If evolution is not a theory why did:

[Boss]

He misrepresented the predictions of the theory!

I don't see that. I see that he is presenting a valid argument to counter another argument.

 

[Mudda]

Ancient myth and fairy tale.
New Research Debunks Human Chromosome Fusion | The Institute for Creation Research

"Creation research". Man, you really are a fool, aren't you? And you want to discredit science. Sheesh, what a fucking moron you are. Unbelievable! ...almost.

Do you have any comment on the research or are you just going to mock and ridicule that which you don't understand?

Research into Creation?

Got a real link that's not a cartoonish site?

New Research Debunks Human Chromosome Fusion
by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. *

Humans and great apes differ in chromosome numbers—humans have 46 while apes have 48. The difference is claimed to be due to the “end-to-end fusion” of two small, ape-like chromosomes in a human-ape ancestor that joined in the distant past and formed human chromosome 2. This idea was first proposed by researchers who noticed that humans and chimps share similar chromosomal staining patterns when observed under a microscope.1However, humans and chimps also have regions of their chromosomes that do not share common staining patterns.

Supposed proof for the alleged fusion came in 1991, when researchers discovered a fusion-like DNA sequence about 800 bases in length on human chromosome 2.2 However, it was unexpectedly small in size and extremely degenerate. More importantly, this new fusion-like sequence wasn’t what the researchers were expecting to find since it contained a signature never seen before. All known fusions in living animals are associated with a sequence called satellite DNA (satDNA) that fuses in one of the two following scenarios: 1) satDNA-satDNA or 2) satDNA-telomereDNA. (Telomeres are the regions at the end of chromosomes that contain thousands of repeats of the DNA sequence “TTAGG.”)3,4 The alleged fusion sequence contained a different signature, a telomere-telomere fusion, and, if real, would be the first documented case ever seen in nature.

In 2002, 614,000 bases of DNA surrounding the fusion site were fully sequenced, revealing that the alleged fusion sequence was in the middle of a gene originally classified as a pseudogene because there was not yet any known function for it.5,6 The research also showed that the genes surrounding the fusion site in the 614,000-base window did not exist on chimp chromosomes 2A or 2B—the supposed ape origins location. In genetics terminology, we call this discordant gene location a lack of synteny.

I have now published new research on the alleged fusion site, revealing genetic data that fully debunk its evolutionary claims.7My analysis confirms that the site is located inside a gene calledDDX11L2 on human chromosome 2. Furthermore, the alleged fusion sequence contains a functional genetic feature called a “transcription factor binding site” that is located in the first intron (non-coding region) of the gene (see illustration). Transcription factors are proteins that bind to regulatory sites in and around genes to control their function, acting like switches. The DDX11L2 gene has three of these areas, one of which is encoded in the alleged fusion site.

Chromosomes are double-stranded DNA molecules and contain genes on both strands that are encoded in opposite directions. Because the DDX11L2 gene is encoded on the reverse-oriented strand, it is read in the reverse direction (see Exon 1 arrow). Thus, the alleged fusion sequence is not read in the forward orientation typically used in literature as evidence for a fusion—rather, it is read in the reverse direction and encodes a key regulatory switch.

The supposed fusion site is actually a key part of the DDX11L2 gene. The gene itself is part of a complex group of RNA helicase DDX11L genes that produce regulatory long non-coding RNAs. These DDX11L2 RNA transcripts are produced in at least 255 different cell types and tissues in humans, highlighting the genes’ ubiquitous biological function.

Functional genes like DDX11L2 do not arise by the mythical fusing of telomeres. The alleged fusion site is not a degenerate fusion sequence but is and, since creation, has been a functional feature in an important gene.7

References

1. Yunis, J. J. and O. Prakash. 1982. The origin of man: A chromosomal pictorial legacy. Science. 215 (4539): 1525-1530.
2. Ijdo, J. W. et al. 1991. Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 88 (20): 9051-9055.
3. Tsipouri, V. et al 2008. Comparative sequence analyses reveal sites of ancestral chromosomal fusions in the Indian muntjac genome. Genome Biology. 9 (10): R155.
4. Adega, F., H. Guedes-Pinto and R. Chaves. 2009. Satellite DNA in the karyotype evolution of domestic animals—clinical considerations. Cytogenetics and Genome Research. 126 (1-2): 12-20.
5. Fan, Y. et al. 2002. Gene Content and Function of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in Human Chromosome 2q13-2q14.1 and Paralogous Regions. Genome Research. 12 (11): 1663-1672.
6. Fan, Y. et al. 2002. Genomic Structure and Evolution of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in 2q13-2q14.1 and Paralogous Regions on Other Human Chromosomes. Genome Research. 12 (11): 1651-1662.
7. Tomkins, J. 2013. Alleged Human Chromosome 2 “Fusion Site” Encodes an Active DNA Binding Domain Inside a Complex and Highly Expressed Gene—Negating Fusion. Answers Research Journal. 6: 367-375.

* Dr. Tomkins received his Ph.D. in genetics from Clemson University.

Yeah... I know... it's all WAYYYYY over your head!

First you post a study from the Creation people (you just lost the remaining shred of credibility you might have had). Then you post something with no link so I can't even see who these people are and have another good laugh. EPIC LAUGHING FAIL!!!

 

[sealybobo]

By the way

Some proofs/disproofs cannot use the physical science.

Also, Science is not the be all and end all to every truth.

In other words, there are abstract concepts that can not be proved with physical experiments, but we do know these things exist through our experiences. . Maybe when psychology develops some more, maybe then. Maybe

And by the way--I trust no one associated with the ICR. Their goal is not to prove creationism is a valid science. Their goal is to prove that the Bible is the unerrant word of God.

They even have an illogical reason on why they attack evolution. They think if they debunk evolution, then creationism becomes valid automatically. Hate to burst their bubble, but science will create another theory that covers the fault and will not utilize GOD because using God in a theory is a closed theory. No research, no production, nothing to study without going to God and hoping God gives you the correct answers.

Yes, they will misrepresent, misinterpret and mishandle information on purpose to lead people "astray", which is a strange thing to say about people who wish to lead people to "God".

So, yes
ICR is something to laugh at since their lack of integrity is a serious joke. There is no need to debunk an article from ICR, like there is no need to debunk an article from the Onion.

What abstract concepts, besides God, are real but can't be proven by science?

 

[Boss]

Ancient myth and fairy tale.
New Research Debunks Human Chromosome Fusion | The Institute for Creation Research

"Creation research". Man, you really are a fool, aren't you? And you want to discredit science. Sheesh, what a fucking moron you are. Unbelievable! ...almost.

Do you have any comment on the research or are you just going to mock and ridicule that which you don't understand?

Research into Creation?

Got a real link that's not a cartoonish site?

