Evolution is Science, Creationists Delusional

That picture is funny mel! Let me see if it is just as funny reversing the two ideas and OOOPS it sounds to me like that same thing can be said of Darwinist / Atheist's so Ill have to save that one myself. If you like ill show you the finished photoshopped reversed image?

Or do you have something substantive to add other than mocking all creationists because that gets rather old and you know how I am about that kind of thing, I ain't like the "nicey nice" Christians who shy away from that kind of crap, Ill go 9000 points in the hole toe to toe with a flamer much less a court jester like you.

So you think whammy is lying when he uses that part of that video taken from Dawkins own voice and shown again in the other video I have with Ben Stein? I don't think so and Mel, Whammy is a REAL Intelligent guy, I think you are making a mistake there he is not an idiot and he ain't a liar.

It's up to you my friend I am just respecting you enough by asking because you're someone I am,, well,,

fond of lol

pic is funny lol



[edit on 31-12-2008 by Aermacchi]

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Oh you must mean those all those having to do with that load of crap called evolution. You know the one that has no proof the one that ID has it been so discriminated against by the one creationism has been so ridiculed and harassed by. Naah that ain't science either then for it fails the same scientific method so I think it's time they all just get rid of them and put them in a philosophy course and quit calling them SCIENCE

Many of the true geniuses of our time have studied evolution and believe it adamantly.
Fact: Those with a better education are far more likely to believe in evolution.

Your opinion that evolution is a "load of crap" is just that - your opinion.
You're opinion means nothing when stacked against the greatest minds of our time and the evidence that you refuse to look at.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Dude! LISTEN! TRY WILL YOU FOR GODS SAKE WHAT DID I SAY! READ MY POST AGAIN! I said what? Show me where I said anything about what Einstein believed! I merely posted a quote of his THAT IS ALL!

I did read your post lol... but you obviously didn't read mine.
I'll point it out for you.

Originally posted by TruthParadox
So your assertion that I should listen to those with a higher intelligence is flawed because Einstein was not even talking about your God.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
I never said what I thought he believed YOU ARE SAYING I AM, and THAT IS MY POINT, GOT IT!

Jesus... Settle down...
That's irrelevant. I was pointing out that your quote of Einstein's did not fit the point you were trying to make, as he was not referring to your God or any personal God. He was talking about understanding the universe.
Try actually reading what I'm saying...

Originally posted by Aermacchi
You are right it was more of a mental slip up another words Genius,, YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO SPELL IT! Well,, you do now.

Sigh... Are you serious?
Ok let me walk you through this (as it appears I have no other choice)...
I spelled the word correctly SIX times in that same post. That post has not been edited.
Your assertion that I didn't know how to spell it (apart from being irrelevant to the discusion) is ridiculous, because you would have to believe that I had SIX typos in which I accidently spelled the word correctly.
Don't you realize how absurd that would be?
You don't care - you don't think about it logically, you just want me to be wrong regardless of the points I make.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Don't flatter yourself pal, you weren't a challenge from the moment you said I didn't understand evolution and what a freakin high IQ you had. Most people I hear say that kind of thing usually have it coming to them and you are no exception

All I had coming to me was another creationist who is more interested in disproving whoever disagrees with his/her God than actually reading and understanding the words I'm saying.

Originally posted by Aermacchi

Matthew 5:22 "but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

Yeah and what kind of fool is he talking about there Genius?

lol...
Jesus says to turn the other cheek to your enemies.
He says to treat your enemies with more kindess than you would treat your friends.
He says not to call others a fool.

I'm merely pointing out that you are no more a Christian than I am.
If you were a Christian, you would at least attempt to follow Christ's words.
Instead you ignore them, as you do mine.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Oh and what makes you think you haven't insulted MY intelligence?

I never said I haven't insulted your intelligence.
But I don't believe in Hell .
I think I've mostly insulted your ignorance - and there's a big difference.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
That is ONE DEAD IDEA and it's about time they get rid of it from polluting anymore of our children in our public schools. Hell just thinking they have to suffer through such hogwash makes me sick.

Let them look at the evidence and decide for themselves.
Of course that's exactly what you don't want, right?

