Hahahah, the jig is up evo's. Let's recap on the video shall we, "If we don't find it then the case for common ancestry for our species might be refuted" Well guess what guys, it has been proven that the claims in this vid are wrong. No fusion took place, plus the so called fused chromosome corresponding in a chimp are completely different as are many chromosomes between chimp and man. And did you expect us to believe both a male and female had this fusion take place then they met and mated?
It hasn't been proven that it's wrong because it isn't wrong. You may well have read that on some evangelist misinformation website but that hardly makes it true. But really I don't know why I'm surprised.
No man has a scintilla of insight about the Universe. “Scientists” who call themselves astronomers know not a tinker's cuss concerning space travel. They are but a nest of braggarts, liars, prevaricators, witch doctors & fabulists. Evolutionists aren't atheists, they're atheistic.
Humans, bar none, are worshipful/Spiritual Beings by design. Atheism is the denial of Spiritualism & metaphysics. Atheism is a vacation from reality enjoyed by slugs, nematodes, adders, animalcules & maggots as these Earthen life-forms are intellectually deficient, ergo incapable of contemplating & fathoming the heavens. Only Man finds it necessary to fabricate wild & weird postulations about uni-cellular critters evolving into mastodons.
@procommenter NASA takes on only 1/10th of one billionth of the budget it cost to pay for the Iraq war. Space travel is happening right now and we have landed our probes on every planet and moon we said we would. We have gathered enough information to mine the moon for energy for our planet without any need to mine our own. We are very much into the progress and conservation of our Earth. It is the fundamentalist religious who seek to put a stop to it.
➊["It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the Earth to the Moon, but to do this we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. Calculations have
➋ been carefully worked out on the type of vehicle we would need for the non-stop flight from the Earth to the Moon and to return. The figures speak for themselves: Three rockets would be necessary, each rocket ship would be taller than the Empire State building (1,250 feet) and weigh about 10 times the tonnage of the "Queen Mary," or some 800,000 tons." -Werhner von Braun]
You realize most of the flight from the Earth to Moon and back again is done via momentum, right? Most of the fuel is used to get out of the atmosphere, then a bit to accelerate and drift the rest of the way. The way you phrased that makes it sound like they did calculations for if you were firing rockets the entire way there.
ANYONE: If you see no reply to some posters below they know they are on ignore for things like gross obscenities, virulent insults, name calling, sometimes adding pages & pages & pages of monologue to a string to cover dissent & etc. Such evo vid watch dogs follow me & others around YT with such tactics. I am happy to respond to any of their points & tell what I feel is "the rest of the story" if made by anyone who is civil & objective. Those are the only people with whom I will debate.
One of the rules of pointing out the obvious entails NOT smashing printed materials into the faces of the people being informed as Maryland (to Gen. Lee) was not exactly Laos (to Richard Nixon) in relation to North Vietnam nor reflective of the way Northern whites habitually sacrificed themselves for negroes throughout the 1860's on orders from Lincoln the melancholic.
ANYONE: If you see 0 response to some posters below they know they are on ignore for things like name calling, personal insults & sometimes worse. Some of those people follow me & others around YT, guard dogging evo vids with such tactics. If you care to make any of their same "points" I would be happy to tell what I feel is "the rest of the story." But I only debate as long as people are civil & objective. YT evo fans who stay like that are quite rare, but they do show up from time to time.
@hunterpeterson81095 You have followed the usual pattern of YT evo fans. Say nothing of a scientific nature. Don't even bother to address, much less debunk, any of the points made by the other poster. Embrace the logical fallacy of the strawman by doing the Bible Bash Dance instead. Have a personally insulting approach.
I only debate with those who are civil & objective (almost none of the evo-ites, at least not for long) & who actually debate. You're on ignore. BYE!
@LoricaLady And from what I can tell, I think you are trying to say that there is no evidence that we evolved from apes. That the only evidence is a "paltry few fossils." No duh there are only a "paltry few fossils." The conditions needed for a specimen to fossilize are kinda hard to replicate over and over in nature. And even if a fossil is preserved, it is even more rare for the entire bone/bone structure to be fully intact. You can any of these things in a 9th graders biology book.
@LoricaLady You see all those other responses disagreeing with you? Well, I'm just going to be another one of those. If humans are "over 90% similar" to apes genetically, then they are "over 90% similar." You can't look at it any other way. One slight variation in a gene can cause major physical or mental changes, so 10% can change many things.
@IzaakSchilkerspielz You don't find out what is true by counting hands - particularly in a self perpetuating, politically correct, system that is self protective of orthodox opinions. Instead you learn to think for yourself & come out of the matrix. At one time all scientists, even Einstein, said the universe was eternal. Many of them ridiculed germ theory. The list goes on & one. I limit my time on YT by debating with the civil & objective only, so you are now on ignore. BYE!
Truly, explaining the metaphysical world, as religion attempts to do, or the impossible position of "atheism" (which denies paranormality) as elitists are currently proffering to the masses, diverts the spotlight from the concrete issue: the master plan to consolidate all counterfeiting/central-fractional banking operations.
ANYONE: If you see no response to gorilla199 (and possibly newer posters who follow me - & others - around YT with verbal abuse) he knows he is on ignore for his extremely hate filled - and now I see also anit semetic - posts. Tho I would like to address what I feel are problems with logic and science and general disinformation, it is only possible to have a truly scientific debate with those who are civil & objective. (Praying for you to be filled with love,and for Jews,too, Gorilla.)
Cont. Chimps & tobacco both have 48 chromosomes. Snakes & worms wriggle on the ground. Bees, moths, bats & birds fly. Correlation Does Not Imply Causation. The 2nd logical fallacy being used is The Fallacy of The Incomplete Comparison. Ok there is a superficial number match. But what is inside the chromosomes of the humans and what is inside the chromosomes of the apes is extremely different. The usual evolutioinary sophistry & b.s. instead of evidence.
@tilo430 You're very welcome. I get laughs out of evolution all the time - though sometimes I feel guilty about that as it is pretty sad the "science" they are pushing off on little children.
" I get laughs out of evolution all the " where not so ignorant and stupid, you would know you are ignorant and stupid. You know you are wrong as you avoided the questions which you know prove evolution.
I like the way that you put "science" in quotes as if it is pretend science, when in reality, this is one of the strongest and well supported theories that science has come up with as of yet
You can laugh at science all you like, but at the end of the day, your god didn't create the monitor or the internet you're using
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@20K11 Evolution is indeed pretend science, even magical thinking. They find a fossil & tell you they know for a fact it is a transition even though they have 0 evidence whatsoever to show that it ever had any progeny significantly different from itself. Then they draw invisible lines to invisible dots to its invisible descendants' invisible descendants and tell you how they all reproduced. Pure b.s. They ignore the fossil record which actually shows abrupt appearance and stasis. They....
@20K11 ...claim that mutations & natural selection led to climbs up Darwin's Tree of "Life" but if you check the evo lit to see any actual data to support that all you get are "probably....likely...millions of [conveniently untestable & unobservable] years ago...we infer...simulation...we propose a theory" There is plenty of evidence for speciation which the world knew about before Darwin. There is 0 evidence any species turns into or ever did turn into a new genus. Bacteria stay bacteria...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@20K11 ...people stay people, finches stay finches. They told you that fins turn into feet, scales into feathers, fish into tetrapods & tetrapods into birds. But the fossil record in countless billions show no such things, in fact just the opposite - 100% of each only, no inbetweeners. The best they can do is point to something like archaeopteryx and even many evolutionists say its just a bird & some evolutionary ornithologists say they don't even believe birds came from lizards. Cont.
@20K11 Cont. Then you can tell what the real issue is with most evolutionists because they are so vehement in their attacks about Diety & the Bible. If you want to talk about evo, if you say let's talk about science & logic, no, they want to switch the subject to religion - just as you did tho this vid does not address religion and neither did I. Another pattern you follow is not bothering to address the points I actually made, much less making any attempt to refute them. And btw...
@20K11 ...the monitor & internet were created by intelligent design so your point is irrelevant. And just think, they aren't nearly as complex as a single strand of dna. You also follow the pattern of making generalizations, declaring that evo is "well supported" but you give no supports, only show...faith. Describe data showing that mutations or natural selection cause a new genus. They tetll you that. Show me you understand, don't just have faith, & give ev-i-dence, da-ta that its true.
@HoboProber You have followed the usual pattern of YT evo fans: Say 0 of a scientific nature and certainly don't even address debunks made by the other poster regarding the vid. Try to switch the topic to religion. Be personally insulting. I hope you will learn how to do critical analysis, then some day you can maybe have a real debate based on science & logic. I only debate with those who debate & are civil & objective. You didn't & weren't. You're on ignore. BYE!
Please watch the video. That is evidence for evolution in itself. If you are incapable of processing sensory data with your eyes, please complain to your nearest supervisor for processing
@20K11 .additional fused chromosome. If it doesn't come from apes - & no one is claiming that it does, then why do we have to assume that the one in the vid does? They are telling you "Look! We see something & only evo can explain it." The truth is they can't explain where that fusion, or the other one came from & have no evidence for anything. 2) Incomplete Comparison Fallacy. 'Scuze me but the fusions that are fused are both human, not ape to human. Apes have chromosomes that...
@20K11 ...are, for example, of a different size, frequency etc. And why do they keep talking about chimps? Not even evolutionists are claiming that we came from them. Oh, yeal, I forgot about the magical thinking. Somewhere back millions of years ago connect some kinds of invisible dots to invisible chromosomes that... 3) Correlation Does Not Imply Causationi Logical Fallacy. (This is their fave & evo can't live w/o it.) So what if the fusion of 2 HUMAN chromosomes makes a superficial...
@20K11 ...number match with chimps? Tobacco & chimps both have 48 chromosomes. Fish have "characteristics of" (one of their fave phrases) dolphins,, ditto birds/bats/bees & snakes & worms have "similar homology" (another of their fave phrases used to support this logical fallacy.) So what? Correlation Does Not Imply Causation. Evolution is based on speculation presented as evidence, sophistry, and one logical fallacy afer another. I hope you learn to see that but you're on ignore. BYE!
@gorilla199uncensored Although I agree that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming I think it is actually ascorbic acid (vitamin C) that we and other apes can not produce due to the same nonfunctional GLO gene. Not that it matters to LoricaLady what the evidence is. Arguing with her only gets you put on her bad boy list. Congratulations I see you are already there. LOL
@SufferInJuly There are other species like Guinea Pigs that do not produce ascorbic acid too. They are the result of different mutations. The cause for this in all apes is the same mutation. Coincidence? watch?v=SF2N2lbb3dk
@SufferInJuly It is not proof but, with other evidence, there is no reasonable doubt that we are part of a clade referred to as apes and that we are related to the other extant apes having a common ancestor.
