Creationists

[cbirch2]

No,what it shows is the humans we all descended from had 24 pairs of chromosomes.

There are no apelike creatures that have had this fusion.

Exactly....it shows that our descendants had 24 pairs of chromosomes. Hence, were another species...

The definition of species is a group of animals capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. 2 animals wit different numbers of chromosomes cannot produce fertile offspring.

Therefore if a modern human were to attempt to mate with one of these "humans" with 24 pairs of chromosomes, they wouldnt be able to. Hence, they were difference species.

"There are no apelike creatures that have had this fusion."

Isnt that exactly what you would expect if we evolved from apes...?

We just proved that our ancestors did not have this fusion. You just agreed that apes also do not have this fusion.

Maybe now your closer to understanding.

1. Tobacco
2. potato
3. orangutan
4. hare
5. gorilla
6. deer mouse
7. beaver

These all have the same chromosome count as the chimpanzee,can they all crossbreed ?

It's really not the chromosome count that is important,it's the information in the chromosomes is what really matters.

Humans 46 chromosomes two other species i know of have the same amount as humans.

1. Reeve's Muntjac
2. Sable Antelope

It's the information contained in the chromosomes that shows we are vastly different with the same amount of chromosomes.

Bad argument.

That isnt even a correct description of the argument!

You just agreed that human ancestors had 24 pairs of chromosomes.

...what it shows is the humans we all descended from had 24 pairs of chromosomes.

NO ORGANISM WITH 24 PAIRS OF CHROMOSOMES IS HUMAN.

Thats the entire point. That is the very definition of human.

Ever heard of correlation-causality? Because your fucking it up.

If an animal doesnt have 46 chromosomes, then its not a human. However, if an organism does have 46 chromosomes, than that does not necessarily mean it is a human

Similar to:

If its raining it must be wet outside, but just because its wet outside doesnt mean its raining. (maybe the sprinkler is on...)

Get it??

Ill say it again:

If an animal doesnt have 46 chromosomes, then its not a human. However, if an organism does have 46 chromosomes, than that does not necessarily mean it is a human

So if you admit that human ancestors had 24 pairs of chromosomes, which you do, then you MUST admit that human ancestors were a different species.

 

[cbirch2]

Now i can't explain why humans chromosomes would have went from 24 pairs to 23 pairs. But i can clearly see the difference in the information in each species chromosomes.

Exactly! Different species!

Human ancestors were a different species!!!!!

 

[cbirch2]

Just to hammer down the correlation causality thing one more time.

Correlation does not imply causation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is what your doing.

Statement 1: An animal with something other than 46 chromosomes is not a human.

Statement 2: An animal with 46 chromosomes is a human.

Statement 1 is correct, statement 2 is false.

Similar to....

Statement 1: The more firemen fighting a fire, the bigger the fire is observed to be.

Statement 2: Therefore firemen cause fire.

Statement one is true; more firefighters are sent to fight a bigger fire. But statement two is false; firemen certainly dont cause the fire.

Get it yet?

 

[cbirch2]

And maybe you dont understand why a human must have 46 chromosomes.

Species - "The major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species."

If you know ANYTHING about biology, you will know that an organism with 48 chromosomes and an organism with 46 chromosomes cannot breed.

But that doesnt mean a human can breed with just any organism that has 46 chromosomes. That is just one requirement.

See where im going with this?

 

[LOki]

I am still waiting for someone to show morphological changes that was due to mutations that was a benefit to the organism ?

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?

Desperate Rationalizations by the Superstitious: Does the Bible Contradict Scientific Principles? YES!

Fixed.

 

[LOki]

No i don't,there is no human that has ever possessed 48 chromosomes.

Which is actually my very argument. When our ancestors possessed 48 chromosomes they werent human, by the very definition of what it means to be human. But yet chromosome two is indisputable proof that modern humanity is descended from an organism with 48 chromosomes. Hence the need for a speciation event in which chimpanzee chromosome 2q and 2p either fused or failed to fully separate, and this mutation persisted throughout human history.

This is a very weak argument to try and prove ancestry.

Actually its a very strong argument. You just clearly cant comprehend it. You really only have two choices.

A) Reject the so far indisputable fact that human chromosome two is the result of the fusion of two chromosomes

or

B) Accept that at some point in humanity's common ancestry, we all descended from a similar group of animals that had 48 chromosomes.


I have yet to see you attempt to disprove the fusion of the chromosome so i assume your taking stance B....