New Research Debunks Human Chromosome Fusion
by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. *

Humans and great apes differ in chromosome numbers—humans have 46 while apes have 48. The difference is claimed to be due to the “end-to-end fusion” of two small, ape-like chromosomes in a human-ape ancestor that joined in the distant past and formed human chromosome 2. This idea was first proposed by researchers who noticed that humans and chimps share similar chromosomal staining patterns when observed under a microscope.1However, humans and chimps also have regions of their chromosomes that do not share common staining patterns.

Supposed proof for the alleged fusion came in 1991, when researchers discovered a fusion-like DNA sequence about 800 bases in length on human chromosome 2.2 However, it was unexpectedly small in size and extremely degenerate. More importantly, this new fusion-like sequence wasn’t what the researchers were expecting to find since it contained a signature never seen before. All known fusions in living animals are associated with a sequence called satellite DNA (satDNA) that fuses in one of the two following scenarios: 1) satDNA-satDNA or 2) satDNA-telomereDNA. (Telomeres are the regions at the end of chromosomes that contain thousands of repeats of the DNA sequence “TTAGG.”)3,4 The alleged fusion sequence contained a different signature, a telomere-telomere fusion, and, if real, would be the first documented case ever seen in nature.

In 2002, 614,000 bases of DNA surrounding the fusion site were fully sequenced, revealing that the alleged fusion sequence was in the middle of a gene originally classified as a pseudogene because there was not yet any known function for it.5,6 The research also showed that the genes surrounding the fusion site in the 614,000-base window did not exist on chimp chromosomes 2A or 2B—the supposed ape origins location. In genetics terminology, we call this discordant gene location a lack of synteny.

I have now published new research on the alleged fusion site, revealing genetic data that fully debunk its evolutionary claims.7My analysis confirms that the site is located inside a gene calledDDX11L2 on human chromosome 2. Furthermore, the alleged fusion sequence contains a functional genetic feature called a “transcription factor binding site” that is located in the first intron (non-coding region) of the gene (see illustration). Transcription factors are proteins that bind to regulatory sites in and around genes to control their function, acting like switches. The DDX11L2 gene has three of these areas, one of which is encoded in the alleged fusion site.

Chromosomes are double-stranded DNA molecules and contain genes on both strands that are encoded in opposite directions. Because the DDX11L2 gene is encoded on the reverse-oriented strand, it is read in the reverse direction (see Exon 1 arrow). Thus, the alleged fusion sequence is not read in the forward orientation typically used in literature as evidence for a fusion—rather, it is read in the reverse direction and encodes a key regulatory switch.

The supposed fusion site is actually a key part of the DDX11L2 gene. The gene itself is part of a complex group of RNA helicase DDX11L genes that produce regulatory long non-coding RNAs. These DDX11L2 RNA transcripts are produced in at least 255 different cell types and tissues in humans, highlighting the genes’ ubiquitous biological function.

Functional genes like DDX11L2 do not arise by the mythical fusing of telomeres. The alleged fusion site is not a degenerate fusion sequence but is and, since creation, has been a functional feature in an important gene.7

References

1. Yunis, J. J. and O. Prakash. 1982. The origin of man: A chromosomal pictorial legacy. Science. 215 (4539): 1525-1530.
2. Ijdo, J. W. et al. 1991. Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 88 (20): 9051-9055.
3. Tsipouri, V. et al 2008. Comparative sequence analyses reveal sites of ancestral chromosomal fusions in the Indian muntjac genome. Genome Biology. 9 (10): R155.
4. Adega, F., H. Guedes-Pinto and R. Chaves. 2009. Satellite DNA in the karyotype evolution of domestic animals—clinical considerations. Cytogenetics and Genome Research. 126 (1-2): 12-20.
5. Fan, Y. et al. 2002. Gene Content and Function of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in Human Chromosome 2q13-2q14.1 and Paralogous Regions. Genome Research. 12 (11): 1663-1672.
6. Fan, Y. et al. 2002. Genomic Structure and Evolution of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in 2q13-2q14.1 and Paralogous Regions on Other Human Chromosomes. Genome Research. 12 (11): 1651-1662.
7. Tomkins, J. 2013. Alleged Human Chromosome 2 “Fusion Site” Encodes an Active DNA Binding Domain Inside a Complex and Highly Expressed Gene—Negating Fusion. Answers Research Journal. 6: 367-375.

* Dr. Tomkins received his Ph.D. in genetics from Clemson University.

Yeah... I know... it's all WAYYYYY over your head!

First you post a study from the Creation people (you just lost the remaining shred of credibility you might have had). Then you post something with no link so I can't even see who these people are and have another good laugh. EPIC LAUGHING FAIL!!!

Well, see.. my objective here is not to meet your approval of sources. It's also not to prove to you that God exists. You come to these threads with those expectations but those are not my obligation or objective. I cannot help you to believe in God or anything else.

Creation is a truth. Whether you wish to admit truth or not, does not make any difference to truth. Regardless of whether you believe in a guiding force of creation or that of random chance, the universe and life were created by something because they exist. You can deny that truth but you can't change it.

So we must start evaluating the questions about our existence from the understanding we were created. You wish to explain it with some unknown cosmic mystery which somehow produced a universe from nothing and doing it in such a way that dozens of constants and physical principles were precise and just so happen to support life which also came into creation by random chance. This doesn't satisfy me as an explanation of anything. It's more of a denial of self-evident reality. This is too magnificent and awe-inspiring to have been the product of random chance. And I think forcing yourself to believe in such nonsense also causes you to fail in appreciating the miracle around you.

I don't need to laugh at you or mock you. That's your need because you're not fulfilled. For you, I feel remorse and pity. I see a total waste of something precious to God. The potential you could have had but failed to realize in your own stubbornness. I'm genuinely sad for you.

 

[Boss]

By the way

Some proofs/disproofs cannot use the physical science.

Also, Science is not the be all and end all to every truth.

In other words, there are abstract concepts that can not be proved with physical experiments, but we do know these things exist through our experiences. . Maybe when psychology develops some more, maybe then. Maybe

And by the way--I trust no one associated with the ICR. Their goal is not to prove creationism is a valid science. Their goal is to prove that the Bible is the unerrant word of God.

They even have an illogical reason on why they attack evolution. They think if they debunk evolution, then creationism becomes valid automatically. Hate to burst their bubble, but science will create another theory that covers the fault and will not utilize GOD because using God in a theory is a closed theory. No research, no production, nothing to study without going to God and hoping God gives you the correct answers.

Yes, they will misrepresent, misinterpret and mishandle information on purpose to lead people "astray", which is a strange thing to say about people who wish to lead people to "God".

So, yes
ICR is something to laugh at since their lack of integrity is a serious joke. There is no need to debunk an article from ICR, like there is no need to debunk an article from the Onion.