@SufferInJuly I find it interesting that creationists will always look at the fossil record and ask for more transitions if evolution was true. They also argue that modern speciation events like ring species all over the world do not show enough variation. Then they say the nested hierarchy that molecular biology shows just shows common design. I get the feeling it wouldn't matter how much evidence you showed them.
@SufferInJuly Homo Heidelbergensis is a legitimate fossil thought to be a possible direct ancestor. Orce Man was misidentified but paleontologists quickly corrected the mistake during peer review (science works). Did you pull Iowa Man out of your ass? Why not mention Piltdown Man? From the outset, there were scientists who expressed skepticism about this find but it took them several years to definitively say it was a hoax. More evidence is being discovered each year. How much would it take?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Evolutionary THEORY is without evidence as there's no evidence to be had. Adaptations (mainly mutations) from long-extinct creatures are exaggerated and lied about consensually and presented as irrefutable proof. I remember the imminent ice age of the early 1970's {global cooling} that was being caused by the greenhouse effect acting as a blanket to block the sun's warming rays.
@SufferInJuly "Evolutionary THEORY is without evidence" It's obvious from that statement you know nothing about science. Theories explain evidence. It is a well established theory. Then you go on a tangent about a controversy the popular press hyped up. Nice way to round out a perfectly stupid post. HA HA HA HA
Theories in science are generally accepted facts. The word theory does not share its usage with the general english language in science
Ill borrow a little from XKCD here
Say you catch a potentially fatal illness. Do you want to be treated for the original illness as it was 50 years ago, or do you want to treat the multi drug resistant form that has evolved from that original form? Feel free to pick, but one of the options will kill you
This generation of college-educated nitwits can't place a decimal point or properly utilize this sign: ¢, and they pluralize all words with apostrophe-s.
@LoricaLady Yup, what is inside the human and ape chromosomes is so different that we are over 90% similar, genetically. You are right that in and of itself, having 48 chromosomes may not be too big of a deal, but when we are able to point out a point of fusion between two chromosomes and can accurately identify them and confirm which chromosomes they would be in ape DNA, that serves as a big indicator for evolution, as if the act of chromosome fusion wasn't indicative enough.
@PukaMan The use of the words "over 90% similar" depends on how you look at the data. If you put a chimp into a kindergarten class no way is it's academic "performance" going to be 90% similar to that of the average child, nor will that average child have 90% of the physical abilities of the chimp. "Similar" is again using the correlation does not imply causaiton logical fallacy. They are not ape chromosomes that are fused. They are human chromsomes only. "Big indicator for evolution.." Cont
@PukaMan "They are an indicator for evolution." They are pure speculation about evolution being presented as Gawd's truth. "Indicator...likely...possibly...we can infer..." are evo buzz words. If that fusion shows ape ancestry, which it does not, then where did the other fusion that the other people have come from? Why are you so sure one fusion came from apes while you can't show the 2nd one did? "Confirm which chromosomes they would in in..." I'd like you to search, find & report data...
@PukaMan ...in evo lit, prior to the discovery of the fusion, that shows they "predicted" the fusion. They like to give the impression that they had predicted it before it was found, but I don't buy it. However, if you see some evidence for that, tell where to find it on Google.
Of course there is some similarity between apes & humans. But: Correlation Does Not Imply Causation, Fallacy of the Single Cause, Fallacy of Incomplete Comparison. Science can't rest on logical fallacies.
@PukaMan Cont. There is also 0 fossil evidence showing we came from apes. There is not 1 "transitional" form that gets universal agreement amongst evolutionists (not that I take their words for anything.) All they have are a paltry few fossils, often fragmentary. They weave magical stories about how those fossils; invisible descendants' invisible descendants reproduced in the invisible past. That ain't science. Speculation, as with Chrom. 2, & fossils,presented as evidence = pseudo science.
@LoricaLady The hilarious thing is that you claim to want a civil and logical debate yet you "won't take the words of scientists for anything." You can't have a civil and logical debate if you remain closed to what your opposition says. There's no point in debating with people like you. I leave you with this question: If fossils, genetics, etc. are not evidence for common ancestry between humans and apes, then where do humans come from?
@PukaMan How can I be "closed to what the oppositon" says when I have obviously listened to and examined their positions in detail? What you mean by "closed" is that I don't swallow what you believe but have a different opinion - which by the way I defend using science & logic. Asking "Where do humans come from" is based on the Fallacy of the Single Cause logical fallacy, i.e. you are trying to say, "If you can't explain it with some other theory then by default evo has to win." Bull...
@LoricaLady "If you can't explain it with some other theory then by default evo has to win"
And which other theory would it be that better explains the origin of humans? You're looking at gaps in a theory and saying that because there are gaps, it must be wrong. I hope you attack other theories like gravity, atomic theory, kinetic-molecular theory, etc. with the same fervor, because no theory is absolute, or gap-free. There would be no point to scientific research, then.
@PukaMan Evolutionists frequenlty use the equivocatioin logical fallacy with the word "science" & try to lump evo in with things like gravity, aerodynamics, dentistry, whatever. They say, "You accept those sciences, don't you? Then you should accept evolution." Bull. All of those other things are testable, observable & repeatable & 0 in evo is. That's why after over 150 years of them desperately trying to prove it's true it's still just a theory. It's not a matter of gaps in evidence...
@LoricaLady Thank you for proving your bias, and your lack of understanding of the scientific method. Look up what a theory means in scientific terminology sometime, and you'll realize, the fact that it's been a theory for that long is actually amazing. Also, I wasn't asking if you accepted other theories, I was asking if you realized that there are gaps in them as well. You also still have yet to provide an alternative that better explains things than evolution.
@PukaMan Where did Darwin ever employ the scientific method? What experiments did he use, for ex.? Mendell used the scientific method. He did innumerable experiments and took copious notes. Therefore what he had to offer is not considered simply a theory. There was a theory that the universe was eternal for countless ages - even Einstein believed that at one time. Your statement that something being a theory for a long time makes it more valid doesn't hold up. No, I don't have to provide..
@PukaMan ...an alternative - tho there is one that is based on what is observable, testable & repeatable, unlike evo which never is. In a paternity case you can determine that so & so is not the father, in this case Mr. Evo, but if you can't show who the real father is,that doesn't mean Mr. Evo gets to win by default & take baby Organic Life home. 2nd, the alternative theory is intelligent design. I know, you're going to say i.d. has been debunked. Let's look at some of those "debunks."
@PukaMan ...Kenneth MIller, a world famous evo evangelist, tells us Behe's ex. of a mousetrap is not irreducibly complex, as Behe says, therefore is not intelligently designed. How does he "show" that? He mangles a mousetrap & tells us it will still catch "really stupid mice." In one presentation I saw him even saying the coil & a piece of cheese alone will do! As usual with evo, it is all theory & 0 evidence as we never see any dead mice. You wouldn't buy his mangled trap for a penny...
@PukaMan ...Then he clips the mousetrap to his tie & that's supposed to be a debunk too. 'Scuze me but the clip holding the tie in place was made by hi tech macines & - uh oh - i.d. Not to mention he uses i.d. and fingers to put it in place. Then he "debunks" the i.c. of the human blood clotting system, another of Behe's examples. Does he show us a single human who has missing parts of that system who is still doing fine? No, he flashes up pictures of a puffer fish & a dolphin! Not even...
@PukaMan ...evolutionists say we are related to them. You're calling this science? Then Behe gives the ex. of i.c. in the flagellum. He says it won't work unless all its parts are in place. But the evolutionists take his argument and use a strawman logical fallacy. That is, they switch the actual topic to something else, saying that some of the parts have different functions, "co option" "dual purpose." Do they show a flagellum that has missing parts that functions just as well? Cont.
@PukaMan ...Of course not. They have switched the topic to what it never was. Then they show us simpler bacteria. With, as always, not actual evidence, they tell us, "Well! Look at those simpler bugs. Obviously the flagellum evolved from them." All of this "happened" in the conveniently unobservable, untestable "millions" of years ago in the magical realm of theory land. They ignore the fact that the simpler bugs perform different functions & have different niches & show no evidence of...
@PukaMan ...having been anything else. Google the flagellar whip & motor. That nano technology rotary motor & whip need each other or they are both useless. Evo cannot predict the future. While each is "evolving" over the aeons, how & why would evo drive each to perfection? What "co option" or "dual purpose" could either have? What possible use could either have until both are fully connected and fully functional?
Please don't evade those Qs as is standard for evo-ites. Answer them....
@PukaMan ...Although you will probably be put on the ignore list soon as you are using the typical evo fan insultilng approach, i.e. "your bias...your lack of understanding." Even with a warning, even after asking for a 2nd chance, YT evo fans who "go there" will repeat and the insults will increase. I debate with those who are civil & objective only. Can you answer my Qs & not be insulting or profane? If so, you'll be quite unusual. If not this exchange is practically over already.
@PukaMan Cont. Oh, I see glancing back over the older posts that you followed my prediction at that time. You evaded my Qs and you insulted me. My prediction is that you will evade my newest Qs, insult me again, & this exchange will be over. But prove me wrong if you can.
@LoricaLady And you followed my prediction as well, by showing that you have a poor understanding of the theory of evolution, and even more, a poor understanding of science and the scientific method. You attack evolution without presenting your own answers. Is this because you know your alternative is baseless? It is not meant to be insulting when I say that you have a poor understanding. It is merely a fact based on my observation. You just want people to agree with you.
@PukaMan As predicted again. "You have a poor understanding." Oh dear, just think, with your superioir understanding you could have answered at least 1 of my Qs & enlightened me. But you evaded them all. How unkind of you. Just between you and the mirror you need to admit to yourself that you didn't have a clue how to respond, since evo can't answer those Qs. You are now on ignore. Learn cirtical thinking & logical fallacies, seriously study both sides & get out of the matrix. BYE!
@LoricaLady What's the point? I already know I'm not going to sway your opinion on anything. What both sides are you talking about, by the way? Is there a better scientific explanation? You accuse me of attacking, when all you've done is attack the opposing stance without backing your own. How can you not see this hypocrisy?
@PukaMan I gave you several examples of irreducible complexity and why the debunks of them were bogus. Irreducible complexity makes evo impossible. It indicates that either the life forms somehow popped into being on their own or that they came about by Something Or Someone not fitting into standard natural explanations for how things happen. Didn't you see that? You can call it Zeus or YHWH or the flying spaghetti monster. Or pretend it doesn't exist. "What's the point?" indeed. Finis.
@LoricaLady Ah Irreducible Complexity, termed by Michael Behe, who admitted that by his definition of science, astrology would be considered a science.If you're talking about the flagellum, take away 40 of the 50 components that make up the flagellum, and you have a Type-III Secretory system. K_HVrjKcvrU. How do you feel about non-structural floating hipbones insome whales and snakes? They don't serve a structural purpose, but they are there. Or our fused tailbones?
