Dr Collins, top geneticist, and CHRISTIAN....

[Youwerecreated]

Oh. My. God.

Again.

Apples. Oranges. Irrelevancies. Fiction.

that's what we get from our latest idiot.

Time for me to use the ignore thingy, and I would advise you to do the same.
I have also reported your insulting posts, (the last ten I have read, each individually) so as to help get this board rid of children like you.

You open your mouth and the genius falls out,you can put me on that list to.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Oh. My. God.

Again.

Apples. Oranges. Irrelevancies. Fiction.

that's what we get from our latest idiot.

This guy don't answer questions he will just ask them.

He likes to stack the deck like the genius.

 

[Gadawg73]

Come on now let's be realistic,you are not one of these youngsters.

My age is irrelevant. Science is still science, and follows the same principles and laws whether it is dating techniques, or treating a Cancer. It's not a cafeteria where you get to pick and choose what you want to "believe" in.

Speculating is Like betting on a horse to win a race. Speculation is what supports your theory and that is not real science. It's absurd to compare observable proven science with so called science based on maybe,could be,possibly.

Speculation is someone that believes there is an invisible white man with long hair and a beard in the sky sitting on a throne in a city paved with streets of gold.
In the sky somewhere.
I respect the idiots that put their two dollars on a horse more.

 

[AllieBaba]

Oh. My. God.

Again.

Apples. Oranges. Irrelevancies. Fiction.

that's what we get from our latest idiot.

Time for me to use the ignore thingy, and I would advise you to do the same.
I have also reported your insulting posts, (the last ten I have read, each individually) so as to help get this board rid of children like you.

Misusing the flag function is as good a way as any to get yourself banned, idiot.

Take a look at how long I've been here. I know what the rules are, and it isn't against the rules to be insulting.

Though in this case, it isn't an insult, it's just a description. To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5IQnQhzMSI]‪A Fish Called Wanda - Stupid Otto‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[AllieBaba]

My age is irrelevant. Science is still science, and follows the same principles and laws whether it is dating techniques, or treating a Cancer. It's not a cafeteria where you get to pick and choose what you want to "believe" in.

Speculating is Like betting on a horse to win a race. Speculation is what supports your theory and that is not real science. It's absurd to compare observable proven science with so called science based on maybe,could be,possibly.

Speculation is someone that believes there is an invisible white man with long hair and a beard in the sky sitting on a throne in a city paved with streets of gold.
In the sky somewhere.
I respect the idiots that put their two dollars on a horse more.

Yay, gadawg is here to lower the aggregate IQ of the thread.

 

[Gadawg73]

Speculating is Like betting on a horse to win a race. Speculation is what supports your theory and that is not real science. It's absurd to compare observable proven science with so called science based on maybe,could be,possibly.

Speculation is someone that believes there is an invisible white man with long hair and a beard in the sky sitting on a throne in a city paved with streets of gold.
In the sky somewhere.
I respect the idiots that put their two dollars on a horse more.

Yay, gadawg is here to lower the aggregate IQ of the thread.

I fully admit that with my BBA, MBA and forensic training I am educated far beyond my intelligence. Not my fault I had a full ride with tutors for the BBA and plenty of cash to pay for the MBA.
Something about being able to chase QBs for 4 quarters and catch them.
What is your excuse for being an ignorant, uneducated hick moron Allie?

 

[AllieBaba]

and here goes the self-aggrandizing pontification that we can always count upon.

Yay gaddawg, you're an INTERNET HERO! If we have any doubt, we can just ask you! Or visit whatever thread you are polluting....you are sure to list your many accomplishments every 4 posts or so.

 

[Gadawg73]

and here goes the self-aggrandizing pontification that we can always count upon.

Yay gaddawg, you're an INTERNET HERO! If we have any doubt, we can just ask you! Or visit whatever thread you are polluting....you are sure to list your many accomplishments every 4 posts or so.

No standing ovations please.
Send cash.

 

[cbirch2]

YWC your DNA comparison is ridiculous. Yes, 5% of 3 billion is 150,000,000. No one is arguing that. Im saying thats not information that necessarily has to be ADDED to between chimp and human. its information that is changed from one nucleotide to another, not the addition of information through the insertion of nucleotides. 60 is a ridiculously low number for mutations a year, im not sure where you got that. in terms of single nucleotide mutations there are hundreds in every cell in your body.

