Creationists

[cbirch2]

A hare has 46 chromosomes but what does this prove or suggest ?

Actually, hares have 48. But thats irrelevant.

Would you agree that humans, with 46 chromosomes, are a different species from some hypothetical human-like animal with 48 chromosomes?

So would I! Because thats part of the definition of species. A group of animals with 48 chromosomes cant reproduce with a group of animals that have 46. So they are different species. this is the common definition of a species, animals that cannot interbreed.

So chromosome two is indisputable proof that humanity was descended from some other human-like primate with 48 chromosomes, rather than 46, and therefore descended from another species.

You're assuming ancestry because of similarity,that view is based on imagination.

You ignore how vastly diiferent we from each other your main argument is because we supposedly went from from 48 to 46 chromosomes but ignore the information difference. not to mention the diffence in the genome.

Oh and eventually you will get more of a difference between chimps and humans once they learn more of the differences in the genome. There were admitted things not figured in to their equations..

Mark my words, eventually,you and i will be discussing that we were further apart from from chimps then previously thought.

IM NOT ASSUMING ANCESTRY BECAUSE OF SIMILARITY.

it is my belief that the evidence suggests that, but that isnt my argument here. My argument here lies entirely in the number of chromosomes and how human reproduction works, it has nothing to do with similarities to apes.

My argument is that chromosome 2, in each of YOUR cells, and mine, still has the remnants of this fusion event. If you looked at one under a microscope, you would see the vestigal centromere and the telomeres where it fused. Either you somehow reject that this chromosome is fused, or you admit that one of your ancestors, sometime loooong ago, was born of an organism with 48 chromosomes, but during meiosis or mitosis the chromosomes fused together, and the offspring had 46 chromosomes.

facts man...facts...

 

[Youwerecreated]

And you still didn't offer proof that our bigger brains over chimps was the result of mutations.

PLoS Biology: Accelerated Evolution of the ASPM Gene Controlling Brain Size Begins Prior to Human Brain Expansion
ScienceDirect - Cell : Accelerated Evolution of Nervous System Genes in the Origin of Homo sapiens
Genetic links between brain development and brain evolution : Abstract : Nature Reviews Genetics
Murine Otx1 and Drosophila otd genes share conserved genetic functions required in invertebrate and vertebrate brain development
Reconstructing the evolutionary history of microcephalin, a gene controlling human brain size
ScienceDirect - Gene : Molecular evolution of the brain size regulator genes CDK5RAP2 and CENPJ
SpringerLink - Development Genes and Evolution, Volume 209, Number 1
ScienceDirect - Current Opinion in Cell Biology : Cytoskeletal genes regulating brain size

You give me a list where science disagrees with what is written in the bible and i will do this one more time.

Um jesus turned water into wine. He violated the law of conservation of energy and mass. Im not sure what your definition of science is but it doesnt support the biblical view in the slightest.

You can believe that jesus turned water into wine, you just have to also disagree with the law of conservation of energy and mass.

To use someone elses words...."science disagrees with what is written in the bible"

Well you're ruling out the ability of the creator. You rule out the possibility of God taking everything needed for life and put it all together. But would rather believe it all just happened by chance over time.

You believe because there are constraints on what man can do and know that there is no one out there that has no constraints.

You're trying to force these constraints on God because you have never seen or spoke to him.,even though you can't explain how life could of happened without a designer. That is faith believing that everything was the result of chance. I know you don't like hearing this ,but that is what you believe in a nutshell.

Everything that man created was the result of intelligence,but you draw a line by saying life is not the result of design. Even though complex products are a product of design.

We know and there is no doubt that offspring are the product of parental genes,that is design,not mutations by chance.

 

[cbirch2]

Oops i guess you didn't realize that neanderthals had bigger brains then modern day humans,is this another case of de-evolution?

Its actually not the size of our brains its the dense layer of cells covering its surface called the cerebral cortex and the amount of surface area provided by the gryi and the sulci.

Besides, doesnt the very existence of neanderthals disprove the young earth creationist view of the world?

And you still didn't offer proof that our bigger brains over chimps was the result of mutations.

^^Clear disregard for all genetics

Your claiming that the formation of a cerebral cortex and a highly folded brain isnt due to genetics.

Thats like claiming our 4 chambered heart isnt due to genetics.

No,neanderthals could have been just a product of bad genetics or inbreeding who knows.

It is very hard to say anything with certainty when no one was there.

Neanderthals did have bigger brains,how would you explain that ?

Again, brain size does not mean theyre smarter

Cerebral cortex - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Learn what that is.