@PukaMan I heard Behe's comment about astrology & it didn't seem like that was what he was saying. Your comments are ad hominem & strawman logical fallacies.. Either the flagellum can function w/o all its parts or it cannot. It cannot. Neither can the human blood clotting mechanism. We don't have "fused tailbones." We have no tailbones. There is no structure in our bodies suited for tails. The word "tail" is figurative as in the phrase "tail pipe." The "non structural floating hipbones"...
@LoricaLady No, Behe admitted to that in a court of law. That's a fact. Look up what the coccyx is if you don't think we have a tailbone. Along with the muscles that are functional and used for locomtion that are attached to it, there are also atrophied muscles that would be used to move our tail, except for the fact that it is now fused and immobile. Why would we have those muscles in the first place? Are we so irreducibly complex that we have pointless muscle attachments?
@PukaMan I have already given the logical fallacies you are using re Behe. Btw a court of law, with a non science trained judge (or even a science trained one) is not the place for determing what is science & what is not. That politically appointed judge (I don't care if he was a Republican - or a Democrat - as they are all pretty much the same) had no right to tell others what "science" was yet got away with doing so. Here is another Q that you will completely evade: Tell me where....
@PukaMan there is a Google link that shows we have "atrophied muscsles that would be used to move our tail." Be sure and get some kind of words from a scientists now, one who understands human anatomy. While you are at it, find an article by a scientist who says "we have pointless muscle attachments." After all, you said, "Think like a scientist." Think like a scientist & start answering my growing list of Qs instead of evading them. "If we fully understood..." Think like a scientist...
@PukaMan ...is just more b.s. "Non functional" means they don't yet know the purpose, but they are sure that invisible millions of years ago something "evolved." It's like when they didn't yet understand the function of the tonsils & appendicitis & told us with no data whatsoever - just as with the whales - that they knew where they came from & that they were useless vestigial organs left over from earlier "evolution". Now we have found they are useful immunologically. You still haven't...
@LoricaLady The same argument could be said about systems we don't fully understand, and it's another example of your hypocrisy. If we fully understood everything in science, then we wouldn't be putting so much effort into research in so many fields. Science isn't about knowing everything. It's about explaining things to the best of our current and ever-increasing knowledge of the natural world. That is why irreducible complexity fails. Think like a scientist when talking science.
@PukaMan Cont. When people are really thinking like scientists they don't call dataless speculation "evidence". They don't use logical fallacies. More Qs for you to avoid. When did Darwin ever act like a scientist? When did he use the scientific method? He only make some nature observations & wrote a book FALSELY claiming to show the origin of species. His degree was in theology. Yet he is an icon to evolutionists because, like him, they have 0 that is real science either.
@PukaMan "If we fully understood. Science isn't about knowing everying...explaining...to the best of our current...knowledge" isn't A-ing the Qs I gave you but are tacit admissions that "science", really evolution, doesn't have any A. to the Qs I gave you. Irreducible complexity has data. Unlike evo, it's observable, testable & repeatable. It doesn't need excuses. It needs admission that the Qs I asked about it cannot possibly be answered by evolution. It needs honest admission its there.
@PukaMan "It's another example of your hypocrisy." As I said, give a YT evo-ite a 2nd chance and they will always go back to the insult mode. You're now permanently on the ignore list. Please take your own advice though and learn to think like a scientist. Start by asking yourself why you are calling someone a hypocrite when you can only evade perfectly reasonable & logical scientific Qs. Fiinis.
@PukaMan P.S. Btw you weren't a fraction as insulting as most YT evo fans & you didn't do the irrelevant Bible Bash Dance. Good for you on that. But I'm still finished with debating you because, again, the insults escalate over time & really you aren't debating, just stating - stating this & that which you have heard here & there & which you have not yet learned to critically analyze & cross research. If you want to keep thinking your great etc. granny was an ape tho, don't look elsewhere.
@LoricaLady My great granny was not an ape, and the theory of evolution does not state that she would be. This is why you're not being taken seriously.
ANYONE: If you see 0 reply to any posters below they know they are on ignore for things like name calling, personal insults, sometimes gross obscenities, sometimes filling up pages & pages & pages of a string with monologue & sometimes worse. Some are evo vid guard dogs following me & others around YT with those tactics. If you feel a valid point has been made & want to restate it I will be happy to tell what I feel is "the rest of the story." But I only debate with the civil & objective.
@LoricaLady So you want to debate with the civil and objective, but you're not open to being criticized for making innacurate statements about something you hold a stance against. Sorry, but how can you ask people to be civil and objective yourself fail to be? I will not respond kindly to argumentum ad ignorantiam, whether intentional or not.
@PukaMan Lorica preaches but has people coming back with information that is way over her/his head. Once Lorica is aruging with someone who is way out of Lorica's league, Lorica does the ANYONE post and bails out.
@PukaMan ...explained what use, what "co option" that whip & that rotary motor would have until they're fully developed & fully connected & why & how evo would leave them in limbo until then. You haven't explained how puffer fish & dolphin blood clotting mechanims show ours aren't i.c., how 2 fused HUMAN chromosomes show any ape to human anything, why 1 kind of fusion is said to be from apes & the other not, or any DATA mutations & natural selection lead to a new genus. Don't evade,enlighten me!
@PukaMan When will that Maximus troll under the name Lorica shut the FUCK UP!!! Talk about brain dead! No one in their right mind would even sit next to this person if they opened their flap and farted out all of this nonsense. Seriously, when will this person just off themselves. No one would miss this person. NO ONE.
@PukaMan ...it's a matter of there being 0 evidence whatsoever, just speculation presented as evidence piled ontop of logical fallacies & sophistry. They say mutations & natural selection are what drive evo. Great. Give 1 ex. and cite the data that shows that they can lead to anything higher than speciation, i.e. a new genus. W/o that new genus, no "Tree of Life" climb, no evo. "Might have...likely...millioins of unobservable years ago...we infer...simulation" aren't data or evidence btw.
@PukaMan Cont. If you were a Judge & Lawyer A said, "Your honor baby Organic Life was fathered by Mr. Evo" & I said, "I have evidence to show Mr. Evo could never have fathered the baby," would you turn to me & say, "If you can't show who the real father is, then Mr. Evo gets to take the baby home." I hope not! I never said I won't take the words of scientists for anything. I have learned not to trust evolutionists. When the science is testable, observable & repeatable - real science like...
@PukaMan ...that shown by Mendell who took meticulous notes & used the scientific method - not like with Darwin who never showed any origin of anything & used no science but only armchair theorizing - then I'm quite attentive. Stick to real science. Tell me how Chrom. 2 came from ape chromosomes when the fusion involves human chromosomes. I don't care if they are "similar" top that of apes, they are 100% human chromosomes. Tell me why that extra fusion from about 1 in 1000 folk isn't...
@PukaMan ...mentioned by the evolutionists. Tell me why we should assume 1 fusion came from apes yet not the other. And since evo says mutations & natural selection lead to evo, show me any evidence anywhere they can take a species to a new genus. Not "probably...maybe...millions of untestable & conveniently unobservable years ago...likely...we propose a model...we infer..." but actual DATA. Waiting for the answers to those Qs. If you are like most YT evo-ites you will evade them & insult me.
The number of chromosomes in a human is 47, the number of chromosomes in a chimp is 48. What has been proved is that of our 47, one is actually a fusion of two other chromosomes. I'm not sure why an intelligent design god would do this
The whole argument on human chromosome 2 is based as evolution always is, on logical fallacies. The 1st one is Correlation Does NOT Imply Causation. Yes, we have a fused chromosome and yes that causes a sort of number match with chimps. But the evolutionists never mention that about 1 in 1000 people have an additional fused chromosome. In fact it is not uncommon for animals to have them. Why don't they mention the 2nd fusion some people have? Becauseit it doesn't match up with apes. Cont.
@CaffeinatedThinking Mated or not mated with neanderthals does not matter. The important thing is that humans did not evolve from neanderthals contrary to what experts thought before Krings et al studies. There is no evidence that we share common ancestor. It is just speculation based on rate of mtDNA mutations which is not known well. There is no mtDNA evidence extracted from non existent ape-like common ancestor. So, it is possible that humans did not evolve from so called great apes.
@CaffeinatedThinking Krings et al studies showed that humans did not evolve from chimps or neanderthals. According to other studies humans did not evolve from orangutans or gorillas. There is no mtDNA evidence humans-chimps or humans-neanderthals because the ape-like common ancestor is nowhere to be found.
The number of chromosomes will not determine whether a creature will end up a human or a chimp. It is the sequence of code in the DNA strand that matters. It has been proven using mtDNA that humans did not evolve from apes or neanderthals. There is no mtDNA evidence linking the so called ape-like common ancestor.
50,000 American soldiers have succumbed to "Gulf War Syndrome" as a result of being deliberately exposed to neurological/radiological-toxins by the U.S. govt. (or what passes for it). As for the dispensation of Americans who participated in the slaughter over there: it's of paramount importance that they be tried, adjudicated & summarily executed, as prescribed by the citizen-juries of Iraq.
America's soldiers are humanitarians with high-powered rifles, cluster bombs and rocket launchers who deliver nerve gas, lollipops, depleted uranium, cholera, teddy bears and bottles of water to the beleaguered citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Cancer has no religious meaning. It is not part of a test. It does not make you better, stronger, compassionate, wiser. Cancer sufferers are not soldiers in a war. No one battles cancer any more than one battles scurvy, pellagra, beriberi, pernicious anemia, night blindness as these are vitamin-deficiency diseases.
Cancer is not Spiritual. Praying for a cure is as meaningless as is substituting prayer for water. Prayer will not slake your thirst. Given enough time anyone & everyone who substitutes prayer for water will die of thirst.
A creature shares musculoskeletal traits with an otherwise dissimilar creature and BINGO—common ancestor! There's no proof, of course, but one must never underestimate the power of grant money. Eventually a sliver of bone will be found and a species will be created (not re-created, as it never existed) by the those talented, university-trained artisans who have an expertise in plaster of Paris, Papier-mâché & acrylic paint.
@LovingKimiKatkar So why do biologists almost universally around the world accept the theory of evolution as a valid explanation for the diversity of life on earth? Eastern and western, democracies and communist, wealthy and poor, the real scientists that actually have studied the subject and do the research all find that the evidence is overwhelming in support of descent with modification. It's not slivers of bone. These days it's truck loads of fossils confirming the DNA evidence.