As a non-religious person... Oh I believe in God, just not organized religion... I do have a question about evolution....

If evolution is real, if... I say if because there is zero proof just conjecture and speculation,

Originally posted by Aermacchi

Hey guy,,,, Just because I don't agree with your nonsensical explanation of evolution does NOT mean I do not understand it,

but your nonsensicle arguments disply you really dont

Note: the last words you hear Dawkins say on this clip *snip* we see the truth given to us in that video by BigWhammy

ummmm no the quote in wammys video does not say

Originally posted by Aermacchi
"I believe but cannot prove we are the product of Darwinian Natural Selection and random mutation - Richard Dawkins"

skip to 2:30 for honesty

and as im on block, somthing to do with pointing out amerachi's lies and presenting evidence to refute all his opinion he passes off as fact ill just debunk the lame videos

VIDEO 2

fused chromosomes what a great subject

so it claims we cant prove the chromosomes were ever unfused, that its assumption not observation that leads to that conclusion, and theres a missing red thing on the picture(these just points out the video makers ignorance of what the red thing is)

ok so is it based on pure assumption? no its based on a hypothesis

if evolution and common decent is accurate and we have 2 fewer chromosomes then apes can we formulate a possible explenation that requires evidence observation and testing to prove it accurate

so the hypothesis (possible explenation) 2 chromosomes may have fussed together resulting in the loss of 2 chromosomes

to prove this we need to identify distinguishing features showing that the chromosomes have fussed, prefferably find other examples where we know chromosomes have fussed so we can compare, and find a mechanism for the fussing to take place

chromosomes carry three distinct features a centromere (found roughly in the middle) and two telomeres these function as end caps to prevent the dna unraveling they are like the plastic toggles on the end of shoe laces

by comparrison of all known chromosomes its known telomere can only form at the ends, so to find a chromosome with telomere's in the middle would be the first marker of a fussed chromosome, in the center of chromosone 2 we find exactly that two telomeres joined together in the center that wouldnt be there unless two chromosomes had fussed

this is further seen when examination of the centromeres as any single gene will only have one, our chromosome 2 has two of them one in each half, now we see why the video creator doesnt understand what it is he is refutting with his red thing comment

when two chromosomse fuse in the majority of cases one of the centromere's(red things) becomes inactive, its still there and easily recognisable but the centromere itself is no longer functional

as the image only shows the one active centromere, he seems to think its vanished magically and thats why it is wrong

Ken Miller even explains in the video that one of the centromeres has become inactive and if the video creator knew what he was looking at and listened his argument would be none existant in the first place

so do we know of any observed instances of fussed chromosomes we can compare it against, yes www.publish.csiro.au...

so knowing telomeres only form at the end, and theres only one centromere in a chromosome we have already established they must have fussed we can then compare it to the rodent chromosome fussing and see idnetical layouts

next the compared the fussed chromosome to chimps chromosomes and the similarity was staggering, so now can we find a mechanism that would lead to the fusing?

www.hopkinsmedicine.org... yes

so it wasnt assumed that evolution is right so it must be fussed

we went from the question "if its right a possible explenation for it may be fussed chromosomes" and then tested that hypothesis, observed other instances and compared to known fussing events, the hypothesis could have been proven wrong(if we hadnt found them) and there is no evidence against this tested hypothesis so it is proven

the video posted is drastically and fundamentally wrong i love the bit about man evolving from chimps ... showing more ignorance

heres the video he is trying to refute


VIDEO 3

so they quote the bit where Darwin even told them how to prove evolution wrong, and as yet no ones managed now theres honesty for you he even told them how to prove him wrong

oooo Mendel was watching a documentary about his life earlier today

so mendels research showed that it was gene heredity that got passed parent to offspring, and Darwin suggested it was aquired physical traits that get passed on there fore Darwin is wrong .... according the the video

slight honesty issues appear ( they are liying), what is it the hereditory genes Mendell discovered actually do? instruct for physical traits. you have a gene for eye colour, hair colour, hair texture, height. As the genes are a combination of the parents genes you have inhereted variable genes of your parents

