wikipedia : ERVs are sequences in the genome THOUGHT to be derived from ancient viral infections. Endogenous retroviruses MAY BE a variant of a retrovirus. THOUGHT and MAY BE suddenly become irrefutable evidence? New studies suggest that those sequence so called ERV actually aid during transcription. Even now biologists still unable to decipher so many segments in DNA. How can they be so sure about something they dont know much about? Genes only make up around 1.5% of the genome.
@saiyanmage Even if it is not from wikipedia. How else would you describe it? You will still describe it the way wikipedia described it, that ERVs are sequences in the genome THOUGHT to be derived from ancient viral infections.
@daogdaog Read what you just wrote and just for a moment, pretend your not anti-evolution, and see how desperate you are. You point out words like 'thought' and 'may be' to criticize, and then use a similar word: new studies 'suggest'. Chromosome fusion and erv's are not shaky biology. Your words are that biologist are too sure about something because they dont know enough about dna. genetic biologists are very positive of how to sequence the genome. Using a 1.5% number doesnt change facts.
@Johnf85 Having sequenced a human genome does not mean the sequence is understood. In fact there is so much in human genome sequences that are still not understood. The phrase "mapped the human genome" is actually misleading. Ask any biologist so that you will know that only a small percentage of a human genome is well understood. Do you even know that there are no fossil evidence a human-chimp common ancestor? A common ancestor is just a speculative concept based on rate of mtDNA mutation.
@flatpicker1234 [So... Maybe a silly question.... Couldn't they have just been created that way ? Makes sense to me. They were created with common genes.]
@flatpicker1234 Maybe if the creator wants to trick everybody. YOUR genome contains this virus. So either a creator just put all the same viruses in you as a suspiciously similar group of species (actually cousins) all the way back to a random origin (actually a common ancestor who originally got infected). If you get aids, it will transcribe into your dna and you will pass it to your kids. Its not "created with common genes" in that a creator just put it there. your right its a silly question
mate ERV's clearly stands for Emergency Rendez Vous, clearly ( you'll know what I'm talking about if you've read Andy McKnab books and are familiar with military language) :D I kid of course, great video, thanks a lot.
mate ERV's clearly stands for Emergency Rendez Vous, clearly ( you'll know what I'm talking about if you've read Andy McKnab books and are familiar with military language) :D I kid of course, great video, thanks a lot.
Why are humans so much more intelligent than orangutans if they existed much before us? Or why aren't chimps as developed or even close to our intelligence?
@JAKEHARRIS281 :"Why are humans so much more intelligent than orangutans if they existed much before us?" this question doesn't make sense, we should expect the later ones to be more advanced than the prior, like a phone of today should be better than ones in 1970s.
"Or why aren't chimps as developed or even close to our intelligence?" Because with their intelligence they fit in very well with their habitat in the jungle and there is not much evolutionary pressure to evolve.
@JAKEHARRIS281 :Who do you should beware of more, the dumb ones or the smart ones? You sell fruits,who is your competitor?The fashion shop or the other fruit shop?We more similarity we share with other apes, the greater the competition. In fact, Netherlands were close to our intelligence, but because they ate the same foods and threatened us so we eradicated them, not the harmless chimps deep in the jungle.That's why there is nothing close to us now, we directly or indirectly killed them all.
It is only the belief in Evodelusionism religion that forces itself on the evidence. There is no evidence for any common ancestor, but there is clear evidence of interbreeding of humans and animals to produce the Chimp. ERV's can only be transmitted by sexual contact, breeding. It is literally impossible for chimps to be as close as they are to humans any other way. The divergence from some fantasy common ancestor would cause them to be far different. The closeness to humans is fact.
GSFY - when are you going to make a video about your claim that humans mated with gorillas to produce chimps and then with the chimps to produce Neanderthals, and all less than 4,000 years ago - over 500 years after the building of the pyramids! Come on Jimmy, you're bound to win the Golden Crocoduck with that!
@AlanCFA – but don't you think he'd have more luck mating with a chimp and proving his notion that it would produce a Neanderthal? I was tempted to make a remark about cruelty to dumb animals but with Jimmy being even dumber it seemed inappropriate!
@AlanCFA – thus far the only thing that Jimmy the Joke has 'proven absolutely' is that he knows nothing about science. Isn't today the day that Jimmy's repossessed home is getting sold? Wonder how much it'll go for and how much he'll then have outstanding on his loans?
GSFY – this year's Golden Crocoduck nominations have just been posted and because you've been so slow you're not even in the running this year. Never mind, if you make that one about your claim that humans mated with gorillas to produce chimps, and then with the chimps to produce Neanderthals you'll be a red-hot favourite for next year.
@GoodScienceForYou ". There is no evidence for any common ancestor, but there is clear evidence of interbreeding of humans and animals to produce the Chimp"
Yes, the same evidence that you claim is not evidence of common ancestry is exactly that. Your video shows you stating that the fusion of chromosome #2 never happened. You had no idea what a telomere or a centromere was.