On page 723 of "Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus in Dictionary Form," Edited by the Princeton Language Institute, Barbara Ann Kipfer, Ph.D., Head Lexicographer (1993) ...we find the synonyms for: THEORY [n] hypothesis, belief -- approach, argument, assumption, base, basis, belief, code, codification, concept, conditions, conjecture, doctrine, dogma, feeling, formularization, foundation,
@LovingKimiKatkar In modern science (that is what we are discussing) the term "theory", is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, verify, and challenge (or "falsify") it. You play word games when you use the layman definition for it.
@foxlake02 : Nonsense. THEORY is not FACT in anyone's book. I deferred to Princeton Language Institute. Evolutionism is not science (knowledge) by definition. Evolutionism is a hoax.
@LovingKimiKatkar Now you are starting to get it. Theories are not fact. They are the best explanation for empirical evidence. If you have a better one submit it for peer review. No one is stopping you. People who reject the theory because of interpretation of religious dogma are not using good science and should not be scientists. Dogma is not fact in anyone's book. Evolution is a fact and a theory. Look up "ring species".
@LovingKimiKatkar That's a lot of big words. Do you understand them all? How about theorem, thesis, understanding? I think you actually made my point.
IN THE PROCESSING OF EVOLUTION one must have patience as the evolutionary process takes billions of years. People who work in universities say so. Before being hired as "people who work in universities" they are questioned about the evolutionary process. They agree with their interviewer that it takes billions of years. The interviewed and the interviewers are frustrated by how long the evolutionary process takes, which by the way is billions of years.
THE BRAVERY OF MARINES AND THEIR BUNKIES—If you participated in the carnage in Afghanistan, Iraq, or any number of places around the planet, then you MUST be tried for murder, and publicly executed (by hanging) upon conviction. I will, if requested to, put the rope about your neck. American soldiers are nightly brutalizing, ravishing & ritualistically slaughtering Iraqi women & children in house-to-house sweeps.
Chihuahuas & evolutionism: Evolved logic dictates that if for the next million years many Chihuahuas are routinely lobbed to their deaths from cliffs eventually (the key word) some will develop the type of evolved webbing that allows flying squirrels to glide & land safely. It's true. Everyone who understands the way evolution works understands that.
Evolution: "that theory which sees in the history of all things organic and inorganic a development from simplicity to complexity, a gradual advance from a simple or rudimentary condition to one that is more complex and of a higher character." Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language.
There is absolutely zero evidence of this ever taking place in biology.
@GSFY "There is absolutely zero evidence of this ever taking place in biology." More nonsense. Send people to your video that claimed scientists date fossils directly watch?v=8s2U7EsJ1QQ
Or perhaps the video in which you claimed that the fusion of human chromosome #2 NEVER happened (you removed it from your channel, but that's ok - I have a copy) /watch?v=29e8brRBEVI
Of course if people want to see an overview of your body of knowledge, they can watch my video: watch?v=K9m3f0RdGBs
Nobody wants to realize they are fools to believe in Evodelusionism, but they are. I just can't understand how anyone can be that stupid. My father taught me much different. He taught me that; "people are full of agendas and you should never believe them until you have real evidence and repeatable evidence that is shown to be true."
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
Carl Sagan
"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." and "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." 'Albert Einstein
ANYONE: If you see 0 reply to some posters they know they are on ignore for: name calling, personal insults, false accusations of lying, open calls to hide my posts and in the case of Foxlake & Brospec, sexual harrassment. Some of them have followed me (& others) around YT for 2 yrs with such tactics. I am happy to debate with those who are civil and objective. Only.
Cont. (2) Incomplete Comparison Logical Fallacy. Yes the fused chromosome makes a number match with chimps, but what is inside the ape & human chromosomes is not the same. (3) Fallacy of the Single Cause, i.e. "And only evolution can explain this!" Again, the additional fused chromosome that people (& numerous animals) can have makes no number match with chimps, but there it is. Obviously fusions can happen with zero need to refer to "ape ancestry."
This whole spiell about chromosome fusion is built upon logical fallacies as evolution always is. These are: (1) Correlation Does Not Imply Causation. Yes, there is a number match between apes & people. There are many odd matches in nature. Chimps & tobacco both have 48 chromosomes. Birds & butterflies have wings. Snakes & worms slither. Etc. Again, some people have an additional fused chromosome, but evolutionists don't mention it since it makes no superficial match with apes. Cont.
— Dear Children: Focus on foci, on marks & markings that mar gynecology till the small rims & ridges shed their crusts and labial concerns no longer include the stuff that makes bread rise and wine marketable. Let's put our tarot cards away to battle the dimmest religious zealots of planet Earth: the animalic "atheists" whose ghetto culture is pro-eugenics.
@GoodScienceForYou You say you like REAL science. Now 2 times you have told me that chimps were once humans. But though I have asked for something for research to back that up, you have not given me anything. If we believe in something that has no evidence then we are acting on faith.
@LoricaLady This video is a good one for information on the Genetics that ties us to chimps. DNA is absolutely irrefutable evidence of genetic degradation as shown in many of the scriptures and DNA says the same thing.
ERV's are too close to be anything but a connection 94.6 to 98% the same DNA patterns between humans and chimps. Where chimps were naturally found was originally hot with radiation one of the fastest gene degrading phenomenon. The chromosome 2 is the other part. It all fits.
@GoodScienceForYou That;s not science you have offered, only some pretty wild speculation. Some people have an extra fused chromosome. There is no evidence it came from apes, just as there is no evidence the usual chromosome fusion came from apes. Fusions happen in nature. All this vid has is the Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy, the Fallacy of The Single Cause & the Incomplete Comparison logical fallacy. You can't build science on wild speculation and logical fallacies.
@LoricaLady Listen; I am against this idea of evolution, because it has never happened. There is only genetic degradation shown in the ALL the physical evidence. The physical evidence clearly shows that chimps and humans came from a common ancestor. If you don't understand it then study it as I have. Denying absolutely clear physical evidence is not something that I do. I study it and see how it fits in with the whole picture. It is all three, Chromosomes, DNA, ERV's and the creatures.
@LoricaLady 2 of 2. The genetic similarity, plus the only explainable by a genetic tie ERV's say the same thing that all other creatures show. DNA only shows genetic degradation from a much higher condition of fitness. Humans started out "perfect" in design and by the process of self delusions humans have managed to screw up the species pretty well. If we continue will are willing a path for our descendants of a short miserable life then extinction that the Chimps, have already taken.
@GoodScienceForYou 1 of 2 I am afraid I don't do anything that is wild. I only go with the absolutel irrefutable physical evidence and then look at that. I only make my conclusions based on that. It doesn't matter what you are anybody else thinks, what matter's is the God's truth. The truth is that we have been given a set of instruction to preserve the human genome, and humans ignor it, so they now have over 4500 degenerative diseases mapped and more are coming.
@GoodScienceForYou Humans have about 5000 known genetic defects and the fused chromosome is part of those defects. Chimps have about 160,000 genetic defects from where they started. If you allow genetic degradation to continue it will start to go almost logrithmic over time as one mutation feeds into new defects.
@GoodScienceForYou You need to show evidence for this perfect DNA you claim ever existed. Perfect for what environment? [citation required] If you can't you are just blowing farts and claiming it is the God's truth just like every other dogmatic fundamentalist. When I see you draw pretty pictures on your whiteboard you almost never cite your sources. When you do they are trying to tell you the exact opposite of what you claim they are saying. You're not a scientist. Not even an educated layman.
I don't understand. Which part of this "chromosome" means Jesus?
myqueensindel 2 weeks ago 3
Hahahah, the jig is up evo's. Let's recap on the video shall we, "If we don't find it then the case for common ancestry for our species might be refuted" Well guess what guys, it has been proven that the claims in this vid are wrong. No fusion took place, plus the so called fused chromosome corresponding in a chimp are completely different as are many chromosomes between chimp and man. And did you expect us to believe both a male and female had this fusion take place then they met and mated?
ian9toes 3 weeks ago
@ian9toes evidence for your statement?
megastratix 3 weeks ago
@ian9toes
It hasn't been proven that it's wrong because it isn't wrong. You may well have read that on some evangelist misinformation website but that hardly makes it true. But really I don't know why I'm surprised.
Vire70 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
procommenter 1 month ago
No man has a scintilla of insight about the Universe. “Scientists” who call themselves astronomers know not a tinker's cuss concerning space travel. They are but a nest of braggarts, liars, prevaricators, witch doctors & fabulists. Evolutionists aren't atheists, they're atheistic.
procommenter 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Humans, bar none, are worshipful/Spiritual Beings by design. Atheism is the denial of Spiritualism & metaphysics. Atheism is a vacation from reality enjoyed by slugs, nematodes, adders, animalcules & maggots as these Earthen life-forms are intellectually deficient, ergo incapable of contemplating & fathoming the heavens. Only Man finds it necessary to fabricate wild & weird postulations about uni-cellular critters evolving into mastodons.
procommenter 1 month ago
@procommenter NASA takes on only 1/10th of one billionth of the budget it cost to pay for the Iraq war. Space travel is happening right now and we have landed our probes on every planet and moon we said we would. We have gathered enough information to mine the moon for energy for our planet without any need to mine our own. We are very much into the progress and conservation of our Earth. It is the fundamentalist religious who seek to put a stop to it.
jessydaytime 1 month ago
@jessydaytime
➊["It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the Earth to the Moon, but to do this we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. Calculations have
procommenter 1 month ago
➋ been carefully worked out on the type of vehicle we would need for the non-stop flight from the Earth to the Moon and to return. The figures speak for themselves: Three rockets would be necessary, each rocket ship would be taller than the Empire State building (1,250 feet) and weigh about 10 times the tonnage of the "Queen Mary," or some 800,000 tons." -Werhner von Braun]
procommenter 1 month ago
@procommenter
You realize most of the flight from the Earth to Moon and back again is done via momentum, right? Most of the fuel is used to get out of the atmosphere, then a bit to accelerate and drift the rest of the way. The way you phrased that makes it sound like they did calculations for if you were firing rockets the entire way there.
Vire70 2 weeks ago
@procommenter Are you really that fucking stupid?
A little fact for you: there is no air resistance in space.
Newton's first law of motion explains everything perfectly clear. A spacecraft does not need constant acceleration.
I've seen plenty of stupid comments, but yours takes the piss.
Hellooo06 2 weeks ago
@Hellooo06 Sister are you on the rag? I quoted von Braun.
procommenter 1 week ago
@jessydaytime : N.A.S.A. (Never A Straight Answer) runs 2 programs: the dumbed-down one for the public and the high-tech one for the military.
procommenter 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@procommenter I love getting answers from people who actually think.
jessydaytime 1 month ago
ANYONE: If you see no reply to some posters below they know they are on ignore for things like gross obscenities, virulent insults, name calling, sometimes adding pages & pages & pages of monologue to a string to cover dissent & etc. Such evo vid watch dogs follow me & others around YT with such tactics. I am happy to respond to any of their points & tell what I feel is "the rest of the story" if made by anyone who is civil & objective. Those are the only people with whom I will debate.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
One of the rules of pointing out the obvious entails NOT smashing printed materials into the faces of the people being informed as Maryland (to Gen. Lee) was not exactly Laos (to Richard Nixon) in relation to North Vietnam nor reflective of the way Northern whites habitually sacrificed themselves for negroes throughout the 1860's on orders from Lincoln the melancholic.
