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

[cbirch2]

Posting this a second time.... irritating blackberry!

I got several books on genetics and such yet skimming through those to get the basic idea didn't give me the understanding that merely reading my bible and using basic common sense seems to have.

The Life force is vibrational. That is the key factor. Our Christian bible does not discredit technological influences more than it prepares us for such. There are so many levels represented within it's texts though and it seems that it takes being provoked for our depths to be triggered toward better understanding 'the deep'.

Lol your not a person im going to debate. You just admitted you have no idea about genetics and that "life force is vibrational".

lol your the biggest retard on here.

Crash course in genetics: Each cell in your body contains a nucleus. In the nucleus is 46 chromosomes (for humans and some other animals). Chromosomes contain your DNA, in the form of nitrogen-based nucleotides. There are 4 different types of nucleotides. Sequences of three nucleotides code for the expression of a protein. Each strand of DNA contains tens of millions of nucleotides. In the center of a chromosome is a sequence of nucleotides that form the centromere that divides the chromosome in two and aids in cell replication. Each end of the chromosome is capped with a sequence of nucleotides called a telomere.

Follow?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well that theory is based on my relious beliefs. But heck some people say dinosaurs went extinct millions of years ago but we have plenty of evidence man had to see these creatures before their fossils were discovered.

As far as I know there is no such evidence. All the supposed proof has turned out to be misinterpretation of the evidence. A common "proof" is the picture that shows both dinosaur and human prints in the stone of a stream bank. What they don't tell you is that there was differential erosion along the stream and the two sets of prints were actually in different rock layers. other than that "proof", I've never seen any other. Got any specific cites other than directing us to the front page of a massive website?

well there were writings from famous people of history describing these creatures. We have petroglyphs from all over the world of these creatures and some very accurate drawings of these creatures no one saw. There have been some found in the pyramids of Egypt. Aztec drawings,and the myai people. You have the Asian people supporting these claims. There is overwhelming evidence. I can't remember which thread it was,but I had some videos showing all the evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Pure gene? What are you talking about? The fact that chromosome two has a vestigial chromosome and central telomeres is proof that humans descended from an organism with 48 chromosomes. Do you even understand whats going on right now? Wtf is a pure gene you retard?

You really expect people to take you serious genius ? You better take a chill pill before you have a heart attack. Trust you want to believe as you do so bad it blinds you from reality.

 

[cbirch2]

Well that theory is based on my relious beliefs. But heck some people say dinosaurs went extinct millions of years ago but we have plenty of evidence man had to see these creatures before their fossils were discovered.

As far as I know there is no such evidence. All the supposed proof has turned out to be misinterpretation of the evidence. A common "proof" is the picture that shows both dinosaur and human prints in the stone of a stream bank. What they don't tell you is that there was differential erosion along the stream and the two sets of prints were actually in different rock layers. other than that "proof", I've never seen any other. Got any specific cites other than directing us to the front page of a massive website?

well there were writings from famous people of history describing these creatures. We have petroglyphs from all over the world of these creatures and some very accurate drawings of these creatures no one saw. There have been some found in the pyramids of Egypt. Aztec drawings,and the myai people. You have the Asian people supporting these claims. There is overwhelming evidence. I can't remember which thread it was,but I had some videos showing all the evidence.

Non-bird dinosaur fossils are only found beneath the KT boundary. Geological activity excluded.

 

[cbirch2]

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.

Pure gene? What are you talking about? The fact that chromosome two has a vestigial chromosome and central telomeres is proof that humans descended from an organism with 48 chromosomes. Do you even understand whats going on right now? Wtf is a pure gene you retard?

You really expect people to take you serious genius ? You better take a chill pill before you have a heart attack. Trust you want to believe as you do so bad it blinds you from reality.

Then explain to me how chromosome two could have formed. There is no option other than fusion. Therefore we MUST have been the result of speciation. There is no other option. Do you not get this?

 

[Iridescence]

Darling cbirch I wouldn't bother debating about genetics with you ffs a retard *I* may seem to you but I won't mention what and how you seem to me.

Of course 'we' came from something... I am not qualified though according to 'you' so I won't clue 'you' in... continue your backward approach you will carry your own mark accordingly.