You also did not know that nobody posited the idea that ERVs were responsible for the fusion - you confused the two.
"...there is clear evidence of interbreeding of humans and animals to produce the Chimp" Nope, any such offspring would be infertile even if it was possible. Go screw a gorilla and prove me wrong.
"ERV's can only be transmitted by sexual contact" Yep, thus demonstrating common ancestry.
"It is literally impossible for chimps to be as close as they are to humans any other way" This uninformed, ludicrous, anti-scientific conjecture is not only untrue, it is stupid.
@GoodScienceForYou Let's say you are right (you're not). You still have not come one step closer to a hypothesis about the origins of man or of gorillas for that matter. So how do you think that happened?
This whole video is evidence of a much closer relationship between humans and chimps that has nothing to do with "common ancestor". It is pretty clear that humans had 48 chromosomes and bred with animals to produce the chimp. Then the fusion took place.
The DNA evidence is clear on this. Chimps are 94.6% human and that can only happen by interbreeding as is specified in this video. ERV's r transferred by interbreeding, not by some magical Evodelusionism BS. The Neutral Evolution Forum
@AlanCFA Thanks for getting people to listen to my video. the full real version that has not be edited is on my site. It is called "Final Proof......."
GSFY - like AlanCFA, I'm only too happy to tell people to watch your videos and read your forum, the entertainment value as you parade your boundless ignorance is unparalleled here on YT. Just a word of warning to readers unacquainted with your material, don't watch Jimmy's videos with a hot drink in your hand, you're liable to spill it!
@GoodScienceForYou - "Thanks for getting people to listen to my video. "
You're welcome - it is time that people saw your flat-out lies on the video itself.
"the full real version that has not be edited..." Oh, so you imply that I edited your video? That was not you saying "First of all, there is no such thing as a fused chromosome here, it’s just a guess"? Yes, it was you. You now lie and claim that the video was about WHEN and not IF the fusion took place.
p.s. you are a moron. You do not even know the titles of your own videos.
The video from which I quoted was called "Fused Chromosomes, ERVs number 5". It is a video that is 8:10 in length - exactly the same as on the GoofyScienceForYou mirror site. It is the exact same video, but one to which you ADDED your annotations. Your annotations do not further explain your video, they CONTRADICT IT.
You are lying through your teeth. You CLEARLY state in the video the fusion NEVER HAPPENED!
This is utter nonsense from the perspective of actual evidence. This is STRONG evidence that humans are the "common ancestor" of both modern humans and chimps as well as the large primates. It is utter and nearly absolute evidence of interbreeding humans with some ape creatures. The extreme closeness of Humans to Chimps cannot come from some extreme distant common ancestor. There would be much more divergence away from similarity if that was the case.
GSFY – what, you're stark staring mad! No matter how much you may fantasise about mating with a gorilla it won't produce a chimp, people have already suggested you can try it and prove it for yourself! And let's not forget that you also claimed that humans mated with chimps to produce Neanderthals, perhaps you could try and replicate that as well? Let us know when you've been successful!!
"This is STRONG evidence that humans are the "common ancestor" of both modern humans and chimps as well as the large primates. It is utter and nearly absolute evidence of interbreeding humans with some ape creatures"
You only developed this obviously false and unsupportable theory after people proved to you that chromosome #2 was fused. In your video, prior to adding annotations, you claimed that the fusion was a myth. When you saw that you were wrong, you came up with this
@AlanCFA I use what is called "using your own energy against you." It is a well known method of taking people from delusions towards the truth. You don't have the capacity to understand what is in that video. Very few do ,but by bringing attention to it, you have made it very popular. The number 2 chromosome was referred to as WHEN not if. Show me when you saw this happen. The evidence points to a much closer relationship between humans and chimps. Not enough divergence.
"First of all, there is no such thing as a fused chromosome here, it’s just a guess"
That does NOT accept the fusion of chromosome #2 but ask when it happened. You found out about the evidence AFTER you made the video and added annotations and LIES to pretend that you always knew it.
soo im confused, why couldnt the conclusion just be that both humans and chimpanzees caught the same cold??? who cares if there the same.. i dont see how that logicaly mean common ancestry?
It's not just that it was the same virus. It was the same virus that MUST have injected intself into a human embryo, but because of a mistake replicating itself, it became harmless, and it inserted itself in EXACTLY the same point in your DNA. As he says in the video, it's a matter of probability.
so we have exact same markers in our dna as do chimps? is that the point? again even so, that does not leave an exclusive conclusion of ancestry but it is compelling.
