# Human(s) Chromosome 2 resulted from the Fusion of two Ape Chromosomes: Easily seen.



## abu afak (Jan 14, 2021)

Contrary to what you might read from some IDIOT KWEATIOIST Website...
(Like ICR/Institute for Creation Research recently posted here.)
this is a SIMPLE one and a BIGGIE.
Easy to understand/SEE.
*We have 23 pairs of Chromos, ALL GREAT Apes 24.
Their 2 a/b fused into our #2 as can be easily seen when put next to one another.*
​*Introduction*​​All great apes apart from man have 24 pairs of chromosomes. There is therefore a hypothesis that the common ancestor of all great apes had 24 pairs of chromosomes and that the fusion of two of the ancestor's chromosomes created chromosome 2 in humans. The evidence for this hypothesis is very strong.​​*The Evidence*​​Evidence for fusing of two ancestral chromosomes to create human chromosome 2 and where there has been no fusion in other Great Apes is:​​*1) The analogous chromosomes (2p and 2q) in the non-human great apes can be shown, when laid end to end, to create an identical banding structure to the human chromosome 2. (1)*​​*2) The remains of the sequence that the chromosome has on its ends (the telomere) is found in the middle of human chromosome 2 where the ancestral chromosomes fused. (2)*​​3) the detail of this region (pre-telomeric sequence, telomeric sequence, reversed telomeric sequence, pre-telomeric sequence) is exactly what we would expect from a fusion. (3)[/B]​​*4) this telomeric region is Exactly where one would expect to find it if a fusion had occurred in the middle of human chromosome 2.*​​*5) the centromere of human chromosome 2 Lines up with the chimp chromosome 2p chromosomal centromere.*​​*6) At the place where we would expect it on the human chromosome we find the Remnants of the chimp 2q centromere (4).*​​*Not only is this Strong evidence for a fusion event, but it is also strong evidence for Common ancestry; in fact, it is hard to explain by any other mechanism.*​​​


​*Explanations*​​*Telomere evidence*​​The telomere is a sequence of DNA at the end of the chromosome. The function of the telomere is to protect the ends of the chromosomal DNA strands during replication. The ends of the strands are very vulnerable to mutations or deletions. Telomeres consist of, or contain long stretches of simple DNA sequences that are repeated many times. The telomeres tend to be shortened over time and are restored by an enzyme called telomerase which lengthens the sequence. If the telomere becomes too short in somatic cells, errors in duplication can occur leading to cancers.​​The telomere sequence is highly conserved in different groups of organisms. For example vertebrates have the sequence TTAGGG repeated many times. (In primates the sequence is repeated 500 to 3500 times). Adjacent to the telomere, are regions with other DNA repeats (known as Telomere Associated Repeats) but these regions, rather than being highly conserved, are highly polymorphic - that is they have many variations even within the same species. Nevertheless the pretelomeric region can be easily recognised in closely related species. Occasionally genes are found in the pretelomeric region.​​Now these telomeric and pretelomeric sequences are normally found only on chromosome ends. However, in human chromosome 2, there is strong evidence for chromosome fusing in that there is a pretelomeric sequence, a telomeric sequence, an inverted telomeric sequence and an inverted pretelomeric sequence in that order in the middle of the chromosome.​​​*Centromere evidence*​​Turning now to the centromere. The process of somatic cell division (mitosis) is as follows (this is a very brief and simplified summary to explain the centromere):​[.............]​​[.............]​
​
​



__





						Chromosome fusion
					

Demonstration that human chromosome 2 is the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes



					www.evolutionpages.com


----------



## abu afak (Jan 14, 2021)

`







			Robertsonian fusion in Homo
		


Robertsonian fusion of ape chromosomes in Homo

    Humans have 2n=46 chromosomes, as compared with 2n=48 in all of our other closest relatives, the Great Apes (Chimpanzee, Gorillas, and Orangutans). Whereas Chromosome 2 is a single, large sub-metacentric in humans, the other apes have two smaller, acrocentric chromosomes. Comparison of banding patterns allows these chromosomes to be aligned, and shows that during human evolution the ancestral chromosomes have undergone an end-to-end Robertsonian fusion to form a single larger chromosome. The gene contents of chimp and human chromosomes are substantially identical [note that the bands are conserved]. Molecular inspection of the area in the human *2q1.2~1.4* region shows telomere-like DNA sequences from the chimp chromosomes, as predicted.



`


----------



## abu afak (Jan 14, 2021)

Chromosomal differences between _Homo_ and Great Apes

Humans have a characteristic diploid chromosome number of *2N=46* whereas the other Great Apes (orangutans, gorillas, and chimps) are all *2N=48*. The large metacentric Chromosome 2 of _Homo_ appears to be the result of a fusion between two smaller telocentric chromosomes found in the other Great Apes. In the figure above, *Q-banding patterns* in the chimp acrocentrics are homologous to those of the *2p* (short) and *2q* (long) arms of human Chromosome 2: the alignments are indicated. As well, ape *telomeres* (the ends of chromosomes) characteristically consist of tandem repeats of the motif *5'-TTAGGG-3'.* Such sequences are also present In the human *centromere* (the middle of the chromosome), but at one point the order changes abruptly to *5'-CCCTAA-3'*, the reverse complement of the standard pattern, as predicted by a telomere to telomere fusion of ancestral ape-like chromosomes.



			Robertsonian fusion in Homo
		



``


----------



## abu afak (Jan 14, 2021)

Youtube
Two minute explanation.



`


----------



## Chuz Life (Jan 14, 2021)

Very interesting.

The science that proves a child's life begins at and by the moment of conception can not possibly be that far behind. 

Huh.


----------



## Turtlesoup (Jan 14, 2021)

Chuz Life said:


> Very interesting.
> 
> The science that proves a child's life begins at and by the moment of conception can not possibly be that far behind.
> 
> Huh.


A childs life?   Don't you mean zygote?


----------



## Chuz Life (Jan 14, 2021)

Turtlesoup said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Very interesting.
> ...



Any creature (especially mammals) in the zygote stage of their life, growth and development are what they are (as members each of their own species.) "Zygote" is a stage of development. A "zygote" is not one creature that only later morphs into another.

Science.

Learn it. Embrace it.

With reference to the OP. . .  What (if not conception) was the moment that the first HUMAN genetic sequence was actually, scientifically, biologically, first created and set into motion?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jan 14, 2021)

What about Neanderthal, Denisovan, Australopithecus......, I am skeptical because from just one pairing is a truckload of differences, not likely to be that many from original pair.






LINK


----------



## Turtlesoup (Jan 14, 2021)

Chuz Life said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


No hun...in the beginning of fertilization---what may or may not become a fetus then baby is nothing more than a collection of cells with no heart, no brain, and no human shape.    It doesn't think or feel.  It has no concept of its existence...it simply has the potential to become which btw is the case with the egg that is released and dies off during a womans monthly--just a potential that isn't there yet or often ever.


----------



## Chuz Life (Jan 14, 2021)

Turtlesoup said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Turtlesoup said:
> ...



Do human beings reproduce by way of "metamorphosis?"

Yes or no?

Here's a clue. The correct answer starts with the letter "N."


----------



## abu afak (Jan 14, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> What about Neanderthal, Denisovan, Australopithecus......, I am skeptical because from just one pairing is a truckload of differences, not likely to be that many from original pair.
> 
> 
> View attachment 443084
> ...


Huh?
You posted a chart of 'Millions of years,' NOT DNA,' or (one or two) Chromosomes.
WTF!
Go back to *The-climate-can't-be-getting-warmer-because-it's-colder-in-Colrado today* section goofy.

BTW what happened to your IQ leader/warming denier skookerAssBill?
Did his head finally detach the last 20%?
Did he think COVID was a hoax too?


`


----------



## Kilroy2 (Jan 14, 2021)

Is this another thing that points to evolution and to be denied by those who believe in god.


----------



## Chuz Life (Jan 14, 2021)

Kilroy2 said:


> Is this another thing that points to evolution and to be denied by those who believe in god.



Either that, or it's an attempt to understand and explain how "God" did it. LOL


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jan 15, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > What about Neanderthal, Denisovan, Australopithecus......, I am skeptical because from just one pairing is a truckload of differences, not likely to be that many from original pair.
> ...



Translation: I can't answer a simple question, therefore i reply like the asshole I am.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 30, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> What about Neanderthal, Denisovan, Australopithecus......, I am skeptical because from just one pairing is a truckload of differences, not likely to be that many from original pair.
> 
> 
> View attachment 443084
> ...


What about them? The genetic differences among them appear on may chromosomes, not just one. Their similarities are overwhelming. And the chromosome fusion happened before the first of any of those species.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 30, 2021)

Chuz Life said:


> Either that, or it's an attempt to understand and explain how "God" did it.


You can look at as exactly that, if you so choose. It changes nothing and has no bearing on any science anywhere.


----------



## Stryder50 (Feb 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > What about Neanderthal, Denisovan, Australopithecus......, I am skeptical because from just one pairing is a truckload of differences, not likely to be that many from original pair.
> ...


Actually, homo sapiens appears after all the rest per that chart and so far we only know for sure the fusion exists in we humans~homo sapiens.  Not enough soft tissue of the other 'homos' has survived to provide a complete enough genome of their full DNA mix.*

So one major question would be how did this fusion happen?

And another related one might be why?**

* A few years back Pablo Savante of the Max Plank Institute started to claim that homo sapiens had breed with Neanderthals but when I inquired via email if they had the full genome for Neanderthal and he would not admit they did, implying they did not.  After a few attempts of emails exchange, he stopped responding.

Problem is that without the full genome, establishing if neanderthals are of the 24 or 23 chromosome  pattern (sequence) it becomes difficult to prove there was crossbreeding with offspring and DNA exchange.  With about 98-99% common DNA of chimps compared to humans there are shared DNA traits but the 24 versus 23 means the two species can not cross breed.

** See next post.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 14, 2021)

Stryder50 said:


> So one major question would be how did this fusion happen?
> 
> And related might be why?


Both excellent questions. As of now, we only know for sure that it DID happen. Though we think Neanderthals and Denisovans had only 23 pairs.


----------



## Stryder50 (Feb 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Stryder50 said:
> 
> 
> > So one major question would be how did this fusion happen?
> ...


True, we only "know for sure" with regards to we humans.  As I pointed out, so far no complete map of the genome (total chromosome and genes within same) for the Neanderthals or Denisovans to PROVE they were the 23 pattern and not still carrying the 24 pattern common to chimps, gorillas, and orangs.

One interesting item that comes from this 23 pattern in humans pops out of the Old Testament and Genesis, chapter 6, verses 1-4, EXCERPT:
*Genesis Chapter 6*

1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also [is] flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown.
...





						Genesis 6:1 - 6:22
					

Genesis 6:1 - 6:22 from the King James Bible Online




					www.kingjamesbibleonline.org
				




Of course KGV is a bit altered in some words from the original Hebrew, but the essence remains the same.

In order for those "sons of the Gods"(it's a plural in the original Hebrew) to mate with human females and have offspring the DNA of those 'sons of the gawds' would also have to be of the same 23 chromosome pattern.

Did the "sons of the Gawds" alter their DNA to make this possible or did they alter (intervene with evolution) the DNA of a pre-human species to make we homo-sapiens ??? !!!

An additional implication here is that of the @20 amino acids, four of which are used to make our DNA (and that of all life on this planet) there may be some form of "natural law" that makes DNA (and RNA) the same for carbon based life on other worlds/planets such as where those "sons of the gods" came from.

Hmmmm ??? !!!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 14, 2021)

Stryder50 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Stryder50 said:
> ...


I don't see any place for this goofy religious numerology in the science section.


----------



## Stryder50 (Feb 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Stryder50 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


If you have an alternate explanation as to the "how" and/or "why", please present.

As for "goofy religious numerology", my bad for omitting to say "If one accepts the Old Testament/Bible as true and accurate ..." then the Genesis account becomes of interest.  Understand that until the Hebrews/Jews spent time in captivity in Babylon, what we know of as the 'Old Testament' was largely oral tradition and not as defined as it would be after their time in Mesopotamia.  Much of Genesis' first books on creation are lifted from the Sumerian-Akkadian-Babylonian records and culture they were exposed to.  And it was after leaving that "bondage" that much of the Torah~Old Testament (first Books) were place in writing.

The Sumerians were one of the first civilizations (post the last Ice Age) and also one of the first to keep written records.  So first question would be how much were their earliest images and writings "truth" as they knew it versus some form of fiction~imagination~'myth'.  The Sumerians have extensive records regarding the "Anunnaki" ~ "Those Whom from Heaven to Earth Came" and these accounts also relate to how such Beings created humans (or more correctly, intervened in Nature's evolutionary process.)

If we assume that imagination needs some form of experience and/or fact to build upon, then one has to wonder what theirs was as well as how they might have tried to express such in the limits of an early and limited language.  Consider that if there were no flying creatures, insects and birds, would humans have ever aspired to also fly? Note how the earliest devices had wings patterned much the same as those of birds as a clue regards how much the experience of seeing something fly would lead to emulation.

This all rolls back to the classic intellectual divide between religion and science, or creation and evolution.  One relies on "Gawd made it happen" - don't ask for details or how, other than a "snap of his/her/it's fingers"; the other relies on "Nature made it happen" - don't ask how or details, since it is, "it must of been done by Nature". 

Both these polarities run on Faith more than some would like to admit.

It fits into the science section the same way many other aspects of exobiology would.  

Recall that a bit over a century ago "science" denied the possibility of 'continents moving, drifting', now we accept plate tectonics.  Science is often a matter of change to fit new data and perspectives.


----------



## LittleNipper (Feb 14, 2021)

Turtlesoup said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Very interesting.
> ...


Are you a Zygote?


----------



## LittleNipper (Feb 14, 2021)

Did we evolve from a banana? How Genetically Related Are We to Bananas? | Breakthroughs


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 14, 2021)

Stryder50 said:


> If you have an alternate explanation as to the "how" and/or "why", please present.


I have only what scientists have taught us. I have no divine insight otherwise. And neither do you.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 14, 2021)

LittleNipper said:


> Did we evolve from a banana? How Genetically Related Are We to Bananas? | Breakthroughs


So, get this. Have you heard of the Coelecanth? You know...the ancient marine species of fish that we thought went extinct 66 million years ago, but which turned up again recently?

Have you heard of lungfish, as well?

Did you know all of these coelecanth and lungfish species are more closely related to humans than they are to any fish you see at a pet store or in the ocean?

Cool, don't you think? I mean that honestly.


----------



## Anomalism (Feb 14, 2021)

LittleNipper said:


> Did we evolve from a banana?



_You_ might have.


----------



## Chuz Life (Feb 14, 2021)

LittleNipper said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...



I have that tard on ignore but I would enjoy seeing them trying to explain how or why a CHILD in the zygote stage of their development is not a child WHEN they are in the zygote stage of THEIR development.

Some tardz just cant accept the fact that human beings do not MORPH out of something that is less than a human being / child and suddenly turn into one.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 14, 2021)

Stryder50 said:


> ...The Sumerians were one of the first civilizations (post the last Ice Age) and also one of the first to keep written records.  So first question would be how much were their earliest images and writings "truth" as they knew it versus some form of fiction~imagination~'myth'.  The Sumerians have extensive records regarding the "Anunnaki" ~ "Those Whom from Heaven to Earth Came" and these accounts also relate to how such Beings created humans (or more correctly, intervened in Nature's evolutionary process.)


The Sumerians don't have "extensive records" they have Myths like other early civilizations
Just one of your many attempts/Spins at intellectual equivalence.
......


> This all rolls back to the classic intellectual divide between religion and science, or creation and evolution.  *One relies on "Gawd made it happen" - don't ask for details or how, other than a "snap of his/her/it's fingers"; the other relies on "Nature made it happen" - don't ask how or details, since it is, "it must of been done by Nature".
> 
> Both these polarities run on Faith more than some would like to admit.*


Absolute Trash.
Religions/gods rely on Faith/Belief withOut evidence.
Science is all about Evidence. In most cases repeatable experiments, and repeated consistent and/or predictable observations.



> Recall that a bit over a century ago "science" denied the possibility of 'continents moving, drifting', now we accept plate tectonics.  Science is often a matter of change to fit new data and perspectives.


Recall that we know about (found and confirmed with ongoing EVIDENCE) Plate Tectonics from Science, not a religious book.
Same was we observed/discerned/know about the other facts like gravity and evolution.
NOT 'faith.'

Your post was an idiotic and Disingenuous attempt at some kind of equivalence between religions/gods/faiths and science/hard evidence/facts.

`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 15, 2021)

Stryder50 said:


> Recall that a bit over a century ago "science" denied the possibility of 'continents moving, drifting', now we accept plate tectonics. Science is often a matter of change to fit new data and perspectives.


That's a general canard to squeeze in any unsubstantiated claim. It doesn't lend any more support, specifically, to those ideas than it does to the idea of unicorns making ice cream in the 6th dimension. It's conman language. So be careful.


Stryder50 said:


> the other relies on "Nature made it happen" - don't ask how or details, since it is, "it must of been done by Nature".



 "It must have been done by nature, let's figure it out." is much more correct. And substituting this more correct statement highlights the contrast and why these two sets of ideas will never overlap.

*One relies on "Gawd made it happen" - don't ask for details or how, other than a "snap of his/her/it's fingers"; the other relies on "Nature made it happen" - "let's figure it out".*


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 15, 2021)

Similarity in DNA does not necessarily imply linear derivation. Twins born and developed at the same time merely split off separately. Same ancestors. But we don't say one twin "evolved from the other."


----------



## Stryder50 (Feb 15, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Stryder50 said:
> 
> 
> > If you have an alternate explanation as to the "how" and/or "why", please present.
> ...


That remains disputable.
Seems I may have delved into this topic/concept deeper than you have and might have rejected the surface and current social paradigms and prejudices; going instead for a more literal take on the ancient, historical accounts/records.

Keep your own theological beliefs if you wish, I'll cast a wider net on the real probabilites.


----------



## james bond (Feb 15, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Contrary to what you might read from some IDIOT KWEATIOIST Website...
> (Like ICR/Institute for Creation Research recently posted here.)
> this is a SIMPLE one and a BIGGIE.
> Easy to understand/SEE.
> ...



This is too stupid.  You need to take a chill pill.


----------



## james bond (Feb 15, 2021)

The truth is humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes (which we all learned in school).  Great apes have 24.

The OP is calling himself an ape.


----------



## themirrorthief (Feb 15, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Contrary to what you might read from some IDIOT KWEATIOIST Website...
> (Like ICR/Institute for Creation Research recently posted here.)
> this is a SIMPLE one and a BIGGIE.
> Easy to understand/SEE.
> ...


I totally agree, your dna obviously came from monkeys...good job


----------



## Stryder50 (Feb 15, 2021)

abu afa
[QUOTE="Stryder50 said:


> ...The Sumerians were one of the
> k, post: 26562267, member: 3073"]
> first civilizations (post the last Ice Age) and also one of the first to keep written records.  So first question would be how much were their earliest images and writings "truth" as they knew it versus some form of fiction~imagination~'myth'.  The Sumerians have extensive records regarding the "Anunnaki" ~ "Those Whom from Heaven to Earth Came" and these accounts also relate to how such Beings created humans (or more correctly, intervened in Nature's evolutionary process.)





abu afak said:


> The Sumerians don't have "extensive records" they have Myths like other early civilizations
> Just one of your many attempts/Spins at intellectual equivalence.



