Originally posted by narrativium:
quote:Not surprising that your favorite candidate is a theocrat.
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Currently I am inclining toward Ted Cruz.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Let me try to simplify what the article said.
New Evidence Leaves Macroevolution Dangling
BY ARTHUR CHADWICK and LEONARD BRAND
As scientists who accept the literal intent of the Genesis account of origins, we have faced many challenges to our faith during our undergraduate and graduate education, and later on as professional scientists. Sometimes these challenges left us shaken, puzzled, or otherwise uncertain about what to do with some particular piece of information. Often we were driven back to our knees and to God’s Word for reassurance that we were moving in the right direction. Always we were directed to analyze more carefully the data from which the challenge had been derived.
One of the major challenges has been the question of macroevolution. The theory of macroevolution asserts that the first living cells, and all types of life, are the result of nondirected, naturalistic processes without the intervention of an outside agency (God). This theory became dominant in the nineteenth century, when scientists knew nothing about the complexity of living cells. It might have been easy to believe a cell could have arisen spontaneously when it was viewed as little more than a fluid-filled sac.
Enter DNA
As we learned more of cellular complexity, including DNA, in the twentieth century, naturalistic scientists had no choice but to believe that this amazing system of molecules that undergirds all life originated by accident. What other theory was there? Certainly they could not accept the idea of a Creator, since their naturalistic assumptions prohibited this possibility. Now in the twenty-first century, three crucial discoveries have undermined the foundation on which the evolutionary origin of life forms seemed to be resting.
Discovery 1: The Human Genome Project
The Two Percent. In 1990 the Human Genome Project began as a massively funded effort by a large contingent of scientists to determine the entire information sequence of human DNA. Scientists discovered, much to their perplexity, that only a tiny fraction (about 2 percent, about 20,000 genes) of human DNA coded for proteins (contained instructions for making a specific protein), yet it was known that nearly 100,000 different proteins were made in human cells. That discrepancy demanded an explanation, and the explanation was stunning. It turned out that those portions of DNA that coded for an amino acid sequence in a protein (exons) could be combined in various ways to make different proteins. This explained how only 2 percent of our DNA could make so many proteins.
It became evident that there would have to be another level of control to determine which exons to stitch together, in which order to make the appropriate protein. Then there would have to be an additional level of control to regulate that, and so on. This multilevel DNA management system was completely beyond anything that had previously been visualized for the complexity of the genetic system.
The Ninety-eight Percent. What was the other 98 percent of the DNA doing? Evolutionary biologists had long ago decided the DNA that was not coding directly for proteins must be “Junk DNA.” This nonfunctional DNA, they declared, was being modified by random mutations to produce new genes that, when functional, would become part of the organism’s genome. By this process, over time, an amphibian could become a reptile, a reptile could become a mammal, and a mammal could become a human. In fact, “Junk DNA” quickly became a strong argument for evolution among biologists.
But trouble was on the way. A new massive, federally funded initiative, called the ENCODE project, was launched to find out what the 98 percent of the DNA that was not coding for proteins was doing. In September 2012 the project simultaneously published a series of papers on the results of their work.¹ The consortium announced that at least 80 percent, and probably a lot more of the human DNA that had been thought of as “junk,” was functional DNA. It is not only functional, but also critically important.
Much of this 98 percent of the DNA that did not code directly for proteins was regulating the protein production system; it was part of the multifunctional control of the genetic system. Evolutionists were quick to condemn the report, in spite of the fact that more than 400 of the top molecular biologists in the world had been working on the project. But the results have held up scientifically and are now widely accepted.
The protein-coding genes, 2 percent of the DNA,² are very similar in all animals. We share 70 percent of our protein coding genes (70 percent of 2 percent) with an acorn worm, 92 percent with a mouse, and up to 96 percent with a chimpanzee. The rest of the DNA (98 percent), clearly, is what makes a human different from an acorn worm, a mouse, or a chimpanzee. This was a huge blow to the theory of evolution, but was long ago predicted by creationists, who recognized that a designer was not likely to burden the cell with junk.