But besides, neanderthals WERE relatively advanced for their time. Some of the first tools come from neanderthals.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Our bigger brains.

I'm still waiting for you to reply to a few of my posts. I would think you'd be most interested in telling me why precisely I'm wrong with my criticisms of the 'science facts' in the Bible.

Oops i guess you didn't realize that neanderthals had bigger brains then modern day humans,is this another case of de-evolution? And you still didn't offer proof that our bigger brains over chimps was the result of mutations.

You give me a list where science disagrees with what is written in the bible and i will do this one more time.

I pointed out that we weren't directly descended from neanderthals. This is one of the posts you never replied to earlier.

I just replied to your list of science facts with actual scientific knowledge. Please stop wasting my time with your same old tired arguments.

If science had all the answers there would be no disagreement,but what we have here is a difference of opinions of the evidence.

You are the one who said we evolved because we have bigger brains then apes but yet neanderthals had bigger brains then modern day humans.

Why would neanderthals have bigger brains then us since they are human human ?

Then you have another problem finding out who the neanderthals evolved from.

You see when a person tells a lie eventually that person has to tell another lie to defend the previous lie.

Not calling you a liar but are just pointing out when your assumptions are wrong as we find new evidence it creates more problems trying to explain the faulty assumptions and it just keeps getting bigger and you have more and more problems.

 

[cbirch2]

And you still didn't offer proof that our bigger brains over chimps was the result of mutations.

PLoS Biology: Accelerated Evolution of the ASPM Gene Controlling Brain Size Begins Prior to Human Brain Expansion
ScienceDirect - Cell : Accelerated Evolution of Nervous System Genes in the Origin of Homo sapiens
Genetic links between brain development and brain evolution : Abstract : Nature Reviews Genetics
Murine Otx1 and Drosophila otd genes share conserved genetic functions required in invertebrate and vertebrate brain development
Reconstructing the evolutionary history of microcephalin, a gene controlling human brain size
ScienceDirect - Gene : Molecular evolution of the brain size regulator genes CDK5RAP2 and CENPJ
SpringerLink - Development Genes and Evolution, Volume 209, Number 1
ScienceDirect - Current Opinion in Cell Biology : Cytoskeletal genes regulating brain size

You give me a list where science disagrees with what is written in the bible and i will do this one more time.

Um jesus turned water into wine. He violated the law of conservation of energy and mass. Im not sure what your definition of science is but it doesnt support the biblical view in the slightest.

You can believe that jesus turned water into wine, you just have to also disagree with the law of conservation of energy and mass.

To use someone elses words...."science disagrees with what is written in the bible"

Well you're ruling out the ability of the creator. You rule out the possibility of God taking everything needed for life and put it all together. But would rather believe it all just happened by chance over time.

You believe because there are constraints on what man can do and know that there is no one out there that has no constraints.

You're trying to force these constraints on God because you have never seen or spoke to him.,even though you can't explain how life could of happened without a designer. That is faith believing that everything was the result of chance. I know you don't like hearing this ,but that is what you believe in a nutshell.

Everything that man created was the result of intelligence,but you draw a line by saying life is not the result of design. Even though complex products are a product of design.

We know and there is no doubt that offspring are the product of parental genes,that is design,not mutations by chance.

"im trying to force constraints...blah blah" no, im not. The argument was about god and science.

Science says "matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed". Either god poofed matter into existence, in which case science is wrong, or your believing in a fairy tale.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Our bigger brains.

I'm still waiting for you to reply to a few of my posts. I would think you'd be most interested in telling me why precisely I'm wrong with my criticisms of the 'science facts' in the Bible.

While we are waiting for you,this is another site that disagrees with you.

Science and the Bible: Does the Bible Contradict Scientific Principles?

And that site falls into the same trap that your lazy copy and paste article did. Would you please stop repeating yourself and offer some actual responses, or do you not wish to be taken seriously?

If you don't look at both sides of the argument how can you reach a proper conclusion ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Its actually not the size of our brains its the dense layer of cells covering its surface called the cerebral cortex and the amount of surface area provided by the gryi and the sulci.

Besides, doesnt the very existence of neanderthals disprove the young earth creationist view of the world?



^^Clear disregard for all genetics

Your claiming that the formation of a cerebral cortex and a highly folded brain isnt due to genetics.

Thats like claiming our 4 chambered heart isnt due to genetics.

No,neanderthals could have been just a product of bad genetics or inbreeding who knows.

It is very hard to say anything with certainty when no one was there.