SufferInJuly 1 month ago
ANYONE: If you see 0 response to some posters below they know they are on ignore for things like name calling, personal insults & sometimes worse. Some of those people follow me & others around YT, guard dogging evo vids with such tactics. If you care to make any of their same "points" I would be happy to tell what I feel is "the rest of the story." But I only debate as long as people are civil & objective. YT evo fans who stay like that are quite rare, but they do show up from time to time.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady
"But I only debate"
You are not debating. Debates imply logic, and the capacity to learn and understand
20K11 1 month ago
@hunterpeterson81095 You have followed the usual pattern of YT evo fans. Say nothing of a scientific nature. Don't even bother to address, much less debunk, any of the points made by the other poster. Embrace the logical fallacy of the strawman by doing the Bible Bash Dance instead. Have a personally insulting approach.
I only debate with those who are civil & objective (almost none of the evo-ites, at least not for long) & who actually debate. You're on ignore. BYE!
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady And from what I can tell, I think you are trying to say that there is no evidence that we evolved from apes. That the only evidence is a "paltry few fossils." No duh there are only a "paltry few fossils." The conditions needed for a specimen to fossilize are kinda hard to replicate over and over in nature. And even if a fossil is preserved, it is even more rare for the entire bone/bone structure to be fully intact. You can any of these things in a 9th graders biology book.
IzaakSchilkerspielz 1 month ago
@LoricaLady You see all those other responses disagreeing with you? Well, I'm just going to be another one of those. If humans are "over 90% similar" to apes genetically, then they are "over 90% similar." You can't look at it any other way. One slight variation in a gene can cause major physical or mental changes, so 10% can change many things.
IzaakSchilkerspielz 1 month ago
@IzaakSchilkerspielz You don't find out what is true by counting hands - particularly in a self perpetuating, politically correct, system that is self protective of orthodox opinions. Instead you learn to think for yourself & come out of the matrix. At one time all scientists, even Einstein, said the universe was eternal. Many of them ridiculed germ theory. The list goes on & one. I limit my time on YT by debating with the civil & objective only, so you are now on ignore. BYE!
LoricaLady 1 month ago
What a surprise. Every single comment is a response to another comment.
chrome00 1 month ago
and the your creationism is based of a fictional book, checkmate.
PariahTenshi 1 month ago
Comment removed
LoricaLady 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Of Chans: I respect ONLY the lovely Jacqui Chan...
SufferInJuly 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Truly, explaining the metaphysical world, as religion attempts to do, or the impossible position of "atheism" (which denies paranormality) as elitists are currently proffering to the masses, diverts the spotlight from the concrete issue: the master plan to consolidate all counterfeiting/central-fractional banking operations.
SufferInJuly 3 months ago
ANYONE: If you see no response to gorilla199 (and possibly newer posters who follow me - & others - around YT with verbal abuse) he knows he is on ignore for his extremely hate filled - and now I see also anit semetic - posts. Tho I would like to address what I feel are problems with logic and science and general disinformation, it is only possible to have a truly scientific debate with those who are civil & objective. (Praying for you to be filled with love,and for Jews,too, Gorilla.)
LoricaLady 4 months ago
@LoricaLady
Its not the number in and of itself that is the genetic evidence.
odinata 3 months ago 6
Cont. Chimps & tobacco both have 48 chromosomes. Snakes & worms wriggle on the ground. Bees, moths, bats & birds fly. Correlation Does Not Imply Causation. The 2nd logical fallacy being used is The Fallacy of The Incomplete Comparison. Ok there is a superficial number match. But what is inside the chromosomes of the humans and what is inside the chromosomes of the apes is extremely different. The usual evolutioinary sophistry & b.s. instead of evidence.
LoricaLady 4 months ago
@LoricaLady i needed a good laugh thanks
tilo430 4 months ago
@tilo430 You're very welcome. I get laughs out of evolution all the time - though sometimes I feel guilty about that as it is pretty sad the "science" they are pushing off on little children.
LoricaLady 4 months ago
@LoricaLady
" I get laughs out of evolution all the " where not so ignorant and stupid, you would know you are ignorant and stupid. You know you are wrong as you avoided the questions which you know prove evolution.
gorilla199uncensored 4 months ago
@LoricaLady
I like the way that you put "science" in quotes as if it is pretend science, when in reality, this is one of the strongest and well supported theories that science has come up with as of yet
You can laugh at science all you like, but at the end of the day, your god didn't create the monitor or the internet you're using
20K11 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@20K11 Evolution is indeed pretend science, even magical thinking. They find a fossil & tell you they know for a fact it is a transition even though they have 0 evidence whatsoever to show that it ever had any progeny significantly different from itself. Then they draw invisible lines to invisible dots to its invisible descendants' invisible descendants and tell you how they all reproduced. Pure b.s. They ignore the fossil record which actually shows abrupt appearance and stasis. They....
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@20K11 ...claim that mutations & natural selection led to climbs up Darwin's Tree of "Life" but if you check the evo lit to see any actual data to support that all you get are "probably....likely...millions of [conveniently untestable & unobservable] years ago...we infer...simulation...we propose a theory" There is plenty of evidence for speciation which the world knew about before Darwin. There is 0 evidence any species turns into or ever did turn into a new genus. Bacteria stay bacteria...
LoricaLady 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@20K11 ...people stay people, finches stay finches. They told you that fins turn into feet, scales into feathers, fish into tetrapods & tetrapods into birds. But the fossil record in countless billions show no such things, in fact just the opposite - 100% of each only, no inbetweeners. The best they can do is point to something like archaeopteryx and even many evolutionists say its just a bird & some evolutionary ornithologists say they don't even believe birds came from lizards. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@20K11 Cont. Then you can tell what the real issue is with most evolutionists because they are so vehement in their attacks about Diety & the Bible. If you want to talk about evo, if you say let's talk about science & logic, no, they want to switch the subject to religion - just as you did tho this vid does not address religion and neither did I. Another pattern you follow is not bothering to address the points I actually made, much less making any attempt to refute them. And btw...
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@20K11 ...the monitor & internet were created by intelligent design so your point is irrelevant. And just think, they aren't nearly as complex as a single strand of dna. You also follow the pattern of making generalizations, declaring that evo is "well supported" but you give no supports, only show...faith. Describe data showing that mutations or natural selection cause a new genus. They tetll you that. Show me you understand, don't just have faith, & give ev-i-dence, da-ta that its true.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady You know, you could have just said "God put fossils there as a test" and made this whole bullshit omnibus into a brief episode.
HoboProber 1 month ago
@HoboProber You have followed the usual pattern of YT evo fans: Say 0 of a scientific nature and certainly don't even address debunks made by the other poster regarding the vid. Try to switch the topic to religion. Be personally insulting. I hope you will learn how to do critical analysis, then some day you can maybe have a real debate based on science & logic. I only debate with those who debate & are civil & objective. You didn't & weren't. You're on ignore. BYE!
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady
Please watch the video. That is evidence for evolution in itself. If you are incapable of processing sensory data with your eyes, please complain to your nearest supervisor for processing
20K11 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@20K11 .additional fused chromosome. If it doesn't come from apes - & no one is claiming that it does, then why do we have to assume that the one in the vid does? They are telling you "Look! We see something & only evo can explain it." The truth is they can't explain where that fusion, or the other one came from & have no evidence for anything. 2) Incomplete Comparison Fallacy. 'Scuze me but the fusions that are fused are both human, not ape to human. Apes have chromosomes that...
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@20K11 ...are, for example, of a different size, frequency etc. And why do they keep talking about chimps? Not even evolutionists are claiming that we came from them. Oh, yeal, I forgot about the magical thinking. Somewhere back millions of years ago connect some kinds of invisible dots to invisible chromosomes that... 3) Correlation Does Not Imply Causationi Logical Fallacy. (This is their fave & evo can't live w/o it.) So what if the fusion of 2 HUMAN chromosomes makes a superficial...
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady
You stupid creatard care to explain why.
Chimps and us have the exact same missalignment in vitamin c producing DNA that makes it useless? LOL
gorilla199uncensored 1 month ago
@20K11 ...number match with chimps? Tobacco & chimps both have 48 chromosomes. Fish have "characteristics of" (one of their fave phrases) dolphins,, ditto birds/bats/bees & snakes & worms have "similar homology" (another of their fave phrases used to support this logical fallacy.) So what? Correlation Does Not Imply Causation. Evolution is based on speculation presented as evidence, sophistry, and one logical fallacy afer another. I hope you learn to see that but you're on ignore. BYE!
LoricaLady 1 month ago
Comment removed
tilo430 4 months ago
Comment removed
tilo430 4 months ago
@LoricaLady
"Chimps & tobacco both have 48 chromosomes."
Are you so stupid you cant even watch the video and understand what it said?
APPEARS SO! Or maybe just lying for your jew zombie!
"Ok there is a superficial number match"
Really?
Explain why humans and all the other great apes have the exact same defect in the vitamin d producing DNA so its useless?
Oh thats right you avoided that question before.
gorilla199uncensored 4 months ago
@gorilla199uncensored Although I agree that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming I think it is actually ascorbic acid (vitamin C) that we and other apes can not produce due to the same nonfunctional GLO gene. Not that it matters to LoricaLady what the evidence is. Arguing with her only gets you put on her bad boy list. Congratulations I see you are already there. LOL
foxlake02 3 months ago
@foxlake02 : There are species of bats that are incapable of producing ascorbic acid. Your monkeyed religion is atrophying.
SufferInJuly 3 months ago
@SufferInJuly There are other species like Guinea Pigs that do not produce ascorbic acid too. They are the result of different mutations. The cause for this in all apes is the same mutation. Coincidence? watch?v=SF2N2lbb3dk
foxlake02 3 months ago
@foxlake02 : No one knows. These things are relegated to conjecture.
SufferInJuly 3 months ago
@SufferInJuly It is not proof but, with other evidence, there is no reasonable doubt that we are part of a clade referred to as apes and that we are related to the other extant apes having a common ancestor.
foxlake02 3 months ago
@foxlake02 : Heidelberg Man, Iowa Man, Orce Man? This sort of "proof"?