so what mendel actually did was discover how those physical traits got passed on, and subsequentaly over turned two possible but unproven hypothesies, so infact Mendel didnt destroy evolution he improved it, so they lied

and as Mendels research showed you carry a mix of both parents genes making you a carrier of inhereted variability its claim that they dont exist so natural selection cannot work upon them is a lie

ooo Colin Patterson misquote more honesty issues

"There is no doubt that natural selection is a mechanism, that it works. It has been repeatedly demonstrated by experiment. There is no doubt at all that it works. But the question of whether it produces new species is quite another matter. No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever gotten near it and most of the current argument in neo-Darwnism is about this question: how a species originates and it is there that natural selection seems to be fading out and chance machanisms of one sort or another are being invoked."

bearing in mind this is 27 years out of date

we now know it is a combination of several factors not just natural selection on its own as originally thought, but look at what he says at the start that natural selection is proven(you know the same one they say cant exist as they misrepresented Mendells findings isnt that another lie?)

the break through eventually came when we were able to prove what had been already put forward as a possible that it was changes in genes(DNA), but was unable to be proven until we had the technology. so while that possability had existed almost as long as our finding of dna the video portrays it as somthing we just made up after Colin Powells comments in 1982 which is .. you guessed it a lie

then they play the irreducable complexity argument which has been disproved with eyes, wings, blood clotting, bombadier beetle defense, bacterial flagellum etc

they work from the faulty assumption that becasue its the way it is now it must always have been that way, there are numerous examples of the intermediary stages of the components required to make the systems that are NOW irriducably complex, we even understand how a system that is irreducably complex gets that way (this one isnt a lie just a really poor argument without evidence or any basis)

VIDEO 3

nothing really to say its just someone messing around with photoshop and makes no claims and still gets it wrong

VIDEO 4

woohoo Ben Stein now this has real honesty issues

shall we see how honest the claims that people were expelled from the science community for belief in ID



so they lied about actually bieng expelled ... so its based on a lie lets see if it improves from there


lets ask a real scientist with qualifications and peer reviewed papers and every thing (qualifications below)

Education:
Highschool
BS Evolutionary Biology- UNC-Charlotte.
Doctoral- UNC-Chapel Hill

Theological- 8 semesters at Cathedral Preparatory school from 99-02.

Peer reviewed publications on the induction of a viable but non-culturable state in uropathogenic E. coli (UPEC), as well as BMP-4 expression

thanks Don, so he agree's it lies and strawman arguments and lacks honesty

lets explore its claims that Darwin and Evolution leads to eugenics Nazism and generally not caring about people

well as plato was a proponent of express the good of eugenics 2.2 thousand years before Darwin wrote origins, and he borrowed the idea from the Spartans and they borrowed it too, infact eugenics(but not by this name) has been around for thousands of years ..... so if its thousands of years old and Darwins origins is 150 then how does Darwins origins influence and create Eugenics as the bogus claims claim

www.skepticwiki.org... its ancient practice and owes more to animal husbandry(farming) then it ever could to evolution but lets get some real history out to compare




so as we saw from the red bits that were cut from what darwin said(thats dishonest quote mining) he actually said that not helping the sick or the disabled was an act of gross evil against humanity ... and his theory Evolution also goes by this its called mutaul survivability, group infrastructure its a built in system to stop us killing everyone in our social group

if you need to LIE repeatedly to prove your point, your point usually isnt worth proving, it is its self based upon lies and dishonesty and without morals

can someone tell Aermacchi i just beat the crap out of his lying videos




[edit on 31/12/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by noobfun
can someone tell Aermacchi i just beat the crap out of his lying videos

Allow me .


Aermacchi, you have been thoroughly 'pwned'.

Good day.

How can you two possibly claim what you said pwned the person who posted those links when you didn't do anything but claim they're lying just because you say so... That is absolutely ridiculous in the extreme. Pick just one of those videos and pick it apart piece by piece line by line and then perhaps if the science is there you‘ll be taken seriously... You just saying they're lying just because you say so is completely embarrassing for the both of you... Mmmkay!


[edit on 31-12-2008 by littlebunny]

Originally posted by Aermacchi
If you like ill show you the finished photoshopped reversed image?

An uncreative creationist, lol.