First off, which of these;
"Just one of your many attempts/Spins at intellectual equivalence."
Are you referring to???
I'm not aware of having made such prior, so if you can provide links/sources/documentations would be appreciated to show you aren't blowing smoke up our collective arses.

Meanwhile, it is classic hubris of our times to assume those in the distant past were so ignorate that much of what they said and presented that doesn't gel with our current and limited perspectives had to be "myths".  What part of expressing experiences and concepts beyond their language expressions did you fail to grasp or understand. ???

Just because the Ancients failed to use words/terms of our current vernacular doesn't mean that what and how they said things are "fictional" or "myths".  Such is the bias of our later ages/millennium perspective denying their own perspective.

Which part of this conflicts with your own ideological~theological~religious beliefs that puts your knickers in such an knot ???
......


> This all rolls back to the classic intellectual divide between religion and science, or creation and evolution.  *One relies on "Gawd made it happen" - don't ask for details or how, other than a "snap of his/her/it's fingers"; the other relies on "Nature made it happen" - don't ask how or details, since it is, "it must of been done by Nature".
> 
> Both these polarities run on Faith more than some would like to admit.*





abu afak said:


> Absolute Trash.
> Religions/gods rely on Faith/Belief withOut evidence.



Obviously you have limited experience with "true believers", many of whom will cite their takes on "evidence" that supports their beliefs.

I won't begin to dispute such here, but only return to the issue that what was said, and believed, by these ancient cultures is what we are working with and assuming most is "truth" as they thought/believed; where does that leave us on regards a literal take versus your more subjective and biased take ~~~ ???



abu afak said:


> Science is all about Evidence. In most cases repeatable experiments, and repeated consistent and/or predictable observations.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 16, 2021)

Stryder50 said:


> That remains disputable.


Then dispute it. With evidence. All are welcome.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 16, 2021)

emilynghiem said:


> Similarity in DNA does not necessarily imply linear derivation. Twins born and developed at the same time merely split off separately. Same ancestors. But we don't say one twin "evolved from the other."


It shows common ancestry. More DNA in common? More closely related.


----------



## justinacolmena (Feb 16, 2021)

They're "longevity" researchers. There's a "long-lived" balding older man living happily ever after with a "long" haired young woman.

Oh, that's right, there's real life. People are full of shit in a court of law collecting alimony and child support, and going in for abortions after Valentine's Day.

It all sounds very feminist and one sided to the advantage of women only, but that's not the truth because certain men have a protectionist role, of which they generally take full advantage, in law enforcement or other positions of authority.


----------



## Stryder50 (Feb 16, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Stryder50 said:
> 
> 
> > That remains disputable.
> ...


After you present, with evidence, the natural process by which the two chromosmes of ape ancestors was fused into the single chromosome we humans have.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 16, 2021)

Stryder50 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Stryder50 said:
> ...


That is presented in the OP. You opened the thread. Did you not read the OP?


----------



## Stryder50 (Feb 18, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Stryder50 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Yes I read the OP and the link.  Neither states HOW the fusion occurred, only that there's clear evidence this is what happened.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 18, 2021)

Stryder50 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Stryder50 said:
> ...


Oh, sorry. Well you can fibd info on how chromosomes fuse. Google!


----------



## abu afak (Feb 18, 2021)

Stryder50 said:


> Yes I read the OP and the link.  Neither states HOW the fusion occurred, only that there's clear evidence this is what happened.


Yes, and people are convicted of Murder "beyond a reasonable doubt" on circumstantial Evidence.
Most murders don't have eyewitnesses.
Only kweationists demand videotape of million yr old events.
`


----------



## Stryder50 (Feb 18, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Stryder50 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Then find and present.


----------



## Stryder50 (Feb 18, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Stryder50 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes I read the OP and the link.  Neither states HOW the fusion occurred, only that there's clear evidence this is what happened.
> ...


Actually, might only be a 200-300,000 year old event based on mtDNA research.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 18, 2021)

Stryder50 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Stryder50 said:
> ...


You can look it up yourself, if you are interested.

And i doubt either of us would understand anyway, since we aren't molecular biologists.


----------



## LittleNipper (Feb 19, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Did we evolve from a banana? How Genetically Related Are We to Bananas? | Breakthroughs
> ...


And, isn't it true that many Christians didn't believe it when some or many scientists promoted the belief that the Coelecanth existed 66 million years ago. Christians may have believed them to have gone extinct (since people hadn't seen any to speak of); however, they didn't believe the "accepted fact" that they existed 66 million years ago and had evolved into something else. So, you do note that there are discrepancies...


----------



## LittleNipper (Feb 19, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Did we evolve from a banana?
> ...


But your icon is the one dressed in YELLOW ---- is it not?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 19, 2021)

LittleNipper said:


> And, isn't it true that many Christians didn't believe it when some or many scientists promoted the belief that the Coelecanth existed 66 million years ago.


And they were wrong. It did exist 66 million years ago. And the only christians who didn't believe the scientists about thi were brainwashed YECers. So they still don't believe the scientists and are still wrong.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 19, 2021)

LittleNipper said:


> So, you do note that there are discrepancies...


In what? Make your point. What discrepancies, specifically, and why are you pointing them out? Go on, argue a point, for once.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 19, 2021)

LittleNipper said:


> And, isn't it true that many Christians didn't believe it when some or many scientists promoted the belief that the Coelecanth existed 66 million years ago. Christians may have believed them to have gone extinct (since people hadn't seen any to speak of); however, they didn't believe the "accepted fact" that they existed 66 million years ago and had evolved into something else. So, you do note that there are discrepancies...


And isn't it true many Christians don't believe in "66 million years" but only 6000?
And isn't it true we know about fish (and their/other creature classifications, fossils, and history) because of science?

And they wouldn't be of much interest to Christians, they would just be another Fish. 'Fish' being their classification of anything that swims, whales (a mammal) and all. 
Creationists believe in "Kinds"/lookalikes, Not species.

`


----------



## LittleNipper (Feb 19, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > And, isn't it true that many Christians didn't believe it when some or many scientists promoted the belief that the Coelecanth existed 66 million years ago.
> ...


The FLOOD created fossils found of Coelecanth were presumed to be 66 million years old, due to incorrect dating of the rock the fossils were found in. It is also interesting to note that there were no appreciable differences between the ancient fossils and the "modern" Coelecanth. Evolutionists are not the only scientists that do research, no matter how "brainwashed" you are to the contrary.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 19, 2021)

LittleNipper said:


> The FLOOD created fossils found of Coelecanth were presumed to be 66 million years old, due to incorrect dating of the rock the fossils were found in.


How would the flood cause such a thing? It would have to have altered the rate of decay of isotopes. It would have to have altered the strata of every sinngle spot on Earth where we have checked. A flood could not do this. This claim is bunk.


----------



## LittleNipper (Feb 19, 2021)

abu afak said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > And, isn't it true that many Christians didn't believe it when some or many scientists promoted the belief that the Coelecanth existed 66 million years ago. Christians may have believed them to have gone extinct (since people hadn't seen any to speak of); however, they didn't believe the "accepted fact" that they existed 66 million years ago and had evolved into something else. So, you do note that there are discrepancies...
> ...


You forget that it were Christians who founded all the prestigious Colleges and Universities along with their science departments. And it was through the takeover of the science departments by agnostics and atheists that began to turn most of these institutions of higher learning into platforms for liberalism, along with atheistic interpretations and studies.


----------



## LittleNipper (Feb 19, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > The FLOOD created fossils found of Coelecanth were presumed to be 66 million years old, due to incorrect dating of the rock the fossils were found in.
> ...


Such a FLOOD involving all the meteor/asteroid strikes, volcanism, and churning up the pre-existing layers of the original earth's geography (GOD's created original design) would distort the strata as it was being deposited by the FLOOD of epic proportions. This burying the drowning/dead animals would produce invalid ages of the fossils discovered, if one wishes to presume that GOD didn't/couldn't originally create minerals and rocks in a day (PRE-FLOOD CREATION), as HE found necessary for Adam's benefit --- and HIS own glory.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 20, 2021)

LittleNipper said:


> Such a FLOOD involving all the meteor/asteroid strikes, volcanism, and churning up the pre-existing layers of the original earth's geography (GOD's created original design) would distort the strata as it was being deposited by the FLOOD of epic proportions


By what mechanism? We travel 2-3 miles down in the ocean and find the strata to be in order. That's much more water than was over ground in the flood myth. So this claim is also bunk.

Got anything else?


----------



## Hollie (Feb 20, 2021)

LittleNipper said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


We can take a few examples of universities with Christian roots: Princeton, Yale, Dartmouth if you wish. I found no course syllabus for their ID creationism program, no undergraduate or post graduate degree programs in supernatural creation studies and no indication of any research programs studying the occult or supernaturalism.

Have the gods played a cruel joke on christians?

Dartmouth, for one example, has reputable doctoral graduate programs in biological and evolutionary biology studies.





__





						Graduate Programs in Biological Sciences
					






					biology.dartmouth.edu


----------



## abu afak (Feb 22, 2021)

Stryder50 said:


> Actually, might only be a 200-300,000 year old event based on mtDNA research.


The time period was just anm example.
You got Refuted on the main point.. that there was even fusion that made One species into Another, and there was nothing that really needed a god. It was a mutation.


----------



## Stryder50 (Feb 23, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Stryder50 said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, might only be a 200-300,000 year old event based on mtDNA research.
> ...


The time period is based from mitochondrial DNA; mtDNA/mDNA and research into human origins;
EXCERPT:
...
The study's lead author, Rebecca Cann, called her colleagues' and her choice to use Eve as the name "a playful misnomer," and pointed out that the study wasn't implying that the Mitochondrial Eve wasn't the first -- or only -- woman on Earth during the time she lived [source: Cann]. Instead, this woman is simply the most recent person to whom all people can trace their genealogy. In other words, there were many women who came before her and many women who came after, but her life is the point from which all modern branches on humanity's family tree grew.

When the researchers in the 1987 study looked at samples taken from 147 different people and fetuses, they found 133 distinct sequences of mtDNA. A few of the people sampled, it turned out, were recently related. After comparing the number of differences among the mtDNA samples within races, they found that Africans have the most diversity (that is, the most number of differences) of any single racial group. This would suggest that the mtDNA found in Africans is the oldest: Since it has had the most mutations, a process which takes time, it must be the oldest of lineages around today.

The two distinct branches they discovered contained the mtDNA found in the five main populations on the planet: African, Asian, European, Australian and New Guinean. Researchers found that in the branch that was not exclusively African, racial populations often had more than one lineage. For example, one New Guinean lineage finds its closest relative in a lineage present in Asia, not New Guinea. All of the lineages and both of the two branches, however, can all be traced back to one theorized point: Mitochondrial Eve.
...








						Are we all descended from a common female ancestor?
					

According to DNA research, we may all have a common ancestor, an African woman who lived thousands of years ago. How did scientists reach this conclusion? Is it even possible?




					science.howstuffworks.com
				



~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think you've confused something, either in translation or comprehension, regards my being refuted; as I'm not denying the fusion in human chromosome happened, only questioning the method by which it would have occurred, and/or why.  Also "when" along the chain of proto-humans did such happen. So far the links provided show what and where this fusion occurs, but don't describe what the natural process would have been to make it happen.

That it is a mutation is clear, and I don't dispute it.  I'm neither a Creationist, nor a Darwinian/Evolutionist on this matter about humans branching of from the simian tree, might be closer to a supporter of Intervention Theory (though might pick a couple of nits with Pye);