SufferInJuly 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SufferInJuly I find it interesting that creationists will always look at the fossil record and ask for more transitions if evolution was true. They also argue that modern speciation events like ring species all over the world do not show enough variation. Then they say the nested hierarchy that molecular biology shows just shows common design. I get the feeling it wouldn't matter how much evidence you showed them.
foxlake02 3 months ago
@SufferInJuly Homo Heidelbergensis is a legitimate fossil thought to be a possible direct ancestor. Orce Man was misidentified but paleontologists quickly corrected the mistake during peer review (science works). Did you pull Iowa Man out of your ass? Why not mention Piltdown Man? From the outset, there were scientists who expressed skepticism about this find but it took them several years to definitively say it was a hoax. More evidence is being discovered each year. How much would it take?
foxlake02 3 months ago
@foxlake02 : Discover your inner-woman.
SufferInJuly 3 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Evolutionary THEORY is without evidence as there's no evidence to be had. Adaptations (mainly mutations) from long-extinct creatures are exaggerated and lied about consensually and presented as irrefutable proof. I remember the imminent ice age of the early 1970's {global cooling} that was being caused by the greenhouse effect acting as a blanket to block the sun's warming rays.
SufferInJuly 3 months ago
@SufferInJuly "Evolutionary THEORY is without evidence" It's obvious from that statement you know nothing about science. Theories explain evidence. It is a well established theory. Then you go on a tangent about a controversy the popular press hyped up. Nice way to round out a perfectly stupid post. HA HA HA HA
foxlake02 3 months ago 19
@SufferInJuly
Theories in science are generally accepted facts. The word theory does not share its usage with the general english language in science
Ill borrow a little from XKCD here
Say you catch a potentially fatal illness. Do you want to be treated for the original illness as it was 50 years ago, or do you want to treat the multi drug resistant form that has evolved from that original form? Feel free to pick, but one of the options will kill you
20K11 1 month ago 2
@SufferInJuly If you think evolution is a theory, go jump off a bridge and test the theory of gravity.
TicTacJoe134 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This generation of college-educated nitwits can't place a decimal point or properly utilize this sign: ¢, and they pluralize all words with apostrophe-s.
SufferInJuly 3 months ago
@gorilla199uncensored
Vitamin C
Chicxulub65M 1 month ago
@LoricaLady Yup, what is inside the human and ape chromosomes is so different that we are over 90% similar, genetically. You are right that in and of itself, having 48 chromosomes may not be too big of a deal, but when we are able to point out a point of fusion between two chromosomes and can accurately identify them and confirm which chromosomes they would be in ape DNA, that serves as a big indicator for evolution, as if the act of chromosome fusion wasn't indicative enough.
PukaMan 1 month ago
@PukaMan The use of the words "over 90% similar" depends on how you look at the data. If you put a chimp into a kindergarten class no way is it's academic "performance" going to be 90% similar to that of the average child, nor will that average child have 90% of the physical abilities of the chimp. "Similar" is again using the correlation does not imply causaiton logical fallacy. They are not ape chromosomes that are fused. They are human chromsomes only. "Big indicator for evolution.." Cont
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@PukaMan "They are an indicator for evolution." They are pure speculation about evolution being presented as Gawd's truth. "Indicator...likely...possibly...we can infer..." are evo buzz words. If that fusion shows ape ancestry, which it does not, then where did the other fusion that the other people have come from? Why are you so sure one fusion came from apes while you can't show the 2nd one did? "Confirm which chromosomes they would in in..." I'd like you to search, find & report data...
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@PukaMan ...in evo lit, prior to the discovery of the fusion, that shows they "predicted" the fusion. They like to give the impression that they had predicted it before it was found, but I don't buy it. However, if you see some evidence for that, tell where to find it on Google.
Of course there is some similarity between apes & humans. But: Correlation Does Not Imply Causation, Fallacy of the Single Cause, Fallacy of Incomplete Comparison. Science can't rest on logical fallacies.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@PukaMan Cont. There is also 0 fossil evidence showing we came from apes. There is not 1 "transitional" form that gets universal agreement amongst evolutionists (not that I take their words for anything.) All they have are a paltry few fossils, often fragmentary. They weave magical stories about how those fossils; invisible descendants' invisible descendants reproduced in the invisible past. That ain't science. Speculation, as with Chrom. 2, & fossils,presented as evidence = pseudo science.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady The hilarious thing is that you claim to want a civil and logical debate yet you "won't take the words of scientists for anything." You can't have a civil and logical debate if you remain closed to what your opposition says. There's no point in debating with people like you. I leave you with this question: If fossils, genetics, etc. are not evidence for common ancestry between humans and apes, then where do humans come from?
PukaMan 1 month ago
@PukaMan How can I be "closed to what the oppositon" says when I have obviously listened to and examined their positions in detail? What you mean by "closed" is that I don't swallow what you believe but have a different opinion - which by the way I defend using science & logic. Asking "Where do humans come from" is based on the Fallacy of the Single Cause logical fallacy, i.e. you are trying to say, "If you can't explain it with some other theory then by default evo has to win." Bull...
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady "If you can't explain it with some other theory then by default evo has to win"
And which other theory would it be that better explains the origin of humans? You're looking at gaps in a theory and saying that because there are gaps, it must be wrong. I hope you attack other theories like gravity, atomic theory, kinetic-molecular theory, etc. with the same fervor, because no theory is absolute, or gap-free. There would be no point to scientific research, then.
PukaMan 1 month ago
@PukaMan Evolutionists frequenlty use the equivocatioin logical fallacy with the word "science" & try to lump evo in with things like gravity, aerodynamics, dentistry, whatever. They say, "You accept those sciences, don't you? Then you should accept evolution." Bull. All of those other things are testable, observable & repeatable & 0 in evo is. That's why after over 150 years of them desperately trying to prove it's true it's still just a theory. It's not a matter of gaps in evidence...
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady Thank you for proving your bias, and your lack of understanding of the scientific method. Look up what a theory means in scientific terminology sometime, and you'll realize, the fact that it's been a theory for that long is actually amazing. Also, I wasn't asking if you accepted other theories, I was asking if you realized that there are gaps in them as well. You also still have yet to provide an alternative that better explains things than evolution.
PukaMan 1 month ago
@PukaMan Where did Darwin ever employ the scientific method? What experiments did he use, for ex.? Mendell used the scientific method. He did innumerable experiments and took copious notes. Therefore what he had to offer is not considered simply a theory. There was a theory that the universe was eternal for countless ages - even Einstein believed that at one time. Your statement that something being a theory for a long time makes it more valid doesn't hold up. No, I don't have to provide..
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@PukaMan ...an alternative - tho there is one that is based on what is observable, testable & repeatable, unlike evo which never is. In a paternity case you can determine that so & so is not the father, in this case Mr. Evo, but if you can't show who the real father is,that doesn't mean Mr. Evo gets to win by default & take baby Organic Life home. 2nd, the alternative theory is intelligent design. I know, you're going to say i.d. has been debunked. Let's look at some of those "debunks."
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@PukaMan ...Kenneth MIller, a world famous evo evangelist, tells us Behe's ex. of a mousetrap is not irreducibly complex, as Behe says, therefore is not intelligently designed. How does he "show" that? He mangles a mousetrap & tells us it will still catch "really stupid mice." In one presentation I saw him even saying the coil & a piece of cheese alone will do! As usual with evo, it is all theory & 0 evidence as we never see any dead mice. You wouldn't buy his mangled trap for a penny...
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@PukaMan ...Then he clips the mousetrap to his tie & that's supposed to be a debunk too. 'Scuze me but the clip holding the tie in place was made by hi tech macines & - uh oh - i.d. Not to mention he uses i.d. and fingers to put it in place. Then he "debunks" the i.c. of the human blood clotting system, another of Behe's examples. Does he show us a single human who has missing parts of that system who is still doing fine? No, he flashes up pictures of a puffer fish & a dolphin! Not even...
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@PukaMan ...evolutionists say we are related to them. You're calling this science? Then Behe gives the ex. of i.c. in the flagellum. He says it won't work unless all its parts are in place. But the evolutionists take his argument and use a strawman logical fallacy. That is, they switch the actual topic to something else, saying that some of the parts have different functions, "co option" "dual purpose." Do they show a flagellum that has missing parts that functions just as well? Cont.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@PukaMan ...Of course not. They have switched the topic to what it never was. Then they show us simpler bacteria. With, as always, not actual evidence, they tell us, "Well! Look at those simpler bugs. Obviously the flagellum evolved from them." All of this "happened" in the conveniently unobservable, untestable "millions" of years ago in the magical realm of theory land. They ignore the fact that the simpler bugs perform different functions & have different niches & show no evidence of...
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@PukaMan ...having been anything else. Google the flagellar whip & motor. That nano technology rotary motor & whip need each other or they are both useless. Evo cannot predict the future. While each is "evolving" over the aeons, how & why would evo drive each to perfection? What "co option" or "dual purpose" could either have? What possible use could either have until both are fully connected and fully functional?
Please don't evade those Qs as is standard for evo-ites. Answer them....
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@PukaMan ...Although you will probably be put on the ignore list soon as you are using the typical evo fan insultilng approach, i.e. "your bias...your lack of understanding." Even with a warning, even after asking for a 2nd chance, YT evo fans who "go there" will repeat and the insults will increase. I debate with those who are civil & objective only. Can you answer my Qs & not be insulting or profane? If so, you'll be quite unusual. If not this exchange is practically over already.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@PukaMan Cont. Oh, I see glancing back over the older posts that you followed my prediction at that time. You evaded my Qs and you insulted me. My prediction is that you will evade my newest Qs, insult me again, & this exchange will be over. But prove me wrong if you can.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady And you followed my prediction as well, by showing that you have a poor understanding of the theory of evolution, and even more, a poor understanding of science and the scientific method. You attack evolution without presenting your own answers. Is this because you know your alternative is baseless? It is not meant to be insulting when I say that you have a poor understanding. It is merely a fact based on my observation. You just want people to agree with you.
PukaMan 1 month ago
@PukaMan As predicted again. "You have a poor understanding." Oh dear, just think, with your superioir understanding you could have answered at least 1 of my Qs & enlightened me. But you evaded them all. How unkind of you. Just between you and the mirror you need to admit to yourself that you didn't have a clue how to respond, since evo can't answer those Qs. You are now on ignore. Learn cirtical thinking & logical fallacies, seriously study both sides & get out of the matrix. BYE!
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady What's the point? I already know I'm not going to sway your opinion on anything. What both sides are you talking about, by the way? Is there a better scientific explanation? You accuse me of attacking, when all you've done is attack the opposing stance without backing your own. How can you not see this hypocrisy?
