-06 16:13
Re: Well-said, Duncan. 102 Citizen Attorney 02-Dec-06 03:39
Re: Well-said, Duncan. 73 Me 02-Dec-06 23:34
Re: Well-said, Duncan. 92 AndyBlackard 03-Dec-06 02:52
Re: Well-said, Duncan. 113 Susan Doris 03-Dec-06 08:19
Re: Well-said, Duncan. 81 Citizen Attorney 03-Dec-06 03:44
Re: Well-said, Duncan. 80 AndyBlackard 03-Dec-06 04:49
Brain Size and diet? 73 W_C_Sally 03-Dec-06 08:33
Re: Brain Size and diet? 77 AndyBlackard 03-Dec-06 12:37
Re: Brain Size and diet? 73 Me 03-Dec-06 23:52
Best ratio is 50 - 50, usually not the norm, but in olden days, ?? 94 W_C_Sally 13-Dec-06 06:34
Re: The missing link is still missing 49 Raja 29-Nov-06 17:55
Re: The missing link is still missing 90 Raja 29-Nov-06 18:45
Re: The missing link is still missing 76 Duncan Kunz 30-Nov-06 17:08
Re: The missing link is still missing 49 Raja 30-Nov-06 21:11
Re: The missing link is still missing, oh no, there he is! 100 Me 01-Dec-06 00:09
Re: The missing link is still missing, oh no, there he is! 72 Raja 02-Dec-06 09:26


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.