__





						Intervention Theory – Lloyd Pye
					






					www.lloydpye.com
				



~~~~~~~~~~~~
Going further on the subject of mutations, consider the case of one such caused by human 'intervention', that of the mule;
EXCERPT:
...
A *mule* is the offspring of a male donkey (jack) and a female horse (mare).[1][2] Horses and donkeys are different species, with different numbers of chromosomes. Of the two first-generation hybrids between these two species, a mule is easier to obtain than a hinny, which is the offspring of a female donkey (jenny) and a male horse (stallion).

The size of a mule and work to which it is put depend largely on the breeding of the mule's mother (dam). Mules can be lightweight, medium weight or when produced from draft horse mares, of moderately heavy weight.[3]:85–87 Mules are reputed to be more patient, hardy and long-lived than horses and are described as less obstinate and more intelligent than donkeys.[4]:5
...
Mules and hinnies have 63 chromosomes, a mixture of the horse's 64 and the donkey's 62. The different structure and number usually prevents the chromosomes from pairing up properly and creating successful embryos, rendering most mules infertile.

A few mare mules have produced offspring when mated with a purebred horse or donkey.[18][19] Herodotus gives an account of such an event as an ill omen of Xerxes' invasion of Greece in 480 BC: "There happened also a portent of another kind while he was still at Sardis—a mule brought forth young and gave birth to a mule" (Herodotus _The Histories_ 7:57), and a mule's giving birth was a frequently recorded portent in antiquity, although scientific writers also doubted whether the thing was really possible (see e.g. Aristotle, _Historia animalium_, 6.24; Varro, _De re rustica_, 2.1.28).

As of October 2002, there had been only 60 documented cases of mules birthing foals since 1527.[19] In China in 2001, a mare mule produced a filly.[20] In Morocco in early 2002 and Colorado in 2007, mare mules produced colts.[19][21][22] Blood and hair samples from the Colorado birth verified that the mother was indeed a mule and the foal was indeed her offspring.[22]

A 1939 article in the _Journal of Heredity_ describes two offspring of a fertile mare mule named "Old Bec", which was owned at the time by Texas A&M University in the late 1920s. One of the foals was a female, sired by a jack. Unlike her mother, she was sterile. The other, sired by a five-gaited Saddlebred stallion, exhibited no characteristics of any donkey. That horse, a stallion, was bred to several mares, which gave birth to live foals that showed no characteristics of the donkey.[23]
...








						Mule - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## abu afak (Feb 23, 2021)

Stryder50 said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Stryder50 said:
> ...


Trying to bury your loss in BS?
It depends on what stage of human/hominim evo is being talked about.
AGAIN, it was a 'for instance.'
Do we need an idiot essay for that because you want to make a 'for instance'/longish period into an absolute claim?
No.
You lost the meat, so persist with exploding the crumb. Making it a huge smoke-and-mirrors post of the non-issue/precise period.

`


----------



## Stryder50 (Feb 24, 2021)

OKay, let's cut to the chase ...
You have any other examples of similar chromosome fusion in other species (not human/hominid/hominoid) to present showing how this is not an anomalous event?


----------



## abu afak (Feb 24, 2021)

Stryder50 said:


> OKay, let's cut to the chase ...
> You have any other examples of similar chromosome fusion in other species (not human/hominid/hominoid) to present showing how this is not an anomalous event?


The Chase is you're a RW Ahole who denies BOTH evolution AND warming. (GW and AGW)
And now a second post to you in 10 minutes demonstrating you don't know how to use google/Don't want Information.









						Is there any evidence of chromosome fusion in any other species?
					

Answer (1 of 2): Evidence that it occurred in the ancestors of six different species of waterbugs  Link  Chromosomal distribution of interstitial telomeric sequences as signs of evolution through chromosome fusion in six species of the giant water bugs (Hemiptera, Belostoma)  Evidence it occurred...




					www.quora.com
				




*Is there any evidence of chromosome fusion in any other species?*

2 Answers

David Rosen
, Invented biological detector.
Answered 1 year ago· Author has 1.8K answers and 928.9K answer views

Evidence that it occurred in the ancestors of six different species of waterbugs
Link
Chromosomal distribution of interstitial telomeric sequences as signs of evolution through chromosome fusion in six species of the giant water bugs (Hemiptera, Belostoma)

Evidence it occurred in both naturally in Lepidoptera, as well as radiation induced fusion.
Telomeric and interstitial telomeric sequences in holokinetic chromosomes of Lepidoptera: Telomeric DNA mediates association between postpachytene bivalents in achiasmatic meiosis of females

Postman butterflies. Some of this may overlap the last link.
Synteny and Chromosome Evolution in the Lepidoptera: Evidence From Mapping in Heliconius melpomene

Fruit flies of the Drosophila
Telomere fusion in Drosophila: The role of subtelomeric chromatin
Flowers
Identification of chromosomal fusion sites in Arabidopsis mutants using sequential bicolour BAC-FISH.

Rodents
Evolutionary Conservation of Whole Homeologous Chromosome Arms in the Akodont Rodents Bolomys and Akodon (Muridae, Sigmodontinae): Maintenance of Interstitial Telomeric Segments (ITBs) in Recent Event of Centric Fusion
To explain the karyotypic differentiation of the species, tandem and centric fusions, pericentric inversions, loss of telomeres and centromeres are required.

Rodents again
http://dmm.biologists.org/content/dmm/10/10/1165.full.pdf

And yet again
A comparative study of the chromosomes of rodents
Chromosome fusion is just a special case of translocation, where one of the product fragments is very small. So the question comes up how often translocation occurs, with or without chromosome fusion. The long chromosome has to contain two centromeres in order for the offspring to survive. Translocation mutations occur quite a bit.
Robertsonian translocation - Wikipedia






Joshua Engel
, worked at The Rude Mechanicals
Answered 8 years ago· Upvoted by
Suzanne Sadedin
, Ph.D. in evolutionary biology from Monash University · Author has 12.8K answers and 64.7M answer views

Sure. The most prominent example is the domestic horse, whose chromosome 5 is the result of the fusion of chromosomes 23 and 24 in Przewalski's horse, its immediate ancestor.
Horse Domestication and Conservation Genetics of Przewalski's Horse Inferred from Sex Chromosomal and Autosomal Sequences
Equids of all sorts (donkeys, zebras, horses) have a number of examples of fusions, fissions, and inversions of chromosomes, remaining somewhat interfertile but often producing infertile offspring.

There are other examples observed in domesticated animals (cows, sheep) and in laboratory mice. Those happen to be the ones with the most closely observed chromosomes.
Survival of Chromosomal Changes

Plus, of course, the ubiquitous fruit fly, which has some really wild fusions between autosomes and allosomes:


----------



## james bond (Oct 15, 2021)

abu afak said:


> The Chase is you're a RW Ahole who denies BOTH evolution AND warming. (GW and AGW)
> And now a second post to you in 10 minutes demonstrating you don't know how to use google/Don't want Information.
> 
> 
> ...


It took a few minutes to find some post of yours where you actually explain science.

That said, why doesn't this “fused chromosome 2” NOT appear in any living or fossil ape lineage if humans came from ape-humans?  If there were no ape-humans as the evidence shows, then you are wrong.  Furthermore, creation scientists find that this fused chromosome 2 DOES appear in every living or fossil human lineage.

This blows your cut and paste hypothesis out of the water.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 15, 2021)

james bond said:


> It took a few minutes to find some post of yours where you actually explain science.
> 
> That said, why doesn't this “fused chromosome 2” NOT appear in any living or fossil ape lineage if humans came from ape-humans?  If there were no ape-humans as the evidence shows, then you are wrong.  Furthermore, creation scientists find that this fused chromosome 2 DOES appear in every living or fossil human lineage.
> 
> This blows your cut and paste hypothesis out of the water.


You ******* moron my first 5 post explain it in enough detail that anyone with a 3 digit IQ could see and 80 IQ could eventually realize it.

You, OTOH, have NO EVIDENCE (not to mention proof) of ANY god.
*You are an OCD Mental defective inserting Jesus/Bible into every thread with No scientific/hard evidentiary basis.
It might has well be Vishnu and the Bhagavad Gita.
Or Abott and Costello.*
You ******* Brainwashed Moron.

`


----------



## james bond (Oct 16, 2021)

abu afak said:


> You ******* moron my first 5 post explain it in enough detail that anyone with a 3 digit IQ could see and 80 IQ could eventually realize it.
> 
> You, OTOH, have NO EVIDENCE (not to mention proof) of ANY god.
> *You are an OCD Mental defective inserting Jesus/Bible into every thread with No scientific/hard evidentiary basis.
> ...


All I did was give you a chance to explain your position and asked a valid question.  Had you known anything of which you spoke of, then you would've enlightened all of us.  It makes me believe that you are the moron, IQ of 40, and do not know what you are cutting and pasting.

Next, you jump to some discussion for the evidence of God which has nothing to do with the topic.  It's your topic and you choose to derail it.  It makes me think how sane is this person?  Perhaps, this person has gone looney tunes.  Not understanding God would give Satan a chance to influence you of things and tempt you to evolution, lies, and being held captive with this irreligious focus of yours.

As for the rest, you may as well be talking about your biography which shows you're prolly an old person and getting senile.


----------



## justinacolmena (Oct 16, 2021)

abu afak said:


> You ******* moron my first 5 post explain it in enough detail that anyone with a 3 digit IQ could see and 80 IQ could eventually realize it.
> 
> You, OTOH, have NO EVIDENCE (not to mention proof) of ANY god.
> *You are an OCD Mental defective inserting Jesus/Bible into every thread with No scientific/hard evidentiary basis.
> ...


They call that "lewd" if I post anything like that. But it's okay for an atheist. I'm starting to see what's going on.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 16, 2021)

justinacolmena said:


> They call that "lewd" if I post anything like that. But it's okay for an atheist. I'm starting to see what's going on.


It would be crude but you lack the context of the comment.
The deluded Freak in question sabotages EVERY science thread with Jesus/Bibe/Jesus that has no business in the section.
ie

james bond said:​Love the analogy, *but Darwin stole natural selection from God. God created natural selection to protect the species. It means God is science and belongs there.*​

Which is why I started/had to start a thread to get rid of 'debate' that has NO BUSINESS Here.
The moderator whose section this is, is a moron is clueless.





						The Trolling Proselytization of the Sci section by 'GodDidIt' cultists
					

These clowns just declare 'GodDidIt' and you are immoral atheists/scientists. That's it. They have No science and should not be posting anywhere but the RELIGION section. Young Earth Creationism/YEC is demonstrably wrong/debunked by at least half a dozen real sciences.  And if you need a link...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				




Next time, you stupid literalist religious trash, you need to do some reading before commenting.
Maybe go back the sordid/Lewd threads YOU post in. (pervs in bathrooms/transgender stuff)
I'm a science poster trying to keep this a Science, not religion, section.
iiIii

`


----------



## rupol2000 (Oct 16, 2021)

a similar situation with a negative Rh factor, there may be a connection.

In addition, it is not clear where the identity with the pig came from.


----------



## james bond (Oct 16, 2021)

abu afak said:


> The Chase is you're a RW Ahole who denies BOTH evolution AND warming. (GW and AGW)
> And now a second post to you in 10 minutes demonstrating you don't know how to use google/Don't want Information.


You the horrible piece of trash because you are not here to discuss science, but here to discard _real science_.  I already stated I believe in global warming.  It just goes to show you've gone looney tunes and is the one to be discarded.



abu afak said:


> Which is why I started/had to start a thread to get rid of 'debate' that has NO BUSINESS Here.
> The moderator whose section this is, is a moron is clueless.


Now, you're blaming the mods here.  Why don't you volunteer to be a mod?  It goes to show how HYPOCRITICAL you are and just want to beotch because you lost a science argument.  You couldn't answer your critics such as AIG and me.  Your point was shown to be false and you couldn't answer my questions.

You even lost the other thread you started about.  Instead of discarding the critics, you should discard you.

Maybe you'd do better discussing global warming.  Most of us think why you are in S&T anyway?


----------



## rupol2000 (Oct 16, 2021)

james bond said:


> real science


What is real science? Is it a strict positivist method only or modern dogmatic science also belong there?


----------



## james bond (Oct 16, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> What is real science? Is it a strict positivist method only or modern dogmatic science also belong there?


Real science is that which can be demonstrated by the scientific method.  However, we can't do that for all science so we end up with two types of scientific theories today of creationist vs evolutionist or creation vs atheist science.  It is based on origins of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.


----------



## rupol2000 (Oct 16, 2021)

james bond said:


> Real science is that which can be demonstrated by the scientific method. However, we can't do that for all science so we end up with two types of scientific theories today of creationist vs evolutionist or creation vs atheist science. It is based on origins of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.


Nobody knows anything about some kind of "creationist science", have you confused science with biblical mythology?


----------



## james bond (Oct 16, 2021)

You know what I find weird?  If I was an evolutionist, then I wouldn't be arguing so hard trying to prove it.  How can anyone prove a lie?  I would just think that evolution is what most people believe and majority rules.  If I was an evolution scientist, then I would write papers showing evidence for evolution or how it possibly happened and get published.  It doesn't mean evolution is true, but is a valid hypothesis.


----------



## rupol2000 (Oct 16, 2021)

james bond said:


> You know what I find weird? If I was an evolutionist, then I wouldn't be arguing so hard trying to prove it. How can anyone prove a lie?


Do you also deny selection of dogs? Are all dog breeds created by Yahweh as is?
Where did you get some kind of "creationism" in science?


----------



## james bond (Oct 16, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> Nobody knows anything about some kind of "creationist science", have you confused science with biblical mythology?


You show you are ignorant.  Are you new to this section?

The creationists have Answers in Genesis, ICR, creation.com, and other sites which have been arguing for creation since the 1850s when James Hutton, Charles Lyell, and Charles Darwing came up with their false science.

Maybe some other creationist can explain to you as I'm tired of those who deny their opposition.


----------



## james bond (Oct 16, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> Do you also deny selection of dogs? Are all dog breeds created by Yahweh as is?
> Where did you get some kind of "creationism" in science?


I already said God created natural selection.  Ho hum.  Why don't you talk with abu afak and have a nice circle jerk?


----------



## rupol2000 (Oct 16, 2021)

james bond said:


> You show you are ignorant.  Are you new to this section?
> 
> The creationists have Answers in Genesis, ICR, creation.com, and other sites which have been arguing for creation since the 1850s when James Hutton, Charles Lyell, and Charles Darwing came up with their false science.
> 
> Maybe some other creationist can explain to you as I'm tired of those who deny their opposition.


Actually, I myself am in opposition, but on the other hand. I believe that science should not be based on speculation at all, speculate in a mathematical style. The basis can only be based on generalizations of observations.


----------



## rupol2000 (Oct 16, 2021)

james bond said:


> I already said God created natural selection.  Ho hum.  Why don't you talk with abu afak and have a nice circle jerk?


And, so you have the same thing, only you have substituted God there. Why not assume that there were two gods?


----------



## rupol2000 (Oct 16, 2021)

james bond said:


> God created natural selection


And what difference, in this case, was there a god or not, does this somehow affect the theory? What difference would that make?


----------



## james bond (Oct 16, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> Actually, I myself am in opposition, but on the other hand. I believe that science should not be based on speculation at all, speculate in a mathematical style. The basis can only be based on generalizations of observations.


I don't think the creation scientists know exactly how natural selection works at this point.  They have found change or adaption through changes in their genes as well as changes through environmental factors.  I think both sides agree on the latter, but atheist scientists think it's through mutation or what they think evolution causes.

Basically, I can't win.  The OP will say this is another thread that I wrecked and I only answered questions asked of me.  For whatever reason, people like to ask me questions and not the OP.  I think the OP should have the courage to answer questions including my criticism and take his thread back.


----------



## james bond (Oct 16, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> And, so you have the same thing, only you have substituted God there. Why not assume that there were two gods?





rupol2000 said:


> And what difference, in this case, was there a god or not, does this somehow affect the theory? What difference would that make?


The atheists want to explain everything without God as that is religion.  IOW, they discard God from science as non-existent without any evidence when there is evidence for God as science backs up the Bible.  The OP and atheists think It's only Christian religious belief.  Nothing of the sort.  They won't admit they have atheist _religious_ beliefs.


----------



## rupol2000 (Oct 16, 2021)

james bond said:


> I don't think the creation scientists know exactly how natural selection works at this point. They have found change or adaption through changes in their genes as well as changes through environmental factors. I think both sides agree on the latter, but atheist scientists think it's through mutation or what they think evolution causes.


Atheism, feminism, homosexuality or football fanatism does not affect scientific research on objective facts.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 16, 2021)

abu afak said:


> You ******* moron my first 5 post explain it in enough detail that anyone with a 3 digit IQ could see and 80 IQ could eventually realize it.
> 
> You, OTOH, have NO EVIDENCE (not to mention proof) of ANY god.
> *You are an OCD Mental defective inserting Jesus/Bible into every thread with No scientific/hard evidentiary basis.
> ...


Lol

Your posts are interesting, but half the reason I click on your threads is to see you lay into people like JB. You're really quite gifted at explaining in excruciating detail just how fucking stupid some people are.


----------



## rupol2000 (Oct 16, 2021)

james bond said:


> there is evidence for God


I only know evidence against God or creationism, such a paradox of omnipotence.
No proof of god exists, this is fiction
But that's beside the point


----------



## justinacolmena (Oct 16, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Maybe go back the sordid/Lewd threads YOU post in. (pervs in bathrooms/transgender stuff)
> I'm a science poster trying to keep this a Science, not religion, section.
> iiIii


You're the one making a religious-type judgment in an atheist thread. Damn these people are getting religion all of a sudden in the Hooters restaurant restrooms. I don't believe it.


----------



## james bond (Oct 16, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> No proof of god exists, this is fiction


The universe, Earth, and everything in it is here.  I also provided the evidence for the global flood, a supernatural event.  The Bible is not a science book, but science backs up the Bible.

As for the topic, my view is “fused chromosome 2” does NOT appear in any living or fossil ape lineage.  It's only found in humans.  If humans came from ape-humans, then this is a big blow against ape-humans (which we have scant evidence of and does not exist today) of ever existing.

Anyway, I'm leaving this thread as people for whatever reason love to argue with me.  It's you know who's thread, but he's boring.


----------



## buttercup (Oct 16, 2021)

james bond said:


> The OP is calling himself an ape.



If the shoe fits...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 16, 2021)

buttercup said:


> If the shoe fits...


You are also an ape. All humans are. Children learn this fact in science class.


----------



## rupol2000 (Oct 17, 2021)

james bond said:


> The universe, Earth, and everything in it is here.


why is this proof of God and not a gopher?


----------



## james bond (Oct 17, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> why is this proof of God and not a gopher?


A gopher dies like this dumb thread.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 17, 2021)

james bond said:


> A gopher dies like this dumb thread.


The facts will outlast your pathetic trolling and short little life.


----------



## james bond (Oct 17, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The facts will outlast your pathetic trolling and short little life.


I was able to easily refute the OP as apes don't have it.  Also, we found that...


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You are also an ape. All humans are. Children learn this fact in science class.


abu afak did not explain ape fusion of its two chromosomes and human chromosome 2 fusion correctly.  Next, he just discarded his opposition's argument because he's way too stupid to refute it.  Facts are facts.

The evidence shows this isn't even true, so there isn't a common ancestor.  However, no atheist is going to admit that.  It's why I keep saying there are two types of science today.  If creation science was taught in schools, then the general public would have a choice of which science is not biased and true.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 17, 2021)

james bond said:


> I was able to easily refute the OP as apes don't have it.


You are really very stupid for thinking that refutes anything. You are like a child.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 17, 2021)

james bond said:


> I was able to easily refute the OP as apes don't have it.  Also, we found that...
> 
> abu afak did not explain ape fusion of its two chromosomes and human chromosome 2 fusion correctly.  Next, he just discarded his opposition's argument because he's way too stupid to refute it.  Facts are facts.
> 
> The evidence shows this isn't even true, so there isn't a common ancestor.  However, no atheist is going to admit that.  It's why I keep saying there are two types of science today.  If creation science was taught in schools, then the general public would have a choice of which science is not biased and true.


It was a mutation that worked, like all evolutionary successes.
I used 4 or 5 different good sources, you haven't posted ONE for your claim you mentally defective Fraud.
"The evidence shows it isn't even true"?
Evidence from where AnswersinGenepiss, Kweation.com?

Isn't it lights out time at the asylum at 9 PM for you.
`


----------



## abu afak (Oct 25, 2021)

james bond said:


> I've won ever since arriving here because you, atheists, atheist scientists, and other sinners have lost since the 1850s.  *All you had to do was produce one OBSERVABLE evidence for evolution and would have won.  For example, a monkey that walks like a human....*



See the OP.

`


----------



## abu afak (Jan 30, 2022)

james bond said:


> I was able to easily refute the OP as apes don't have it.  Also, we found that...
> 
> abu afak did not explain ape fusion of its two chromosomes and human chromosome 2 fusion correctly.  Next, he just discarded his opposition's argument because he's way too stupid to refute it.  Facts are facts.
> 
> The evidence shows this isn't even true, so there isn't a common ancestor.  However, no atheist is going to admit that.  It's why I keep saying there are two types of science today.  If creation science was taught in schools, then the general public would have a choice of which science is not biased and true.


MY links quite extensively showed this..  3 or 4 including a youtube for low IQers like you.

Humans have one less chromosome than apes: a Mutation. Thus us. But only by a little.
Another evidence of common descent.
`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 31, 2022)

Stryder50 said:


> Actually, homo sapiens appears after all the rest per that chart and so far we only know for sure the fusion exists in we humans~homo sapiens.


No.

The fusion is shown by evidence to almost certainly have happened before our most recent common ancestor with both Denisovans and Neandertals.


----------



## Stryder50 (Jan 31, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No.
> 
> The fusion is shown by evidence to almost certainly have happened before our most recent common ancestor with both Denisovans and Neandertals.


If there really is such "evidence" and it's not another figment of your imaginations, then please show/document such.  Share with us the useful links/URLs/Etc.

Opinions, yours or others, aren't valid on this.

Show Your Evidence, Please !!!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 31, 2022)

Stryder50 said:


> If there really is such "evidence" and it's not another figment of your imaginations, then please show/document such.


I am not your mommy. Go Google it. 

See, you are already outing yourself. If you were honestly interested, you would have looked it up instead of childishly denying it exists without knowing either way.

But you are not honest. You just proved it. And I will not be doing your troll exercise. Sorry. Maybe someone else will.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 31, 2022)

Stryder50 said:


> If there really is such "evidence" and it's not another figment of your imaginations, then please show/document such.  Share with us the useful links/URLs/Etc.
> 
> Opinions, yours or others, aren't valid on this.
> 
> Show Your Evidence, Please !!!


You don't get the first 4 posts of the thread?
It's explained quite well.
That Human Chromosone 2 is end-to-end a perfect match for the that of the great apes 2a and 2b?
Another in-denial godist that wants a video-tape but would convict someone to hang on a worse circumstantial case.
Endless demand-detail/Shift the Burden Fallacy/BS.

And this is just one piece of an even more extensive case with much more evidence. (fossils etc)
This (DNA)_ wasn't even known until well after Darwin's theory was accepted.
Like all the new relevant sciences since 1860 it has not only not been contradicted, but Helped confirm Evo.
`


----------



## Stryder50 (Feb 1, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I am not your mommy. Go Google it.
> 
> See, you are already outing yourself. If you were honestly interested, you would have looked it up instead of childishly denying it exists without knowing either way.
> 
> But you are not honest. You just proved it. And I will not be doing your troll exercise. Sorry. Maybe someone else will.


You make the claim - you document the claim.
You claim there is "evidence", then show YOUR evidence.
Otherwise we just have your OPINION which hasn't carried much valid weight to date.

This is the same as the "claim" that homo habilis or home erectus also had the 46 instead of 48 chromosome sequence when no one has yet produce such a sequence~genome.

It's not a case of if you are my mommy or not, it's a case of if you are lying or not.


----------



## Stryder50 (Feb 1, 2022)

abu afak said:


> You don't get the first 4 posts of the thread?
> It's explained quite well.
> That Human Chromosone 2 is end-to-end a perfect match for the that of the great apes 2a and 2b?
> Another in-denial godist that wants a video-tape but would convict someone to hang on a worse circumstantial case.
> ...


I got the first four posts of this thread years ago.  Been there and done that.
The issue you denseheads don't grasp is where are Denisovans and Neandertals, along with homo habilis and homo erectus in regards their basic DNA sequencing?
46 Chromosomes or 48?
For that matter, so far no one has established a proven timeline for when this fuse of chromos happened, or where and when we modern humans~homo sapiens sapiens branched off from the others whom branched off from the ape "tree".

FWIW, there is another DNA avenue to explore;
...
In 1987, A world wide survey of human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) was published by Cann, Stoneking, and Wilson in Nature magazine. Its main point was that "all mitochondrial DNAs stem from one woman" and that she probably lived around 200,000 years ago in Africa. When the media picked up from Wilson, one of the authors of the paper, that they had found the "Mitochondrial Eve" or "African Eve", the story became a sensation. Have scientists found "the mother of us all"?

Most people know about the nuclei of cells and that the genetic inheritance from both parents are found in the nucleus. Humans have 46 chromosomes which they inherit from both their parents. Parts of both the DNA from the mother and father are put together in a recombination process that allows the children to have traits from both their mother and their Father.

However, there is DNA located in other parts of the cell. In the cytoplasm, organelles called mitochondria, which provide energy for the cell in the form of ATP, also have DNA. This DNA, however, does not seem to come from both parents. Instead, it comes only from the mother and not from the Father (There seems to be some rare exceptions to the rule that only the mother contributes the mitochondrial DNA. See the mitochondrial Clock Update: Is maternal mitochondrial inheritance still thought to be true?).

Initially, it was thought that for humans, most of the sperm remained outside of the egg. Only the head with the nuclear DNA and the centrosome, were thought to enter the egg. But that view has changed. Now it has been determined that the whole sperm enters the egg. However, virtually all of the sperm is broken down by enzymes. Only the chromosomes found in the head of the sperm in crystalline form are preserved and used in the recombination process to produce the final version of the new egg cell DNA. The sperm mitochondria and its DNA are broken down by enzymes made for that purpose. See the mitochondrial Clock Update: for details. However, the end result is still the same. The mitochondria and its DNA from the sperm are not used. Only the mitochondria from the egg are used for the newly developing person.

So, our mitochondrial DNA is essentially identical to that of our mother. Mitochondrial DNA is transfered from mother to daughter, generation after generation. The mitochondrial DNA in the son, which he got from his mother, is a dead end street, since his mitochondrial DNA will not be used in his children.

Nuclear DNA changes a lot since it undergoes recombination in every generation. However, the mitochondrial DNA gets transfered from generation to generation without any recombination. Only the normal mutation rate that occurs when DNA is replicated allows the mitochondrial DNA to change. This is why the world wide survey was able to determine that all people are related via some original mother which they called the "mitochondrial Eve". They produced ancestral trees that depended on the slow mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA to estimate how the whole human population came from a single woman.

After the initial discovery of the "mitochondrial Eve", Wilson felt uneasy about using the term "Eve" because it caused many to think that she was the only woman living at that time, much like what is written in Genesis of the Bible concerning Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Also, the usual evolutionary time-scale for man did not allow such a short time as 200,000 years. Rather, it is believed that man has been around for a much longer period of time. Java man is thought to be 800,000 years old. _Homo erectus _ specimens are found all throughout the world. Over forty specimens of Asian _Homo erectus _which have been found in China, have been dated 220,000 to 500,000 years of age. Lucy, and the earliest remains of specimens that are thought to be of the first to stand upright, are thought to be at least 1 to 4 million years of age.
...




                        The Mitochondrial Eve: Have Scientists Found the Mother of Us All?  MHRC                    ​ 
Introduction of the mitochondrial Eve story. Is the Mitochondrial Clock speed faster than we thought? Don't expect the present mitochondrial clock rate to match an evolutionary rate based on the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans.

www.mhrc.net 




 ....
As presented in this thread which relates here some;
The Geminga Scenario


----------



## abu afak (Feb 1, 2022)

Stryder50 said:


> I got the first four posts of this thread years ago.  Been there and done that.
> The issue you denseheads don't grasp is where are Denisovans and Neandertals, along with homo habilis and homo erectus in regards their basic DNA sequencing?
> 46 Chromosomes or 48?
> For that matter, so far no one has established a proven timeline for when this fuse of chromos happened, or where and when we modern humans~homo sapiens sapiens branched off from the others whom branched off from the ape "tree".
> ...


What an OFF TOPIC Rant to the issue at hand.
The Fusion (a mutation) of Chromo 2.
A baffle em with BS post to cover the fact he can't deal with THE TOPIC at hand.

Look up the issue.
I learn from debating any topic.
Duh. I just did.
Denisovans had 46.









						Denisovans, Humans and the Chromosome 2 Fusion - Article - BioLogos
					

The Denisovans, an extinct hominid group that interbred with modern humans, made the news again with the publication of a more detailed study of their genome.




					biologos.org
				




and
DENISOVANS, NEANDERTHALS AND LARGE APES: WHEN DID WE SEPARATE?​Analyses being performed currently on genomes of extinct species that are directly related to us, such as Denisovans and Neanderthals, reveal that these species already presented the chromosome fusion that originated the long chromosome 2 that is characteristic of humans (3). Therefore, *this rearrangement of chromosomes goes a long way back in time*: estimates using various methods date this from 0.75 to 4.5 million years ago.

The fact that Denisovans and Neanderthals had the same chromosome number as we do may explain why the descendants from inter-species cross-breeding with our species were viable and possibly fertile. This would also explain why *traces of their genetic characteristics remain in our genome*, as shown by the comparative genomic analysis of the three species...."
[......]









						The Origin of the Human Species: a Chromosome Fusion? | OpenMind
					

Perhaps a chromosome fusion is in the origin of the human species. Manuel Rejón poses this thesis explaining the process in his article.




					www.bbvaopenmind.com
				



`


----------



## Stryder50 (Feb 1, 2022)

abu afak said:


> What an OFF TOPIC Rant to the issue at hand.
> The Fusion (a mutation) of Chromo 2.
> A baffle em with BS post to cover the fact he can't deal with THE TOPIC at hand.
> 
> ...


Thanks.

I found those after my posts here when doing some search of my own.  However I'm still waiting for an actual full illustration~diagram of the total genome of Denisovans and Neanderthal so we can compare against we modern humans to see how the gene content matches up.  This excerpt from your second link;

"However, it has also been found that the fusion area that originated our chromosome 2 lacks some regions and sequences that correspond to subtelomeric areas present in the two chromosomes fused in our species. In other words, the *fusion must have involved loss and rearrangement of part of the genetic material* of the two originally separate chromosomes in the ancestors we have in common with the large apes."

I'm curious if such, the bold, was also the case with Denisovans and/or Neanderthals.

Also, if the low end of the timeline applies, that 0.75 million years ago is also expressed as @750,000 years ago and bumps up against the mtDNA of "Mitochondrial Eve", from @300-200,000 years ago and leaves one to wonder if we=homo sapiens sapiens are even more removed genetically from Denisovans and Neanderthals.


----------



## Stryder50 (Feb 1, 2022)

abu afak said:


> What an OFF TOPIC Rant to the issue at hand.
> The Fusion (a mutation) of Chromo 2.
> A baffle em with BS post to cover the fact he can't deal with THE TOPIC at hand.
> 
> ...


This from your first link is also helpful;
...
...A fusion does not precipitate a speciation event, but rather the individual with the fusion remains a part of his or her population, and able to interbreed, even if with reduced fertility. Also, there is no necessary biological effect or change that the fusion produces on the appearance of the organism. These misunderstandings aside, however,what this new evidence shows is that this fusion event took place long before modern humans arose at around 200,000 years ago. Indeed, the 800,000 years ago date for the last human – Denisovan common ancestor means that this is the most recent date possible for the fusion. While it is an interesting piece of our evolutionary history, it doesn’t seem to have much to do with how we came to acquire the traits that set us apart from, and ultimately outcompete, other similar species.
...








						Denisovans, Humans and the Chromosome 2 Fusion - Article - BioLogos
					

The Denisovans, an extinct hominid group that interbred with modern humans, made the news again with the publication of a more detailed study of their genome.




					biologos.org


----------



## Stryder50 (Feb 1, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I don't see any place for this goofy religious numerology in the science section.


Considering that a certain religious faction of this planet = Islam = is using their "goofy religious numerology" doctrine~Koran; etc. to justify global war/Conflict to make all humanity "One" in Religion/Dogma it gains major consideration ~ if one is applying elements of strategic thinking and planning.

"Know your enemy; Know yourself; win your battles."


----------



## Stryder50 (Feb 1, 2022)

OKay - so maybe we've established some consensus on when modern humans acquired the joined chromosome to go from a pair equal to 48 to one of 46.

Next issue/questions is when (and how) modern humans lost their fur ???

Our "ape" ancestors retain a covering of hair/fur across their bodies, yet we "humans" have lost most of our skin layer coverage of hair/fur ~ yet somehow we got this trend for our head, top of scalp hair, to grow indefinitely in length.

How, when, and/or why did this happen ???


----------



## abu afak (Feb 7, 2022)

Stryder50 said:


> OKay - so maybe we've established some consensus on when modern humans acquired the joined chromosome to go from a pair equal to 48 to one of 46.
> 
> Next issue/questions is when (and how) modern humans lost their fur ???
> 
> ...


I's really so easy these days -seconds- yet few do it.
When do you use google, only for local restaurants?



			hair on humans evolution - Google Search
		


`


----------



## ding (Feb 8, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Contrary to what you might read from some IDIOT KWEATIOIST Website...
> (Like ICR/Institute for Creation Research recently posted here.)
> this is a SIMPLE one and a BIGGIE.
> Easy to understand/SEE.
> ...


Sounds like you are arguing for genetic mutation rather than natural selection.


----------



## Stryder50 (Feb 8, 2022)

abu afak said:


> I's really so easy these days -seconds- yet few do it.
> When do you use google, only for local restaurants?
> 
> 
> ...


Would appear that rhetorical questions and comments are beyond your limited mental grasp.

>Thanks for the link though, it provides insight to part of the issue.<

The issue of modern pre-human and current human loss of fur ~ skin hair was addressed nearly 50 years ago in a rather disturbing hypothesis;*

The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis;
...
The *aquatic ape hypothesis* (*AAH*), also referred to as *aquatic ape theory* (*AAT*) or the *waterside hypothesis* of human evolution, postulates that the ancestors of modern humans took a divergent evolutionary pathway from the other great apes by becoming adapted to a more aquatic habitat.[1]

The hypothesis was initially proposed by the marine biologist Alister Hardy in 1960, who argued that a branch of apes was forced by competition over terrestrial habitats to hunt for food such as shellfish on the sea shore and sea bed, leading to adaptations that explained distinctive characteristics of modern humans such as functional hairlessness and bipedalism.[2] Elaine Morgan's 1990 book on the hypothesis, _Scars of Evolution_, received some favorable reviews but was subject to criticism from the anthropologist John Langdon in 1997, who characterized it as an "umbrella hypothesis" with inconsistencies that were unresolved and a claim to parsimony that was false.[3]

The hypothesis is highly controversial, and has been criticized by many as a pseudoscience.[4][5] The hypothesis is thought to be more popular with the lay public than with scientists; in the scientific literature, it is generally ignored by anthropologists.[6][4]
...





						Aquatic ape hypothesis - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