PukaMan 1 month ago
@PukaMan I gave you several examples of irreducible complexity and why the debunks of them were bogus. Irreducible complexity makes evo impossible. It indicates that either the life forms somehow popped into being on their own or that they came about by Something Or Someone not fitting into standard natural explanations for how things happen. Didn't you see that? You can call it Zeus or YHWH or the flying spaghetti monster. Or pretend it doesn't exist. "What's the point?" indeed. Finis.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady Ah Irreducible Complexity, termed by Michael Behe, who admitted that by his definition of science, astrology would be considered a science.If you're talking about the flagellum, take away 40 of the 50 components that make up the flagellum, and you have a Type-III Secretory system. K_HVrjKcvrU. How do you feel about non-structural floating hipbones insome whales and snakes? They don't serve a structural purpose, but they are there. Or our fused tailbones?
PukaMan 1 month ago
@PukaMan I heard Behe's comment about astrology & it didn't seem like that was what he was saying. Your comments are ad hominem & strawman logical fallacies.. Either the flagellum can function w/o all its parts or it cannot. It cannot. Neither can the human blood clotting mechanism. We don't have "fused tailbones." We have no tailbones. There is no structure in our bodies suited for tails. The word "tail" is figurative as in the phrase "tail pipe." The "non structural floating hipbones"...
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady No, Behe admitted to that in a court of law. That's a fact. Look up what the coccyx is if you don't think we have a tailbone. Along with the muscles that are functional and used for locomtion that are attached to it, there are also atrophied muscles that would be used to move our tail, except for the fact that it is now fused and immobile. Why would we have those muscles in the first place? Are we so irreducibly complex that we have pointless muscle attachments?
PukaMan 1 month ago
@PukaMan I have already given the logical fallacies you are using re Behe. Btw a court of law, with a non science trained judge (or even a science trained one) is not the place for determing what is science & what is not. That politically appointed judge (I don't care if he was a Republican - or a Democrat - as they are all pretty much the same) had no right to tell others what "science" was yet got away with doing so. Here is another Q that you will completely evade: Tell me where....
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@PukaMan there is a Google link that shows we have "atrophied muscsles that would be used to move our tail." Be sure and get some kind of words from a scientists now, one who understands human anatomy. While you are at it, find an article by a scientist who says "we have pointless muscle attachments." After all, you said, "Think like a scientist." Think like a scientist & start answering my growing list of Qs instead of evading them. "If we fully understood..." Think like a scientist...
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@PukaMan ...is just more b.s. "Non functional" means they don't yet know the purpose, but they are sure that invisible millions of years ago something "evolved." It's like when they didn't yet understand the function of the tonsils & appendicitis & told us with no data whatsoever - just as with the whales - that they knew where they came from & that they were useless vestigial organs left over from earlier "evolution". Now we have found they are useful immunologically. You still haven't...
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady The same argument could be said about systems we don't fully understand, and it's another example of your hypocrisy. If we fully understood everything in science, then we wouldn't be putting so much effort into research in so many fields. Science isn't about knowing everything. It's about explaining things to the best of our current and ever-increasing knowledge of the natural world. That is why irreducible complexity fails. Think like a scientist when talking science.
PukaMan 1 month ago
@PukaMan Cont. When people are really thinking like scientists they don't call dataless speculation "evidence". They don't use logical fallacies. More Qs for you to avoid. When did Darwin ever act like a scientist? When did he use the scientific method? He only make some nature observations & wrote a book FALSELY claiming to show the origin of species. His degree was in theology. Yet he is an icon to evolutionists because, like him, they have 0 that is real science either.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@PukaMan "If we fully understood. Science isn't about knowing everying...explaining...to the best of our current...knowledge" isn't A-ing the Qs I gave you but are tacit admissions that "science", really evolution, doesn't have any A. to the Qs I gave you. Irreducible complexity has data. Unlike evo, it's observable, testable & repeatable. It doesn't need excuses. It needs admission that the Qs I asked about it cannot possibly be answered by evolution. It needs honest admission its there.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@PukaMan "It's another example of your hypocrisy." As I said, give a YT evo-ite a 2nd chance and they will always go back to the insult mode. You're now permanently on the ignore list. Please take your own advice though and learn to think like a scientist. Start by asking yourself why you are calling someone a hypocrite when you can only evade perfectly reasonable & logical scientific Qs. Fiinis.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@PukaMan P.S. Btw you weren't a fraction as insulting as most YT evo fans & you didn't do the irrelevant Bible Bash Dance. Good for you on that. But I'm still finished with debating you because, again, the insults escalate over time & really you aren't debating, just stating - stating this & that which you have heard here & there & which you have not yet learned to critically analyze & cross research. If you want to keep thinking your great etc. granny was an ape tho, don't look elsewhere.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady Seriously, you are a superstitious brain dead freak.
truvelocity 1 month ago
@LoricaLady My great granny was not an ape, and the theory of evolution does not state that she would be. This is why you're not being taken seriously.
PukaMan 1 month ago
ANYONE: If you see 0 reply to any posters below they know they are on ignore for things like name calling, personal insults, sometimes gross obscenities, sometimes filling up pages & pages & pages of a string with monologue & sometimes worse. Some are evo vid guard dogs following me & others around YT with those tactics. If you feel a valid point has been made & want to restate it I will be happy to tell what I feel is "the rest of the story." But I only debate with the civil & objective.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady So you want to debate with the civil and objective, but you're not open to being criticized for making innacurate statements about something you hold a stance against. Sorry, but how can you ask people to be civil and objective yourself fail to be? I will not respond kindly to argumentum ad ignorantiam, whether intentional or not.
PukaMan 1 month ago
@PukaMan Lorica preaches but has people coming back with information that is way over her/his head. Once Lorica is aruging with someone who is way out of Lorica's league, Lorica does the ANYONE post and bails out.
jessydaytime 1 month ago
@PukaMan ...explained what use, what "co option" that whip & that rotary motor would have until they're fully developed & fully connected & why & how evo would leave them in limbo until then. You haven't explained how puffer fish & dolphin blood clotting mechanims show ours aren't i.c., how 2 fused HUMAN chromosomes show any ape to human anything, why 1 kind of fusion is said to be from apes & the other not, or any DATA mutations & natural selection lead to a new genus. Don't evade,enlighten me!
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady Shut the FUCK UP, you mangy complaining idiotic parroting copy and pasting FUCKING TROLL!!! SHUT UP!
truvelocity 1 month ago
@PukaMan When will that Maximus troll under the name Lorica shut the FUCK UP!!! Talk about brain dead! No one in their right mind would even sit next to this person if they opened their flap and farted out all of this nonsense. Seriously, when will this person just off themselves. No one would miss this person. NO ONE.
truvelocity 1 month ago
@PukaMan ...it's a matter of there being 0 evidence whatsoever, just speculation presented as evidence piled ontop of logical fallacies & sophistry. They say mutations & natural selection are what drive evo. Great. Give 1 ex. and cite the data that shows that they can lead to anything higher than speciation, i.e. a new genus. W/o that new genus, no "Tree of Life" climb, no evo. "Might have...likely...millioins of unobservable years ago...we infer...simulation" aren't data or evidence btw.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@PukaMan Cont. If you were a Judge & Lawyer A said, "Your honor baby Organic Life was fathered by Mr. Evo" & I said, "I have evidence to show Mr. Evo could never have fathered the baby," would you turn to me & say, "If you can't show who the real father is, then Mr. Evo gets to take the baby home." I hope not! I never said I won't take the words of scientists for anything. I have learned not to trust evolutionists. When the science is testable, observable & repeatable - real science like...
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@PukaMan ...that shown by Mendell who took meticulous notes & used the scientific method - not like with Darwin who never showed any origin of anything & used no science but only armchair theorizing - then I'm quite attentive. Stick to real science. Tell me how Chrom. 2 came from ape chromosomes when the fusion involves human chromosomes. I don't care if they are "similar" top that of apes, they are 100% human chromosomes. Tell me why that extra fusion from about 1 in 1000 folk isn't...
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@PukaMan ...mentioned by the evolutionists. Tell me why we should assume 1 fusion came from apes yet not the other. And since evo says mutations & natural selection lead to evo, show me any evidence anywhere they can take a species to a new genus. Not "probably...maybe...millions of untestable & conveniently unobservable years ago...likely...we propose a model...we infer..." but actual DATA. Waiting for the answers to those Qs. If you are like most YT evo-ites you will evade them & insult me.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady
The number of chromosomes in a human is 47, the number of chromosomes in a chimp is 48. What has been proved is that of our 47, one is actually a fusion of two other chromosomes. I'm not sure why an intelligent design god would do this
20K11 1 month ago
The whole argument on human chromosome 2 is based as evolution always is, on logical fallacies. The 1st one is Correlation Does NOT Imply Causation. Yes, we have a fused chromosome and yes that causes a sort of number match with chimps. But the evolutionists never mention that about 1 in 1000 people have an additional fused chromosome. In fact it is not uncommon for animals to have them. Why don't they mention the 2nd fusion some people have? Becauseit it doesn't match up with apes. Cont.
LoricaLady 4 months ago
@CaffeinatedThinking Mated or not mated with neanderthals does not matter. The important thing is that humans did not evolve from neanderthals contrary to what experts thought before Krings et al studies. There is no evidence that we share common ancestor. It is just speculation based on rate of mtDNA mutations which is not known well. There is no mtDNA evidence extracted from non existent ape-like common ancestor. So, it is possible that humans did not evolve from so called great apes.
daogdaog 4 months ago
@CaffeinatedThinking countless of sources. Try to search "Krings mtDNA" for example
daogdaog 4 months ago
@CaffeinatedThinking Krings et al studies showed that humans did not evolve from chimps or neanderthals. According to other studies humans did not evolve from orangutans or gorillas. There is no mtDNA evidence humans-chimps or humans-neanderthals because the ape-like common ancestor is nowhere to be found.
daogdaog 4 months ago
Fusion did not happen. There are approximately 150,000 base pairs of sequence not found in chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B
daogdaog 5 months ago
The number of chromosomes will not determine whether a creature will end up a human or a chimp. It is the sequence of code in the DNA strand that matters. It has been proven using mtDNA that humans did not evolve from apes or neanderthals. There is no mtDNA evidence linking the so called ape-like common ancestor.
daogdaog 5 months ago
50,000 American soldiers have succumbed to "Gulf War Syndrome" as a result of being deliberately exposed to neurological/radiological-toxins by the U.S. govt. (or what passes for it). As for the dispensation of Americans who participated in the slaughter over there: it's of paramount importance that they be tried, adjudicated & summarily executed, as prescribed by the citizen-juries of Iraq.
LovingKimiKatkar 6 months ago
America's soldiers are humanitarians with high-powered rifles, cluster bombs and rocket launchers who deliver nerve gas, lollipops, depleted uranium, cholera, teddy bears and bottles of water to the beleaguered citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan.