If i use your reasoning,i have to assume all organisms are related which they clearly are not.

Then by your same fallacious reasoning we are all related to Adam and Eve, which we clearly cannot be in the same sense you use "all ... related."

But using your line of reasoning it makes more sense to believe in creation.

Nonsense. Doing so introduces baseless superstition.

Because God created all things of similar substances and the bible says we all were created from the ground. If you reason out we all came from ingredients of the earth how did we become so diverse ? That sounds like design not random mutations.

No, it sounds like the all to familiar question-begging rationalizations of the superstitious.

 

[LOki]

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 ?

Who designed such bad genetics, and why would He design them so badly?

 

[LOki]

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.

Like how Adam and Eve and their Children did? Like Noah and his family did? And weren't you the one who insisted that such breeding leads to a genetically homogeneous population? Yet homo-sapiens is so diverse! Creationists have no explanation for this! It's INEXPLICABLE!

 

[LOki]

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.

A lie.

But would rather believe it all just happened by chance over time.

Another lie.

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

Another lie.

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.

More lies.

That is faith believing that everything was the result of chance.

Another lie.

I know you don't like hearing this ,but that is what you believe in a nutshell.

You're so laughably full of shit.

Everything that man created was the result of intelligence,but you draw a line by saying life is not the result of design.

A lie.

Even though complex products are a product of design.

Irrelevant.

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

Question-begging rationalization.

 

[LOki]

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.

He believes in a fairy tale.

 

[LOki]

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.

No, the positive assertion is that God exists--the actual burden of proof is upon those who assert his existence, not on those who do not.

You lose again.

 

[LOki]

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.

And the verifiable evidence supports a natural process, and your question-begging demonstrates nothing but your lack of intellectual integrity.

 

[LOki]

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.

But you do have a problem with admitting that faith is an intellectually invalid basis for assertions regarding the nature of the objective reality we live in.

 

[LOki]

Practice what you preach

Look here, douche.

I'm not the one here who misrepresents the evolutionist's account of evolution, AND the science that supports it, AND Biblical cosmology and biology in order to advance my point of view. That is 100% you, pal--it's 100% intellectually disingenuous, and you and your Creation "scientists" (along with your Creation "science") have been thoroughly exposed as cavalier travesties comprised of intellectual dishonesty and logical fallacy.

That is true, because you don't understand the theory as has been pointed out.

Your strawman notions of the theory of evolution, and literally ALL the sciences that support it are indeed incomprehensible.

 

[LOki]

Dr. veith was showing in the videos to how your side does the very thing you claim creationist do.

Nonsense. He was exposing himself as an intellectually dishonest superstitious retard--nothing more.

Circular reasoning is the hallmark of your superstitious paradigm, and is incompatible with rational thought. Your creation "science" is founded firmly in circular reasoning, and evolution science is clearly NOT.

There is BOATLOADS of evidence! It's been brought to you repeatedly, you intellectually dishonest fucktard!

This is utter nonsense. You are engaging in pathological projection. There are no actual facts of reality that I, or any evolutionist you have engaged in here, have actually disputed. Every "fact" in dispute has been one of your patent errors of fact, baseless presumptions, or ridiculous strawmen; and each of them has been thoroughly exposed.

It is appartent that all of your attacks are based on how you think today, not like how people thought back then.

Do you people understand that languages evolve over time ?

Look here, retard. Just as I pointed out to you for Veith, you can't eat your cake and have it too. The Bible account is literal and inerrant, or it is not; it is illegitimate and intellectually dishonest to make and deny each claim as it suits your rationalizations.

I will ignore your responses from here on out, it is pointless to argue with someone who is not educated well enough in the field to argue it.

Talk to you later punk.

Running away from the whupping you're getting again?

See you later, retard.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Exactly....it shows that our descendants had 24 pairs of chromosomes. Hence, were another species...

The definition of species is a group of animals capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. 2 animals wit different numbers of chromosomes cannot produce fertile offspring.

Therefore if a modern human were to attempt to mate with one of these "humans" with 24 pairs of chromosomes, they wouldnt be able to. Hence, they were difference species.

"There are no apelike creatures that have had this fusion."

Isnt that exactly what you would expect if we evolved from apes...?

We just proved that our ancestors did not have this fusion. You just agreed that apes also do not have this fusion.

Maybe now your closer to understanding.