~~~~~~~~~~~~
Controversial to some, but no more, or less, supportable than the hypothesis of 'getting down out of the trees to walk upright as a better hunter for our omnivore feeding habits'.

AAH/AAT at least explains better some quirks of human physiology that the "Descent of Man" biased theories can't do as good a job at.

There is also the more common snese position that since Nature and Evolution favors what is best to sustain and reproduce the species, that mutations~evolutions will favor the baby-making mother and her needs over those of the low investment father.

A couple other references to come in following posts.

*FWIW, we humans still have nearly as many hair follicles as our earlier ancestors and the near related mammals.  Only the hair we grow is not as thick or dense since we no longer depend upon it for insulation, having developed a thicker layer of fat just under our outer skin. 
What is Subcutaneous Fat?​








						What is Subcutaneous Fat?
					

Subcutaneous fat plays some vital roles in the body, but too much can increase health risks.




					www.verywellfit.com


----------



## Stryder50 (Feb 8, 2022)

First essential read/book on this subject of AAH/AAT;
...
The Descent of Woman​
Elaine Morgan





...
The Descent of Woman is a pioneering work, the first to argue for the equal role of women in human evolution. On its first publication in 1972 it sparked an international debate and became a rallying-point for feminism, changing the terminology of anthropologists forever. Starting with her demolition of the Biblical myth that woman was an afterthought to the creation of man, Elaine Morgan rewrites human history and evolution.

This lively, informative book sets out to solve the riddle of our origins; its answer is controversial. Elaine Morgan has made The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis a plausible alternative to conventional theories of evolution and The Descent of Woman first set out an understanding of who humans are and where they came from.

Elaine Morgan was best known as a writer for television until the publication of The Descent of Woman in 1972, which became an international bestseller. She then spent ten years researching human evolution before publishing The Aquatic Ape (published by Souvenir Press as a revised edition, The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis) in 1982. In the years since, The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis has gone on to win widespread support among scientists.
It is a measure of Elaine Morgan's enduring importance, provocative thought and international reputation that in January 2006, the first Chinese translation of The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis became a Number 1 bestseller in Taiwan.
...








						The Descent of Woman
					

The Descent of Woman is a pioneering work, the first to argue for the equal role of women in human evolution. On its first publication in...



					www.goodreads.com


----------



## Stryder50 (Feb 8, 2022)

Another essential read and examination of the real drivers of human DNA mutations and evolutions;
...
The Seven Daughters of Eve: The Science That Reveals Our Genetic Ancestry​...
*One of the most dramatic stories of genetic discovery since James Watson's The Double Helix—a work whose scientific and cultural reverberations will be discussed for years to come.*

In 1994 Professor Bryan Sykes, a leading world authority on DNA and human evolution, was called in to examine the frozen remains of a man trapped in glacial ice in northern Italy. News of both the Ice Man's discovery and his age, which was put at over five thousand years, fascinated scientists and newspapers throughout the world. But what made Sykes's story particularly revelatory was his successful identification of a genetic descendant of the Ice Man, a woman living in Great Britain today. How was Sykes able to locate a living relative of a man who died thousands of years ago?

In _The Seven Daughters of Eve_, he gives us a firsthand account of his research into a remarkable gene, which passes undiluted from generation to generation through the maternal line. After plotting thousands of DNA sequences from all over the world, Sykes found that they clustered around a handful of distinct groups. Among Europeans and North American Caucasians, there are, in fact, only seven. This conclusion was staggering: almost everyone of native European descent, wherever they may live throughout the world, can trace their ancestry back to one of seven women, the Seven Daughters of Eve.

Naming them Ursula, Xenia, Helena, Velda, Tara, Katrine, and Jasmine, Sykes has created portraits of their disparate worlds by mapping the migratory patterns followed by millions of their ancestors. In reading the stories of these seven women, we learn exactly how our origins can be traced, how and where our ancient genetic ancestors lived, and how we are each living proof of the almost indestructible strands of DNA, which have survived over so many thousands of years. Indeed, _The Seven Daughters of Eve_ is filled with dramatic stories: from Sykes's identification, using DNA samples from two living relatives, of the remains of Tsar Nicholas and Tsaress Alexandra, to the Caribbean woman whose family had been sold into slavery centuries before and whose ancestry Sykes was able to trace back to the Eastern coast of central Africa. Ultimately, Sykes's investigation reveals that, as a race, what humans have in common is more deeply embedded than what separates us.
...








						The Seven Daughters of Eve
					

One of the most dramatic stories of genetic discovery since James Watson's The Double Helix—a work whose scientific and cultural reverber...



					www.goodreads.com


----------



## Stryder50 (Feb 8, 2022)

Also;
...
The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis: Most Credible Theory of Human Evolution    Hardcover – Import, July 17, 1997​ 
                by                                          Elaine Morgan 
...
Why do humans differ from other primates? What do those differences tell us about human evolution? Elaine Morgan gives a revolutionary hypothesis that explains our anatomic anomalies—why we walk on two legs, why we are covered in fat, why we can control our rate of breathing. The answers point to one conclusion: millions of years ago our ancestors were trapped in a semi-aquatic environment. In presenting her case Elaine Morgan forces scientists to question accepted theories of human evolution, while expressing complex ideas for the general reader in a clear and accessible style. A documentary by Sir David Attenborough, _The Waterside Ape_, is based on Morgan's Aquatic Ape Hypothesis.
...


----------



## Cougarbear (Feb 8, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Contrary to what you might read from some IDIOT KWEATIOIST Website...
> (Like ICR/Institute for Creation Research recently posted here.)
> this is a SIMPLE one and a BIGGIE.
> Easy to understand/SEE.
> ...


Nope! Been refuted successfully before. Bringing this up again is old crap. 








						New Research Undermines Key Argument for Human Evolution
					

One of the leading arguments for human evolution from a shared common ancestor with apes is the “chromosome 2 fusion model.” This hypothetical model proposes that the end-to-end fusion of two small ape-like chromosomes resulted in the human chromosome 2, which supposedly explains the difference...




					www.icr.org


----------



## abu afak (Feb 8, 2022)

Cougarbear said:


> Nope! Been refuted successfully before. Bringing this up again is old crap.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


:^)

"ICR" is the InstiSTOOP for Creation Research.
Like Creation-con, Discovery, and AnswersInGenecYst.

Maybe that works for you on some boards.
`


----------



## abu afak (Feb 8, 2022)

Stryder50 said:


> Would appear that rhetorical questions and comments are beyond your limited mental grasp.
> 
> >Thanks for the link though, it provides insight to part of the issue.<
> 
> ...


You said
*""How, when, and/or why did this happen ???""*

That (with 3 question marks, no less) is Not rhetorical and begs for an answer.

This board is full of beauties of all sort.

`


----------



## Stryder50 (Feb 8, 2022)

abu afak said:


> You said
> *""How, when, and/or why did this happen ???""*
> 
> That (with 3 question marks, no less) is Not rhetorical and begs for an answer.
> ...


Yet, also known as "baiting" ~ "Otherwise Known As" ~OKA ~~~

AKA (Also Known As ) a "trap" to see if you would "bite" ~~~

Which you did !

This board is full of many "beauties", many of which you fail to grasp or know how to respond to correctly . . . ~ ~ ~

Nothing New and "To Be Expected" ~ TBE.


----------



## Likkmee (Feb 8, 2022)

Female humans have 23 and male humans have 23
Jesus had 24.
 23 from a human female and one from a non human male


----------



## ClaireH (Feb 8, 2022)

Sunsettommy said:


> What about Neanderthal, Denisovan, Australopithecus......, I am skeptical because from just one pairing is a truckload of differences, not likely to be that many from original pair.
> 
> 
> View attachment 443084
> ...



Indeed, and there is stronger evidence now in 2022 regarding the various histories of and the intermingling of our human first ancestor and mixing with Neanderthals separate lineage. According to recent archaeological studies based upon bone findings, the difference in the success of our human ancestry as opposed to the Neanderthals’ demise is Neanderthals likely failed to master fire- to figure out how to create it on their own without use of initial heat source-lightening and some keeping it going for generations even. Amazing studies….I would love to be an archaeologist had I lived another life. Relatedly, man’s “thirst for blood” once discovered, was another reason why our direct ancestors gained brain and body mass/power more so than the Neanderthals. Until tools are developed to dig deeper back in time, it is thought that Neanderthals did not eat enough meat to develop better brains for long-term survival. Although it’s interesting Neanderthals are often depicted as have been the strongest ever, seems brains is where it really counts.

Anecdotally, my genetic line (according to 23 and me anyway- might be later confirmed that it’s a total scam company but right now it’s still floating as legit) bit of Neanderthal DNA! That seriously blows me away but would explain a lot lol


----------



## Cougarbear (Feb 8, 2022)

abu afak said:


> :^)
> 
> "ICR" is the InstiSTOOP for Creation Research.
> Like Creation-con, Discovery, and AnswersInGenecYst.
> ...


Did you read the article? It was quoting some evolution scientists that now realize their error on this. It just doesn't work. The studies you read were incorrectly evaluated. They don't fit.


----------



## ClaireH (Feb 8, 2022)

Turtlesoup said:


> No hun...in the beginning of fertilization---what may or may not become a fetus then baby is nothing more than a collection of cells with no heart, no brain, and no human shape.    It doesn't think or feel.  It has no concept of its existence...it simply has the potential to become which btw is the case with the egg that is released and dies off during a womans monthly--just a potential that isn't there yet or often ever.


I must get my head examined for stepping into this conversation, but I’ll take care of that later.

As most readers know, a female egg by itself is basically sitting around not doing anything other than getting old relatively quickly in the grand scheme of things. An egg cannot produce life on its own, not even the special ones. Now, in enters a sperm that is able to fertilize one of these lazy eggs and a successful union (no, not the unfortunate ones that attempt development within a fallopian tube) creates the zygote.

Sidenote- I will not be taking any questions from the audience that begin with the overly used, yet societal perception, that…. But, but, a zygote cannot immediately exit out the body and become human to survive on its own! It can’t live without further development so that means it’s not “real life”! Of course it can’t. There, that should take care of any of those types of questions. Thank you.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 8, 2022)

Cougarbear said:


> Did you read the article? It was quoting some evolution scientists that now realize their error on this. It just doesn't work. The studies you read were incorrectly evaluated. They don't fit.


"New research" by a wacky Creationist chemistry professor/Bergman at Northwest State Community College.
Who can only be found on creationist websites, and wrote a book trying to make Darwin a Nazi.
GTFO.
`


----------



## Cougarbear (Feb 8, 2022)

abu afak said:


> "New research" by a wacky Creationist chemistry professor/Bergman at Northwest State COMMUNITY college.
> Who can only be found creationist websites and wrote a book trying to make Darwin a Nazi.
> GTFO.
> `


Read the article. I've seen how evolutionist try to force the Chromosomes together. It just doesn't work.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 8, 2022)

Cougarbear said:


> Read the article. I've seen how evolutionist try to force the Chromosomes together. It just doesn't work.


Found the "Researcher" someplace else.




__





						Jerry Bergman
					

Gerald R. "Jerry" Bergman, a young-earth creationist affiliated with the Institute for Creation Research, appears on Creation Ministries International's list of scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation. He has a doctorate in human biology (1992) from Columbia Pacific...




					rationalwiki.org
				




*Gerald R. "Jerry" Bergman*, a *young-earth creationist affiliated with the Institute for Creation Research*, appears on Creation Ministries International's list of scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation.
He has *a doctorate in human biology (1992) from Columbia Pacific University, a Non-accredited Correspondence-school that the Marin County Superior Court ordered to cease operations in California in 1999.*[2] Bergman is a prolific writer with, according to Answers in Genesis, over 600 articles (none in peer-refereed scientific journals, of course,[3] but quite a few for Answers Research Journal) and 20 books to his name.As of 2013 Bergman worked in the Biological Sciences department of *Northwest State Community College in Ohio.*[4]...