What abstract concepts, besides God, are real but can't be proven by science?

What do you mean by "real"?

 

[rightwinger]

By the way

Some proofs/disproofs cannot use the physical science.

Also, Science is not the be all and end all to every truth.

In other words, there are abstract concepts that can not be proved with physical experiments, but we do know these things exist through our experiences. . Maybe when psychology develops some more, maybe then. Maybe

And by the way--I trust no one associated with the ICR. Their goal is not to prove creationism is a valid science. Their goal is to prove that the Bible is the unerrant word of God.

They even have an illogical reason on why they attack evolution. They think if they debunk evolution, then creationism becomes valid automatically. Hate to burst their bubble, but science will create another theory that covers the fault and will not utilize GOD because using God in a theory is a closed theory. No research, no production, nothing to study without going to God and hoping God gives you the correct answers.

Yes, they will misrepresent, misinterpret and mishandle information on purpose to lead people "astray", which is a strange thing to say about people who wish to lead people to "God".

So, yes
ICR is something to laugh at since their lack of integrity is a serious joke. There is no need to debunk an article from ICR, like there is no need to debunk an article from the Onion.

What abstract concepts, besides God, are real but can't be proven by science?

UFOs
Ghosts
Unicorns
Bigfoot

 

[Mudda]

"Creation research". Man, you really are a fool, aren't you? And you want to discredit science. Sheesh, what a fucking moron you are. Unbelievable! ...almost.

Do you have any comment on the research or are you just going to mock and ridicule that which you don't understand?

Research into Creation?

Got a real link that's not a cartoonish site?

New Research Debunks Human Chromosome Fusion
by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. *

Humans and great apes differ in chromosome numbers—humans have 46 while apes have 48. The difference is claimed to be due to the “end-to-end fusion” of two small, ape-like chromosomes in a human-ape ancestor that joined in the distant past and formed human chromosome 2. This idea was first proposed by researchers who noticed that humans and chimps share similar chromosomal staining patterns when observed under a microscope.1However, humans and chimps also have regions of their chromosomes that do not share common staining patterns.

Supposed proof for the alleged fusion came in 1991, when researchers discovered a fusion-like DNA sequence about 800 bases in length on human chromosome 2.2 However, it was unexpectedly small in size and extremely degenerate. More importantly, this new fusion-like sequence wasn’t what the researchers were expecting to find since it contained a signature never seen before. All known fusions in living animals are associated with a sequence called satellite DNA (satDNA) that fuses in one of the two following scenarios: 1) satDNA-satDNA or 2) satDNA-telomereDNA. (Telomeres are the regions at the end of chromosomes that contain thousands of repeats of the DNA sequence “TTAGG.”)3,4 The alleged fusion sequence contained a different signature, a telomere-telomere fusion, and, if real, would be the first documented case ever seen in nature.

In 2002, 614,000 bases of DNA surrounding the fusion site were fully sequenced, revealing that the alleged fusion sequence was in the middle of a gene originally classified as a pseudogene because there was not yet any known function for it.5,6 The research also showed that the genes surrounding the fusion site in the 614,000-base window did not exist on chimp chromosomes 2A or 2B—the supposed ape origins location. In genetics terminology, we call this discordant gene location a lack of synteny.

I have now published new research on the alleged fusion site, revealing genetic data that fully debunk its evolutionary claims.7My analysis confirms that the site is located inside a gene calledDDX11L2 on human chromosome 2. Furthermore, the alleged fusion sequence contains a functional genetic feature called a “transcription factor binding site” that is located in the first intron (non-coding region) of the gene (see illustration). Transcription factors are proteins that bind to regulatory sites in and around genes to control their function, acting like switches. The DDX11L2 gene has three of these areas, one of which is encoded in the alleged fusion site.

Chromosomes are double-stranded DNA molecules and contain genes on both strands that are encoded in opposite directions. Because the DDX11L2 gene is encoded on the reverse-oriented strand, it is read in the reverse direction (see Exon 1 arrow). Thus, the alleged fusion sequence is not read in the forward orientation typically used in literature as evidence for a fusion—rather, it is read in the reverse direction and encodes a key regulatory switch.

The supposed fusion site is actually a key part of the DDX11L2 gene. The gene itself is part of a complex group of RNA helicase DDX11L genes that produce regulatory long non-coding RNAs. These DDX11L2 RNA transcripts are produced in at least 255 different cell types and tissues in humans, highlighting the genes’ ubiquitous biological function.

Functional genes like DDX11L2 do not arise by the mythical fusing of telomeres. The alleged fusion site is not a degenerate fusion sequence but is and, since creation, has been a functional feature in an important gene.7

References

1. Yunis, J. J. and O. Prakash. 1982. The origin of man: A chromosomal pictorial legacy. Science. 215 (4539): 1525-1530.
2. Ijdo, J. W. et al. 1991. Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 88 (20): 9051-9055.
3. Tsipouri, V. et al 2008. Comparative sequence analyses reveal sites of ancestral chromosomal fusions in the Indian muntjac genome. Genome Biology. 9 (10): R155.
4. Adega, F., H. Guedes-Pinto and R. Chaves. 2009. Satellite DNA in the karyotype evolution of domestic animals—clinical considerations. Cytogenetics and Genome Research. 126 (1-2): 12-20.
5. Fan, Y. et al. 2002. Gene Content and Function of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in Human Chromosome 2q13-2q14.1 and Paralogous Regions. Genome Research. 12 (11): 1663-1672.
6. Fan, Y. et al. 2002. Genomic Structure and Evolution of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in 2q13-2q14.1 and Paralogous Regions on Other Human Chromosomes. Genome Research. 12 (11): 1651-1662.
7. Tomkins, J. 2013. Alleged Human Chromosome 2 “Fusion Site” Encodes an Active DNA Binding Domain Inside a Complex and Highly Expressed Gene—Negating Fusion. Answers Research Journal. 6: 367-375.

* Dr. Tomkins received his Ph.D. in genetics from Clemson University.

Yeah... I know... it's all WAYYYYY over your head!

First you post a study from the Creation people (you just lost the remaining shred of credibility you might have had). Then you post something with no link so I can't even see who these people are and have another good laugh. EPIC LAUGHING FAIL!!!

Well, see.. my objective here is not to meet your approval of sources. It's also not to prove to you that God exists. You come to these threads with those expectations but those are not my obligation or objective. I cannot help you to believe in God or anything else.

Creation is a truth. Whether you wish to admit truth or not, does not make any difference to truth. Regardless of whether you believe in a guiding force of creation or that of random chance, the universe and life were created by something because they exist. You can deny that truth but you can't change it.