 

[cbirch2]

You never addressed the core issue of chromosome 2. The problem you need to explain is not relation, it is the fact that chromosome two is fused.

The fact that the chromosomes are fused means humans had to have descended from an organism with a diploid number of 48, rather than the current 46. There is no other option.

If the descendants of humans had a different diploid number there could have been no interbreeding, therefore they constitute a separate species, and therefore humans are the product of speciation.

The existence of the fused chromosome two is by definition an example of speciation.

 

[cbirch2]

And allie i contradict myself less than you, and definitely less than YWC.

You apparently didnt even understand the taxonomic rank originally.

 

[AllieBaba]

You're obsessing. So I said canidae was the species when it was canis lupus. Whoop de do. I still know the difference between species and sub species and didn't make any idiotic claims based on my misunderstanding of what has been proven and what hasn't.

You have repeatedly and falsely attributed ridiculous stances to me that I have never asserted and never will. You stupid siggy for a couple of days was you attributing something weird to me that of course couldn't be backed up with anything like a quote or even paraphrase of anything I've ever said. In fact it was so bizarre I couldn't even figure out what you based it on.

And surprise surprise, that's exactly the way you approach your entire argument and evolution theory in general. You make statements that have nothing to do with the facts, and argue as if the opposition is making arguments that it has never made.

 

[Iridescence]

The whole damnedable thing is backwards... It doesn't make sense to me why people sit and spat over things. Perhaps their all about the cloth and covering up whatever it is they think they know... The chromosomes seem to be obvious proof that the lineage factors are in reverse order. Genetics goal is the 'pure gene'. The alien. But it seriously seems that egos continuously get in the way of fact finding.

 

[Youwerecreated]

My age is irrelevant. Science is still science, and follows the same principles and laws whether it is dating techniques, or treating a Cancer. It's not a cafeteria where you get to pick and choose what you want to "believe" in.

Speculating is Like betting on a horse to win a race. Speculation is what supports your theory and that is not real science. It's absurd to compare observable proven science with so called science based on maybe,could be,possibly.

Speculation is someone that believes there is an invisible white man with long hair and a beard in the sky sitting on a throne in a city paved with streets of gold.
In the sky somewhere.
I respect the idiots that put their two dollars on a horse more.

You hang out with the cheap crowd

 

[Youwerecreated]

and here goes the self-aggrandizing pontification that we can always count upon.

Yay gaddawg, you're an INTERNET HERO! If we have any doubt, we can just ask you! Or visit whatever thread you are polluting....you are sure to list your many accomplishments every 4 posts or so.

No standing ovations please.
Send cash.

I prefer, don't applaud just throw money.

 

[Youwerecreated]

YWC your DNA comparison is ridiculous. Yes, 5% of 3 billion is 150,000,000. No one is arguing that. Im saying thats not information that necessarily has to be ADDED to between chimp and human. its information that is changed from one nucleotide to another, not the addition of information through the insertion of nucleotides. 60 is a ridiculously low number for mutations a year, im not sure where you got that. in terms of single nucleotide mutations there are hundreds in every cell in your body.

Because you have been taught new information is always being added that is just simply wrong.

That is just comparing chimp DNA and human DNA that is the difference. Is that not what you intended to show by your drawing of the ape skeleton and human skeleton ?

While we are on the subject.

Humans are not descended from apes

Quick-read this article:
Fossils of apes and humans do not fit neatly into any clear evolutionary sequence. We believe this is because humans and apes were created as humans and apes in the beginning — natural evolution from non-human to human has never taken place.

If humans evolved from apes or ape-like creatures, when did this happen? And which creatures were involved at that important point? With more than 5000 fossils or fossil fragments of apes, chimps, and humans allegedly showing stages of human evolution, which ape-like animal had enough human characteristics for us to say “this one has just crossed the boundary from ape to human”?

The short answer is “it never happened,” and the fossils show this. Here's what we mean.

First, there is disagreement among evolutionists about where to place many of the fossils, because they don't all fit into a fully accepted sequence. Many fossils are set aside because they can't be placed neatly in the ape-to-man scenario, or because they appear in the wrong time-frame.