Imagine you go into a well-organized machine shop and observe how it functions. It has hundreds or thousands of drawers along the walls. In each drawer are tools or parts necessary for construction of anything that a machine shop can make. One drawer might have a particular size of drill bit; other drawers may contain specific sizes of machine bolts or washers or nuts. Each drawer has something unique but essential for the construction of a product. Not all products will require the use of all drawers.
These drawers represent the protein coding genes. They are important, even essential, but they cannot produce a thing without the machinist and the blueprint. When the machinist is given a blueprint, he gathers the necessary parts, turns on the needed machines, and, with the skill borne of experience and years, creates the required product. Without the machinist and the blueprint, the machine shop could not produce anything, ever. The machinist and the blueprint represent the regulatory DNA that makes up the majority of the genome. Evolution has no evidence to explain how that genetic system originated. But that’s just the beginning of problems for naturalistic explanations; there is more.
Discovery 2: Epigenetics
Until a few years ago, biology dogma was that genes controlled everything, and that it was genes that determine who one is and what one could become. Now that has changed. For generations students of science have been indoctrinated to believe inheritance from outside of DNA (also known as Lamarckism) would be an absurdity: an example would be a giraffe acquiring a long neck because its ancestors kept reaching for higher leaves in the trees. However, beginning about two decades ago, scientists began to recognize another level of control that turned portions of DNA on or off, without changing the information in the DNA.
These epigenetic modifications, from outside of DNA, affected an animal’s anatomy, function, and even behavior.³ In 2014, scientists studying behavior in mice were able to show convincingly that when a mouse learned an aversion to a specific pleasant odor (animals were shocked when the odor was presented), this aversion could be passed on through three or four generations of offspring. The title of the editorial comments in the scientific journal Nature voices the thought that will occur to any Bible reader: “Epigenetics: The Sins of the Fathers.”4
In the example of the mice and in other epigenetic effects the hereditary outcome is not the result of any mutations or other change in the DNA. The epigenetic chemical changes are passed to future offspring as long as they are needed, and the changes may be reversed in future generations. For example, a parent’s diet, behavior, or stress level during pregnancy can affect their offspring without any DNA mutations, and these changes can be passed on to subsequent generations.
Epigenetics presents a dramatic challenge to evolution. Evolution requires all new genetic information to arise by random changes. Without a Creator, the genetic process cannot know in advance what the animal will need. But epigenetics allows the environment to induce changes that will be beneficial, without the help of natural selection. What kinds of control mechanisms and design are involved in developing a system so sophisticated that it can pass on behavioral information that persists, without a change in genes? This is a serious difficulty for evolutionary theory as it has been taught for 100 years. But there were more challenges to come for evolution.
Discovery 3: Orphan Genes
"Orphan gene” was coined to designate protein-coding regions (that is, genes) in an animal that were not found in any related animal type, or maybe not in any other species. In other words, there were no similar “ancestral genes” the orphan gene could have evolved from. It is just there, doing a task unique to that animal, like allowing a honeybee to make honey.5 It looks like the animal was designed with that gene because that specific animal needs it. Orphan genes are pervasive in all life forms and pose a critical, perhaps even fatal, obstacle to those seeking to explain the origin of life forms by the evolutionary process.
With continued research the total number of orphan genes identified and recognized has continued to increase, and at present may be as high as 10 to 30 percent of all known genes. More than 1,000 orphan genes are recognized in humans. At least some of these orphan genes are very important; one of them is responsible for the large brain in humans.6
An explanation consistent with the evidence is that the genes were part of the original creation, and their existence in the individual taxa is because of original design. Perhaps some of these orphan genes could be genes that became activated because of altered environmental conditions on the earth after the entrance of sin (epigenetics). In any case, they represent a sobering challenge to the theory of naturalistic evolution.
A Better Explanation
Evolutionary theory claims that new and different types of organisms, such as fish, reptiles, and mammals, originated without a Creator. This theory is now facing serious challenges because of the sophisticated mechanisms of molecular biology that have been unveiled during the past half century. Evolution theory remains alive because it is on artificial “life support,” in the form of philosophical commitment to naturalism, with its assumption that life did not have a Creator. Three recent discoveries, epigenetics, the ENCODE project results, and orphan genes, have further undercut the intellectual feasibility of “life support” for macroevolutionary theory. For many individuals, naturalism and macroevolution are still the only acceptable explanation for life, but this commitment is based increasingly on philosophy, not on adequate evidence. We hope to convince the adherents of evolution that there is a better and viable alternative that not only has explanatory value in science, but holds the promise of eternal life to those who accept it.