So we must start evaluating the questions about our existence from the understanding we were created. You wish to explain it with some unknown cosmic mystery which somehow produced a universe from nothing and doing it in such a way that dozens of constants and physical principles were precise and just so happen to support life which also came into creation by random chance. This doesn't satisfy me as an explanation of anything. It's more of a denial of self-evident reality. This is too magnificent and awe-inspiring to have been the product of random chance. And I think forcing yourself to believe in such nonsense also causes you to fail in appreciating the miracle around you.

I don't need to laugh at you or mock you. That's your need because you're not fulfilled. For you, I feel remorse and pity. I see a total waste of something precious to God. The potential you could have had but failed to realize in your own stubbornness. I'm genuinely sad for you.

HA! I finally squeezed it out of you. You're not a "spiritualist", you're a fucking god fearing creationist. Just another deluded retard.

 

[Mudda]

By the way

Some proofs/disproofs cannot use the physical science.

Also, Science is not the be all and end all to every truth.

In other words, there are abstract concepts that can not be proved with physical experiments, but we do know these things exist through our experiences. . Maybe when psychology develops some more, maybe then. Maybe

And by the way--I trust no one associated with the ICR. Their goal is not to prove creationism is a valid science. Their goal is to prove that the Bible is the unerrant word of God.

They even have an illogical reason on why they attack evolution. They think if they debunk evolution, then creationism becomes valid automatically. Hate to burst their bubble, but science will create another theory that covers the fault and will not utilize GOD because using God in a theory is a closed theory. No research, no production, nothing to study without going to God and hoping God gives you the correct answers.

Yes, they will misrepresent, misinterpret and mishandle information on purpose to lead people "astray", which is a strange thing to say about people who wish to lead people to "God".

So, yes
ICR is something to laugh at since their lack of integrity is a serious joke. There is no need to debunk an article from ICR, like there is no need to debunk an article from the Onion.

What abstract concepts, besides God, are real but can't be proven by science?

What do you mean by "real"?

Sealy, you've stumped him already.

 

[Boss]

Do you have any comment on the research or are you just going to mock and ridicule that which you don't understand?

Research into Creation?

Got a real link that's not a cartoonish site?

New Research Debunks Human Chromosome Fusion
by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. *

Humans and great apes differ in chromosome numbers—humans have 46 while apes have 48. The difference is claimed to be due to the “end-to-end fusion” of two small, ape-like chromosomes in a human-ape ancestor that joined in the distant past and formed human chromosome 2. This idea was first proposed by researchers who noticed that humans and chimps share similar chromosomal staining patterns when observed under a microscope.1However, humans and chimps also have regions of their chromosomes that do not share common staining patterns.

Supposed proof for the alleged fusion came in 1991, when researchers discovered a fusion-like DNA sequence about 800 bases in length on human chromosome 2.2 However, it was unexpectedly small in size and extremely degenerate. More importantly, this new fusion-like sequence wasn’t what the researchers were expecting to find since it contained a signature never seen before. All known fusions in living animals are associated with a sequence called satellite DNA (satDNA) that fuses in one of the two following scenarios: 1) satDNA-satDNA or 2) satDNA-telomereDNA. (Telomeres are the regions at the end of chromosomes that contain thousands of repeats of the DNA sequence “TTAGG.”)3,4 The alleged fusion sequence contained a different signature, a telomere-telomere fusion, and, if real, would be the first documented case ever seen in nature.

In 2002, 614,000 bases of DNA surrounding the fusion site were fully sequenced, revealing that the alleged fusion sequence was in the middle of a gene originally classified as a pseudogene because there was not yet any known function for it.5,6 The research also showed that the genes surrounding the fusion site in the 614,000-base window did not exist on chimp chromosomes 2A or 2B—the supposed ape origins location. In genetics terminology, we call this discordant gene location a lack of synteny.

I have now published new research on the alleged fusion site, revealing genetic data that fully debunk its evolutionary claims.7My analysis confirms that the site is located inside a gene calledDDX11L2 on human chromosome 2. Furthermore, the alleged fusion sequence contains a functional genetic feature called a “transcription factor binding site” that is located in the first intron (non-coding region) of the gene (see illustration). Transcription factors are proteins that bind to regulatory sites in and around genes to control their function, acting like switches. The DDX11L2 gene has three of these areas, one of which is encoded in the alleged fusion site.

Chromosomes are double-stranded DNA molecules and contain genes on both strands that are encoded in opposite directions. Because the DDX11L2 gene is encoded on the reverse-oriented strand, it is read in the reverse direction (see Exon 1 arrow). Thus, the alleged fusion sequence is not read in the forward orientation typically used in literature as evidence for a fusion—rather, it is read in the reverse direction and encodes a key regulatory switch.

The supposed fusion site is actually a key part of the DDX11L2 gene. The gene itself is part of a complex group of RNA helicase DDX11L genes that produce regulatory long non-coding RNAs. These DDX11L2 RNA transcripts are produced in at least 255 different cell types and tissues in humans, highlighting the genes’ ubiquitous biological function.

Functional genes like DDX11L2 do not arise by the mythical fusing of telomeres. The alleged fusion site is not a degenerate fusion sequence but is and, since creation, has been a functional feature in an important gene.7

References

1. Yunis, J. J. and O. Prakash. 1982. The origin of man: A chromosomal pictorial legacy. Science. 215 (4539): 1525-1530.
2. Ijdo, J. W. et al. 1991. Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 88 (20): 9051-9055.
3. Tsipouri, V. et al 2008. Comparative sequence analyses reveal sites of ancestral chromosomal fusions in the Indian muntjac genome. Genome Biology. 9 (10): R155.
4. Adega, F., H. Guedes-Pinto and R. Chaves. 2009. Satellite DNA in the karyotype evolution of domestic animals—clinical considerations. Cytogenetics and Genome Research. 126 (1-2): 12-20.
5. Fan, Y. et al. 2002. Gene Content and Function of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in Human Chromosome 2q13-2q14.1 and Paralogous Regions. Genome Research. 12 (11): 1663-1672.
6. Fan, Y. et al. 2002. Genomic Structure and Evolution of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in 2q13-2q14.1 and Paralogous Regions on Other Human Chromosomes. Genome Research. 12 (11): 1651-1662.
7. Tomkins, J. 2013. Alleged Human Chromosome 2 “Fusion Site” Encodes an Active DNA Binding Domain Inside a Complex and Highly Expressed Gene—Negating Fusion. Answers Research Journal. 6: 367-375.

* Dr. Tomkins received his Ph.D. in genetics from Clemson University.

Yeah... I know... it's all WAYYYYY over your head!

First you post a study from the Creation people (you just lost the remaining shred of credibility you might have had). Then you post something with no link so I can't even see who these people are and have another good laugh. EPIC LAUGHING FAIL!!!