Get ya own funnies!

Or do you have something substantive to add other than mocking all creationists because that gets rather old and you know how I am about that kind of thing, I ain't like the "nicey nice" Christians who shy away from that kind of crap, Ill go 9000 points in the hole toe to toe with a flamer much less a court jester like you.

I've gone past the point of really discussing this stuff with old-school ATS creationists. I'll make a point or two now and again, but other than that I'll just highlight misrepresentation and intellectual dishonesty. It's easy enough, lol.

Not as if we haven't been through this before ad nauseum. I'll let the eager new users waste their brain glucose, they'll learn in time.

So you think whammy is lying when he uses that part of that video taken from Dawkins own voice and shown again in the other video I have with Ben Stein? I don't think so and Mel, Whammy is a REAL Intelligent guy, I think you are making a mistake there he is not an idiot and he ain't a liar.

I think once misrepresentations have been clearly demonstrated, continued misrepresentation is dishonesty. And my point about whammy goes back a long time, nowt to do with the video.

I haven't watched the vid, I asked a simple question. Is the supposed Dawkins quote present? If not, who cares...

I have already said in my first post and the Idea that Dawkins believes but can not prove where Mel says I am wrong in my interpretation looking at Dawkins quote from his own website

I was hoping to see/hear the words you attributed to Dawkins.

It's up to you my friend I am just respecting you enough by asking because you're someone I am,, well,,

fond of lol

pic is funny lol

Glad you enjoyed it.

[edit on 31-12-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by littlebunny
How can you two possibly claim what you said pwned the person who posted those links when you didn't do anything but claim they're lying just because you say so... That is absolutely ridiculous in the extreme. Pick just one of those videos and pick it apart piece by piece line by line and then perhaps if the science is there you‘ll be taken seriously... You just saying they're lying just because you say so it embarrassing for both of you... Mmmkay!

what like video 2?

where i provide the original video he is supposedly debunking, explain what centromeres and telomeres are and where they are found and can be easily googled(also explained in the video he is refuting)

give scientific data to coroborae that we have observed fussed chromosones

give scientific data showing we have observed the process by which chromosones get fussed

and refute every claim the video makes up until the point it starts rambaling on about nothing of any scientific value? you mean do it like that?

or show the complete dishonesty employed in the making of ben steins expelled, how it misrepresented what actually happened to the supposed expelled, misrepresented and strawmanned scienitific hypothesis to puddles of mud and lightning bolts, and then showed how the nazi evolution eugenics linke has no historic connection, and how the theory of evolution its self suggests compassion and group support not genocide

like that?

i couldnt really go to town on the mendel video, i only have 1 charachter space left as is which is why i used video to show the last video for what it is

now im going to ask you a question and please answer honestly, if i turned around to you and said the bible was all a lie completley unproven and some crazy people made up jesus in th 6th century, you would probabily look at me like im insane and ask if i have ever reead the bible or even been near a church in my whole life right?


so why do you do exactly the same thing with evolution, when you call it unproven (scienitific theory is the highest level of proof available) and say its probabiliy wrong without first really looking into it?

and trust me creationist websites as yet have never given an accurate description of what it is on any site i have been on, and ive been to quite a few

[edit on 31/12/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by littlebunny
How can you two possibly claim what you said pwned the person who posted those links when you didn't do anything but claim they're lying just because you say so...That is absolutely ridiculous in the extreme. Pick just one of those videos and pick it apart piece by piece line by line and then perhaps if the science is there you‘ll be taken seriously...

Noobfun just picked it apart lol...

Originally posted by littlebunny
You just saying they're lying just because you say so it embarrassing for both of you... Mmmkay!

Ok, whatever you say 'littlebunny' .

reply to post by TruthParadox


Well… Now I completely understand why you chose your screen name... how apropos to the limited paradox of your lack of style and truth with regards to your response to my post. You must be a child mentally for figuratively… either way, I’m lmao because insight is also twenty-twenty…

Originally posted by littlebunny
reply to post by TruthParadox

 

Well… Now I completely understand why you chose your screen name... how apropos to the limited paradox of your lack of style and truth with regards to your response to my post. You must be a child mentally for figuratively… either way, I’m lmao because insight is also twenty-twenty…

Coming from a person who says there is no proof of evolution? I think you should read more and talk less...