________________________________________
1. ENCODE. Thirty papers published at the same time in scientific journals, including eight articles and reports in Nature 489 (Sept. 6, 2013): 45-113. See also N. Carey, Junk DNA: A Journey Through the Dark Matter of the Genome (New York: Columbia University Press, 2015).
2. J. Cohen, “Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%,” Science 316 (June 29, 2007): 1836.
3. B. G. Dias and K. J. Ressler, “Parental Olfactory Experience Influences Behavior and Neural Structure in Subsequent Generations,”Nature Neuroscience 17 (2014): 89-96. Cf. D. Noble, “Physiology Is Rocking the Foundations of Evolutionary Biology,”Experimental Physiology 98 (2014): 1235-1243. Doi: 10.1113/expphysiol.2012.071134.
4. V. Hughes, “Epigenetics: The Sins of the Fathers,” Nature 507 (Mar. 6, 2014):22-24.
5. B. R. Herb, F. Wolschin, K. D. Hansen, M. J. Aryee, B. Langmead, R. Irizarry, G. V. Amdam, and A. P. Feinberg, “Reversible Switching Between Epigenetic States in Honeybee Behavioral Subcastes,” Nature Neuroscience 15, no. 10 (2012): 1371-1373. Cf. W. C. Jasper, T. A. Linksvayer, J. Atallah, D. Friedman, J. C. Chin, and B. R. Johnson, “Large-scale Coding Sequence Change Underlies the Evolution of Postdevelopmental Novelty in Honeybees,” Molecular Biology and Evolution 32, no. 2 (2015): 334-346.
6. M. Florio, M. Albert, E. Taverna, T. Namba, H. Brandl, E. Lewitus, and W. B. Huttner, “Human-specific Gene ARHGAP11B Promotes Basal Progenitor Amplification and Neocortex Expansion,” Science 347, no. 6229 (2015): 1465-1470.
________________________________________
Arthur Chadwick, Ph.D., is research professor in the Biology and Geology Department at Southwestern Adventist University, Texas. Leonard Brand, Ph.D., is professor of biology and paleontology at Loma Linda University, California.
quote:These two sentences contain the fundamental flaw, Ron, if you're feeling up to a bit of intellectual honesty.
Epigenetics presents a dramatic challenge to evolution. Evolution requires all new genetic information to arise by random changes.
quote:So, basically, science wins against itself.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Dude. A significant part of that article discussed research that amounted to 'they did science, and it led to some really alarming conclusions that were difficult or impossible to explain. Then they did more science, and eventually discovered that the previous theories were wrong.'
Setting aside the question of whether or not all or any of the article was correct, it's simply inaccurate to say that just because a theory is later proven false by science that there was never any scientific evidence for it.
quote:That whole paragraph is just... Is that what they think evolution is?
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:These two sentences contain the fundamental flaw, Ron, if you're feeling up to a bit of intellectual honesty.
Epigenetics presents a dramatic challenge to evolution. Evolution requires all new genetic information to arise by random changes.
quote:You're not fooling anyone here, Ben Carson.
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Rakeesh, I do not support Donald Trump's candidacy. I have been saying for a long time that the last thing we need is another president who thinks he is a king, and with Trump's massive ego, that is what we would get if he were elected!
quote:Exactly. This article in the Wall Street Journal a year or so ago basically made the same argument: the odds of the life evolving on its own and of the universe itself even existing are too low, therefore God! Uh, so what are the odds of the existence of an omnipotent being who can create whole universes? How does that not figure in to the equation?
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Of course one of the consistently funny things about this is the way Creationists will in effect go, "Too complex too complex too complex too complex stop!" when they track things back to where they claim God is found. Then they stop requiring the kinds of explanations they were just insisting were absolutely necessary or evolutions are wrong, deluded, liars, etc.