This is why evolutionists have largely abandoned the idea that human evolution was linear, even though the alternative doesn't help them either because it leaves them with a whole lot of unconnected fossils.

Second, here is an amazing fact: None of the ape fossils shows enough specific human features for evolutionists to say without doubt that this is the point where an ape turned human, and none of the human fossils shows enough specific ape characteristics to indicate that they have actually evolved from apes.

A possible sequence

Let's look at the candidates that are put forward as being in this ape-to-human process, and see if we can identify any at the “transition stage”. We must point out that some people object when we say that evolutionists believe that humans evolved from apes. They think we should say that there was once a common ancestor of both apes and humans. Our reply is that evolutionists never name this common ancestor in their evolutionary lists. They simply have apes, then humans. For example:

The evolutionary website Handprint gives excellent descriptions of the contenders in the alleged ape-to-human transition:
•Australopithecus
•Homo habilis
•Homo rudolfensis
•Homo ergaster
•Homo erectus
•Homo heidelbergensis
•Homo neanderthalensis

This is pretty close to the order given by B. Wood and M. Collard in a paper in the journal Science in 1999 (“The human genus,” Science 284(5411):65-71). So if humans evolved from ape-like creatures that evolved from apes, we should be able to discover a fossil that links them somewhere in this list. If the fossil is not in this list, then why believe it happened? Lack of clear transitional fossils is not evidence for evolution, but against it.

With the Australopiths such as “Lucy” now being generally discounted from being ancestors of humans, the first creature with a slight majority of human features must lie shortly after the Australopiths — either Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, or Homo ergaster.

But which one?

The Handprint website says of H. habilis and H. rudolfensis that “there is considerable uncertainty as to how to connect these fossils to other remains from the same geological era, how all of them are related to the australopithids — and which of the Homo skulls shows us the true ancestor to subsequent humans.”

In other words, habilis and rudolfensis are a mess. You can't show how they relate to apes before them, or humans after them, or fossils “from the same geological era.” This is not because they have transitional features; the problem is that they don't show a transition, or even a clear link to anything else. The group just seems to contain a jumble of ape-like fossils that don't show clear links between apes and humans at all. Evolutionists Wood and Collard found only ape-like traits in both habilis and rudolfensis.

So let's try the next step up to see if we can find some human features — Homo ergaster. Now we're getting somewhere. H. ergaster is described like this:

“There is near unanimity among paleoanthropologists that HOMO ERGASTER, which appeared about 2 million years ago, is the anchor species for all subsequent humans.” (Ref: Handprint — Homo ergaster.)

Clearly human

Why do scientists agree that ergaster “is the anchor species for all subsequent humans”? Because H. ergaster walked upright like humans, made tools, had human jaws and teeth, and physically was almost the equal of modern Africans.

H. ergaster was clearly human. And according to evolutionists Wood and Collard, the two “Homo” types before ergaster (habilis and rudolfensis) were ape-like in every major characteristic they were able to test. On the evidence from Wood and Collard's tests, habilis and rudolfensis looked like apes, walked like apes, had jaws and teeth like apes, and they had ape brains.

But H. ergaster was loaded with human features. The only possible comfort that evolutionists could get from H. ergaster having any ape-like feature is that it had a smallish brain. But as it was human in every other way, logic forces us to conclude that ergaster was a human with a small brain, rather than an ape that suddenly acquired all the characteristics of a human without leaving evidence that it ever happened.

So if habilis and rudolfensis were apes in every way, and ergaster (which followed them) was clearly human, where is the evidence that there was ever an ape-human between them? Absolutely none!

We believe that Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis were simply racial variants of modern humans and, like all humans, were descended from Adam and Eve.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnote: There are other fossils besides those above that some evolutionists might include, such as Homo floresiensis and fossils found at Dmanisi in the Republic of Georgia.

Of Homo floresiensis, an education source says, “At present, there is no clear consensus among paleoanthropologists as to the place of floresiensis in human evolution.” (Ref: Palomar College, Behavioral Sciences Department)

Of the Dmanisi fossils, instead of providing answers to how apes allegedly evolved into humans, the Dmanisi fossils have only raised more questions. National Geographic reported in its August 2002 edition, “Along with other fossils and tools found at the site, this skull reopens so many questions about our ancestry that one scientist muttered: 'They ought to put it back in the ground.'”