Originally posted by melatonin

Not as if we haven't been through this before ad nauseum. I'll let the eager new users waste their brain glucose, they'll learn in time.

waste? how can you say that? i usually stumbble acroos fun science papers i havnt read if i have to do some real research

learning new things is never a waste

but i get what you mean

reply to post by noobfun

now im going to ask you a question and please answer honestly, if i turned around to you and said the bible was all a lie completley unproven and some crazy people made up jesus in th 6th century, you would probabily look at me like im insane and ask if i have ever reead the bible or even been near a church in my whole life right?

Actually I would agree with you completely from the first sentence to the last. lol

With regards to the other stuff you said. First there is no proof just speculation. Just saying this is what you believe is happening and others happen to agree and give it a term like scientific theory does not a truth make. If three billion people agree the bible is one hundred percent accurate... Does that make it and everything written within it an absolute fact? No? Then how in the hell does peer reviewed acceptance make a fact? it’s a fact because science says so… Well how inconsiderate of religious people, lets do everything you evolutionist want to do… Seriously though, that's one of the many things that bothers me about science. They think just because people agree with their hypothesis some how that makes it correct, yet people like you believe you have some higher authority over religious people when in truth you two are exactly alike.

Also, I noticed you completely ignored my other post... so let me post the gist of it here.

If evolution is correct, where the hell is evolution at? Has everything evolved into perfect harmony with nature with regards to all its needs so therefore nothing on Earth needs to evolve any further? NO? Then where is this proof. Evolution should be easy to prove every day or every year or even every ten, twenty or thirty years… because there should be millions of species evolving from millions of years of history they have endured during all that time to our present time. Oh wait... there is nothing you can point to within the last hundred years that has evolved from this to that. I ask why the heck not? Hmm, once again it seems evolution and religious beliefs have more in common then either of you are willing to admit.

Originally posted by Solomons

Originally posted by littlebunny
reply to post by TruthParadox

 

Well… Now I completely understand why you chose your screen name... how apropos to the limited paradox of your lack of style and truth with regards to your response to my post. You must be a child mentally for figuratively… either way, I’m lmao because insight is also twenty-twenty…

Coming from a person who says there is no proof of evolution? I think you should read more and talk less...

Muuhahahaha... dang it Solomons that was funny. Oh dang... Whew you're a funny guy So-lo-m-ons! Yet, remember Solomons when pointing that crooked finger you have three more pointed right back at you... Mmmkay!

Originally posted by littlebunny
reply to post by noobfun

 

now im going to ask you a question and please answer honestly, if i turned around to you and said the bible was all a lie completley unproven and some crazy people made up jesus in th 6th century, you would probabily look at me like im insane and ask if i have ever reead the bible or even been near a church in my whole life right?

Actually I would agree with you completely from the first sentence to the last. lol

With regards to the other stuff you said. First there is no proof just speculation. Just saying this is what you believe is happening and others happen to agree and give it a term like scientific theory does not a truth make. If three billion people agree the bible is one hundred percent accurate... Does that make it and everything written within it an absolute fact? No? Then how in the hell does peer reviewed acceptance make a fact? it’s a fact because science says so… Well how inconsiderate of religious people, lets do everything you evolutionist want to do… Seriously though, that's one of the many things that bothers me about science. They think just because people agree with their hypothesis some how that makes it correct, yet people like you believe you have some higher authority over religious people when in truth you two are exactly alike.

Also, I noticed you completely ignored my other post... so let me post the gist of it here.

If evolution is correct, where the hell is evolution at? Has everything evolved into perfect harmony with nature with regards to all its needs so therefore nothing on Earth needs to evolve any further? NO? Then where is this proof. Evolution should be easy to prove every day or every year or even every ten, twenty or thirty years… because there should be millions of species evolving from millions of years of history they have endured during all that time to our present time. Oh wait... there is nothing you can point to within the last hundred years that has evolved from this to that. I ask why the heck not? Hmm, once again it seems evolution and religious beliefs have more in common then either of you are willing to admit.