LovingKimiKatkar 6 months ago
Cancer has no religious meaning. It is not part of a test. It does not make you better, stronger, compassionate, wiser. Cancer sufferers are not soldiers in a war. No one battles cancer any more than one battles scurvy, pellagra, beriberi, pernicious anemia, night blindness as these are vitamin-deficiency diseases.
LovingKimiKatkar 6 months ago
Cancer is not Spiritual. Praying for a cure is as meaningless as is substituting prayer for water. Prayer will not slake your thirst. Given enough time anyone & everyone who substitutes prayer for water will die of thirst.
LovingKimiKatkar 6 months ago
Lol he says:"testable" while it only has been observed! XD
Jazzel93 6 months ago
A creature shares musculoskeletal traits with an otherwise dissimilar creature and BINGO—common ancestor! There's no proof, of course, but one must never underestimate the power of grant money. Eventually a sliver of bone will be found and a species will be created (not re-created, as it never existed) by the those talented, university-trained artisans who have an expertise in plaster of Paris, Papier-mâché & acrylic paint.
LovingKimiKatkar 7 months ago
@LovingKimiKatkar So why do biologists almost universally around the world accept the theory of evolution as a valid explanation for the diversity of life on earth? Eastern and western, democracies and communist, wealthy and poor, the real scientists that actually have studied the subject and do the research all find that the evidence is overwhelming in support of descent with modification. It's not slivers of bone. These days it's truck loads of fossils confirming the DNA evidence.
foxlake02 7 months ago
@foxlake02 : Radio- & chemiatric therapies are used against cancer. They don't work.
LovingKimiKatkar 7 months ago
@LovingKimiKatkar Okay, thanks for that info
I guess
foxlake02 7 months ago
grounds, guess, guesswork, hunch, idea, ideology, impression, method, outlook, philosophy, plan, position, postulate, premise, presentiment, presumption, proposal, provision, rational, scheme, speculation, supposal, suppose, supposition, surmise, suspicion, system, systemization, theorem, thesis, understanding
LovingKimiKatkar 7 months ago
On page 723 of "Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus in Dictionary Form," Edited by the Princeton Language Institute, Barbara Ann Kipfer, Ph.D., Head Lexicographer (1993) ...we find the synonyms for: THEORY [n] hypothesis, belief -- approach, argument, assumption, base, basis, belief, code, codification, concept, conditions, conjecture, doctrine, dogma, feeling, formularization, foundation,
LovingKimiKatkar 7 months ago
@LovingKimiKatkar In modern science (that is what we are discussing) the term "theory", is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, verify, and challenge (or "falsify") it. You play word games when you use the layman definition for it.
foxlake02 7 months ago
@foxlake02 : Nonsense. THEORY is not FACT in anyone's book. I deferred to Princeton Language Institute. Evolutionism is not science (knowledge) by definition. Evolutionism is a hoax.
LovingKimiKatkar 7 months ago
@LovingKimiKatkar Now you are starting to get it. Theories are not fact. They are the best explanation for empirical evidence. If you have a better one submit it for peer review. No one is stopping you. People who reject the theory because of interpretation of religious dogma are not using good science and should not be scientists. Dogma is not fact in anyone's book. Evolution is a fact and a theory. Look up "ring species".
foxlake02 7 months ago
@LovingKimiKatkar That's a lot of big words. Do you understand them all? How about theorem, thesis, understanding? I think you actually made my point.
foxlake02 7 months ago
IN THE PROCESSING OF EVOLUTION one must have patience as the evolutionary process takes billions of years. People who work in universities say so. Before being hired as "people who work in universities" they are questioned about the evolutionary process. They agree with their interviewer that it takes billions of years. The interviewed and the interviewers are frustrated by how long the evolutionary process takes, which by the way is billions of years.
LovingKimiKatkar 7 months ago
THE BRAVERY OF MARINES AND THEIR BUNKIES—If you participated in the carnage in Afghanistan, Iraq, or any number of places around the planet, then you MUST be tried for murder, and publicly executed (by hanging) upon conviction. I will, if requested to, put the rope about your neck. American soldiers are nightly brutalizing, ravishing & ritualistically slaughtering Iraqi women & children in house-to-house sweeps.
LovingKimiKatkar 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LovingKimiKatkar So you don't have an argument for your assertion that there is no evidence for biological evolution?
foxlake02 7 months ago
@LovingKimiKatkar
OOOH your other channel got banned :(
gorilla199uncensored 6 months ago
Chihuahuas & evolutionism: Evolved logic dictates that if for the next million years many Chihuahuas are routinely lobbed to their deaths from cliffs eventually (the key word) some will develop the type of evolved webbing that allows flying squirrels to glide & land safely. It's true. Everyone who understands the way evolution works understands that.
TheWorldFarOff 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
youtube.com/watch?v=spuZtAa80qI&lc
GoodScienceForYou 7 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
youtube.com/watch?v=emPINOUlfnE
GoodScienceForYou 7 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge."
GoodScienceForYou 7 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Evolution: "that theory which sees in the history of all things organic and inorganic a development from simplicity to complexity, a gradual advance from a simple or rudimentary condition to one that is more complex and of a higher character." Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language.
There is absolutely zero evidence of this ever taking place in biology.
GoodScienceForYou 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GSFY "There is absolutely zero evidence of this ever taking place in biology." More nonsense. Send people to your video that claimed scientists date fossils directly watch?v=8s2U7EsJ1QQ
Or perhaps the video in which you claimed that the fusion of human chromosome #2 NEVER happened (you removed it from your channel, but that's ok - I have a copy) /watch?v=29e8brRBEVI
Of course if people want to see an overview of your body of knowledge, they can watch my video: watch?v=K9m3f0RdGBs
AlanCFA 7 months ago
Nobody wants to realize they are fools to believe in Evodelusionism, but they are. I just can't understand how anyone can be that stupid. My father taught me much different. He taught me that; "people are full of agendas and you should never believe them until you have real evidence and repeatable evidence that is shown to be true."
GoodScienceForYou 7 months ago
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
Carl Sagan
"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." and "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." 'Albert Einstein
GoodScienceForYou 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ANYONE: If you see 0 reply to some posters they know they are on ignore for: name calling, personal insults, false accusations of lying, open calls to hide my posts and in the case of Foxlake & Brospec, sexual harrassment. Some of them have followed me (& others) around YT for 2 yrs with such tactics. I am happy to debate with those who are civil and objective. Only.
LoricaLady 7 months ago
Cont. (2) Incomplete Comparison Logical Fallacy. Yes the fused chromosome makes a number match with chimps, but what is inside the ape & human chromosomes is not the same. (3) Fallacy of the Single Cause, i.e. "And only evolution can explain this!" Again, the additional fused chromosome that people (& numerous animals) can have makes no number match with chimps, but there it is. Obviously fusions can happen with zero need to refer to "ape ancestry."
LoricaLady 7 months ago
This whole spiell about chromosome fusion is built upon logical fallacies as evolution always is. These are: (1) Correlation Does Not Imply Causation. Yes, there is a number match between apes & people. There are many odd matches in nature. Chimps & tobacco both have 48 chromosomes. Birds & butterflies have wings. Snakes & worms slither. Etc. Again, some people have an additional fused chromosome, but evolutionists don't mention it since it makes no superficial match with apes. Cont.
LoricaLady 7 months ago
— Dear Children: Focus on foci, on marks & markings that mar gynecology till the small rims & ridges shed their crusts and labial concerns no longer include the stuff that makes bread rise and wine marketable. Let's put our tarot cards away to battle the dimmest religious zealots of planet Earth: the animalic "atheists" whose ghetto culture is pro-eugenics.
procommenter 7 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou You say you like REAL science. Now 2 times you have told me that chimps were once humans. But though I have asked for something for research to back that up, you have not given me anything. If we believe in something that has no evidence then we are acting on faith.
LoricaLady 7 months ago
@LoricaLady This video is a good one for information on the Genetics that ties us to chimps. DNA is absolutely irrefutable evidence of genetic degradation as shown in many of the scriptures and DNA says the same thing.
ERV's are too close to be anything but a connection 94.6 to 98% the same DNA patterns between humans and chimps. Where chimps were naturally found was originally hot with radiation one of the fastest gene degrading phenomenon. The chromosome 2 is the other part. It all fits.
GoodScienceForYou 7 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou That;s not science you have offered, only some pretty wild speculation. Some people have an extra fused chromosome. There is no evidence it came from apes, just as there is no evidence the usual chromosome fusion came from apes. Fusions happen in nature. All this vid has is the Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy, the Fallacy of The Single Cause & the Incomplete Comparison logical fallacy. You can't build science on wild speculation and logical fallacies.
LoricaLady 7 months ago
@LoricaLady Listen; I am against this idea of evolution, because it has never happened. There is only genetic degradation shown in the ALL the physical evidence. The physical evidence clearly shows that chimps and humans came from a common ancestor. If you don't understand it then study it as I have. Denying absolutely clear physical evidence is not something that I do. I study it and see how it fits in with the whole picture. It is all three, Chromosomes, DNA, ERV's and the creatures.
GoodScienceForYou 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GoodScienceForYou @LoricaLady
This exchange should be called Dumb and Dumber!
hahahaha
foxlake02 7 months ago 2
@LoricaLady 2 of 2. The genetic similarity, plus the only explainable by a genetic tie ERV's say the same thing that all other creatures show. DNA only shows genetic degradation from a much higher condition of fitness. Humans started out "perfect" in design and by the process of self delusions humans have managed to screw up the species pretty well. If we continue will are willing a path for our descendants of a short miserable life then extinction that the Chimps, have already taken.
GoodScienceForYou 7 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou 1 of 2 I am afraid I don't do anything that is wild. I only go with the absolutel irrefutable physical evidence and then look at that. I only make my conclusions based on that. It doesn't matter what you are anybody else thinks, what matter's is the God's truth. The truth is that we have been given a set of instruction to preserve the human genome, and humans ignor it, so they now have over 4500 degenerative diseases mapped and more are coming.
GoodScienceForYou 7 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou Humans have about 5000 known genetic defects and the fused chromosome is part of those defects. Chimps have about 160,000 genetic defects from where they started. If you allow genetic degradation to continue it will start to go almost logrithmic over time as one mutation feeds into new defects.
GoodScienceForYou 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GoodScienceForYou You need to show evidence for this perfect DNA you claim ever existed. Perfect for what environment? [citation required] If you can't you are just blowing farts and claiming it is the God's truth just like every other dogmatic fundamentalist. When I see you draw pretty pictures on your whiteboard you almost never cite your sources. When you do they are trying to tell you the exact opposite of what you claim they are saying. You're not a scientist. Not even an educated layman.
foxlake02 7 months ago