 

[cbirch2]

Darling cbirch I wouldn't bother debating about genetics with you ffs a retard *I* may seem to you but I won't mention what and how you seem to me.

Of course 'we' came from something... I am not qualified though according to 'you' so I won't clue 'you' in... continue your backward approach you will carry your own mark accordingly.

Follow this. Fused chromosome two means at one point some human ancestor had a different number of chromosomes than we do now. Meaning they could not have mated with us, organisms with different numbers of chromosomes cannot produce viable offspring. That is the definition of speciation, right there.

 

[Iridescence]

Follow this cbirch 'we' were not always what 'we' are. 'We' are TOLD how things happened, why are 'you' so damned confused? You are educated? I am happy to not be, then. If ya want a history lesson I would suggest to disconnect yourself from what you are told by mainstream find the woods and take your bible. Learn to read it for what it is. 'We' are forever students so please don't be offended by my words.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I don't know. I'm puzzled by the new fad of saying I say things I absolutely never said.

I never said TRex was an herbivore. I never contested the existence of evolution. there are a few other things I never said that have been attributed to me as well.

Puzzling. But not surprising.

You said T-Rex was just as likely to be a herbivore as a carnivore. I want proof of that craziness.

Macroevolution is a HUGE part of evolution, and you deny macroevolution, so you at minimum deny enormous basic aspects of evolution.

I love irony, everyday on this board you invent quotes people said, then when asked repeatedly you can't offer up any semblance of proof.

Just exactly what are we rejecting ? Wild unproven speculations that can't be observed or tested. That does not sound unreasonable does it ? You reject our beliefs for the same reasons.

Speciation has been observed and tested, you just think your particular god likes when you deny science so you do it.

Scientific theory and biblical theory, one has facts, one doesn't, I'm glad I'm not on your side as to which one does.

I was indoctrinated with the Bible from birth on, it was a hard shackle to get rid of. I just grew out of the talking snakes and living inside whales jibberish. Thankfully, most christians don't take those loony stories literally as you do.

 

[cbirch2]

Follow this cbirch 'we' were not always what 'we' are. 'We' are TOLD how things happened, why are 'you' so damned confused? You are educated? I am happy to not be, then. If ya want a history lesson I would suggest to disconnect yourself from what you are told by mainstream find the woods and take your bible. Learn to read it for what it is. 'We' are forever students so please don't be offended by my words.

"'we' were not always what 'we' are." Exactly. We 'used' to be an organism with 48 chromosomes rather than 46. I dont get how you can deny this.

You get all philosophical, yet you cant seem to realize that 48 and 46 are different numbers.

 

[Iridescence]

I am not denying anything other than your assertion that 'we' came from chimps. I am not saying that reversing genetics is impossible what I AM saying is that there is a mark that comes with such. It is really difficult to not be philosophical when theoretics are at hand.

 

[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?

Dude are you serious? You really dont get my argument at all. Im not arguing that DNA was added between human and chimp. i dont think you get that. Some of it might have been, but the vast majority of the differences between human and chimp dna are substitution of information, not insertion. They are variations in which nucleotide base is in which spot, not the introduction of new nucleotide bases in new spots.

Do variations show differences ?

What's there to argue ?

 

[cbirch2]

I am not denying anything other than your assertion that 'we' came from chimps. I am not saying that reversing genetics is impossible what I AM saying is that there is a mark that comes with such. It is really difficult to not be philosophical when theoretics are at hand.

Lol your right. Chimps and humans share a common ancestor and that common ancestor is more similar to chimps than to humans.

You must be new to this debate. Idc whether or not our common ancestor is chimps. The point is that humans must have come from another species with a different number of chromosomes. Hence speciation, what i've been trying to prove this whole time.

 

[cbirch2]

Do variations show differences ?

What's there to argue ?

yea we must be arguing two different things. Im just saying there wasnt a 5% addition of new information. There was a 5% variation of existing information, something much more likely than the addition of information (which is still likely).

 

[Iridescence]

Have you read Vril? It is very difficult for me to not appreciate some things represented by what is supposedly speculation. I read 'The Chariots of the Gods' back in what was then Junior High and did a report that warranted me an "F" according to my judges because, um, well, as a child I slammed our government a bit too hard.

