If evolution is not a theory why did:

[Care4all]

Okay, back to the thread topic again, so why did we lose the hair that we needed to keep warm, keep dry?

 

[rightwinger]

Okay, back to the thread topic again, so why did we lose the hair that we needed to keep warm, keep dry?

I think it had something to do with how you look on the beach

Womens taste in men evolved

 

[hortysir]

Since humans became civilized. Estimates vary between 70~100k years. However, we really don't know, that is just as far back as we've found evidence of human civilization.

Good to hear you finally admit that you don't know.

Well, I've said all along that none of us know.

YOU are the one making statements as if they are fact.

You talk smack all the time about how everyone else is wrong and that your theories are right. Admitting you have nothing is a good first step.

I've never said that my theories are right. I only dispute idiots who claim science proves their stupid theory, which it doesn't. Over and over, science refutes your theory and proves it invalid or illogical.

Like you even know ANYTHING about science, which you've rejected over and over again on this board.

All I see from you is remarks on others and how they're wrong. How about a substantial statement from you?

 

[Mudda]

Good to hear you finally admit that you don't know.

Well, I've said all along that none of us know.

YOU are the one making statements as if they are fact.

You talk smack all the time about how everyone else is wrong and that your theories are right. Admitting you have nothing is a good first step.

I've never said that my theories are right. I only dispute idiots who claim science proves their stupid theory, which it doesn't. Over and over, science refutes your theory and proves it invalid or illogical.

Like you even know ANYTHING about science, which you've rejected over and over again on this board.

All I see from you is remarks on others and how they're wrong. How about a substantial statement from you?

Like the one you just made?

 

[S.J.]

Well, I've said all along that none of us know.

YOU are the one making statements as if they are fact.

You talk smack all the time about how everyone else is wrong and that your theories are right. Admitting you have nothing is a good first step.

I've never said that my theories are right. I only dispute idiots who claim science proves their stupid theory, which it doesn't. Over and over, science refutes your theory and proves it invalid or illogical.

Like you even know ANYTHING about science, which you've rejected over and over again on this board.

All I see from you is remarks on others and how they're wrong. How about a substantial statement from you?

Like the one you just made?

Like the ones you HAVEN'T made.

 

[Mudda]

You talk smack all the time about how everyone else is wrong and that your theories are right. Admitting you have nothing is a good first step.

I've never said that my theories are right. I only dispute idiots who claim science proves their stupid theory, which it doesn't. Over and over, science refutes your theory and proves it invalid or illogical.

Like you even know ANYTHING about science, which you've rejected over and over again on this board.

All I see from you is remarks on others and how they're wrong. How about a substantial statement from you?

Like the one you just made?

Like the ones you HAVEN'T made.

You just have to go back a few pages to see what me & Bossy were talking about. Too bad you didn't think of that before I bitch slapped you.

 

[S.J.]

I've never said that my theories are right. I only dispute idiots who claim science proves their stupid theory, which it doesn't. Over and over, science refutes your theory and proves it invalid or illogical.

Like you even know ANYTHING about science, which you've rejected over and over again on this board.

All I see from you is remarks on others and how they're wrong. How about a substantial statement from you?

Like the one you just made?

Like the ones you HAVEN'T made.

You just have to go back a few pages to see what me & Bossy were talking about. Too bad you didn't think of that before I bitch slapped you.

You've offered nothing of substance and you've never bitch slapped anyone in your life. And you've never earned a degree of any kind in your life, I can tell by your poor grammar ("me & Bossy"). LOL I doubt if you even finished grade school.

 

[Mudda]

Like you even know ANYTHING about science, which you've rejected over and over again on this board.

All I see from you is remarks on others and how they're wrong. How about a substantial statement from you?

Like the one you just made?

Like the ones you HAVEN'T made.

You just have to go back a few pages to see what me & Bossy were talking about. Too bad you didn't think of that before I bitch slapped you.