1. Tobacco
2. potato
3. orangutan
4. hare
5. gorilla
6. deer mouse
7. beaver

These all have the same chromosome count as the chimpanzee,can they all crossbreed ?

It's really not the chromosome count that is important,it's the information in the chromosomes is what really matters.

Humans 46 chromosomes two other species i know of have the same amount as humans.

1. Reeve's Muntjac
2. Sable Antelope

It's the information contained in the chromosomes that shows we are vastly different with the same amount of chromosomes.

Bad argument.

That isnt even a correct description of the argument!

You just agreed that human ancestors had 24 pairs of chromosomes.

...what it shows is the humans we all descended from had 24 pairs of chromosomes.

NO ORGANISM WITH 24 PAIRS OF CHROMOSOMES IS HUMAN.

Thats the entire point. That is the very definition of human.

Ever heard of correlation-causality? Because your fucking it up.

If an animal doesnt have 46 chromosomes, then its not a human. However, if an organism does have 46 chromosomes, than that does not necessarily mean it is a human

Similar to:

If its raining it must be wet outside, but just because its wet outside doesnt mean its raining. (maybe the sprinkler is on...)

Get it??

Ill say it again:

If an animal doesnt have 46 chromosomes, then its not a human. However, if an organism does have 46 chromosomes, than that does not necessarily mean it is a human

So if you admit that human ancestors had 24 pairs of chromosomes, which you do, then you MUST admit that human ancestors were a different species.

Well my explanation would be that the fusion was caused by God. God knowing how perverted man could be he made sure there would be no crossing of ape and human or any animal. God said he created man in his image and he meant for man to remain in his image.

God also commanded that man should not lie with an animal.

Exodus 22:19 (ESV)
19 “Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death

Leviticus 18:23 (ESV)
23 And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion.


Leviticus 20:15–16 (ESV)
15 If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. 16 If a woman approaches any animal and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely


Deuteronomy 27:21 (ESV)
21 “ ‘Cursed be anyone who lies with any kind of animal.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’


So i would say god defitnitely made sure man and animal could not produce offspring.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Science doesn't have all the answers. If science had all the answers, it would stop being science.



We are not descended from neanderthals, so your premise is invalid. Why do you keep repeating it?



We know who we actually evolved from. You're the one who assumed it was neanderthals. I've pointed this out to you before, and you stopped replying to me.

Exactly,and God does possess all the answers.

Science doesn't claim to know the answers because it goes against the philosophy of science of knowing how much you don't know and then going to find out about it. There's an air of Socrates in it. God has nothing to do with it, and certainly doesn't have any of the answers if anything of the things you claim are the answers.




No no, you asked if neanderthals had bigger brains, how could we have such a morphological change such as bigger brains then? And I answered that it was irrelevant because we are not directly descended from neanderthals, therefore the morphological change was still valid.

How do you explain their brains bigger then modern day humans ? What did they evolve from ? They're humans period.

They're relatives for sure. After all they are part of the genus homo, but to call them human would be inaccurate. I never denied their cranial size. cbirch2 has actually been giving you a fairly good explanation on it.

Who have we descended from ? How do you know this ?

I find it interesting you claim they're humans and than ask me how we know who we're descended from.

The answer you're looking for is homo ergaster and possibly homo erectus as well. We know this through fossils, as well as DNA sequencing.

So you are not sure who we are descended from.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Now i can't explain why humans chromosomes would have went from 24 pairs to 23 pairs. But i can clearly see the difference in the information in each species chromosomes.

Exactly! Different species!

Human ancestors were a different species!!!!!

I can't prove it, but it was God knowing how perverted man can and would be this was his insurance plan.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Just to hammer down the correlation causality thing one more time.

Correlation does not imply causation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is what your doing.

Statement 1: An animal with something other than 46 chromosomes is not a human.

Statement 2: An animal with 46 chromosomes is a human.

Statement 1 is correct, statement 2 is false.

Similar to....

Statement 1: The more firemen fighting a fire, the bigger the fire is observed to be.

Statement 2: Therefore firemen cause fire.

Statement one is true; more firefighters are sent to fight a bigger fire. But statement two is false; firemen certainly dont cause the fire.

Get it yet?

Wrong,i showed animals with the same amount of chromosomes that were vastly different.

And i pointed out it was not the number of chromosomes but it was the information contained in the chromosomes that mattered.

 

[LOki]

Well my explanation would be that the fusion was caused by God.

What God? Explain your explanation please.