A history of Orwellian debate tactics and quote-mining​*One of Bergman’s favorite tactics is to redefine words.* For instance, Bergman claims that he has scientifically proven that there is no such thing as vestigial organs, therefore evolution is false. He accomplished this by redefining “vestigial” to mean “having no function at all”; thus, all he had to do was to demonstrate that alleged vestigial organs did or potentially did anything whatsoever.[8] Of course, this is not the definition of “vestigial”...

*Bergman has predictably enough argued that evolution leads to Hitler.*[9]* In fact, one of his primary debate tactics is character-assassination of Darwin*[10].* According to Bergman, “Charles Darwin’s major goal in developing his theory was religious, he wanted to “Murder” god (his words).”*
........
He considers himself one of the victims of persecution by "Darwinists", *after he was denied tenure and dismissed from Bowling Green State University in 1978* “solely because of my beliefs and publications in the area of creationism”. He attempted, unsuccessfully, to take the university to court over religious discrimination. (It should be added that, in a signed letter published in David Duke's National Association of White People newsletter, he stated that “reverse racial discrimination was clearly part of the decision,” so even according to himself it cannot have been solely because of his religious beliefs.[12]) *According to the courts, however, Bergman was terminated because of ethics, namely that he claimed to have credentials in psychology when, in fact, he “had no psychological credentials.”*[13]
...."""

`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 8, 2022)

Stryder50 said:


> You make the claim - you document the claim


Oops... you assume I give a shit whether or not I convince you.

I dont.

If the mountains of evidence that have convinced scientists have not convinced you, then you are a moron who cannot be convinced.


So beg someone else for attention, troll.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 8, 2022)

Cougarbear said:


> Read the article. I've seen how evolutionist try to force the Chromosomes together. It just doesn't work.


Well,you are wrong, and you don't have any idea what the hell you are talking about.


----------



## Cougarbear (Feb 8, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Found the "Researcher" someplace else.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


From the dictionary: Vestigial - Biology, )of an organ or part of the body) degenerate, rudimentary, or atrophied, having become functionless in the course of evolution.
So, it looks like Bergman's definition is correct as it becomes functionless. 

Darwin certainly did want to dethrone God and the Bible. Do you have anything to refute this?

The last paragraph is what you claim about creationists, character assassinations. None of the reason for dismissal had anything to do with his actual work except his lack of credentials and that is why he was released. But, nothing to do with the work on Chromosomes. Nice attempt at trying to distract from the truth. The ape chromosomes don't connect.


----------



## Cougarbear (Feb 8, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Well,you are wrong, and you don't have any idea what the hell you are talking about.


Actually, I do. It's you that doesn't.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 8, 2022)

Cougarbear said:


> Actually, I do. It's you that doesn't.


Right, you -- an uneducated slob with no relevant experience or education or any knowledge of this topic -- is right,and the scientists are wrong.

If you had any shame, you would be embarrassed of yourself.


----------



## Cougarbear (Feb 8, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Right, you -- an uneducated slob with no relevant experience or education or any knowledge of this topic -- is right,and the scientists are wrong.
> 
> If you had any shame, you would be embarrassed of yourself.


I have the scientists on my side. The real scientists that can see the truth. The truth shall set you free...By the way, what is your education experience to call people names and attempt character assassinations?


----------



## Cougarbear (Feb 8, 2022)

Cougarbear said:


> From the dictionary: Vestigial - Biology, )of an organ or part of the body) degenerate, rudimentary, or atrophied, having become functionless in the course of evolution.
> So, it looks like Bergman's definition is correct as it becomes functionless.
> 
> Darwin certainly did want to dethrone God and the Bible. Do you have anything to refute this?
> ...


----------



## abu afak (Feb 8, 2022)

Cougarbear said:


> *I have the scientists on my side. The real scientists that can see the truth. *The truth shall set you free...By the way, what is your education experience to call people names and attempt character assassinations?


*Young Earth Creationists with correspondence degrees and working at community colleges are "real scientists"?*

LOL

`


----------



## Stryder50 (Feb 8, 2022)

Cougarbear said:


> I have the scientists on my side. The real scientists that can see the truth. The truth shall set you free...By the way, what is your education experience to call people names and attempt character assassinations?


Cowardice common to Left-wing Nazis;
Click his name and "Profile" here and get this:

"Oops! We ran into some problems.
  This member limits who may view their full profile.   "

~~~~~~~~
Same as we get from "abu afak".

Two phonies whom can't be honest on whom and what they are.


----------



## Cougarbear (Feb 8, 2022)

Stryder50 said:


> Cowardice common to Left-wing Nazis;
> Click his name and "Profile" here and get this:
> 
> "Oops! We ran into some problems.
> ...


So, you weren't able to tell us about your big brain and why you think you are smarter than everyone else without knowing anything about others.


----------



## Stryder50 (Feb 9, 2022)

Cougarbear said:


> So, you weren't able to tell us about your big brain and why you think you are smarter than everyone else without knowing anything about others.


Huh ????

I was referencing to "Fort Fun Indiana" and "Abu Afak".  If you think you belong in their club, go for it.

What I was saying is that at least I provide some clues on my experience and background.  Many others here don't do that, hence their posts tend to be unfounded and conjectural at best.  Total fabrications and distortions most often.
 😒


----------



## Stryder50 (Feb 9, 2022)

abu afak said:


> *Young Earth Creationists with correspondence degrees and working at community colleges are "real scientists"?*
> 
> LOL
> 
> `


Like "real scientists" they follow the funding and say what those paying them tell them to say.


----------



## AMart (Feb 9, 2022)

Apes have human children lol I didn't know that.


----------



## Stryder50 (Feb 9, 2022)

Likkmee said:


> Female humans have 23 and male humans have 23
> Jesus had 24.
> 23 from a human female and one from a non human male


If the Old Testament (and Torah) book of Genesis*, specifically Chapter One, Verses 1-6, have any truth in the content, then the "non human male"s a.k.a. "Sons of the Gods"(Annunaki) whom mated with the "daughters of man" likely also had 23 chromosomes in their sperm in order to produce the hybrid/mix-breeds known as "men of renown".

Jesus likely was a similar product and had 23 chromos in the sperm that made him.**  Which would have been essential were he to have had offspring, as some historians have claimed.

* Genesis being based upon the records and writings of the Sumer-Akkad-Babylon (SAB) culture/civilization which the Hebrews learned during their time of captivity in Babylon.  The Hebrews/Jews having plagiarized such when they began to put the Old Testament into written form.  According to SAB history-records, when the Annunaki made(created) humans, part of the process included Annunaki sperm so humans are about half "Alien"~non-terrestrial(NT)/Extra-terrestrial(ET).  Or so it might seem.

** ~ Actually gets a bit more complicated.  23 chromosomes in the egg, and 23 in the sperm would suggest we are half from mother and half from father.  Enter the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) which is passed along the female line, mother to daughter ~~~, and we might be 1/3 from father and 2/3 from mother.
A clue of this can be found in the "Epic of Gilgamesh" where he claims to be 2/3 divine since his mother was a Goddess (female Annunaki = "X" and mtDNA)), and his father a human male.
~~~~~~~~~
See this thread for other details;
The Geminga Scenario


----------



## Stryder50 (Feb 9, 2022)

AMart said:


> Apes have human children lol I didn't know that.


Huh ??? !!!
Where in this thread did you pick that up from ?


----------



## Cougarbear (Feb 9, 2022)

Stryder50 said:


> Huh ????
> 
> I was referencing to "Fort Fun Indiana" and "Abu Afak".  If you think you belong in their club, go for it.
> 
> ...


That's for sure. But, since people don't, then we don't have to go there. We can simply discuss each idea we are discussing without claiming they are fabricating and distorting. It's simply a matter of learning from each other.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 9, 2022)

Cougarbear said:


> I have the scientists on my side.


Such an embarrassing, shameless lie. Damn son. I am embarrassed for you.


----------



## Stryder50 (Feb 9, 2022)

Cougarbear said:


> That's for sure. But, since people don't, then we don't have to go there. We can simply discuss each idea we are discussing without claiming they are fabricating and distorting. It's simply a matter of learning from each other.


Sorry lad, but I prefer some documentation and sources to be cited to validate that what is presented has some foundation of truth and accuracy and isn't some vague and phony poster trying to blow smoke up my backside.  Which is the case with a few posters on this thread/topic.


----------



## Cougarbear (Feb 9, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Such an embarrassing, shameless lie. Damn son. I am embarrassed for you.


No need since I have science on my side.


----------



## Cougarbear (Feb 9, 2022)

Stryder50 said:


> Sorry lad, but I prefer some documentation and sources to be cited to validate that what is presented has some foundation of truth and accuracy and isn't some vague and phony poster trying to blow smoke up my backside.  Which is the case with a few posters on this thread/topic.


----------



## Stryder50 (Feb 9, 2022)

Cougarbear said:


>


Dude!

You are responding to the guy whom advances the case for we humans being mutants created by "out of solar system ETs" whom came here as colonists, and then manipulated the genetics of local species to do their work for them, among other agendas.

I'm on a level you haven't reached yet, nor grasped!


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 9, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Contrary to what you might read from some IDIOT KWEATIOIST Website...
> (Like ICR/Institute for Creation Research recently posted here.)
> this is a SIMPLE one and a BIGGIE.
> Easy to understand/SEE.
> ...


I haven't bothered to read this before, because I knew it was absurd just by the title.  But I had to see the train wreck.

So, tell me Abu: 

How did this fusion happen?  Be specific. 

How many times did it happen?  One time?  A million times? 

What exactly was produced by this fusion?  Be very, very specific.

Be sure to use your own words.


----------



## james bond (Feb 9, 2022)

abu afak said:


> "New research" by a wacky Creationist chemistry professor/Bergman at Northwest State Community College.
> Who can only be found on creationist websites, and wrote a book trying to make Darwin a Nazi.
> GTFO.
> `


This is your typical angry atheist against creationists rant, so the angry idiot has to _make up lies_ to make a point. He is really an embarrasment to the S&T forum.

We know that Darwinism led to the Holocaust because of Darwin's ideas on the "survival of the fittest."  This also led to Darwin's cousin, Frances Galton, to come up with Eugenics from On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man books.  The latter book also led to social Darwinism.

Bergman did not call Darwin a Nazi, but wrote a book on Hitler and the Nazi Darwinian Worldview: How the Nazi Eugenic Crusade for a Superior Race Caused the Greatest Holocaust in World History.  We know that Darwin and his cousin's ideas led to the Holocaust.

Here's a summary of Bergman's book.  "This book takes a fresh look at Germany's most influential Nazi leaders, examining their backgrounds, education and convictions. It provides compelling evidence that the rising influence of Darwinism, eugenics and race theory in early-twentieth century society set the foundation for the Nazi pursuit of engineering a German "master race"-and exterminating European Jews, Gypsies, Blacks, most Slavs and the Christian religion in the ensuing madness of the Holocaust of World War II. The effect of social Darwinism, eugenics and anti-Semitism, and their relative acceptance in the scientific and medical communities of Germany and many other countries worldwide, opened the door to mass murder, medical experimentation and military conquest. This title examines the roots of Nazi ideology and unmasks the Darwinian "survival of the fittest" theory behind it."









						Hitler and the Nazi Darwinian Worldview
					

This book takes a fresh look at Germany's most influential Nazi leaders, examining their backgrounds, education and convictions. It provi...



					www.goodreads.com
				




We don't have any origins history for humans with Darwinism and evolution, but we do have the human history of the Holocaust and social Darwinism based on evolution and survival of the fittest. 

There really isn't a place for angry liars and deliberate prevaricators on the S&T forum.  You should GTFO, abu afak!


----------



## Cougarbear (Feb 9, 2022)

Stryder50 said:


> Dude!
> 
> You are responding to the guy whom advances the case for we humans being mutants created by "out of solar system ETs" whom came here as colonists, and then manipulated the genetics of local species to do their work for them, among other agendas.
> 
> I'm on a level you haven't reached yet, nor grasped!


Ahhh...Science Fiction instead of Science Truths...


----------



## abu afak (Feb 9, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> I haven't bothered to read this before, because I knew it was absurd just by the title.  But I had to see the train wreck.
> 
> So, tell me Abu:
> 
> ...


Like most low IQ Fallacious creationists, you basically want a videotape of eons of mutations/in e ac ions that is just impossible to know/give.
What we do have is an ove whelming ci cums anial, NOT eyewitness case.... Duh.
Demand de ail nonsense.
////////// will fill in mo e la e. Hae los  cend-al kee oad keys. ha in  o copy paste lette s...unde num e s: ou , ive, and six on key oa d 
Impossi le wihou 'r', 't,' etc
`


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 9, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Like most low IQ Fallacious creationists, you basically want a videotape of eons of mutations/in e ac ions that is just impossible to know/give.
> What we do have is an ove whelming ci cums anial, NOT eyewitness case.... Duh.
> Demand de ail nonsense.
> ////////// will fill in mo e la e. Hae los  cend-al kee oad keys. ha in  o copy paste lette s...unde num e s: ou , ive, and six on key oa d
> ...


That's a weird way to say, "I can't answer those questions."


----------



## Hollie (Feb 9, 2022)

Cougarbear said:


>


“Genesis Apologetics”?

It’s bad enough that people get their science from YouTube videos but YouTube videos from fundamentalist creation ministries is just really horrible,


----------



## james bond (Feb 9, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> That's a weird way to say, "I can't answer those questions."


I thought abu afak  said, "I'm a dumb shitz" using more words than necessary.  He doesn't answer any questions because that way he won't get caught lying as he believes in evolution and atheism.


----------



## Stryder50 (Feb 10, 2022)

Cougarbear said:


> Ahhh...Science Fiction instead of Science Truths...


Surprising how many "Science Truths" were seeded via Science Fiction ... ~ ~ ~


----------



## abu afak (Feb 10, 2022)

james bond said:


> I thought abu afak  said, "I'm a dumb shitz" using more words than necessary.  He doesn't answer any questions because that way he won't get caught lying as he believes in evolution and atheism.


I answer All serious questions put to me.
Unlike you though, I can say "I/we don't know/know yet," while ALL your answers are the same Religious GodDidIt nonsense.
Bible/god/bible/god/bible/god
bible/god/bible/god/bible
bible/god/bible/god
`


----------



## abu afak (Feb 10, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> That's a weird way to say, "I can't answer those questions."


You cannot answer anything. ZERO
Just recently it was maybe Seven TROLLING posts of
'umm
uh huh
hmm
um
etc"

That was the Another day when you were blown out of the water by me and decided to go the troll route.
You still have no answers,
No "Intelligent design"
No "apparent design"
No "irreducible complexity"

No Evidence of anything.
`


----------



## Cougarbear (Feb 10, 2022)

Hollie said:


> “Genesis Apologetics”?
> 
> It’s bad enough that people get their science from YouTube videos but YouTube videos from fundamentalist creation ministries is just really horrible,


Quoting Seymours Flops, "That's a weird way to say, "I can't answer those questions."


----------



## Cougarbear (Feb 10, 2022)

Stryder50 said:


> Surprising how many "Science Truths" were seeded via Science Fiction ... ~ ~ ~


Very true. Jules Verne as well as Star Trek. Even Dick Tracy and his communication watch on his wrist. Science takes great imagination and patience. Something these yahoos in this forum who are anti-everything don't have.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 10, 2022)

Cougarbear said:


> Quoting Seymours Flops, "That's a weird way to say, "I can't answer those questions."


It's not weird at all. Science answers questions about the natural world. There's no need to sacrifice farm animals in order to appease angry gods. We can forecast storms that bring thunder and lighting.


----------



## Cougarbear (Feb 10, 2022)

Hollie said:


> It's not weird at all. Science answers questions about the natural world. There's no need to sacrifice farm animals in order to appease angry gods. We can forecast storms that bring thunder and lighting.


You didn't answer it either. You just parroted what the parrots think. And, to think you can forecast the weather is laughable. If that were true, we'd know exactly where a hurricane would land far before it does. Or, tornados as well. You are right today that there is no need to sacrifice animals. Who is doing that? That ended with the atonement of Jesus Christ. Jews, although they deny Christ, don't even sacrifice animals anymore. 

Science brings into questions about the natural world. But, rarely does it answer questions that it doesn't bring up even more questions. This "settled science" crap is just people who don't want to find out the truth about anything. Politics and money are more important to them. Not one study on masks has scientifically proven masks slow down or stop the spread of Covid19 or any other virus. Not one.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 10, 2022)

Cougarbear said:


> You didn't answer it either. You just parroted what the parrots think. And, to think you can forecast the weather is laughable. If that were true, we'd know exactly where a hurricane would land far before it does. Or, tornados as well. You are right today that there is no need to sacrifice animals. Who is doing that? That ended with the atonement of Jesus Christ. Jews, although they deny Christ, don't even sacrifice animals anymore.
> 
> Science brings into questions about the natural world. But, rarely does it answer questions that it doesn't bring up even more questions. This "settled science" crap is just people who don't want to find out the truth about anything. Politics and money are more important to them. Not one study on masks has scientifically proven masks slow down or stop the spread of Covid19 or any other virus. Not one.


What didn't I answer? 

Is weather forecasting really laughable? It's not perfect but weather is very dynamic so there are errors.

Science actually does answer questions about the natural world. If you want to know the time and date for every lunar and solar eclipse for the next 500 years you could ask an astronomer or you could consult the all-knowing, all-seeing Bible. I think we both know where the correct answer will come from.


----------



## Cougarbear (Feb 10, 2022)

Hollie said:


> What didn't I answer?
> 
> Is weather forecasting really laughable? It's not perfect but weather is very dynamic so there are errors.
> 
> Science actually does answer questions about the natural world. If you want to know the time and date for every lunar and solar eclipse for the next 500 years you could ask an astronomer or you could consult the all-knowing, all-seeing Bible. I think we both know where the correct answer will come from.


What do solar and lunar eclipses have to do with the topic? Science isn't settled.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 10, 2022)

Cougarbear said:


> What do solar and lunar eclipses have to do with the topic? Science isn't settled.


Did you forget what you wrote?

"...But, rarely does it answer questions that it doesn't bring up even more questions"

Odd you would claim science doesn't answer questions when science unquestionably does. Does science answer questions about disease? Of course. If you have a serious illness are you going to rattle bones, pray, or seek competent medical care?


----------



## Cougarbear (Feb 10, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Did you forget what you wrote?
> 
> "...But, rarely does it answer questions that it doesn't bring up even more questions"
> 
> Odd you would claim science doesn't answer questions when science unquestionably does. Does science answer questions about disease? Of course. If you have a serious illness are you going to rattle bones, pray, or seek competent medical care?


But, it doesn't answer the question where did I come from as in the universe and earth questions. It's made monumental mistakes with this Chromosome Ape stuff with trying to claim we have a 99% connection with Chimps. Not so. And, the mutation clock is way off as the video explains. When I read things in studies and magazines, I look for "fuzzy words" that ask us to believe them but without it being settled: May be, could be.....


----------



## abu afak (Feb 10, 2022)

Cougarbear said:


> *But, it doesn't answer the question where did I come from as in the universe and earth questions.*


Not yet, but it's our only real hope to find out.
Like 10,000 other phenomenon that USED to have gods (fire, Lightning, Fertility, etc) before they found out what it actually was.
You've slid into 'God of the Gaps'



Cougarbear said:


> * It's made monumental mistakes with this Chromosome Ape stuff with trying to claim we have a 99% connection with Chimps. Not so. *


You of course have a real link for this Idiotic claim besides ICR, AIG, etc
Because 98-99% DNA similar is True

You really are not even debatable as you have no basic facts.