Well, see.. my objective here is not to meet your approval of sources. It's also not to prove to you that God exists. You come to these threads with those expectations but those are not my obligation or objective. I cannot help you to believe in God or anything else.

Creation is a truth. Whether you wish to admit truth or not, does not make any difference to truth. Regardless of whether you believe in a guiding force of creation or that of random chance, the universe and life were created by something because they exist. You can deny that truth but you can't change it.

So we must start evaluating the questions about our existence from the understanding we were created. You wish to explain it with some unknown cosmic mystery which somehow produced a universe from nothing and doing it in such a way that dozens of constants and physical principles were precise and just so happen to support life which also came into creation by random chance. This doesn't satisfy me as an explanation of anything. It's more of a denial of self-evident reality. This is too magnificent and awe-inspiring to have been the product of random chance. And I think forcing yourself to believe in such nonsense also causes you to fail in appreciating the miracle around you.

I don't need to laugh at you or mock you. That's your need because you're not fulfilled. For you, I feel remorse and pity. I see a total waste of something precious to God. The potential you could have had but failed to realize in your own stubbornness. I'm genuinely sad for you.

HA! I finally squeezed it out of you. You're not a "spiritualist", you're a fucking god fearing creationist. Just another deluded retard.

Again... We're all creationists. There is no other explanation for existence. I am a spiritualist, I never said otherwise. I do believe in spiritual god, not religious man-made incarnations.

And... again... you can laugh at me and mock as much as you need to. I totally understand.

 

[Boss]

By the way

Some proofs/disproofs cannot use the physical science.

Also, Science is not the be all and end all to every truth.

In other words, there are abstract concepts that can not be proved with physical experiments, but we do know these things exist through our experiences. . Maybe when psychology develops some more, maybe then. Maybe

And by the way--I trust no one associated with the ICR. Their goal is not to prove creationism is a valid science. Their goal is to prove that the Bible is the unerrant word of God.

They even have an illogical reason on why they attack evolution. They think if they debunk evolution, then creationism becomes valid automatically. Hate to burst their bubble, but science will create another theory that covers the fault and will not utilize GOD because using God in a theory is a closed theory. No research, no production, nothing to study without going to God and hoping God gives you the correct answers.

Yes, they will misrepresent, misinterpret and mishandle information on purpose to lead people "astray", which is a strange thing to say about people who wish to lead people to "God".

So, yes
ICR is something to laugh at since their lack of integrity is a serious joke. There is no need to debunk an article from ICR, like there is no need to debunk an article from the Onion.

What abstract concepts, besides God, are real but can't be proven by science?

What do you mean by "real"?

Sealy, you've stumped him already.

There has been no stumping, I asked a question. If you'd like to answer for him, that's fine.

Before I can answer his question I need the terms defined. What does "real" mean?

 

[Mudda]

Research into Creation?

Got a real link that's not a cartoonish site?

New Research Debunks Human Chromosome Fusion
by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. *

Humans and great apes differ in chromosome numbers—humans have 46 while apes have 48. The difference is claimed to be due to the “end-to-end fusion” of two small, ape-like chromosomes in a human-ape ancestor that joined in the distant past and formed human chromosome 2. This idea was first proposed by researchers who noticed that humans and chimps share similar chromosomal staining patterns when observed under a microscope.1However, humans and chimps also have regions of their chromosomes that do not share common staining patterns.

Supposed proof for the alleged fusion came in 1991, when researchers discovered a fusion-like DNA sequence about 800 bases in length on human chromosome 2.2 However, it was unexpectedly small in size and extremely degenerate. More importantly, this new fusion-like sequence wasn’t what the researchers were expecting to find since it contained a signature never seen before. All known fusions in living animals are associated with a sequence called satellite DNA (satDNA) that fuses in one of the two following scenarios: 1) satDNA-satDNA or 2) satDNA-telomereDNA. (Telomeres are the regions at the end of chromosomes that contain thousands of repeats of the DNA sequence “TTAGG.”)3,4 The alleged fusion sequence contained a different signature, a telomere-telomere fusion, and, if real, would be the first documented case ever seen in nature.

In 2002, 614,000 bases of DNA surrounding the fusion site were fully sequenced, revealing that the alleged fusion sequence was in the middle of a gene originally classified as a pseudogene because there was not yet any known function for it.5,6 The research also showed that the genes surrounding the fusion site in the 614,000-base window did not exist on chimp chromosomes 2A or 2B—the supposed ape origins location. In genetics terminology, we call this discordant gene location a lack of synteny.

I have now published new research on the alleged fusion site, revealing genetic data that fully debunk its evolutionary claims.7My analysis confirms that the site is located inside a gene calledDDX11L2 on human chromosome 2. Furthermore, the alleged fusion sequence contains a functional genetic feature called a “transcription factor binding site” that is located in the first intron (non-coding region) of the gene (see illustration). Transcription factors are proteins that bind to regulatory sites in and around genes to control their function, acting like switches. The DDX11L2 gene has three of these areas, one of which is encoded in the alleged fusion site.

Chromosomes are double-stranded DNA molecules and contain genes on both strands that are encoded in opposite directions. Because the DDX11L2 gene is encoded on the reverse-oriented strand, it is read in the reverse direction (see Exon 1 arrow). Thus, the alleged fusion sequence is not read in the forward orientation typically used in literature as evidence for a fusion—rather, it is read in the reverse direction and encodes a key regulatory switch.

The supposed fusion site is actually a key part of the DDX11L2 gene. The gene itself is part of a complex group of RNA helicase DDX11L genes that produce regulatory long non-coding RNAs. These DDX11L2 RNA transcripts are produced in at least 255 different cell types and tissues in humans, highlighting the genes’ ubiquitous biological function.

Functional genes like DDX11L2 do not arise by the mythical fusing of telomeres. The alleged fusion site is not a degenerate fusion sequence but is and, since creation, has been a functional feature in an important gene.7

References

1. Yunis, J. J. and O. Prakash. 1982. The origin of man: A chromosomal pictorial legacy. Science. 215 (4539): 1525-1530.
2. Ijdo, J. W. et al. 1991. Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 88 (20): 9051-9055.
3. Tsipouri, V. et al 2008. Comparative sequence analyses reveal sites of ancestral chromosomal fusions in the Indian muntjac genome. Genome Biology. 9 (10): R155.
4. Adega, F., H. Guedes-Pinto and R. Chaves. 2009. Satellite DNA in the karyotype evolution of domestic animals—clinical considerations. Cytogenetics and Genome Research. 126 (1-2): 12-20.
5. Fan, Y. et al. 2002. Gene Content and Function of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in Human Chromosome 2q13-2q14.1 and Paralogous Regions. Genome Research. 12 (11): 1663-1672.
6. Fan, Y. et al. 2002. Genomic Structure and Evolution of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in 2q13-2q14.1 and Paralogous Regions on Other Human Chromosomes. Genome Research. 12 (11): 1651-1662.
7. Tomkins, J. 2013. Alleged Human Chromosome 2 “Fusion Site” Encodes an Active DNA Binding Domain Inside a Complex and Highly Expressed Gene—Negating Fusion. Answers Research Journal. 6: 367-375.