Do you want a bigger spade? im sure that hole could be dug even deeper if you tried sorry for not refuting your ridiculous claims,too many vodkas so little time.

Originally posted by noobfun
learning new things is never a waste

but i get what you mean

Indeed.

I always wished I saved many of my old posts, I could just reload and ejaculate. I just can't be bothered wasting my time repeating myself on this issue - sort of burnout, I think.

You're doing a good job, though.

I tend to to just watch for the crap coming out from the disco institute and uncommondescent - more lulz to harvest. Where else can you find some lawyer-dude speaking with authority on biology and the Irreducible Complexity of a bicycle!

ABE:

here's an old post I made...

Originally posted by melatonin
So, in science we can present evidence that humans and chimpanzees and other primates have a common ancestor. The strongest form of evidence is from molecular biology studies of the genomes of each species. If we assume a common designer, we would maybe expect similar attributes as the body plans of chimps and humans are similar but there are also major differences. If you were easily swayed, this could account for the ca. 96% similarity in DNA.

Game over?

Not exactly.

In evolutionary biology we see changes in DNA over time (real observed laboratory evidence) that we use to show common relationships between species. I will present 4 major lines of evidence that indicate the relationship between humans and chimps that cannot be readily explained by a common designer.

1. Cytochrome C
2. Endogenous retroviruses.
3. Redundant Pseudogenes.
4. Chromosome 2.

1. Cytochrome C

Cytochrome C is the protein that is present in all bacteria and eukaryotes and is contained in the mitochondria of cells where it is involved in electron transport and the conversion of oxygen to energy. The cytochrome C gene shows high functional redundency, that is, different basic structures can still perform the same role, but we may find minor differences in their efficiency. It is well-established that many amino-acid mutations can act on proteins and only have minor effects on the function or structure of proteins. Thus in bacteria, we can see many cytochrome C genes having almost completely different protein sequences but still being able to perform the required biological function. We can even substitute the cytochrome C gene from humans into yeast and find no major effect on the yeast.

Thus if there was no relationship between chimps and humans we would expect no similarities between the protein sequences, it could well be completely random. Whereas evolution predicts that the cytochrome c sequences between species will be more similar between closely related species than more distantly related species.

Experimental Finding - the cytochrome C protein sequence of humans and chimps is identical. We find differences of around 10 amino-acids between these two species and other mammals. Yeast cytochrome c differs by 40% of its protein sequence from human and chimps.



2. Endogenous retroviruses

These are the remnants of past viral infections, on rare occassions the genome of the retrovirus will be present in the genome of the species infected. This occurs if the retrovirus becomes embedded into the DNA of sperm or egg cells, it will be passed on to the descendents of these individuals. As mentioned, this is rare and random.

If we assume no common ancestry, we would expect to find random relationships between endogenous retroviruses. If common ancestry is true, we expect to see a phylogenetic relationship, that is, closely related species will have retrogenes in exactly the same places in the chromosome.

Experimental finding - 1% of the human genome contains retroviruses. This is around 30,000 retroviruses in your DNA. Analysis finds 7 common endogenous retroviral insertions in the currently sequenced DNA of humans and chimps. Comparison across primate species shows the expected phylogenetic relationship.

Why would a creator be infecting genomes like this?


3. Redundant Pseudogenes

Pseudogenes are genes that are largely non-functional but are related to functional genes. Redundent psuedogenes are genes that are predominately non-functional but are closely related to a functional gene (those that are transcribed into mRNA).

One example of a pseudogene (which is non-redundant) is the vitamin C gene. Most animals and plants synthesise their own vitamin C, however, as you probably know, humans don't. Neither do apes and guinea pigs. In fact, humans and other apes have a vitamin C pseudogene broken in exactly the same way. Hmmm, what a coincidence. But not the focus here.

Redundant pseudogenes have a related functional gene that is involved in biological processes, the redundent pseudogene is essentially non-functional (they may have some yet unknown function but many studies show their absence has no obvious deleterious effects). As these pseudogenes have no major function, they undergo mutations at almost the fastest rate possible (the random background rate, as delterious mutations are not an issue). We have observed the formation of pseudogenes in the lab and they are due to gene duplication and subsequent mutations on these copied sequences. Gene duplications are a rare event. Thus if common ancestry we not true we would not expect to find the same pseudogenes in identical areas of the chromosome, with the same mutations that removed their original function between closely related species. If common ancestry were a fact we would see these rare events being expressed in the same locations of chromosomes.