You've offered nothing of substance and you've never bitch slapped anyone in your life. And you've never earned a degree of any kind in your life, I can tell by your poor grammar ("me & Bossy"). LOL I doubt if you even finished grade school.

I know,it's too hard for you to go back a couple of pages. Maybe you could brush your teeth or chew some gum or something?

 

[Steven_R]

We have exactly zero evidence of any genus ever becoming a new genus. No example of any species in the middle of two genera. (genus comes above species and below family.) We've never found a fossil of any living thing in transition between two genera. If the theory of macroevolution were valid, we would see this evidence everywhere in the fossil record and we would have examples of it still happening today. We do not have any such evidence. .

You see it every time you look in the mirror. Around 8 mya humans and chimpanzees diverged, with chimps ultimately becoming genus Pan and humans ultimately becoming genus Homo. You can see the divergence right in our DNA, with our chromosome #2 being a fusion of chimpanzee chromosomes #2 and #13.

If you don't want to believe in evolution (and you might as well not believe in cell theory or gravity) then don't, but don't pretend that the evidence isn't out there.

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

http://galileowaswrong.com/
Geocentrism
Geocentricity

I mean, if we're just throwing out convincing sounding pseudoscience.

 

[Boss]

Oh, so you only reject science when it doesn't fit neatly into your fantasy world. Got it.

No, that's what YOU do, shithead. What the fuck? Is that your technique now? Accuse your opponent of your OWN boneheaded tactics? YOU have this fantasy that life came from some unexplained original single-cell organism... no basis or support in science whatsoever, but it's YOUR theory! You believe the speculations of some 19th century naturalist even when science has proved the theories aren't valid because they contradict what science has discovered since 1859. Still, you insist on waving your debunked nonsensical theory around as "proven science" when it's certainly not.

Smarter people than you have come along to show you how your theory is an epic fail and still, you cling to it like a Christian clings to their Bible. You simply refuse to listen to reason.

Evolution from a single cell organism is a scientific theory. A very plausible one. much better than your "I don't know, so you don't know either" bs.

It is a scientific theory, it's called abiogenesis. It is not very plausible because DNA can't write it's own code. DNA had no way to know there is any such thing as a multi-cell organism because none existed. So you have to give DNA "special powers" it doesn't have which make it more miraculous than any "god" man could invent. In order to make the leap from single to multi cell, the proper enzyme and amino acid have to be generated and the possibility of this happening through random chance are on the order of 10^120 to 1. (There are only 10^80 atoms in the entire universe.) In other words, it's virtually impossible.

Furthermore, that is JUST going from a single to multi cell organism, you need to replicate this impossibility trillion of times more to get something as simple a small worm. We've never done it in a lab, despite nearly 100 years of research. In fact, after 60 years of fruit fly experiments not one new enzyme was created. Millions of generations reproduced under every possible condition and trying every possible scenario... and nothing.

The FACT is... I don't know and YOU don't know. The problem is, you want to insist that you know and proclaim your opinion as a fact. You think that you have science behind you but you don't. You have what amounts to the exact same FAITH of someone who believes in God.

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[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?

 

[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!

 

[regent]

Is the atom still a scientific theory or has someone actually seen the atom?

 

[sealybobo]

Okay, back to the thread topic again, so why did we lose the hair that we needed to keep warm, keep dry?

Omg do you have Google? I looked up the answer in 3 seconds. If you have a problem with sciences explanation then tell us what you have a problem with and why.

 

[sealybobo]

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!

Give us your elevator pitch.

 

[amrchaos]

I thought Evolution was a scientific theory

God or Gods is dependent on definition

 

[OZman]

Do the creationist shuffle and twist!

 

[sealybobo]

I thought Evolution was a scientific theory

God or Gods is dependent on definition

I believe God is love. I believe in God because I can't believe all this happened by random chance. I believe in God because he visited our ancestors and told them things 2000 years ago. God is a fact! I believe in God because he speaks to me.

None of these statements would be accepted by science.