`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 10, 2022)

Cougarbear said:


> No need since I have science on my side.


Oh look, a video you never watched and don't understand. 

No, you don't have any science on the side of your childish denial, and you would get laughed out of a college biology class. You are embarrassing yourself.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 10, 2022)

Are you guys all enjoying the wave of brand new sockpuppet troll accounts? Fascinating. I wonder how many actual humans are behind them? 1? More?


----------



## Cougarbear (Feb 10, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oh look, a video you never watched and don't understand.
> 
> No, you don't have any science on the side of your childish denial, and you would get laughed out of a college biology class. You are embarrassing yourself.


That's what happens when ignorant persons such as yourself try to defend the indefensible. The science in the video is accurate. But, you will just throw insults and never try to correct any of it because you know you can't. Just jump up and down, throw out insults and behave badly like a good little liberal Democrat.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 10, 2022)

Cougarbear said:


> But, it doesn't answer the question where did I come from as in the universe and earth questions. It's made monumental mistakes with this Chromosome Ape stuff with trying to claim we have a 99% connection with Chimps. Not so. And, the mutation clock is way off as the video explains. When I read things in studies and magazines, I look for "fuzzy words" that ask us to believe them but without it being settled: May be, could be.....


The question of where did all of existence come from is unanswered. The science disciplines are seeking the answers. There is nothing in any of the religions that seeks those answers. Religions are literally dead ends when it comes to exploring the universe for answers.

I’m not clear what you mean about monumental mistakes about “chromosome ape stuff”. It’s just a fact that humans and apes share very similar DNA sequences. I think it’s a mistake to accept science data from Christian fundamentalists. They have an obvious agenda to press. The creation ministries announce their dishonesty with the standard “statement of faith” that precludes objectivity.


----------



## Indeependent (Feb 10, 2022)

Hollie said:


> The question of where did all of existence come from is unanswered. The science disciplines are seeking the answers. There is nothing in any of the religions that seeks those answers. Religions are literally dead ends when it comes to exploring the universe for answers.
> 
> I’m not clear what you mean about monumental mistakes about “chromosome ape stuff”. It’s just a fact that humans and apes share very similar DNA sequences. I think it’s a mistake to accept science data from Christian fundamentalists. They have an obvious agenda to press. The creation ministries announce their dishonesty with the standard “statement of faith” that precludes objectivity.


I'm sure Yeshivah University doesn't have a science department.
Are you on drugs?


----------



## Hollie (Feb 10, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> I'm sure Yeshivah University doesn't have a science department.
> Are you on drugs?


The creation ministries are full of clowns who attended diploma mills which announce science departments.

Lay off the drugs. You’ve had horrible experiences, obviously.


----------



## Indeependent (Feb 10, 2022)

Hollie said:


> The creation ministries are full of clowns who attended diploma mills which announce science departments.
> 
> Lay off the drugs. You’ve had horrible experiences, obviously.


When it comes to this topic, you are one dumb piece of shit.
It's so cool when the head of John's Hopkins Physics Department was an bearded Orthodox Jew who was a creationist.
You wish you invented a fraction of what they have invented.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 10, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> When it comes to this topic, you are one dumb piece of shit.
> It's so cool when the head of John's Hopkins Physics Department was an bearded Orthodox Jew who was a creationist.
> You wish you invented a fraction of what they have invented.


You need to stop bragging about Ashkenazi (and orthodox or Islamist) intelligence.
Holy book literalists are a plague on the planet.
The vast majority of Jewish Nobel winners were not orthodox they were just about all Ashkenazi/Euro-mixes though.
They did not have a peyos.

Einstein's letter to Gutkind - 1954 (auctioned at Christies)

*‘The word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses,’* Einstein wrote to Gutkind, *‘the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this.’*​​Despite Einstein’s open identification with Judaism, his feelings on it were the same:​*‘For me the unadulterated Jewish religion is, like all other religions, an incarnation of primitive superstition. *And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong, and in whose mentality I feel profoundly anchored, still for me *does not have any different kind of dignity from all other peoples. As far as my experience goes, they are in fact no better than other human groups, *even if they are protected from the worst excesses by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot perceive anything “chosen” about them.’​
YOU believe, alas, in the "unadulterated Jewish religion"/"primitive superstitious" orthodox world.

`


----------



## Hollie (Feb 11, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> When it comes to this topic, you are one dumb piece of shit.
> It's so cool when the head of John's Hopkins Physics Department was an bearded Orthodox Jew who was a creationist.
> You wish you invented a fraction of what they have invented.


Are you referring to this loon?

Angry religious extremists. Funny.





__





						Encyclopedia of American Loons
					

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.




					americanloons.blogspot.com
				




By virtue of being a physicist, one would think that creationist Lee Spetner would have some aptitude for aligning his beliefs on science to the evidence. No such luck. Spetner spent years in Israel attempting to search for evidence which “contradicted evolution” and favored his religious views. His conclusion was, remarkable, the one he had from the beginning: there was 365 originally created species of “beasts” and 365 birds, as detailed in his book _Not by Chance, Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution_, which even by its title reveals a profound lack of understanding of evolution. In the book he also says that mutations do not create new information, which is needed to drive evolution, and that mutations are not beneficial as they lead to a loss of information. He also rejects archaeopteryx as a fraud – indeed, Spetner and Fred Hoyle were the creationist critics that really set the stage for later creationist dismissals of the fossil. Of course, Spetner and Hoyle based their objections on complete misunderstandings of an unfamiliarity with the data and relevant processes, tactfully concluding that the real scientists were not only mistaken, but frauds. The incidence, described here, should really have undermined all aspirations of credibility Spetner might once have entertained, but the creationists apparently never noticed.

In short, Spetner’s book is a collection of creationist PRATTs. Do you think Spetner deals with the scientific responses to those PRATTs? Nope. Not a chance – the point was, familiarly, never to do science, but to win the public, and actually dealing with thorny scientific issues would presumably be too much. The purpose of the book is to replace the modern synthesis with a mixture of divine creation and a non-random evolution theory which he believes explains microevolution. His book has been endorsed by creationists and intelligent design advocates who presents it as a the work of a non-creationist presenting evidence against central tenets of evolution, even though Spetner is, in fact, an outspoken, ardent creationist (as discussed here). Indeed, when the 2013 Ball State kerfuffle – erupted due to creationist Eric Hedin wanting to disguise fundamentalist evangelicism as a biology course at Ball State University, Spetner’s work was on the reading list – despite Spetner’s obvious lack of understanding of even the basic tenets of biology or, for that matter, probability theory; there is a wonderful takedown of Spetner’s attempt to use mathematical modeling to undermine evolution here.

He is also a signatory to the Discovery Institute petition A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.
*Diagnosis: Nothing more than your standard fundamentalist denialist creationist, really, though Spetner has somehow, occasionally, managed to pass as something else to those who don’t already understand what he is talking about. Disgraceful, really.*


----------



## abu afak (Feb 11, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Are you referring to this loon?
> 
> Angry religious extremists. Funny.
> 
> ...


Nice find/outing of indeependent and his BS cult.
`


----------



## Indeependent (Feb 11, 2022)

abu afak said:


> You need to stop bragging about Ashkenazi (and orthodox or Islamist) intelligence.
> Holy book literalists are a plague on the planet.
> The vast majority of Jewish Nobel winners were not orthodox they were just about all Ashkenazi/Euro-mixes though.
> They did not have a peyos.
> ...


You posted a run on ad hominem.
You did not respond to the impossibility of evolution.


----------



## Indeependent (Feb 11, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Nice find/outing of indeependent and his BS cult.
> `


Let me know when you have at least one PhD in a hard science.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 11, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> You posted a run on ad hominem.
> You did not respond to the impossibility of evolution.


I've written a BOOK compared to what you have Burped here you one-line Clown.
Answered you elaborately, as well as having many high end threads LIKE THIS ONE.
Way over your Non-yiddishe kop.
You got PORKED.

`


----------



## Cougarbear (Feb 11, 2022)

Hollie said:


> The question of where did all of existence come from is unanswered. The science disciplines are seeking the answers. There is nothing in any of the religions that seeks those answers. Religions are literally dead ends when it comes to exploring the universe for answers.
> 
> I’m not clear what you mean about monumental mistakes about “chromosome ape stuff”. It’s just a fact that humans and apes share very similar DNA sequences. I think it’s a mistake to accept science data from Christian fundamentalists. They have an obvious agenda to press. The creation ministries announce their dishonesty with the standard “statement of faith” that precludes objectivity.


You have the same dishonest standard to meet your faith in science, even though you admit science has not answered the question where did we come from, how did we get here, why are we here and where are we going next? Yet, you are unwilling to look at other possibilities. Your comments about humans and apes are not true. The way the so-called scientists came up with 99% the same DNA was disingenuous and false. When you don't take out those DNA links that do not line up, it's more like 85% and I've seen lower. That's a huge difference. Not only that, the 6 million years from our supposedly common ancestor mutation doesn't work either. Science keeps stretching out the time period now to 13.5 million. But, that's way off as well. I invite you to watch the video and at least know what you are talking about and/or trying to say is wrong. You remind me of my grandson who will not eat some food, not even taste it to see if he'd like it or not. He's 17. Watch the video so we can have an intelligent conversation. 

Your statement about religions are dead ends when exploring the universe is also false. You might want to educate yourself with the studies at many of the religious schools around the world before making such an ignorant statement like this. I remember when I was at BYU back in the late 1970's being introduced to Steven Hawkins in the science building. You might like to know that the father of the TV was a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 11, 2022)

Cougarbear said:


> You have the same dishonest standard to meet your faith in science, even though you admit science has not answered the question where did we come from, how did we get here, why are we here and where are we going next? Yet, you are unwilling to look at other possibilities. Your comments about humans and apes are not true. The way the so-called scientists came up with 99% the same DNA was disingenuous and false. When you don't take out those DNA links that do not line up, it's more like 85% and I've seen lower. That's a huge difference. Not only that, the 6 million years from our supposedly common ancestor mutation doesn't work either. Science keeps stretching out the time period now to 13.5 million. But, that's way off as well. I invite you to watch the video and at least know what you are talking about and/or trying to say is wrong. You remind me of my grandson who will not eat some food, not even taste it to see if he'd like it or not. He's 17. Watch the video so we can have an intelligent conversation.
> 
> Your statement about religions are dead ends when exploring the universe is also false. You might want to educate yourself with the studies at many of the religious schools around the world before making such an ignorant statement like this. I remember when I was at BYU back in the late 1970's being introduced to Steven Hawkins in the science building. You might like to know that the father of the TV was a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.


What dishonest standard is there for science to meet? There certainly is no faith required in science. That's a standard creationist claim. There is no faith required in the study of medicine, paleontology, biology or any of the other physical sciences. If something is known, there is no faith required. 

My comments about humans and primates certainly were true. The data is available on most any science based website. You can deny the facts but that doesn't make the facts do away. The youtube video you cut and pasted was supposed to be a joke? As with all the extremist Christian ministries, they are bound by a ''statement of faith'', that requires all evidence to conform to extremist Christian dogma. It' both dishonest and presumptuous to expect others to accept the bias and predetermined positions of religious extremists. 

If my comments about religions being dead ends when exploring the universe are false, make your case for an alternate position. Tell us what the religious institutions are doing to advance our understanding of the natural world. What research papers prepared by the religious institutions have been submitted to the National Science Foundation, for example? Identify one.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 11, 2022)

Cougarbear said:


> That's what happens when ignorant persons such as yourself try to defend the indefensible. The science in the video is accurate. But, you will just throw insults and never try to correct any of it because you know you can't. Just jump up and down, throw out insults and behave badly like a good little liberal Democrat.


Oh look, more self-soothing babble from a religious dumbfuck who is on the wrong side of science. The best part is when you said you had science on your side and googled for a video you never watched as "proof". Pathetic. You simply don't have what it takes to post in this section, sorry.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 11, 2022)

Cougarbear said:


> You have the same dishonest standard to meet your faith in science, even though you admit science has not answered the question where did we come from, how did we get here, why are we here and where are we going next? *Yet, you are unwilling to look at other possibilities.*


Not at all.
but "other possibilities" have to have some semblance of EVIDENCE.



Cougarbear said:


> Your comments about humans and apes are not true. *The way the so-called scientists came up with 99% the same DNA was disingenuous and false. When you don't take out those DNA links that do not line up, it's more like 85% and I've seen lower.*


LINK?



Cougarbear said:


> That's a huge difference. Not only that, the 6 million years from our supposedly common ancestor mutation doesn't work either. Science keeps stretching out the time period now to 13.5 million. But, that's way off as well. I invite you to watch the video and at least know what you are talking about and/or trying to say is wrong. You remind me of my grandson who will not eat some food, not even taste it to see if he'd like it or not. He's 17. Watch the video so we can have an intelligent conversation.


Actually, videos are Not a good way to have a conversation as the author and his claims are not as well laid out nor oft documentable. They oft proceed on an opening False premise and mix in a few more.
Just like you just did with your wrong take on well known and accepted similarity of primate DNA percentages. No source. (which will turn out to be a creationist website, to 'confirm' the creationist youtube?)



Cougarbear said:


> Your statement about religions are dead ends when exploring the universe is also false. You might want to educate yourself with the studies at many of the religious schools around the world before making such an ignorant statement like this. I remember when I was at BYU back in the late 1970's being introduced to Steven Hawkins in the science building. You might like to know that the father of the TV was a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.


I don't see a single fact in there. Unless you're claiming Hawking thinks "god did it."
Why would one expect to find info about a natural/scientific cause from people whose purpose is defending (indeed spreading) their religious creationism/doctrine that predates any real science.

.


----------



## Cougarbear (Feb 12, 2022)

Hollie said:


> What dishonest standard is there for science to meet? There certainly is no faith required in science. That's a standard creationist claim. There is no faith required in the study of medicine, paleontology, biology or any of the other physical sciences. If something is known, there is no faith required.
> 
> My comments about humans and primates certainly were true. The data is available on most any science based website. You can deny the facts but that doesn't make the facts do away. The youtube video you cut and pasted was supposed to be a joke? As with all the extremist Christian ministries, they are bound by a ''statement of faith'', that requires all evidence to conform to extremist Christian dogma. It' both dishonest and presumptuous to expect others to accept the bias and predetermined positions of religious extremists.
> 
> If my comments about religions being dead ends when exploring the universe are false, make your case for an alternate position. Tell us what the religious institutions are doing to advance our understanding of the natural world. What research papers prepared by the religious institutions have been submitted to the National Science Foundation, for example? Identify one.


For the primary chimp chromosomes (autosomes), the amount of optimally aligned DNA sequence provided similarities between 66 and 76 percent, depending on the chromosome. In general, the smaller and more gene-dense chromosomes showed higher DNA sequence similarity—although there were several notable exceptions. Only 69 percent of the chimpanzee X chromosome (female sex chromosome) and only 43 percent of the Y chromosome was similar to human DNA. Genome-wide, only 70 percent of the chimpanzee genome assembly was similar to human DNA under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. These results actually confirm previous research where omitted data were included to produce much lower estimates of DNA similarity between humans and chimps for previously published secular reports.5, 6 - Chromosome Comparison Shows More Chimp-Human Differences

So, basically, the evolutionary studies cherry picked where they studied the DNA from Chimps and Humans skewing the results. honestly, evolutionist have to do this to force us to believe Humans and Chimps are close relatives. They do this with fossil evidence with Artie and Lucy as well. Just to force people to believe in evolution because they have so much invested.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 12, 2022)

Cougarbear said:


> For the primary chimp chromosomes (autosomes), the amount of optimally aligned DNA sequence provided similarities between 66 and 76 percent, depending on the chromosome. In general, the smaller and more gene-dense chromosomes showed higher DNA sequence similarity—although there were several notable exceptions. Only 69 percent of the chimpanzee X chromosome (female sex chromosome) and only 43 percent of the Y chromosome was similar to human DNA. Genome-wide, only 70 percent of the chimpanzee genome assembly was similar to human DNA under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. These results actually confirm previous research where omitted data were included to produce much lower estimates of DNA similarity between humans and chimps for previously published secular reports.5, 6 - Chromosome Comparison Shows More Chimp-Human Differences
> 
> So, basically, the evolutionary studies cherry picked where they studied the DNA from Chimps and Humans skewing the results. honestly, evolutionist have to do this to force us to believe Humans and Chimps are close relatives. They do this with fossil evidence with Artie and Lucy as well. Just to force people to believe in evolution because they have so much invested.


So basically, you provided no defendable evidence. Using charlatans at extremist ministries is really just a joke because we both know that creation ministries do no research and publish in no peer reviewed literature.

let’s not pretend that the charlatans at ICR are either honest or credible. I note that the ICR charlatans identify “… previously published secular reports”.

Is there a difference between fundamentalist Christian reports and secular evilutionist atheist reports?

Let’s examine the objective standards of extremist Christian ministries.
Principles of Biblical Creationism​







						Foundational Principles
					






					www.icr.org
				


The Creator of the universe is a triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is only one eternal and transcendent God, the source of all being and meaning, and He exists in three Persons, each of whom participated in the work of creation.

The Bible, consisting of the 39 canonical books of the Old Testament and the 27 canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.
All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the creation week described in Genesis 1:1–2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous; thus, all theories of origins or development that involve evolution in any form are false. All things that now exist are sustained and ordered by God’s providential care. However, a part of the spiritual creation, Satan and his angels, rebelled against God after the creation and are attempting to thwart His divine purposes in creation.


On the other hand, I will give you peer reviewed data that remarkably has a list of references, admittedly to evilutionist atheist science sources:
_Proceedings of the National Academy of Science
Journal of Heredity
Nature
Journal of Molecular Evolution_

Gee, whiz. I guess science got nuthin’ on Jimmy Swaggert.






__





						CB144:  Human/chimp genome difference
					





					www.talkorigins.org
				






The difference between chimpanzees and humans due to single-nucleotide substitutions averages 1.23 percent, of which 1.06 percent or less is due to fixed divergence, and the rest being a result of polymorphism within chimp populations and within human populations. Insertion and deletion (indel) events account for another approximately 3 percent difference between chimp and human sequences, but each indel typically involves multiple nucleotides. The number of genetic changes from indels is a fraction of the number of single-nucleotide substitutions (roughly 5 million compared with roughly 35 million). So describing humans and chimpanzees as 98 to 99 percent identical is entirely appropriate (Chimpanzee Sequencing 2005).


The difference measurement depends on what you are measuring. If you measure the number of proteins for which the entire protein is identical in the two species, humans and chimpanzees are 29 percent identical (Chimpanzee Sequencing 2005). If you measure nonsynonymous base pair differences within protein coding regions, humans and chimps are 99.75 percent identical (Chimpanzee Sequencing 2005, fig. 9). The original 98.4 percent estimate came from DNA hybridization experiments, which measured (indirectly, via DNA melting temperature) sequence difference among short segments of the genomes that are similar enough to hybridize but with repetitive elements removed (Sibley and Ahlquist 1987). Whatever measure is used, however, as long as the same measurement is used consistently, will show that humans are more closely related to chimpanzees (including the bonobo, sister species to the common chimpanzee) than to any other species.