'This thing is too complex to have happened randomly, therefore it is obvious that something of infinite complexity must have been responsible. But *that* thing, although it is infinitely more complex, does not require an explanation for how it came to exist. It actually doesn't. The explanation for that second thing is actually 'it just is and always was'.
quote:Tl;Dr:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
Requesting a tl;dr version of OP, please.
quote:IT ALL MAKES SENSE!
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
quote:You're not fooling anyone here, Ben Carson.
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Rakeesh, I do not support Donald Trump's candidacy. I have been saying for a long time that the last thing we need is another president who thinks he is a king, and with Trump's massive ego, that is what we would get if he were elected!
quote:Not surprising that your favorite candidate is a theocrat.
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Currently I am inclining toward Ted Cruz.
quote:Careful, please.
Originally posted by narrativium:
quote:Not surprising that your favorite candidate is a theocrat.
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Currently I am inclining toward Ted Cruz.
quote:In a previous post, referring to President Obama, you wrote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Currently I am inclining toward Ted Cruz. He seems like a consistent conservative, and he is an excellent debater. And his wife is a Seventh-day Adventist. So if he were president, at least he would be aware of the issues important to us.
quote:Do you think this Constitutional requirement shouldn't apply to Ted Cruz?
He spent his childhood in Africa, and was schooled in Indonesia, before coming to America to attend college as a foreign student--so he has the mindset of his third-world upbringing. It was precisely to prevent this that the Constitution requires that a president be a native born and raised American.
quote:Thankfully, Sanders would not say this.
Every candidate would probably say that he believes God is ultimately the Ruler of our nation, and all nations.
quote:We can all agree, of course, that it was not to ensure that presidents were not born and raised in non-Western countries. Yes? That in fact a more serious concern was that presidents would be raised in powerful Western countries?
Besides, Canada is an advanced western country, as close to the USA as you can get....
True, the Constitution does not say WHY only a "native born citizen" was to be considered eligible to be president. But it is certainly reasonable to infer logically what the purpose of the founders was in this.
quote:Do you think you would be so understanding with his specific circumstances if he was running as a liberal atheist Democrat?
GaalDornick--Ted Cruz' parents only spent five years working in Canada, and they had been there three years when Cruz was born. So they returned to the U.S. when Cruz was two. He would not have gone to school in Canada. He spent most of his childhood and youth in the USA. Besides, Canada is an advanced western country, as close to the USA as you can get.
quote:This makes no sense. Obama went to Punahou from grades 5-12 (thanks, Wikipedia). In no conceivable universe would someone who spent the last *seven* years in an American high school *in the United States* be considered an international student, even an immigrant without US citizenship.
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
According to the majority viewpoint, even if Barack Obama were born in Kenya, he had American citizenship "natural born" through his mother. With Obama, the real issue is the fact that he went to school in Indonesia, which does not allow dual citizenship, and would have required him to renounce his U.S. citizenship to go to school in Indonesia. Perhaps this is why to this day Obama has all his educational records sealed, so no one can see that he originally attended college in America as a foreign student claiming Indonesian citizenship, and since then has not been naturalized to regain his U.S. citizenship.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:Here it is, all laid out nicely for you.
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
There is much that needs to be clarified about Obama's citizenship status. The fact remains that Obama was a student for many years in Indonesia, and Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship. There is no record that he was naturalized to regain his U.S. citizenship before enrolling in an American school. School authorities would probably have assumed he had U.S. citizenship, since his mother was a U.S. citizen. There is a history throughout Obama's life of him not being properly vetted by anyone. Most of all by the gullible dupes who voted for him.
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
The fact remains that Obama was a student for many years in Indonesia, and Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship.
quote:Obama does not fall under any of these categories, and while his mother married an Indonesian, I'm not sure he qualifies as "father" for those purposes. Even if he did, Obama spent 4 years residing in the country, and then seven more out of it before turning 18.
The Indonesian nationality law does not recognize dual citizenship except for persons under the age of 18 (single citizenship principle).
...
A foreign citizen can apply to become an Indonesian citizen with the following requirements:
-being the age of 18 years or older, or being married
-when applying, having resided in Indonesian for a minimum of 5 consecutive years or 10 non consecutive years
...