Neanderthals did have bigger brains,how would you explain that ?

Again, brain size does not mean theyre smarter

Cerebral cortex - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Learn what that is.

But besides, neanderthals WERE relatively advanced for their time. Some of the first tools come from neanderthals.

I didn't even remotely suggest they were more intelligent.

 

[Youwerecreated]

PLoS Biology: Accelerated Evolution of the ASPM Gene Controlling Brain Size Begins Prior to Human Brain Expansion
ScienceDirect - Cell : Accelerated Evolution of Nervous System Genes in the Origin of Homo sapiens
Genetic links between brain development and brain evolution : Abstract : Nature Reviews Genetics
Murine Otx1 and Drosophila otd genes share conserved genetic functions required in invertebrate and vertebrate brain development
Reconstructing the evolutionary history of microcephalin, a gene controlling human brain size
ScienceDirect - Gene : Molecular evolution of the brain size regulator genes CDK5RAP2 and CENPJ
SpringerLink - Development Genes and Evolution, Volume 209, Number 1
ScienceDirect - Current Opinion in Cell Biology : Cytoskeletal genes regulating brain size



Um jesus turned water into wine. He violated the law of conservation of energy and mass. Im not sure what your definition of science is but it doesnt support the biblical view in the slightest.

You can believe that jesus turned water into wine, you just have to also disagree with the law of conservation of energy and mass.

To use someone elses words...."science disagrees with what is written in the bible"

Well you're ruling out the ability of the creator. You rule out the possibility of God taking everything needed for life and put it all together. But would rather believe it all just happened by chance over time.

You believe because there are constraints on what man can do and know that there is no one out there that has no constraints.

You're trying to force these constraints on God because you have never seen or spoke to him.,even though you can't explain how life could of happened without a designer. That is faith believing that everything was the result of chance. I know you don't like hearing this ,but that is what you believe in a nutshell.

Everything that man created was the result of intelligence,but you draw a line by saying life is not the result of design. Even though complex products are a product of design.

We know and there is no doubt that offspring are the product of parental genes,that is design,not mutations by chance.

"im trying to force constraints...blah blah" no, im not. The argument was about god and science.

Science says "matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed". Either god poofed matter into existence, in which case science is wrong, or your believing in a fairy tale.

Like it or not until you disprove the existence of God that is what you're doing.

 

[cbirch2]

Oops i guess you didn't realize that neanderthals had bigger brains then modern day humans,is this another case of de-evolution?

Its actually not the size of our brains its the dense layer of cells covering its surface called the cerebral cortex and the amount of surface area provided by the gryi and the sulci.

Besides, doesnt the very existence of neanderthals disprove the young earth creationist view of the world?

And you still didn't offer proof that our bigger brains over chimps was the result of mutations.

^^Clear disregard for all genetics

Your claiming that the formation of a cerebral cortex and a highly folded brain isnt due to genetics.

Thats like claiming our 4 chambered heart isnt due to genetics.

What i am saying is neanderthals brains were the result of the possibility of deformity,maybe from inbreeding.

Is that your professional opinion? What evidence do you have to back that up, your own wishful thinking?

In reality neanderthals were some of the first primates to craft tools.

you realize that this statement:

"What i am saying is neanderthals brains were the result of the possibility of deformity,maybe from inbreeding"

is a description of evolution right? ADAPTIONS ARE DEFORMATIONS. Theyre genetic deformations that cause a change in the expression of a protein that alters some function.

In the case of neanderthals, this mutation probably did make them smarter. All indications are that neanderthals were smart for their time, they just didnt survive. But that doesnt mean theyre smarter than we are, just because they have larger brains. ours are much more developed.

 

[cbirch2]

Well you're ruling out the ability of the creator. You rule out the possibility of God taking everything needed for life and put it all together. But would rather believe it all just happened by chance over time.

You believe because there are constraints on what man can do and know that there is no one out there that has no constraints.

You're trying to force these constraints on God because you have never seen or spoke to him.,even though you can't explain how life could of happened without a designer. That is faith believing that everything was the result of chance. I know you don't like hearing this ,but that is what you believe in a nutshell.

Everything that man created was the result of intelligence,but you draw a line by saying life is not the result of design. Even though complex products are a product of design.

We know and there is no doubt that offspring are the product of parental genes,that is design,not mutations by chance.

"im trying to force constraints...blah blah" no, im not. The argument was about god and science.

Science says "matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed". Either god poofed matter into existence, in which case science is wrong, or your believing in a fairy tale.

Like it or not until you disprove the existence of God that is what you're doing.