 

[Iridescence]

I am not denying anything other than your assertion that 'we' came from chimps. I am not saying that reversing genetics is impossible what I AM saying is that there is a mark that comes with such. It is really difficult to not be philosophical when theoretics are at hand.

Lol your right. Chimps and humans share a common ancestor and that common ancestor is more similar to chimps than to humans.

You must be new to this debate. Idc whether or not our common ancestor is chimps. The point is that humans must have come from another species with a different number of chromosomes. Hence speciation, what i've been trying to prove this whole time.

Not debating... There is the above link for Vril and then there is also cellular memory. As someone who has studied genetics as extensively as you seem to have I am sure you will appreciate the both of those.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

I will say this that is a much more interesting point then what the genius presents. That the chimp came after man, much more sense then what the genius argues.

Why would a chimp have more Chromosomes if we evolved from them that contradicts the genius's theory.

Lol. That was awesome.

Now its obvious someone doesnt understand genetics and inheritance.

Besides it doesnt matter what organism the chromosome fused from. The simple fact that its fused means humans had to have come from a species other than human.

Again you're merely speculating not proving a thing. Do you not get it ?you don't know sarcasm from when i'm being real. You're are so sure of yourself but time and time again you can't seem to grasp that i will interpret evidence different because of my core beliefs. So if i always agreed with you there would be no debate,get it ? I have clearly shown you why your theory can't happen but yet you still reject it because you have never seen the agrguments i use.

Look my theory is not taught in the classroom yet, but give it time, it will be there because it is more viable because of the evidence.

You're always calling people retards or stupid because they disagree with you. You try to show your intelligence by asking questions you think can stump people. let's see how you do with a subject near and dear to my heart that should be in your text books.

Let me get my notes be right back.I'm going easy on you.

1. Flies were chosen to experiment on for what reason ?

2. What was used on them to produce mutations ?

3. How many different mutations were observed in the Drosophila ?

4. How long is gestation ?

5. out of all the mutations observed in the Drosophila,how many new species were produced ?

6. What happened to all the mutated flies ?

7. what happened to the mutated flies when in the presence of healthy fruit flies ?

That is a simple test to see what you really know about genetics,since you're are a genius.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well that theory is based on my relious beliefs. But heck some people say dinosaurs went extinct millions of years ago but we have plenty of evidence man had to see these creatures before their fossils were discovered.

As far as I know there is no such evidence. All the supposed proof has turned out to be misinterpretation of the evidence. A common "proof" is the picture that shows both dinosaur and human prints in the stone of a stream bank. What they don't tell you is that there was differential erosion along the stream and the two sets of prints were actually in different rock layers. other than that "proof", I've never seen any other. Got any specific cites other than directing us to the front page of a massive website?

I will find it and post it later.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You said T-Rex was just as likely to be a herbivore as a carnivore. I want proof of that craziness.

Macroevolution is a HUGE part of evolution, and you deny macroevolution, so you at minimum deny enormous basic aspects of evolution.

I love irony, everyday on this board you invent quotes people said, then when asked repeatedly you can't offer up any semblance of proof.

Just exactly what are we rejecting ? Wild unproven speculations that can't be observed or tested. That does not sound unreasonable does it ? You reject our beliefs for the same reasons.

Speciation has been observed and tested, you just think your particular god likes when you deny science so you do it.

Scientific theory and biblical theory, one has facts, one doesn't, I'm glad I'm not on your side as to which one does.

I was indoctrinated with the Bible from birth on, it was a hard shackle to get rid of. I just grew out of the talking snakes and living inside whales jibberish. Thankfully, most christians don't take those loony stories literally as you do.

You mean micro-adaptations have been observed that we can agree on.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Follow this cbirch 'we' were not always what 'we' are. 'We' are TOLD how things happened, why are 'you' so damned confused? You are educated? I am happy to not be, then. If ya want a history lesson I would suggest to disconnect yourself from what you are told by mainstream find the woods and take your bible. Learn to read it for what it is. 'We' are forever students so please don't be offended by my words.

"'we' were not always what 'we' are." Exactly. We 'used' to be an organism with 48 chromosomes rather than 46. I dont get how you can deny this.

You get all philosophical, yet you cant seem to realize that 48 and 46 are different numbers.

Again you keep trying to base your belief off of speculation there is absolutely no evidence of what you say happened,happened.

You need to learn fact from speculation.