Losing Indonesian citizenship:
-a person does not reject or release another citizenship even he/she has the opportunity to do so
-staying outside Indonesian territory for 5 consecutive years, not stating the will to stay as Indonesian citizen before the 5-year period is over, and not reporting every 5 years to a representative of the Indonesian government
-a person has a valid passport or other passport-like documents from a foreign country as proof of citizenship
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_nationality_law
quote:If I had a photo of myself and the friggin' potus as kids, that would be my permanent Facebook default.
Because they talk about it all the freaking time on Facebook and God forbid they have a picture of them and the president as a kid, they sure like letting everyone know they knew him.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:This is all moot anyway. A minor cannot legally renounce their American citizenship, and any renunciation, made either by the minor citizen or on behalf of the citizen by a parent, is not legally binding. That's the law, and it was the law then.
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
quote:This makes no sense. Obama went to Punahou from grades 5-12 (thanks, Wikipedia). In no conceivable universe would someone who spent the last *seven* years in an American high school *in the United States* be considered an international student, even an immigrant without US citizenship.
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
According to the majority viewpoint, even if Barack Obama were born in Kenya, he had American citizenship "natural born" through his mother. With Obama, the real issue is the fact that he went to school in Indonesia, which does not allow dual citizenship, and would have required him to renounce his U.S. citizenship to go to school in Indonesia. Perhaps this is why to this day Obama has all his educational records sealed, so no one can see that he originally attended college in America as a foreign student claiming Indonesian citizenship, and since then has not been naturalized to regain his U.S. citizenship.
International students are people who are coming directly from other countries and call those other countries home. They specifically have a visa (F-1, J-1) that expires upon the completion of their degree. These visas are quite obnoxious, given all the fun my friends have had with the INS, and they are boring law-abiding people that the US wants. (see the next several comics here http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1033)
quote:Ron, do your homework. Even if this happened, which it did not, a minor US citizen cannot legally renounce his citizenship or lose his citizenship by any method. It is not legally possible.
There is much that needs to be clarified about Obama's citizenship status. The fact remains that Obama was a student for many years in Indonesia, and Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship. There is no record that he was naturalized to regain his U.S. citizenship before enrolling in an American school. School authorities would probably have assumed he had U.S. citizenship, since his mother was a U.S. citizen. There is a history throughout Obama's life of him not being properly vetted by anyone. Most of all by the gullible dupes who voted for him.
quote:
Ron, do your homework. Even if this happened, which it did not, a minor US citizen cannot legally renounce his citizenship or lose his citizenship by any method. It is not legally possible.
quote:
Ron, do your homework. Even if this happened, which it did not, a minor US citizen cannot legally renounce his citizenship or lose his citizenship by any method. It is not legally possible.
quote:
Ron, do your homework. Even if this happened, which it did not, a minor US citizen cannot legally renounce his citizenship or lose his citizenship by any method. It is not legally possible.
quote:
Ron, do your homework. Even if this happened, which it did not, a minor US citizen cannot legally renounce his citizenship or lose his citizenship by any method. It is not legally possible.
quote:
Ron, do your homework. Even if this happened, which it did not, a minor US citizen cannot legally renounce his citizenship or lose his citizenship by any method. It is not legally possible.
quote:NO. Not even close.
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Oh, about Ted Cruz being a theocrat. Every candidate would probably say that he believes God is ultimately the Ruler of our nation, and all nations. Trump may regard himself as being his own god, but he pays lip service to belief in the God of the Bible, too.
quote:No.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Can I be an Avenger,too?
quote:http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Rei-Kai/media/juggernaut_hate.jpg.html
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Hm. I wouldn't say either works (although Wolverine's closest. I'd be inclined to give Wolverine to Ron, though, since he is routinely destroyed but keeps coming back.)
quote:Was that before or after Gandalf led the Enterprise to Gryffindor?
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
Storm is my favorite Avenger. It's too bad they killed her off in The Avengers: Days of Future Past.
quote:This earned a
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
Storm is my favorite Avenger. It's too bad they killed her off in The Avengers: Days of Future Past.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
quote:It is, except that Juggernaut has never actually been an Avenger, unlike almost every other character in the Marvel universe.
i mean think about it its perfect
quote:Well I do have the right hair as long as it isn't mohawk/punk phase Storm.