I dont have to disprove anything. You arent right until proven wrong. If you assert something exists its on you to prove that it exists, thats how it works in the real world.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Actually, hares have 48. But thats irrelevant.

Would you agree that humans, with 46 chromosomes, are a different species from some hypothetical human-like animal with 48 chromosomes?

So would I! Because thats part of the definition of species. A group of animals with 48 chromosomes cant reproduce with a group of animals that have 46. So they are different species. this is the common definition of a species, animals that cannot interbreed.

So chromosome two is indisputable proof that humanity was descended from some other human-like primate with 48 chromosomes, rather than 46, and therefore descended from another species.

You're assuming ancestry because of similarity,that view is based on imagination.

You ignore how vastly diiferent we from each other your main argument is because we supposedly went from from 48 to 46 chromosomes but ignore the information difference. not to mention the diffence in the genome.

Oh and eventually you will get more of a difference between chimps and humans once they learn more of the differences in the genome. There were admitted things not figured in to their equations..

Mark my words, eventually,you and i will be discussing that we were further apart from from chimps then previously thought.

IM NOT ASSUMING ANCESTRY BECAUSE OF SIMILARITY.

it is my belief that the evidence suggests that, but that isnt my argument here. My argument here lies entirely in the number of chromosomes and how human reproduction works, it has nothing to do with similarities to apes.

My argument is that chromosome 2, in each of YOUR cells, and mine, still has the remnants of this fusion event. If you looked at one under a microscope, you would see the vestigal centromere and the telomeres where it fused. Either you somehow reject that this chromosome is fused, or you admit that one of your ancestors, sometime loooong ago, was born of an organism with 48 chromosomes, but during meiosis or mitosis the chromosomes fused together, and the offspring had 46 chromosomes.

facts man...facts...

Yes it is because similarity of the genome our DNA is one of your sides main argument.

That and our morhoplogical similarities.

The chromosome 2 proves nothing but by your reasoning you think it does that is just conjecture.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Its actually not the size of our brains its the dense layer of cells covering its surface called the cerebral cortex and the amount of surface area provided by the gryi and the sulci.

Besides, doesnt the very existence of neanderthals disprove the young earth creationist view of the world?



^^Clear disregard for all genetics

Your claiming that the formation of a cerebral cortex and a highly folded brain isnt due to genetics.

Thats like claiming our 4 chambered heart isnt due to genetics.

What i am saying is neanderthals brains were the result of the possibility of deformity,maybe from inbreeding.

Is that your professional opinion? What evidence do you have to back that up, your own wishful thinking?

In reality neanderthals were some of the first primates to craft tools.

you realize that this statement:

"What i am saying is neanderthals brains were the result of the possibility of deformity,maybe from inbreeding"

is a description of evolution right? ADAPTIONS ARE DEFORMATIONS. Theyre genetic deformations that cause a change in the expression of a protein that alters some function.

In the case of neanderthals, this mutation probably did make them smarter. All indications are that neanderthals were smart for their time, they just didnt survive. But that doesnt mean theyre smarter than we are, just because they have larger brains. ours are much more developed.

Have no evidence, it's just conjecture. like it's conjecture on your part to believe chromosome 2 proves ancestry.

 

[Youwerecreated]

"im trying to force constraints...blah blah" no, im not. The argument was about god and science.

Science says "matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed". Either god poofed matter into existence, in which case science is wrong, or your believing in a fairy tale.

Like it or not until you disprove the existence of God that is what you're doing.

I dont have to disprove anything. You arent right until proven wrong. If you assert something exists its on you to prove that it exists, thats how it works in the real world.

I ask you has it been documented that inbreeding can cause deformity ?

 

[cbirch2]

You're assuming ancestry because of similarity,that view is based on imagination.

You ignore how vastly diiferent we from each other your main argument is because we supposedly went from from 48 to 46 chromosomes but ignore the information difference. not to mention the diffence in the genome.

Oh and eventually you will get more of a difference between chimps and humans once they learn more of the differences in the genome. There were admitted things not figured in to their equations..

Mark my words, eventually,you and i will be discussing that we were further apart from from chimps then previously thought.

IM NOT ASSUMING ANCESTRY BECAUSE OF SIMILARITY.

it is my belief that the evidence suggests that, but that isnt my argument here. My argument here lies entirely in the number of chromosomes and how human reproduction works, it has nothing to do with similarities to apes.