* Dr. Tomkins received his Ph.D. in genetics from Clemson University.

Yeah... I know... it's all WAYYYYY over your head!

First you post a study from the Creation people (you just lost the remaining shred of credibility you might have had). Then you post something with no link so I can't even see who these people are and have another good laugh. EPIC LAUGHING FAIL!!!

Well, see.. my objective here is not to meet your approval of sources. It's also not to prove to you that God exists. You come to these threads with those expectations but those are not my obligation or objective. I cannot help you to believe in God or anything else.

Creation is a truth. Whether you wish to admit truth or not, does not make any difference to truth. Regardless of whether you believe in a guiding force of creation or that of random chance, the universe and life were created by something because they exist. You can deny that truth but you can't change it.

So we must start evaluating the questions about our existence from the understanding we were created. You wish to explain it with some unknown cosmic mystery which somehow produced a universe from nothing and doing it in such a way that dozens of constants and physical principles were precise and just so happen to support life which also came into creation by random chance. This doesn't satisfy me as an explanation of anything. It's more of a denial of self-evident reality. This is too magnificent and awe-inspiring to have been the product of random chance. And I think forcing yourself to believe in such nonsense also causes you to fail in appreciating the miracle around you.

I don't need to laugh at you or mock you. That's your need because you're not fulfilled. For you, I feel remorse and pity. I see a total waste of something precious to God. The potential you could have had but failed to realize in your own stubbornness. I'm genuinely sad for you.

HA! I finally squeezed it out of you. You're not a "spiritualist", you're a fucking god fearing creationist. Just another deluded retard.

Again... We're all creationists. There is no other explanation for existence. I am a spiritualist, I never said otherwise. I do believe in spiritual god, not religious man-made incarnations.

And... again... you can laugh at me and mock as much as you need to. I totally understand.

I'm not a creationist, and there's no other explanation TO YOUR FEEBLE MIND for existence.
As for what you believe in, your all over the map. Confused, I'd say.

 

[Mudda]

By the way

Some proofs/disproofs cannot use the physical science.

Also, Science is not the be all and end all to every truth.

In other words, there are abstract concepts that can not be proved with physical experiments, but we do know these things exist through our experiences. . Maybe when psychology develops some more, maybe then. Maybe

And by the way--I trust no one associated with the ICR. Their goal is not to prove creationism is a valid science. Their goal is to prove that the Bible is the unerrant word of God.

They even have an illogical reason on why they attack evolution. They think if they debunk evolution, then creationism becomes valid automatically. Hate to burst their bubble, but science will create another theory that covers the fault and will not utilize GOD because using God in a theory is a closed theory. No research, no production, nothing to study without going to God and hoping God gives you the correct answers.

Yes, they will misrepresent, misinterpret and mishandle information on purpose to lead people "astray", which is a strange thing to say about people who wish to lead people to "God".

So, yes
ICR is something to laugh at since their lack of integrity is a serious joke. There is no need to debunk an article from ICR, like there is no need to debunk an article from the Onion.

What abstract concepts, besides God, are real but can't be proven by science?

What do you mean by "real"?

Sealy, you've stumped him already.

There has been no stumping, I asked a question. If you'd like to answer for him, that's fine.

Before I can answer his question I need the terms defined. What does "real" mean?

Sheesh, has no one on this board ever heard of Google?

re·al1
ˈrē(ə)l/
adjective

1. 1.
   actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.
   "Julius Caesar was a real person"
   synonyms: actual, nonfictional, factual, real-life; More
2. 2.
   (of a substance or thing) not imitation or artificial; genuine.
   "the earring was presumably real gold"
   synonyms: genuine, authentic, bona fide; More

adverb
NORTH AMERICANinformal

1. 1.
   really; very.
   "my head hurts real bad" (as in trying to make sense of what Bossy says)

 

[Boss]

New Research Debunks Human Chromosome Fusion
by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. *

Humans and great apes differ in chromosome numbers—humans have 46 while apes have 48. The difference is claimed to be due to the “end-to-end fusion” of two small, ape-like chromosomes in a human-ape ancestor that joined in the distant past and formed human chromosome 2. This idea was first proposed by researchers who noticed that humans and chimps share similar chromosomal staining patterns when observed under a microscope.1However, humans and chimps also have regions of their chromosomes that do not share common staining patterns.

Supposed proof for the alleged fusion came in 1991, when researchers discovered a fusion-like DNA sequence about 800 bases in length on human chromosome 2.2 However, it was unexpectedly small in size and extremely degenerate. More importantly, this new fusion-like sequence wasn’t what the researchers were expecting to find since it contained a signature never seen before. All known fusions in living animals are associated with a sequence called satellite DNA (satDNA) that fuses in one of the two following scenarios: 1) satDNA-satDNA or 2) satDNA-telomereDNA. (Telomeres are the regions at the end of chromosomes that contain thousands of repeats of the DNA sequence “TTAGG.”)3,4 The alleged fusion sequence contained a different signature, a telomere-telomere fusion, and, if real, would be the first documented case ever seen in nature.

In 2002, 614,000 bases of DNA surrounding the fusion site were fully sequenced, revealing that the alleged fusion sequence was in the middle of a gene originally classified as a pseudogene because there was not yet any known function for it.5,6 The research also showed that the genes surrounding the fusion site in the 614,000-base window did not exist on chimp chromosomes 2A or 2B—the supposed ape origins location. In genetics terminology, we call this discordant gene location a lack of synteny.

I have now published new research on the alleged fusion site, revealing genetic data that fully debunk its evolutionary claims.7My analysis confirms that the site is located inside a gene calledDDX11L2 on human chromosome 2. Furthermore, the alleged fusion sequence contains a functional genetic feature called a “transcription factor binding site” that is located in the first intron (non-coding region) of the gene (see illustration). Transcription factors are proteins that bind to regulatory sites in and around genes to control their function, acting like switches. The DDX11L2 gene has three of these areas, one of which is encoded in the alleged fusion site.

Chromosomes are double-stranded DNA molecules and contain genes on both strands that are encoded in opposite directions. Because the DDX11L2 gene is encoded on the reverse-oriented strand, it is read in the reverse direction (see Exon 1 arrow). Thus, the alleged fusion sequence is not read in the forward orientation typically used in literature as evidence for a fusion—rather, it is read in the reverse direction and encodes a key regulatory switch.