Experimental finding - Numerous pseudogenes are found common to humans and chimps. Hemoglobin pseudogene is common to all primates. The Steroid 21-hydroxlase pseudogene is common to chimps and humans and we have the identical 8 base pair deletion.


4. Chromosomal Evidence.

It was known quite a while back that humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, whilst all the great apes have 24. Why is this? If we did have a common ancestor wouldn't we have the same number?

Maybe, maybe not.

It is possible that a pair of chromosomes fused since humans and chimps diverged in their evolutionary history. If a fusion did occur we would expect to see particular characteristics, this was predicted well before human DNA was analysed. If common ancestry were not true we would not expect to see any relationship between the fused chromosome and the original chromosome pair in chimps.

Experimental finding -

1) The analogous chromosomes (2p and 2q) in the non-human great apes can be shown, when laid end to end, to create an identical banding structure to the human chromosome 2. (1)

2) The remains of the sequence that the chromosome has on its ends (the telomere) is found in the middle of human chromosome 2 where the ancestral chromosomes fused. (2)

3) the detail of this region (pre-telomeric sequence, telomeric sequence, reversed telomeric sequence, pre-telomeric sequence) is exactly what we would expect from a fusion. (3)

4) this telomeric region is exactly where one would expect to find it if a fusion had occurred in the middle of human chromosome 2.

5) the centromere of human chromosome 2 lines up with the chimp chromosome 2p chromosomal centromere.

6) At the place where we would expect it on the human chromosome we find the remnants of the chimp 2q centromere (4).

www.evolutionpages.com...

This is enough evidence for me and most of the scientific world. It is not the only evidence, just what I could be bothered presenting. I'm sure you can find creationistas who question this evidence, however, there is a reason that most people who actually understand the biology accept the evidence as a valid claim for common ancestry whether they be theist or not. The basis of these processes are observed in the lab.

Additional references: www.talkorigins.org...

linky

a younger more naive mel. In fact, when I joined, there were some great discussions on ID and creationism. All a bit boring now to me.

[edit on 31-12-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by littlebunny
Well… Now I completely understand why you chose your screen name...

I doubt it .

Originally posted by littlebunny
how apropos to the limited paradox of your lack of style and truth with regards to your response to my post.

You realize that made no sense, right? =o

Originally posted by littlebunny
You must be a child mentally for figuratively…

Both!
Mentally, figuratively, and admitedly!
I'm 19, know little about our Universe (as all humans know little), and am willing to admit it.

Originally posted by littlebunny
either way, I’m lmao because insight is also twenty-twenty…

Mkay.
I must ask though, why so angry?
I only pointed out that noobfun DID show the fallacies which were presented by Aermacchi.

Must you follow Aermacchi's path and insult me rather than argue the point?
In fact, if you didn't have a different username, I would be sure that you were him - or at least related .

Originally posted by TruthParadox
Many of the true geniuses of our time have studied evolution and believe it adamantly.
Fact: Those with a better education are far more likely to believe in evolution.

First of all,, I have met many educated idiots in my time and the fact the further education you get the more indoctrinated to evolution one gets is the entire agenda of the Atheist/evolutionist.
so it doesn't surprise me when it is the only thing they teach as Ben Stein so correctly points out in Expelled, NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED. How do I know this? I too have spent many years furthering my education and still do.

Your opinion that evolution is a "load of crap" is just that - your opinion.
You're opinion means nothing when stacked against the greatest minds of our time and the evidence that you refuse to look at.

Dude you really need to brush up on your inductive arguments and protocols for logical fallacy as you are making yet another one the logical fallacy of argument um ad populum, .... Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority)

I did read your post lol... but you obviously didn't read mine.
I'll point it out for you.