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:No.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Can I be an Avenger,too?
Oh ok, you get to be Storm.
quote:Yes she was. But as soon as anybody with powerlevel > or = to The Wasp showed up, they should have gotten an invite.
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
Wasn't the Wasp a core member?
Also, Google says she was.
quote:The bottom ten or so...for the rest go to...
84 Avengers Members Ranked From Worst To Best
Some of the greatest superheroes of all time have heeded the call of “Avengers Assemble!” Also, a lot of randos.
84. Dr. Druid
Dr. Druid
Marvel
So how do you get to be the worst Avenger? Dr. Druid — Dr. Anthony Ludgate Druid — was a psychiatrist (an occupation largely centered around sitting and talking), who got trained by an ancient mystic to be the backup sorcerer if anything happened to the more popular Doctor Strange. Besides being a literal superhero understudy, he also got mind-controlled by a villain named "Terminatrix," left the team in disgrace, joined another team, got mind-controlled again, faked his own death, betrayed at least one more team, and then bravely got killed for real.
83. Jack of Hearts
Jack of Hearts
Marvel
Jack of Hearts is a half-alien whose scientist father exposed him to experimental "zero fluid," giving him the power to shoot energy blasts. He chose a playing-card-themed identity for unclear reasons and hung out in space for a while, before joining the Avengers during an emergency hiring crisis, and eventually blew himself up in space — along with a child murderer he grabbed on the way. Classic super heroics.
82. Triathlon
Triathlon
Marvel
This dude is a disgraced Olypmic athlete who got his powers from a weird cult that subsequently pushed the Avengers to bring him on as a diversity hire as part of a secret plot to infiltrate the team. Very questionable. He later becomes the 3-D Man, maybe because he didn't feel dorky enough.
81. Justice
Justice
Marvel
Justice, aka Vance Astrovik, is about as generic as superheroes get. He's like some off-brand toy in a dollar store, and while he's not particularly offensive, he is depressingly bland.
80. The Forgotten One
The Forgotten One
Marvel
Rule of thumb when choosing your superhero name — don't make the joke that easy for future compilers of definitive rankings. The Forgotten One is Gilgamesh — you know, from the epic poem! From high school! Marvel's Gilgamesh is from Jack Kirby's race of Eternals, early godlike heroes created by aliens during prehistory. Gilgamesh joined the Avengers during another low-membership era, wore a bull's head over his regular head, and was eventually killed by a villain named "Neut."
79. Sersi
Sersi
Marvel
Sersi is another Eternal, so she's older than dirt, and palled around with the Avengers for a while before Captain America extended an official membership offer. Also, they already knew each other from when Cap traveled back to Ancient Mesopotamia. She was the inspiration for the character of the same name in Homer's Odyssey (older than dirt) and she can fly, manipulate minds, manipulate matter, and — sure, why not — is immortal.
78. Blue Marvel
Blue Marvel
Marvel
We had to look this guy up. Blue Marvel debuted in 2008 as one of Marvel's occasional Superman analogs (see The Sentry higher on the list — but not that much higher). He seems like a pretty cool guy; a Korean War veteran (older superheroes are pretty rare!) who became a living antimatter reactor, got Superman-ish powers, hung out with JFK, fought racial injustice, and eventually teamed up with Luke Cage's Mighty Avengers team. So, at least now we know who he is — and so do you!
77. White Tiger
White Tiger
Marvel
Ava Ayala is the fifth hero to don the name and costume of White Tiger, an originally male hero from the 1970s, and a title passed on to both male and female characters — although notably always nonwhite. The current White Tiger derives increased strength and agility from magical tiger amulets she inherited from her brother, the original White Tiger. She's also a pretty big character on the Ultimate Spider-Man cartoon.
76. The Original Human Torch
The Original Human Torch
Marvel
This isn't Johnny Storm, the famous Human Torch from the Fantastic Four. Oh, no. This is the original android Human Torch who debuted in 1939 and was a member of the Invaders with Captain America and Namor in World War II. This is the Human Torch that no one really cares about, and has "human" in his name despite being a robot.