My argument is that chromosome 2, in each of YOUR cells, and mine, still has the remnants of this fusion event. If you looked at one under a microscope, you would see the vestigal centromere and the telomeres where it fused. Either you somehow reject that this chromosome is fused, or you admit that one of your ancestors, sometime loooong ago, was born of an organism with 48 chromosomes, but during meiosis or mitosis the chromosomes fused together, and the offspring had 46 chromosomes.

facts man...facts...

Yes it is because similarity of the genome our DNA is one of your sides main argument.

That and our morhoplogical similarities.

The chromosome 2 proves nothing but by your reasoning you think it does that is just conjecture.

What??

I dont think you understand how human reproduction works..

you know meiosis in the testes...the sperm fertilizes the egg...mitosis ensues...do you know these?

The only question i have for you, is "Is your second chromosome the result of two chromosomes fused together?"

If it is, then your great-great-great-great-great-great-great....grandparents had 48 chromosomes.

 

[Youwerecreated]

"im trying to force constraints...blah blah" no, im not. The argument was about god and science.

Science says "matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed". Either god poofed matter into existence, in which case science is wrong, or your believing in a fairy tale.

Like it or not until you disprove the existence of God that is what you're doing.

I dont have to disprove anything. You arent right until proven wrong. If you assert something exists its on you to prove that it exists, thats how it works in the real world.

Of course you do.

We are either products of creation or a natural process, man has not been able to show life can spontaneously arise.

 

[cbirch2]

Like it or not until you disprove the existence of God that is what you're doing.

I dont have to disprove anything. You arent right until proven wrong. If you assert something exists its on you to prove that it exists, thats how it works in the real world.

I ask you has it been documented that inbreeding can cause deformity ?

I dont think you understand how inbreeding causes deformity.

 

[cbirch2]

Like it or not until you disprove the existence of God that is what you're doing.

I dont have to disprove anything. You arent right until proven wrong. If you assert something exists its on you to prove that it exists, thats how it works in the real world.

Of course you do.

We are either products of creation or a natural process, man has not been able to show life can spontaneously arise.

I dont know how life came about. But if your going to claim that jesus christ is the son of god, the earth was created in 6 days 6000 years ago, and humans were crafted in the image of god, its on you to prove that.

You dont just get to assume your right and make everyone else prove you wrong.

If i was actually claiming life arose from nonanimate matter, which i havent done, then it would be on me to prove that. But im not claiming that.

 

[Youwerecreated]

IM NOT ASSUMING ANCESTRY BECAUSE OF SIMILARITY.

it is my belief that the evidence suggests that, but that isnt my argument here. My argument here lies entirely in the number of chromosomes and how human reproduction works, it has nothing to do with similarities to apes.

My argument is that chromosome 2, in each of YOUR cells, and mine, still has the remnants of this fusion event. If you looked at one under a microscope, you would see the vestigal centromere and the telomeres where it fused. Either you somehow reject that this chromosome is fused, or you admit that one of your ancestors, sometime loooong ago, was born of an organism with 48 chromosomes, but during meiosis or mitosis the chromosomes fused together, and the offspring had 46 chromosomes.

facts man...facts...

Yes it is because similarity of the genome our DNA is one of your sides main argument.

That and our morhoplogical similarities.

The chromosome 2 proves nothing but by your reasoning you think it does that is just conjecture.

What??

I dont think you understand how human reproduction works..

you know meiosis in the testes...the sperm fertilizes the egg...mitosis ensues...do you know these?

The only question i have for you, is "Is your second chromosome the result of two chromosomes fused together?"

If it is, then your great-great-great-great-great-great-great....grandparents had 48 chromosomes.

No.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I dont have to disprove anything. You arent right until proven wrong. If you assert something exists its on you to prove that it exists, thats how it works in the real world.

I ask you has it been documented that inbreeding can cause deformity ?

I dont think you understand how inbreeding causes deformity.

It's more likely for Bad genes to be passed on,because both parents have a better chance of posssessing the same defective genes.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I dont have to disprove anything. You arent right until proven wrong. If you assert something exists its on you to prove that it exists, thats how it works in the real world.

Of course you do.

We are either products of creation or a natural process, man has not been able to show life can spontaneously arise.

I dont know how life came about. But if your going to claim that jesus christ is the son of god, the earth was created in 6 days 6000 years ago, and humans were crafted in the image of god, its on you to prove that.

You dont just get to assume your right and make everyone else prove you wrong.

If i was actually claiming life arose from nonanimate matter, which i havent done, then it would be on me to prove that. But im not claiming that.

Why ? i don't have a problem admitting many of my beliefs are based in faith.

If time has a beginning so does matter.