Erik Trinkhaus of Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, said, “They were little people with little brains — that doesn't really surprise me.” (Ref: AiG)

Chris Stringer from the Natural History Museum in London said he doubted that the Dmanisi hominids were our direct ancestors. (Ref: BBC News)

University of North Texas News Service said of a new Dmanisi fossil in 2005, “The new Dmanisi skull is among the most primitive individuals so far attributed to Homo erectus or to any species that is indisputably human.” (Ref: University of North Texas news)

So according to evolutionist experts, the Dmanisi fossils are unlikely to be our direct ancestors, because they are “indisputably human”.

Therefore they can't be the link between apes and humans.

Further reading

Fossil evidence for alleged apemen, Journal of Creation 19(1):22-32, April 2005
Old fossil skeletons, News to Note, Answers in Genesis, September 22, 2007
The non-transitions in human evolution, Technical Journal13(2):10-12, November 1999
How coherent is the human evolution story?, Institute for Creation Research, June 1, 2006
Is there fossil evidence of “missing links” between humans and apes?, ChristianAnswers.Net


Which humans evolved from which apes?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Speculating is Like betting on a horse to win a race. Speculation is what supports your theory and that is not real science. It's absurd to compare observable proven science with so called science based on maybe,could be,possibly.

Then you misunderstand or have been mis-educated, or misread what exactly science is.
Science is NOT "speculating"! If you fail to understand what constitutes science (as opposed to what you IMAGINE science to be), you missed the train when it pulled out of the station, the boat when it left the pier, and the plane when it took off, all three of which operate upon scientific principles, not speculation. I honestly do NOT know how someone could get the mistaken idea that ANY part of science is "speculation". Again, final answer, Speculation is NOT science, speculation is GUESSING.

You have also failed to grasp the meaning of "theory" in scientific scholarship, and confused it with the words "hypothesis" or "speculation", neither of which mean anything like what the word "theory" means in science.

Confusion of all those terms, using one in place of another, to me, looks like someone has never studied science at all.

Oh boy , I understand a theory can never be proven or so they say but when you spout a speculation as fact its not science.

So are you taking a hard line stance that gravity cannot be proven since it's "just a theory"?



I still see no links showing biologists saying T-Rex was a herbivore, should we just put that into the thick file of "crazy things said by Allie that cannot be proven"?

 

[Youwerecreated]

YWC your DNA comparison is ridiculous. Yes, 5% of 3 billion is 150,000,000. No one is arguing that. Im saying thats not information that necessarily has to be ADDED to between chimp and human. its information that is changed from one nucleotide to another, not the addition of information through the insertion of nucleotides. 60 is a ridiculously low number for mutations a year, im not sure where you got that. in terms of single nucleotide mutations there are hundreds in every cell in your body.

I'll tell you what is absurd and rediculous,that you didn't know scientist carefully examine these sort of things.

How did you think they arrived at the 5% difference figure ?

So in your ignorance you mock the people that created your theory. You see you're so biased that anything i say you think comes from creationist. Well you better get use to creationist ,because they have a scientific model of their own and it's a lot like the evolution scientific model.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You never addressed the core issue of chromosome 2. The problem you need to explain is not relation, it is the fact that chromosome two is fused.

The fact that the chromosomes are fused means humans had to have descended from an organism with a diploid number of 48, rather than the current 46. There is no other option.

If the descendants of humans had a different diploid number there could have been no interbreeding, therefore they constitute a separate species, and therefore humans are the product of speciation.

The existence of the fused chromosome two is by definition an example of speciation.

Yes i did you didn't understand it apparently.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You're obsessing. So I said canidae was the species when it was canis lupus. Whoop de do. I still know the difference between species and sub species and didn't make any idiotic claims based on my misunderstanding of what has been proven and what hasn't.

You have repeatedly and falsely attributed ridiculous stances to me that I have never asserted and never will. You stupid siggy for a couple of days was you attributing something weird to me that of course couldn't be backed up with anything like a quote or even paraphrase of anything I've ever said. In fact it was so bizarre I couldn't even figure out what you based it on.

And surprise surprise, that's exactly the way you approach your entire argument and evolution theory in general. You make statements that have nothing to do with the facts, and argue as if the opposition is making arguments that it has never made.

That is his nature he likes to carry on with both sides of the argument.