Note also, though, that evolution has not been uniform throughout the genomes, so estimates of human-chimp divergence which consider only part of the genome can give different results (Britten 2002, Chen et al. 2001).
References:​
Britten, Roy J. 2002. Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5% counting indels.  _Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA_ 99: 13633-13635.
Chen, F.-C., E. J. Vallender, H. Wang, C.-S. Tzeng, and W.-H. Li. 2001. Genomic divergence between human and chimpanzee estimated from large-scale alignments of genomic sequences. _Journal of Heredity_ 92(6): 481-489.
Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium. 2005. Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome. _Nature_ 437: 69-87.
Sibley, C. G. and J. E. Ahlquist. 1987. DNA hybridization evidence of hominid phylogeny: Results from an expanded data set.  _Journal of Molecular Evolution_ 26: 99-121.


----------



## ding (Feb 12, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Contrary to what you might read from some IDIOT KWEATIOIST Website...
> (Like ICR/Institute for Creation Research recently posted here.)
> this is a SIMPLE one and a BIGGIE.
> Easy to understand/SEE.
> ...


So genetic mutation rather than natural selection?


----------



## abu afak (Feb 12, 2022)

ding said:


> So genetic mutation rather than natural selection?


non sequitur question.
Nature can and does select from among the many millions of mutations.
It's a trial-and-[literally]-error process. Evo!
Whatever new traits work best for current conditions, continue/multiply. Most fail unnoticed.
And of course ongoing. So many wrongly think 'we' (as is) are not only the top, but end game of evo.
`


----------



## ding (Feb 12, 2022)

abu afak said:


> non sequitur question.
> Nature can and does select from among the many millions of mutations.
> It's a trial-and-[literally]-error process. Evo!
> Whatever new traits work best for current conditions, continue/multiply. Most fail unnoticed.
> ...


I am just confirming that you believe this was a genetic mutation and not natural selection, ok?  Well do you?


----------



## ding (Feb 12, 2022)

So much for natural selection when it comes to speciation.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 12, 2022)

Still one of the cooler discoveries in all of biology...


----------



## ding (Feb 12, 2022)

Darwin got so many things wrong.


----------



## Death Angel (Feb 12, 2022)

Turtlesoup said:


> A childs life?   Don't you mean zygote?


A STAGE in the development of a HUMAN life you idiot


----------



## Death Angel (Feb 12, 2022)

Chuz Life said:


> Either that, or it's an attempt to understand and explain how "God" did it. LOL


I was gonna say space aliens did it. They're more likely to accept that. Baby steps


----------



## Death Angel (Feb 12, 2022)

Kilroy2 said:


> Is this another thing that points to evolution and to be denied by those who believe in god.


"God"

"a god"  "the God"

Do you atheists understand basic grammar?


----------



## abu afak (Feb 12, 2022)

ding said:


> I am just confirming that you believe this was a genetic mutation and not natural selection, ok?  Well do you?


Again, that's a non sequitur that shows you know Nothing about evo. (as well as being a troll)
I mean nothing Designer guy.
The two are not only Not mutually exclusive, but there can't be any Natural selection (as opposed to Your Fundie 'designed') without a wide number of mutations enabling current conditions to favor the better ones and let the non-survivability-advantaged ones slip away.

`


----------



## ding (Feb 13, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Again, that's a non sequitur that shows you know Nothing about evo. (as well as being a troll)
> I mean nothing Designer guy.
> The two are not only Not mutually exclusive, but there can't be any Natural selection (as opposed to Your Fundie 'designed') without a wide number of mutations enabling current conditions to favor the better ones and let the non-survivability-advantaged ones slip away.
> 
> `


All I asked was do you believe the fusing of chromosomes was a product of a genetic mutation or natural selection.

Do you believe if Darwin had known about genes he might have rethought his theory?


----------



## abu afak (Feb 14, 2022)

Death Angel said:


> "God"
> 
> "a god"  "the God"
> 
> Do you atheists understand basic grammar?


When most theists here post they say 'god' (a god) but they are really only talking about their (the god).
They in fact reject all the other ones.
`


----------



## Colin norris (Feb 14, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Contrary to what you might read from some IDIOT KWEATIOIST Website...
> (Like ICR/Institute for Creation Research recently posted here.)
> this is a SIMPLE one and a BIGGIE.
> Easy to understand/SEE.
> ...


Th e  ones with less chromosomes are regarded as republicans. 
They gave primate I tellivence and spent their life scratching the head and nuts.


----------



## Cougarbear (Feb 14, 2022)

Hollie said:


> So basically, you provided no defendable evidence. Using charlatans at extremist ministries is really just a joke because we both know that creation ministries do no research and publish in no peer reviewed literature.
> 
> let’s not pretend that the charlatans at ICR are either honest or credible. I note that the ICR charlatans identify “… previously published secular reports”.
> 
> ...


It's your claim that these Phd's are charlatans. What proof do you have of this? Forget about them being religious. The information comes from studies done by evolutionists. It's not their work. It's yours! You are being hanged by your own works. What creationists have uncovered is the sick attempts to hide the truth by ignoring scientific findings that hurt evolution's claims that we are almost chimps.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 14, 2022)

Cougarbear said:


> It's your claim that these Phd's are charlatans. What proof do you have of this? Forget about them being religious. The information comes from studies done by evolutionists. It's not their work. It's yours! You are being hanged by your own works. What creationists have uncovered is the sick attempts to hide the truth by ignoring scientific findings that hurt evolution's claims that we are almost chimps.


Your source in great majority disagrees with You lunatic boy!
Only one cherry picked/hyper-specific number agrees.
WTF!
​CB144: Human/chimp genome difference​
*""The difference between chimpanzees and humans due to single-nucleotide substitutions averages 1.23%, of which 1.06% or less is due to fixed divergence, and the rest being a result of polymorphism within chimp populations and within human populations.* Insertion and deletion (indel) events account for another approximately 3% difference between chimp and human sequences, but each indel typically involves multiple nucleotides. The number of genetic changes from indels is a fraction of the number of single-nucleotide substitutions (roughly 5 million compared with roughly 35 million). So describing humans and chimpanzees as 98% to 99% identical is entirely appropriate (Chimpanzee Sequencing 2005).



The difference measurement depends on what you are measuring. If you measure the number of proteins for which the entire protein is identical in the two species, humans and chimpanzees are 29% identical (Chimpanzee Sequencing 2005). *If you measure nonsynonymous base pair differences within protein coding regions, humans and chimps are 99.75% identical (Chimpanzee Sequencing 2005, fig. 9). The original 98.4% estimate came from DNA hybridization experiments*, which measured (indirectly, via DNA melting temperature) sequence difference among short segments of the genomes that are similar enough to hybridize but with repetitive elements removed (Sibley and Ahlquist 1987). Whatever measure is used, however, as long as the same measurement is used consistently, will show that humans are more closely related to chimpanzees (including the bonobo, sister species to the common chimpanzee) than to any other species.

Note also, though, that evolution has not been uniform throughout the genomes, so estimates of human-chimp divergence which consider only part of the genome can give different results (Britten 2002, Chen et al. 2001).""


And that's hardly the only one.
The VAST majority scientific literature (PhDs galore) will give you 98-99% similar.

`


----------



## Cougarbear (Feb 14, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Your source in great majority disagrees with You lunatic boy!
> Only one cherry picked/hyper-specific number agrees.
> WTF!
> ​CB144: Human/chimp genome difference​
> ...


Using old crap won't make it smell any better. That has been debunked even by evolutionist scientists as well. If it were not so, we would still look very much like chimps. We would not have white irises and we would still have a tail. Well, maybe you still have a tail


----------



## abu afak (Feb 14, 2022)

Cougarbear said:


> Using old crap won't make it smell any better. That has been debunked even by evolutionist scientists as well. If it were not so, we would still look very much like chimps. We would not have white irises and we would still have a tail. Well, maybe you still have a tail


I used YOUR Source and only YOUR excerpt Whack Job!
It DISAGREES with you.
Wow. Haysoos blind.
​""So describing humans and chimpanzees as 98% to 99% identical is entirely appropriate (Chimpanzee Sequencing 2005).""​​`​


----------



## Cougarbear (Feb 14, 2022)

abu afak said:


> I used YOUR Source and only YOUR excerpt Whack Job!
> It DISAGREES with you.
> Wow. Haysoos blind.
> ​""So describing humans and chimpanzees as 98% to 99% identical is entirely appropriate (Chimpanzee Sequencing 2005).""​​`​


What are you talking about? You didn't read the article. Here is the concluding paragraph. You can go back and read the actual report. Doubt you will because what you did is very typical of evolutionary ideologists"

"It is clear that a chasm exists between the human and chimpanzee genomes. The common claim that they are nearly identical is very questionable, based on an analysis of the methodology and data outlined in reported secular research. Reported high DNA sequence similarity estimates are based primarily on pre-selected and pre-screened biological samples and/or data. In addition, data that are too dissimilar to be conveniently aligned are typically omitted, masked and/or not reported. Furthermore, gap data from final alignments is also often discarded, further inflating final similarity estimates. This highly selective process driven by Darwinian assumptions produces the commonly touted 98% similarity figure for human-chimp DNA comparisons. Based on human chimp genome data, a more realistic analysis of the data provided in published secular reports indicates that *the similarity may be as low as 70% genome-wide*." - https://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Chasm-Between-Human-Chimp-Genomes.pdf


----------



## abu afak (Feb 14, 2022)

.


Cougarbear said:


> What are you talking about? You didn't read the article. Here is the concluding paragraph. You can go back and read the actual report. Doubt you will because what you did is very typical of evolutionary ideologists"
> 
> "It is clear that a chasm exists between the human and chimpanzee genomes. The common claim that they are nearly identical is very questionable, based on an analysis of the methodology and data outlined in reported secular research. Reported high DNA sequence similarity estimates are based primarily on pre-selected and pre-screened biological samples and/or data. In addition, data that are too dissimilar to be conveniently aligned are typically omitted, masked and/or not reported. Furthermore, gap data from final alignments is also often discarded, further inflating final similarity estimates. This highly selective process driven by Darwinian assumptions produces the commonly touted 98% similarity figure for human-chimp DNA comparisons. Based on human chimp genome data, a more realistic analysis of the data provided in published secular reports indicates that *the similarity may be as low as 70% genome-wide*." - https://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Chasm-Between-Human-Chimp-Genomes.pdf


That's not a scientific paper posted on a science website!
That's ICR, InstiSTOOP for Creation Research.
They try/Lie and shoehorn the bible into science.

You might as well quote Genesis or AnswersInGenesis.
It's not science, it's a twisted sermon.

All one needs to do is Google the question and you will get the answer from many/the vast majority of real websites.

Dear Reverend CLOWN that is doctrine, not science.
`


----------



## Hollie (Feb 14, 2022)

Cougarbear said:


> It's your claim that these Phd's are charlatans. What proof do you have of this? Forget about them being religious. The information comes from studies done by evolutionists. It's not their work. It's yours! You are being hanged by your own works. What creationists have uncovered is the sick attempts to hide the truth by ignoring scientific findings that hurt evolution's claims that we are almost chimps.


Many of the charlatans (Ph.D.'s) are charlatans because of their hyper-religionism. Absolutely my claim so let's look at a few, shall we?

Carl Baugh. He's the Paluxy Riverbed charlatan who claims that human footprints appear alongside dinosaur tracks in the Paluxy riverbed in Texas. This clown is a Baptist minister who presents himself as an archeologist with a Ph.D. However, his 'degree' is from the California Graduate School of Theology in Los Angeles. This school is unaccredited by the Western Assocation of Schools and Colleges.

How about Stephen Meyer? This clown is director of the Disco'tute. He has a degree in something called ''philosophy of science'' and like many ''philosophers'' and other charlatans at the Disco'tute, he makes a lot of claims about scientific fields which show him to be completely illiterate.

Then there's Casey Luskin, also from the Disco'tute. He's a lawyer and a spokes-quack for the 'tutes. He published some the really nonsensical “Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover”, and “Alternative Viewpoints about Biological Origins as Taught in Public Schools”.

Let's look at Kelly Segraves. He is the director and co-founder of something called the ''Creation-Science Research Center''. Let me know if you can find any research this charlatan has performed. This quavk lists himself as M.A. and D.Sc. on CSRC letterhead. Segraves claimed his honorary D.Sc. from Christian University, but no such university exists.


Thats a start. Want more?

''_What creationists have uncovered is the sick attempts to hide the truth by ignoring scientific findings that hurt evolution's claims that we are almost chimps_.''

Actually, no. What creationer charlatans have discovered is that there are hyper-religious types who are gullible enough to be led like sheep to the ritual slaughter into the dark underbelly of creationer conspiracy theories.


----------



## Cougarbear (Feb 14, 2022)

abu afak said:


> .
> 
> That's not a scientific paper posted on a science website!
> That's ICR, InstiSTOOP for Creation Research.
> ...


So, you admit you lied. Thank you. Doesn't surprise me because that's what atheists do all the time. They have no consequences for their actions because they are their own gods. I led you to the actual article you claimed was proving you right when it did not. Yet, you still are trying to use the same garbage answer you all do.


----------



## Cougarbear (Feb 14, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Many of the charlatans (Ph.D.'s) are charlatans because of their hyper-religionism. Absolutely my claim so let's look at a few, shall we?
> 
> Carl Baugh. He's the Paluxy Riverbed charlatan who claims that human footprints appear alongside dinosaur tracks in the Paluxy riverbed in Texas. This clown is a Baptist minister who presents himself as an archeologist with a Ph.D. However, his 'degree' is from the California Graduate School of Theology in Los Angeles. This school is unaccredited by the Western Assocation of Schools and Colleges.
> 
> ...


I can claim the same thing that your experts are charlatans because they are hyper-evolutionists who manipulate the science interpretations by selectively tossing out the proof against their claims to prove their claims. What the creationist scientists did was put those proofs back into the science and come up with truth that we are most likely less than 70% related by DNA to Chimps. Which, by the way, coincides with most evolutionists now that humans are not related to chimps. The reason is that the evolutionists now claim that humans and chimps have a common ancestor that lived 6.5 to 13 million years ago. Hominids and Apes broke off into different branches and so are not related at all. Why do you not know this? Why do creationists know this? How does ignorance really feel?


----------



## Hollie (Feb 14, 2022)

Cougarbear said:


> I can claim the same thing that your experts are charlatans because they are hyper-evolutionists who manipulate the science interpretations by selectively tossing out the proof against their claims to prove their claims. What the creationist scientists did was put those proofs back into the science and come up with truth that we are most likely less than 70% related by DNA to Chimps. Which, by the way, coincides with most evolutionists now that humans are not related to chimps. The reason is that the evolutionists now claim that humans and chimps have a common ancestor that lived 6.5 to 13 million years ago. Hominids and Apes broke off into different branches and so are not related at all. Why do you not know this? Why do creationists know this? How does ignorance really feel?


Oddly, you didn't address my specific response to your specific challenge, which was, “…. What proof do you have of this?”

Well, I gave you specific examples.

Your rant is now, “…. _they are hyper-evolutionists who manipulate the science interpretations by selectively tossing out the proof against their claims to prove their claims._”

Wow. We’re getting a little hyper-hysterical and hyper-sensitive regarding our hyper-religionism. 

So, tell us more about those evilutionist atheist scientists who “_manipulate the science interpretations by selectively tossing out the proof against their claims to prove their claims._”

What is “_the proof against their claims to prove their claims._”

Any examples? Religionism must have some examples, right?


----------



## james bond (Feb 15, 2022)

abu afak said:


> You need to stop bragging about Ashkenazi (and orthodox or Islamist) intelligence.
> Holy book literalists are a plague on the planet.
> The vast majority of Jewish Nobel winners were not orthodox they were just about all Ashkenazi/Euro-mixes though.
> They did not have a peyos.
> ...


Einstein didn't know science can't have a proof nor disproof of God/gods (Feynman) and that science backs up the Bible.  If science didn't do that, then there is no creation science.


I think you're trying to have science back up atheism, but there is no science for that.  That's why you are fight so hard for it and why you get emo.

You also fail with a logic error of appealing to authority.


----------



## Cougarbear (Feb 15, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Oddly, you didn't address my specific response to your specific challenge, which was, “…. What proof do you have of this?”
> 
> Well, I gave you specific examples.
> 
> ...


I gave you the proof. But, your religious ideology to Chimps being your god of evolution refuse to acknowledge the truth that evolution science hides those things that disprove their claims. And, I shared with you the science behind this. You have the percentages now. I just didn't agree with the deception in what you put out there.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 15, 2022)

Cougarbear said:


> I gave you the proof. But, your religious ideology to Chimps being your god of evolution refuse to acknowledge the truth that evolution science hides those things that disprove their claims. And, I shared with you the science behind this. You have the percentages now. I just didn't agree with the deception in what you put out there.


That reads like a lot of conspiracy theory rambling.

You're rambling again about some conspiracy theory that "evolution refuse to acknowledge the truth that evolution science hides those things that disprove their claim."

What evidence is being hidden by evilutionist atheist scientists? Be specific and provide relevant examples. I'm afraid you're simply copying and pasting your same post that reiterates some conspiracy theory you're enamored with.

What deception have I put out there? This is another, rather frantic claim you can't seem to provide any elaboration for.


----------



## Cougarbear (Feb 15, 2022)

Hollie said:


> That reads like a lot of conspiracy theory rambling.
> 
> You're rambling again about some conspiracy theory that "evolution refuse to acknowledge the truth that evolution science hides those things that disprove their claim."
> 
> ...


No it doesn't. It may to you because you are not teachable anymore. You've been brainwashed by others to not be objective and listen to what others have to say. for instance, the articles I've provided explain what is being hidden and tossed aside so that information isn't hurting their objective to trick people into believing we are Chimps. Okay Alvin, you are a human...


----------



## Hollie (Feb 15, 2022)

Cougarbear said:


> No it doesn't. It may to you because you are not teachable anymore. You've been brainwashed by others to not be objective and listen to what others have to say. for instance, the articles I've provided explain what is being hidden and tossed aside so that information isn't hurting their objective to trick people into believing we are Chimps. Okay Alvin, you are a human...


You're angry and emotive but that still doesn't address your conspiracy theories.

How have I been "brainwashed" and by who? I'm fine with being objective but when you copy and paste from charlatans at the ICR ministry, it is you who has abandoned objectivity. As you know, the charlatans at creationer ministries adhere to a "statement of faith" that pre-determines all their positions. You can hide under a burqa of denial but it is a fact that the creationers are not objective and in fact they agree to a "statement of faith" that explicitly rejects objectivity. 

Any articles you cut and paste from the ICR are presumed to be inherently biased toward your brand of religionism because that is announced by the creationer ministry. 

Why would you expect me to be an accomplice to your biases?


----------



## Cougarbear (Feb 15, 2022)

Hollie said:


> You're angry and emotive but that still doesn't address your conspiracy theories.
> 
> How have I been "brainwashed" and by who? I'm fine with being objective but when you copy and paste from charlatans at the ICR ministry, it is you who has abandoned objectivity. As you know, the charlatans at creationer ministries adhere to a "statement of faith" that pre-determines all their positions. You can hide under a burqa of denial but it is a fact that the creationers are not objective and in fact they agree to a "statement of faith" that explicitly rejects objectivity.
> 
> ...


Okay Alvin, not I'm not angry at all. I'm quite happy and laughing at your insistence on believing the charlatan evolutionists. You've been reading, listening and hanging around evolutionists for hours every day all your life. Of course you've been brainwashed. From grade school to college you have been bamboozled by atheist educators and a system that produced brainless parrots who have engrained into their brains that evolution is true.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 15, 2022)

Cougarbear said:


> Okay Alvin, not I'm not angry at all. I'm quite happy and laughing at your insistence on believing the charlatan evolutionists. You've been reading, listening and hanging around evolutionists for hours every day all your life. Of course you've been brainwashed. From grade school to college you have been bamboozled by atheist educators and a system that produced brainless parrots who have engrained into their brains that evolution is true.