If you read them you would simply apologise and move on but alas you are glutton for more punishment in my exposing you as just another know it all with an alleged Genius IQ who can't admit he was wrong. Here soldier, let me EXPLAIN THIS AS IF YOU WERE A SIX YEAR OLD AGAIN!

BY ASKING YOU FIRST THIS QUESTION.

WHEN YOU SAID:

Originally posted by TruthParadox
So your assertion that I should listen to those with a higher intelligence is flawed because Einstein was not even talking about your God.

Please show us and the readers where I EVER said YOU should listen to ANYONE or even READ it for that matter and where did I ever say that Einstein was talking about "MY" God?

Who ever you think that is doesn't matter, what matters is YOU are assuming again. I happen to believe Einstein was a DEIST but that is my opinion if you must know so please quit being so damn presumptuous. I never gave a review, an opinion or made any point at all, I merely posted HIS STATEMENT! I can not help it that you read into what he says as what you think I think he is saying, even IF it looks like he is saying he believes in a God to you. If you can quote where I suggest such a thing Please POST IT otherwise ADMIT THE MIS-REPRESENTATION!

Originally posted by Aermacchi
You are right it was more of a mental slip up another words Genius,, YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO SPELL IT! Well,, you do now.

Sigh... Are you serious?
Ok let me walk you through this (as it appears I have no other choice)...
I spelled the word correctly SIX times in that same post. That post has not been edited.
Your assertion that I didn't know how to spell it (apart from being irrelevant to the discussion) is ridiculous, because you would have to believe that I had SIX typos in which I accidentally spelled the word correctly.

Don't you realize how absurd that would be?
You don't care - you don't think about it logically, you just want me to be wrong regardless of the points I make.

That is because YOU ARE WRONG or must I be FORCED to prove you are this hard headed. Ill give you this much credit and say perhaps you are not sure how to spell it. Or was this also a TYPO!

here was this a typo too??

"Again, thankyou for recognizing my intellegence. I see you are not entirely ignorant.

yeah, you spelled it wrong there too! so don't give me this crap about all the "other times" you spelled it right when I have proven the other times you have spelled it wrong. This is why it is so futile to debate Darwinists using facts because when they GET THE FACTS they put their fingers in their little ears keeping the draft from blowing through the heavily calcified cranial cavity housing their brain stem and say I caaaaaaan't hear youuuu.


sigh,, I am starting to feel like i am beating up on someone so defenseless now and I don't want to be a bully but I see you think I have a revolving cheek as a revolving door. I only turn the other cheek ONCE, after that Jesus never said Christians couldn't defend themselves and no YOU are NOTHING like me when you say I am no more a Christian than YOU are for you are nothing but an Atheist a Godless lost soul too caught up and impressed with junk science and Darwinian Dogma so

Let them look at the evidence and decide for themselves.
Of course that's exactly what you don't want, right?

No, on the contrary, I don't want it to be the ONLY choice of evidence to decide for themselves and THAT is why their is no intelligence allowed. I see Noobfun said something, *Yawn* If only he had the wisdom to listen back when I said I was no longer reading his poorly constructed arguments so rife with writing errors. I hope he didn't make it a long one.


[edit on 31-12-2008 by Aermacchi]

reply to post by Aermacchi


Show me evidence that counter claims evolution...even one tiny bit of evidence will do,ill reply to that i can assure you.

reply to post by Solomons

Do you want a bigger spade?

I guess that would depend how hard you want to get whack behind the solomon. Now that was funny.

im sure that hole could be dug even deeper if you tried sorry for not refuting your ridiculous claims,too many vodkas so little time.

Wow, you are so right... when something is considered a fact, actually asking that you prove that fact with a species that has evolved in our time by the evolutionary time it has had to adapt and change… is absolutely asking for a completely ridiculous claim, proof or answer... Alrighty then! Or... perhaps you must demand that it is ridiculous because you people know nothing exists, not one damn thing exists that you can point to that has evolved in the last one, ten, twenty, thirty or even in the past one hundred years. And if evolution is correct you know damn well something should have... But then again that kind of proof is simply ridiculous to expect or demand an answer too. I mean your statement is so much more different then, there is proof of God because I believe…

Your debate and style of responses already speaks volumes to why you find that question so ridiculous or perhaps... forbidden.