The supposed fusion site is actually a key part of the DDX11L2 gene. The gene itself is part of a complex group of RNA helicase DDX11L genes that produce regulatory long non-coding RNAs. These DDX11L2 RNA transcripts are produced in at least 255 different cell types and tissues in humans, highlighting the genes’ ubiquitous biological function.

Functional genes like DDX11L2 do not arise by the mythical fusing of telomeres. The alleged fusion site is not a degenerate fusion sequence but is and, since creation, has been a functional feature in an important gene.7

References

1. Yunis, J. J. and O. Prakash. 1982. The origin of man: A chromosomal pictorial legacy. Science. 215 (4539): 1525-1530.
2. Ijdo, J. W. et al. 1991. Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 88 (20): 9051-9055.
3. Tsipouri, V. et al 2008. Comparative sequence analyses reveal sites of ancestral chromosomal fusions in the Indian muntjac genome. Genome Biology. 9 (10): R155.
4. Adega, F., H. Guedes-Pinto and R. Chaves. 2009. Satellite DNA in the karyotype evolution of domestic animals—clinical considerations. Cytogenetics and Genome Research. 126 (1-2): 12-20.
5. Fan, Y. et al. 2002. Gene Content and Function of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in Human Chromosome 2q13-2q14.1 and Paralogous Regions. Genome Research. 12 (11): 1663-1672.
6. Fan, Y. et al. 2002. Genomic Structure and Evolution of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in 2q13-2q14.1 and Paralogous Regions on Other Human Chromosomes. Genome Research. 12 (11): 1651-1662.
7. Tomkins, J. 2013. Alleged Human Chromosome 2 “Fusion Site” Encodes an Active DNA Binding Domain Inside a Complex and Highly Expressed Gene—Negating Fusion. Answers Research Journal. 6: 367-375.

* Dr. Tomkins received his Ph.D. in genetics from Clemson University.

Yeah... I know... it's all WAYYYYY over your head!

First you post a study from the Creation people (you just lost the remaining shred of credibility you might have had). Then you post something with no link so I can't even see who these people are and have another good laugh. EPIC LAUGHING FAIL!!!

Well, see.. my objective here is not to meet your approval of sources. It's also not to prove to you that God exists. You come to these threads with those expectations but those are not my obligation or objective. I cannot help you to believe in God or anything else.

Creation is a truth. Whether you wish to admit truth or not, does not make any difference to truth. Regardless of whether you believe in a guiding force of creation or that of random chance, the universe and life were created by something because they exist. You can deny that truth but you can't change it.

So we must start evaluating the questions about our existence from the understanding we were created. You wish to explain it with some unknown cosmic mystery which somehow produced a universe from nothing and doing it in such a way that dozens of constants and physical principles were precise and just so happen to support life which also came into creation by random chance. This doesn't satisfy me as an explanation of anything. It's more of a denial of self-evident reality. This is too magnificent and awe-inspiring to have been the product of random chance. And I think forcing yourself to believe in such nonsense also causes you to fail in appreciating the miracle around you.

I don't need to laugh at you or mock you. That's your need because you're not fulfilled. For you, I feel remorse and pity. I see a total waste of something precious to God. The potential you could have had but failed to realize in your own stubbornness. I'm genuinely sad for you.

HA! I finally squeezed it out of you. You're not a "spiritualist", you're a fucking god fearing creationist. Just another deluded retard.

Again... We're all creationists. There is no other explanation for existence. I am a spiritualist, I never said otherwise. I do believe in spiritual god, not religious man-made incarnations.

And... again... you can laugh at me and mock as much as you need to. I totally understand.

I'm not a creationist, and there's no other explanation TO YOUR FEEBLE MIND for existence.
As for what you believe in, your all over the map. Confused, I'd say.

Well then you'll need to explain your logic. We DO exist. The universe DOES exist. Do you believe the universe and life ALWAYS existed? Time has no beginning or end? This defies physics and delves into supernaturalism. Do you believe in supernaturalism?

If not, you believe in a creation event.... there is no other option.

 

[Boss]

By the way

Some proofs/disproofs cannot use the physical science.

Also, Science is not the be all and end all to every truth.

In other words, there are abstract concepts that can not be proved with physical experiments, but we do know these things exist through our experiences. . Maybe when psychology develops some more, maybe then. Maybe

And by the way--I trust no one associated with the ICR. Their goal is not to prove creationism is a valid science. Their goal is to prove that the Bible is the unerrant word of God.

They even have an illogical reason on why they attack evolution. They think if they debunk evolution, then creationism becomes valid automatically. Hate to burst their bubble, but science will create another theory that covers the fault and will not utilize GOD because using God in a theory is a closed theory. No research, no production, nothing to study without going to God and hoping God gives you the correct answers.

Yes, they will misrepresent, misinterpret and mishandle information on purpose to lead people "astray", which is a strange thing to say about people who wish to lead people to "God".

So, yes
ICR is something to laugh at since their lack of integrity is a serious joke. There is no need to debunk an article from ICR, like there is no need to debunk an article from the Onion.

What abstract concepts, besides God, are real but can't be proven by science?

What do you mean by "real"?

Sealy, you've stumped him already.

There has been no stumping, I asked a question. If you'd like to answer for him, that's fine.

Before I can answer his question I need the terms defined. What does "real" mean?

Sheesh, has no one on this board ever heard of Google?

re·al1
ˈrē(ə)l/
adjective

1. 1.
   actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.
   "Julius Caesar was a real person"
   synonyms: actual, nonfictional, factual, real-life; More
2. 2.
   (of a substance or thing) not imitation or artificial; genuine.
   "the earring was presumably real gold"
   synonyms: genuine, authentic, bona fide; More

adverb
NORTH AMERICANinformal

1. 1.
   really; very.
   "my head hurts real bad" (as in trying to make sense of what Bossy says)

Well you've given me dictionary definitions but I still don't know what you mean by "real" when you are talking about abstract concepts. We can also further examine the definitions you've presented... what does "exist" mean?

You can say something is "real" when it is something that "exists" but what do you mean?

 

[Mudda]

First you post a study from the Creation people (you just lost the remaining shred of credibility you might have had). Then you post something with no link so I can't even see who these people are and have another good laugh. EPIC LAUGHING FAIL!!!

Well, see.. my objective here is not to meet your approval of sources. It's also not to prove to you that God exists. You come to these threads with those expectations but those are not my obligation or objective. I cannot help you to believe in God or anything else.

Creation is a truth. Whether you wish to admit truth or not, does not make any difference to truth. Regardless of whether you believe in a guiding force of creation or that of random chance, the universe and life were created by something because they exist. You can deny that truth but you can't change it.