What charlatan evolutionists are you referring to? This is just another of your frantic claims because your feelings are hurt. 

Actually, I've been hanging around people who don't believe the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth. You revile knowledge and learning.  Your only counter to the success of science is to retreat to silly conspiracy theories. It's difficult to understand how you function in your day to day existence with such an odd worldview. The beliefs of the hyper-religious leaves them poorly equipped to survive in a society / culture that evolves (<----purposeful term) away from how life existed 2,000 years ago. One of the profound difficulties religious extremists have with reality in general (and science in particular) is that they are more complex than whipping out your gods as a way to assuage your fears and superstition.  Human existence does not consist strictly of ideals and opposites, but instead, of continua along multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes, it is one of the rude awakenings to the hyper-religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.


----------



## Cougarbear (Feb 16, 2022)

Hollie said:


> What charlatan evolutionists are you referring to? This is just another of your frantic claims because your feelings are hurt.
> 
> Actually, I've been hanging around people who don't believe the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth. You revile knowledge and learning.  Your only counter to the success of science is to retreat to silly conspiracy theories. It's difficult to understand how you function in your day to day existence with such an odd worldview. The beliefs of the hyper-religious leaves them poorly equipped to survive in a society / culture that evolves (<----purposeful term) away from how life existed 2,000 years ago. One of the profound difficulties religious extremists have with reality in general (and science in particular) is that they are more complex than whipping out your gods as a way to assuage your fears and superstition.  Human existence does not consist strictly of ideals and opposites, but instead, of continua along multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes, it is one of the rude awakenings to the hyper-religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.


You are who you hang around. You become what you are based upon what you think about. You get information from educators who are Darwinians so you parrot out what they say and are unable to logically reason out truth. You are a Darwinian extremist and have difficulty with reality (God lives) so that you can ignore God's commandments and do those unseemly things. It's called a reprobate mind.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 16, 2022)

Cougarbear said:


> So, you admit you lied. Thank you. Doesn't surprise me because that's what atheists do all the time. They have no consequences for their actions because they are their own gods. I led you to the actual article you claimed was proving you right when it did not. Yet, you still are trying to use the same garbage answer you all do.


Look dude.

You can whine like a little B and lie all day and all night.

You are still embarrassing yourself and trying to engage in a debate you lost 150 years ago.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 16, 2022)

Cougarbear said:


> You are who you hang around. You become what you are based upon what you think about. You get information from educators who are Darwinians so you parrot out what they say and are unable to logically reason out truth. You are a Darwinian extremist and have difficulty with reality (God lives) so that you can ignore God's commandments and do those unseemly things. It's called a reprobate mind.


It's odd, don't you think?

You claim I have difficulty with reality while at the same time you claim ''God lives'.

I suppose we should examine our realities. I claim that existence is natural, that accepting the facts of biological evolution is a rational position. There is every reason to accept a naturalistic explanation to the physical world as opposed to any claimed supernatural causation and that is because we have no evidence of any supernatural gods causing supernatural events. There are no supernatural rabbits bring pulled out of supernatural hats. 

But you claim that contingent reality can't be trusted, that there are supernatural realms inhabited by supernatural gods, (the gods you were given due to the familial, geographic location of your birth), and you claim to know that at least a few of these Gods live. Well, no. 
The existence of the universe does nothing to support the contention of your gods. You can make all the pompous, bellicose claims you wish that your gods are real and extent, but such claims are meaningless.


----------



## Cougarbear (Feb 16, 2022)

Hollie said:


> It's odd, don't you think?
> 
> You claim I have difficulty with reality while at the same time you claim ''God lives'.
> 
> ...


God is natural. Evolution has no position of being rational. There is no truth to any of it. No evidence. None.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 16, 2022)

Cougarbear said:


> God is natural. Evolution has no position of being rational. There is no truth to any of it. No evidence. None.


I'm not at all surprised that you resort to the ''... because I say so'', admonition. 

Why would you think anyone would take that seriously? 

To state there is no evidence of evolution is a complete abandonment of any rational, ethical standard. There's certainly reason to question the moral compass and ethical foundation of people who worship tales and fables of gods who, per the fables, drowns the world, sends plagues, brings down civilizations, they allow maniacal generals to slay thousands upon their command. They will allow vials of death and disease and chaos and mayhem to reign supreme, and they will let you go to hell for all time for not "choosing correctly''.

It seems you have a problem with others living their lives without the burden of fears and superstitions that consume your daily existence. 

I have to note that evolution is always, always attacked by extremist Christians. We see it in so many threads in the science forum. There are obvious reasons: changes in populations of species over vast time spans is in direct contradiction to christian theology. Evolution is at variance with so much of the Christian religion. It invalidates the idea of ''Original Sin'', completely undermines the idea that we are all totally depraved sinners thus, eliminates the need for Jesus and salvation. The extremist christian religionrs see science and knowledge as completely obviating the foundations of their religion.   Another objection actually described by extremist christians for rejecting evolution is because they think it would make them less ''special''. "Special'' creation of supernatural gods is a core component of christianity. Aren't you holding contradictory positions? As a christian you are totally depraved and carry original sin *,* but _hey, you're so special._

A special kind of self-hater.


----------



## Turtlesoup (Feb 16, 2022)

Chuz Life said:


> Any creature (especially mammals) in the zygote stage of their life, growth and development are what they are (as members each of their own species.) "Zygote" is a stage of development. A "zygote" is not one creature that only later morphs into another.
> 
> Science.
> 
> ...


They aren't a life--zygotes actually function more like a immature parasite--unable to live on its own.


----------



## Cougarbear (Feb 16, 2022)

Hollie said:


> I'm not at all surprised that you resort to the ''... because I say so'', admonition.
> 
> Why would you think anyone would take that seriously?
> 
> ...


Why would anyone take your thought that questioning evolution isn't atheist extremism? It is. Again, there is no evidence that a lower life level has ever changed into a new species of higher level of life. Like, an Amoeba has become a human. The time length of mutation for that to happen, even if it could, would be trillions of year. When we sit and watch science programs on science stations they always use fuzzy words while trying to make evolution sound credible. It's like, "scientists have found that life MAY HAVE begun this way or that way." You never hear, "Scientists have found the missing link connection from an Euglena changing into a jelly fish." No, you never do. It's always, Euglena's could have been heated up by vents in the oceans and possibly caused them to mutate together into a multi-cell creature. You can tell me I'm wrong but you won't be able to show me that I'm wrong. You'll just go on another rant against Christianity.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 17, 2022)

Cougarbear said:


> Why would anyone take your thought that questioning evolution isn't atheist extremism? It is. Again, there is no evidence that a lower life level has ever changed into a new species of higher level of life. Like, an Amoeba has become a human. The time length of mutation for that to happen, even if it could, would be trillions of year. When we sit and watch science programs on science stations they always use fuzzy words while trying to make evolution sound credible. It's like, "scientists have found that life MAY HAVE begun this way or that way." You never hear, "Scientists have found the missing link connection from an Euglena changing into a jelly fish." No, you never do. It's always, Euglena's could have been heated up by vents in the oceans and possibly caused them to mutate together into a multi-cell creature. You can tell me I'm wrong but you won't be able to show me that I'm wrong. You'll just go on another rant against Christianity.



What is extreme about accepting supported data?

On the other hand, we have the religious extremists insisting the planet is 6,000 years old, insisting their various gods are ''living'' while never being able to offer any evidence for these gods.

Not so long ago in human history, it was impossible to conceive of a world not managed/controlled by one or more gods, and now, it is apparent that the gods don't control anything we can identify. Not so long ago, It was inconceivable that there were not angels pushing the planets and the gods opened flowers and so on-- but now it is natural to know that these things have non-divine underpinnings. We are evolving! And we are evolving away from the superstition based tenets of religious dogma

I get it, you loathe science, learning and discovery. How lucky we are that the once sweeping power of the church to inflict so much human suffering and misery has ended.


----------



## abu afak (Mar 10, 2022)

More evidence of Evo but no critics in sight. james bond


----------



## james bond (Mar 10, 2022)

abu afak said:


> More evidence of Evo but no critics in sight. james bond


Well, it looks like you won banning the teaching of the global flood in public schools.  That was the only chance to continue creation science.  Anyway, the majority still believes in the Bible but for how long?  It appears the Bible was correct once again and that we will reach the end of the world in our children's lifetimes.  My swag is 2060 as Sir Isaac Newton predicted.


----------



## james bond (Mar 10, 2022)

abu afak said:


> More evidence of Evo but no critics in sight. james bond


I had to search what happened after Edwards v. Aguillard.  Your side may have won in court, but the battle for our children's minds continues on.  I doubt the welfare of our children ever occurred to you as part of your SAF & POS nature.

"
The current creation vs. evolution debate​
Smithsonian-Sternberg affair​
The Smithsonian-Sternberg affair occurred after Richard Sternberg managed the peer review process of a paper published by intelligent design researcher Stephen Meyer. Richard Sternberg was subjected to a hostile work environment at the Smithsonian Institution in retaliation.


Court cases​
Major court cases in the creation-evolution controversy are disputes about what can be taught in the schools. After about 1968, they have prohibited attempts to teach creation science or intelligent design in American public schools on the basis of the principle of Separation of Church and State.



1925 *Scopes Trial*: A staged trial in Tennessee, engineered by the American Civil Liberties Union and town promoters, challenging the Butler Act which prohibited the teaching of human evolution. The willing defendant was found guilty of "teaching" evolution, though he was a gym teacher. The conviction was later overturned on a technicality.[40]
1968 *Epperson v. Arkansas*: Ruled that a 1928 Arkansas law prohibiting teaching that man descended from animals in the public schools was unconstitutional.
1982 *McLean v. Arkansas*: Ruled that the teaching of Creation-science violated the Establishment clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
1987 *Edwards v. Aguillard*: Ruled against Creation-science in Louisiana.
2005 *Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District*: Ruled that intelligent design was religious in nature and therefore could not be taught in the public schools in Dover Pennsylvania.

Timeline of the creation vs evolution debate​

1859 - Charles Darwin published _The Origin of Species_ regarding the theory of evolution. The theory's most radical tenet, "natural selection," attempted to replace the generally accepted idea of Created Kinds.
1860 - Liberal theologians published _Essays and Reviews_ supporting Darwin. A debate of Darwin's theory was arranged at the Oxford Museum, with "Darwin's bulldog" Thomas Huxley among its defenders and Samuel Wilberforce, the Bishop of Oxford leading its critics.
1925 - The Scopes Trial tested the new Butler Act, which made it illegal to teach that man descended from animals in public schools. Scopes was found guilty and fined $100; prosecution lawyer William Jennings Bryan offered to pay it, but the decision was later set aside on a technicality after appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court.
1958 - The federally-supported National Science Foundation started the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study publishes textbooks which emphasize evolution as an organizing principle.
1961 - _The Genesis Flood_ by Henry Morris and John C. Whitcomb, Jr. reinvigorated the creationist movement.
1968 - A U.S. Supreme Court issues its Epperson v. Arkansas decision repealing laws that prohibited the teaching of evolution and required the teaching of a creationism on the grounds that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
1974 - Karl Popper classifies Darwin's theory of evolution as a metaphysical research program.[41]
2004 - Intelligent Design researcher Stephen C. Meyer publishes a paper, _The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories_ in the peer-reviewed journal _Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington_, leading to the Smithsonian-Sternberg affair
2005 - U.S. Representative Mark Souder's office issues a report concurring with the U.S. Office of Special Council's conclusion that Richard Sternberg was subjected to a hostile work environment at the Smithsonian Institution in retaliation for his role in publishing Stephen C. Meyer's paper. See Smithsonian-Sternberg affair.
2007 - Pope Benedict XVI publishes _Creation and Evolution_, where he writes "[It] is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory."[42]
2008 - Ben Stein releases the documentary _Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed_ which exposes the suppression of intelligent design in the classroom by evolutionist establishment.
2017 - The documentary _Is Genesis History?_ is released which features experts and scientists who try to connect the history of the world to the records of Genesis.[43]"





__





						Creation vs. evolution debate - Conservapedia
					






					www.conservapedia.com


----------



## abu afak (Mar 10, 2022)

james bond said:


> Well, it looks like you won banning the teaching of the global flood in public schools.  That was the only chance to continue creation science.  Anyway, the majority still believes in the Bible but for how long?  It appears the Bible was correct once again and that we will reach the end of the world in our children's lifetimes.  My swag is 2060 as Sir Isaac Newton predicted.


TWO posts, NO science.
Fill in Gibberish non-replies.
This wasn't about court cases it was about the obviousness of two Fusion of two ape chromosomes into one for humans.
`


----------



## james bond (Mar 10, 2022)

abu afak said:


> TWO posts, NO science.
> Fill in Gibberish non-replies.
> This wasn't about court cases it was about the obviousness of two Fusion of two ape chromosomes into one for humans.
> `


Listen, I know more science than you or your monkey-apes here put together.  Two fusions into one?  Nothing of the kind.  One can't do that.  How do I know?  Your scientists would have done it already to show us how one gets a human from an ape.  Then your scientists would become world famous.  They couldn't even create an ape-human, but we're supposed to be looking for this missing link bullshit.

All I need are human and dinosaur fossils in the same layer and evolution is destroyed.  Go suck on that.


----------



## abu afak (Mar 10, 2022)

james bond said:


> Listen, I know more science than you or your monkey-apes here put together.  Two fusions into one?  Nothing of the kind.  One can't do that.  How do I know?  Your scientists would have done it already to show us how one gets a human from an ape.  Then your scientists would become world famous.  They couldn't even create an ape-human, but we're supposed to be looking for this missing link bullshit.\


You know Nothing.



james bond said:


> *All I need are human and dinosaur fossils in the same layer and evolution is destroyed.  Go suck on that.*


THAT'S CORRECT! Along with any of THOUSANDS of other combos.
But NOT ONE HAS BEEN FOUND in DECADES and MILLIONS OF FOSSILS.

*YOU'RE ADMITTING DEFEAT!*
"SUCK ON THAT" MORON

LOL!
LOVE IT!

`


----------



## james bond (Mar 10, 2022)

abu afak said:


> You know Nothing.
> 
> 
> THAT'S CORRECT! Along with any of THOUSANDS of other combos.
> ...


It's YOU admitting your IGNORANCE lol.  Both fossils aren't easy to come by, especially human ones.  I already gave credit to Dawkins for explaining it.  You need to admit you're SAF and suck on that you POS.

OVERALL, I know I won't lose and end up SUCKING the BIG ONE (which you are destined for), but it's not about that but winning EVERYTHING instead of LOSING.


----------



## abu afak (Mar 11, 2022)

> james bond said:
> *All I need are Human and dinosaur fossils in the Same layer and Evolution is Destroyed. Go suck on that.*


THAT'S CORRECT! Along with any of THOUSANDS of other combos.
But NOT ONE HAS BEEN FOUND in DECADES and MILLIONS OF FOSSILS.

*YOU'RE ADMITTING DEFEAT!*
"SUCK ON THAT" MORON
LOL! LOVE IT!
`


----------



## james bond (Mar 11, 2022)

abu afak said:


> THAT'S CORRECT! Along with any of THOUSANDS of other combos.
> But NOT ONE HAS BEEN FOUND in DECADES and MILLIONS OF FOSSILS.
> 
> *YOU'RE ADMITTING DEFEAT!*
> ...


Out of those millions of fossils in decades, how many or what percentage were human fossils?  That goes to show there aren't that many human fossils found.  It was something Dawkins knew previously and posed it as a challenge.  What the creationists did have were footprints and art work of humans and dinosaurs living together, but not the compelling fossil evidence.  It could just be a matter of time before its the end of evolution.


----------



## james bond (Mar 11, 2022)

abu afak said:


> THAT'S CORRECT! Along with any of THOUSANDS of other combos.
> But NOT ONE HAS BEEN FOUND in DECADES and MILLIONS OF FOSSILS.


It isn't the only thing creationists are working on -- Dawkins' challenge to find fossils of humans and dinosaurs living together.  They are doing work on getting intelligent design certified.  They'll have to write a bunch of papers like the evolutionary scientists did.  I think they'll be able to come up with science that is observable and experiments that work.


----------



## BackAgain (Mar 11, 2022)

abu afak said:


> THAT'S CORRECT! Along with any of THOUSANDS of other combos.
> But NOT ONE HAS BEEN FOUND in DECADES and MILLIONS OF FOSSILS.
> 
> *YOU'RE ADMITTING DEFEAT!*
> ...


I wonder if this is the kind of mature discussion you are all about?

Now, on topic:  I don’t think it’s likely we will EVER find human type bones in the same strata as any dinosaurs.


----------



## abu afak (Apr 2, 2022)

james bond said:


> It isn't the only thing creationists are working on -- Dawkins' challenge to find fossils of humans and dinosaurs living together.  They are doing work on getting intelligent design certified.  They'll have to write a bunch of papers like the evolutionary scientists did.  I think they'll be able to come up with science that is observable and experiments that work.


"Creationists are Working on"?
You mean there's not one extant example from among any of millions of fossils found?
Not one 200 million old human or 100,000 yr old dinosaur?
`


----------



## james bond (Apr 3, 2022)

abu afak said:


> "Creationists are Working on"?
> You mean there's not one extant example from among any of millions of fossils found?
> Not one 200 million old human or 100,000 yr old dinosaur?
> `


abu afak:  Muy soy un perdedor.

What fossils show is they confirm Biblical creation and the global flood.

james bond:  Soy un ganador.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 3, 2022)

james bond said:


> abu afak:  Muy soy un perdedor.
> 
> What fossils show is they confirm Biblical creation and the global flood.
> 
> james bond:  Soy un ganador.


Then publish your paleontology research, freak. You are long on self soothing divine declarations, but awfully short on education or research.


----------



## james bond (Apr 3, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Then publish your paleontologists research, freak. You are long on self soothing divine declarations, but awfully short on education or research.


All of our mountains and canyon formations are covered by marine fossils.

There is no need to publish any science papers to YOU because you do not have the IQ to understand them lol.  I've never have seen you link any.  All you have is your scumball SAF and POS opinion.


----------



## Ghost1776 (Apr 6, 2022)

BS because if  1. There are missing gaps ranging from ape to human.

2. If we came from apes more people would have been born with all those left over DNA genetics that happen to pop up through out  any living thing practically.

3. Someone with an all blonde family lets say has a kid with red hair , that DNA was picked up for the ancestor from lord knows how long ago. ( just an example)


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 6, 2022)

Ghost1776 said:


> BS because if 1. There are missing gaps ranging from ape to human.


So what? We don't need to find and identify every individual.




Ghost1776 said:


> 2. If we came from apes more people would have been born with all those left over DNA genetics that happen to pop up through out any living thing practically.


Um, we share 95%+ of our DNA with all apes. So 95% stoll "pops up". Though really, your comment is bonkers and wrong, as stated. Not how genetic evolution works.




Ghost1776 said:


> . Someone with an all blonde family lets say has a kid with red hair , that DNA was picked up for the ancestor from lord knows how long ago. ( just an example


Again...so? Youbare talking a span of maybe 15,000 years at most. Not millions.

And if hair color is your only point to support #2, guess what? We have different cor hair, just like apes. Black, brown....etc

So all you did was argue for the truth of the theory.

Thanks!


----------