So we must start evaluating the questions about our existence from the understanding we were created. You wish to explain it with some unknown cosmic mystery which somehow produced a universe from nothing and doing it in such a way that dozens of constants and physical principles were precise and just so happen to support life which also came into creation by random chance. This doesn't satisfy me as an explanation of anything. It's more of a denial of self-evident reality. This is too magnificent and awe-inspiring to have been the product of random chance. And I think forcing yourself to believe in such nonsense also causes you to fail in appreciating the miracle around you.

I don't need to laugh at you or mock you. That's your need because you're not fulfilled. For you, I feel remorse and pity. I see a total waste of something precious to God. The potential you could have had but failed to realize in your own stubbornness. I'm genuinely sad for you.

HA! I finally squeezed it out of you. You're not a "spiritualist", you're a fucking god fearing creationist. Just another deluded retard.

Again... We're all creationists. There is no other explanation for existence. I am a spiritualist, I never said otherwise. I do believe in spiritual god, not religious man-made incarnations.

And... again... you can laugh at me and mock as much as you need to. I totally understand.

I'm not a creationist, and there's no other explanation TO YOUR FEEBLE MIND for existence.
As for what you believe in, your all over the map. Confused, I'd say.

Well then you'll need to explain your logic. We DO exist. The universe DOES exist. Do you believe the universe and life ALWAYS existed? Time has no beginning or end? This defies physics and delves into supernaturalism. Do you believe in supernaturalism?

If not, you believe in a creation event.... there is no other option.

I believe that we haven't figured it all out yet and am enjoying new discoveries as they happen. And I enjoy thinking about the different possibilities with forcing myself to be locked into something that's not based on tangible, real proof. You on the other hand, sound scared of not knowing so you HAVE TO attribute our existence to something, anything, otherwise your brain will go on strike permanently.

 

[Mudda]

What abstract concepts, besides God, are real but can't be proven by science?

What do you mean by "real"?

Sealy, you've stumped him already.

There has been no stumping, I asked a question. If you'd like to answer for him, that's fine.

Before I can answer his question I need the terms defined. What does "real" mean?

Sheesh, has no one on this board ever heard of Google?

re·al1
ˈrē(ə)l/
adjective

1. 1.
   actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.
   "Julius Caesar was a real person"
   synonyms: actual, nonfictional, factual, real-life; More
2. 2.
   (of a substance or thing) not imitation or artificial; genuine.
   "the earring was presumably real gold"
   synonyms: genuine, authentic, bona fide; More

adverb
NORTH AMERICANinformal

1. 1.
   really; very.
   "my head hurts real bad" (as in trying to make sense of what Bossy says)

Well you've given me dictionary definitions but I still don't know what you mean by "real" when you are talking about abstract concepts. We can also further examine the definitions you've presented... what does "exist" mean?

You can say something is "real" when it is something that "exists" but what do you mean?

Sorry that your brain seized over simple concepts, we didn't mean to hurt you.

 

[Boss]

I believe that we haven't figured it all out yet and am enjoying new discoveries as they happen. And I enjoy thinking about the different possibilities with forcing myself to be locked into something that's not based on tangible, real proof. You on the other hand, sound scared of not knowing so you HAVE TO attribute our existence to something, anything, otherwise your brain will go on strike permanently.

Not what I asked you. Sounds like a cop out from someone too shallow to answer my questions.

I've never said we had everything figured out. Don't know where you got that from. I also don't see where I've locked myself into anything other than truth and logic.

Can you not explain logically how we exist but weren't created by something? I mean... I know the word "creation" is causing you to panic and fear things you don't understand and I apologize but there is no other word to describe how we came to exist. Forget about God and spirituality for a minute and tell me YOUR concept of how everything came to be in existence? If you can explain it without something causing it's creation, fine... I'm listening. I think you'll find there is no other logical explanation... God or no God, we were created by something.

 

[Boss]

What do you mean by "real"?

Sealy, you've stumped him already.

There has been no stumping, I asked a question. If you'd like to answer for him, that's fine.

Before I can answer his question I need the terms defined. What does "real" mean?

Sheesh, has no one on this board ever heard of Google?

re·al1
ˈrē(ə)l/
adjective

1. 1.
   actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.
   "Julius Caesar was a real person"
   synonyms: actual, nonfictional, factual, real-life; More
2. 2.
   (of a substance or thing) not imitation or artificial; genuine.
   "the earring was presumably real gold"
   synonyms: genuine, authentic, bona fide; More

adverb
NORTH AMERICANinformal

1. 1.
   really; very.
   "my head hurts real bad" (as in trying to make sense of what Bossy says)

Well you've given me dictionary definitions but I still don't know what you mean by "real" when you are talking about abstract concepts. We can also further examine the definitions you've presented... what does "exist" mean?

You can say something is "real" when it is something that "exists" but what do you mean?

Sorry that your brain seized over simple concepts, we didn't mean to hurt you.

Oh my brain is just fine. You seem to be hell bent on trying to push my buttons and insult me. You don't seem to want to engage in any kind of meaningful discussion, you just want to hurl feces like an angry monkey. So I am going to leave the thread for a bit and let you get this hate out of your system. Whenever you can calm yourself to behave rationally and have an intelligent conversation instead of lashing out to hurt people because you're in need of validation... we'll talk some more. And-- If you can't get control of your emotions enough to have a mature conversation, I can always put you on the ignore list. I do not have any intention of continuing to feed your need for validation.

 

[regent]

Is the appendix a new organ looking for a use or an old organ leaving us?
What of a human's ear lobes or movable ears?

 

[Boss]

Is the appendix a new organ looking for a use or an old organ leaving us?
What of a human's ear lobes or movable ears?

William Parker, Randy Bollinger, and colleagues at Duke University proposed in 2007 that the appendix serves as a haven for useful bacteria when illness flushes those bacteria from the rest of the intestines.[9][10] This proposal is based on a new understanding of how the immune system supports the growth of beneficial intestinal bacteria,[11][12] in combination with many well-known features of the appendix, including its architecture, its location just below the normal one-way flow of food and germs in the large intestine, and its association with copious amounts of immune tissue. Research performed at Winthrop University-Hospital showed that individuals without an appendix were four times more likely to have a recurrence of Clostridium difficile colitis.[13] The appendix, therefore, may act as a "safe house" forcommensal ("good") bacteria. This reservoir of gut flora could then serve to repopulate the digestive system following a bout of dysentery or cholera.

Ear lobes, although they provide no biological function as far as we can tell, are one of the most erogenous zones of the human body. Therefore, probably have to do with mating. As for the movable ears, that assists in hearing... watch a dog's ears for an example.

A bigger question is this.. If all life sprang from the evolution of a single-cell as some believe, why do we not see constant examples of things evolving into new things? People argue that... oh, it takes millions of years, but still we should see things crossing the proverbial finish line all the time. Instead, we've never seen anything cross over from one genus to another and we can't replicate the feat in any lab experiment.