Exactly. We have the same markers that must have been added in the same place in our DNA code. I have a small addition to my comment: by looking at the patterns of which apes have the same ERVS and which do not, it is possible to create a phylogenetic tree illustrating where each species alive today must have diverged from our own line in the past. This tree perfectly matches what scientists had already predicted. The diagram is at 7:15.
may i make one suggestion.. and i dont want to fight its just a point... isnt this assuming or making the assumption of evolution... is there any other possible way, that these two species could have gotten the same ervs apart from evolution???? be honest, no matter how far fetched the scenario may be lol im still trying to grasp exactly what they are, i get lost in the language a bit!
One of the difficulties in disgarding evolution and accepting an omniscient, invested creator is that God MUST have created this scenario with all the probability acting in favour of there being no creator. This doesn't make sense, but it is possible. Perhaps 'God' likes the idea of people believing in him for insuffiecient reasons.
i dont understand why you think that the majority of evidence points to the improbability for the necessity of a creator. there is many many reasons un explained by science that God or a creator seems very likley or logical... like the information for instance.... where do the laws and information that govern this world come from.... its seems endless and complete. in fact mathematically evolution is very improbable... which is why we keep extending the amount of time it takes.
When I mentioned probability, I was specifically talking about ERVs. The timescale for evolution hasn't been extended because it is improbable. It is changed in accordance with new data. But it has always been understood that it is a process of incremental changes.
the problem with evolution is that those small incremental steps havnt been observed. so we are looking at fragments of information that gives us a very brief understanding of our past.. i agree with DR berlinski that the data required to uphold such a theory as evolution, is simply just not available as of yet and thus its highly contendable...
I don't really want to get into a full on discussion about evolution, which I can see this becoming. So I'll just make one more point: the small incremental steps HAVE been observed. These include organisms mutating new 'irreducibly complex' chemical pathways, speciation (one species branching off into others that can no longer reproduce), a transition from single cell to multicellular, adaptation by an organism to a new environment so that it can only live there.
Re-reading your comment, I think that I actually misunderstood what you meant. Did you mean that there aren't sufficient transitional fossils, or incremental stages still occuring in the present?
well if we use an example such as finch beaks, as darwin did, we see the beaks getting bigger and then smaller and then longer and then shorter but the finch never becomes a non bird... or if you look at the dog population, we see big dogs and small dogs with minor changes but we never see them become a non dog, so we arent observing beyond that, so we turn to homology in fossils to try and see major changes in species, but homolgy has many issues, admittied by the evolution community.
no it certainly doesnt mean its not credible, it simply means that it has loop holes for debate and is hard to make claim to fact but more so probability. the admitted problem in homology is that animals with similar structures can sometimes have two completley different evolutionary family trees. so suddenly the line gets fuzzy as too how much we can depend on homology for determining evolutionary descent. I hope that came out clear enough its hard when your limited to certain amount of words
That was perfectly clear. Absolute certainty is never going to be possible in science. However, one comforting thought is that every paleontologist believes in the validty of evolution.
true true... however there are those who are paleontologists and who dont agree with evolutionary paradigm and I think we need to be careul to assume majority as always right... if that were the case then darwin would never have been heard as his peers would have rejected and silenced him... we need to make sure we dont do the same today, however strange the theory may be. I appreciate your polite conversation by the way, its hard to find. especially on this topic lol.
Dr. Joachim Scheven, Dr. John Whitmore, Dr. Kurt Wise, among others... too say that they are not legitimate is rediculous as they hold doctorates in their field. they know the evidence, they simply have differing views and as you should know, the minoroty view doesnt mean something is wrong. otherwise atheists would be out of luck lol.
My point is that you can get a doctorate in happy hamburger making from shit-creek disabled university anjd call yourself a doctor. No legitimate academic at a decent university is going to piss on all the scientific evidence and lecture on creationism from the Bible. Why? Because it's not even science in the first place, it's fiction creative writing, belongs in the Arts department of divinity schools, not the science lab.
@karlkarlkarl1234. to have an acredited doctorate means that according to the accredidation board you have significant enough knowledge and skill to be given the honor of doctorate. it cant be easily pushed aside.. I think the real battle here is world views. if you take critical thinking, they teach that there is no such thing as a self interpreting brute fact. evidence needs to be interpreted with a world view. its not science vs religion at all.
@karlkarlkarl1234 creationists are not asking for faith to be taught in schools at all.. they want science thats supports another worldview to be taught .. to show that evolution is not good enough to describe origins... were talking about scientific systems, flood evidence etc. ... and please explain where the bibe says that Pi=3?
There is no evidence for creationism. None. So why should we teach it? LIkewise, there is no evidence for a global flood. None. So why should we teach it?
Who cares if it is to appease another worldview that is simply wrong? Teachers take an oath not to knowingly lie to their students. Sorry, but science teachers cannot break this oath by teaching creationism alongside evolution.
@verzen there is evidence for creationism, and world wide floods. so im not sure why you make such broadsweeping statements. the flood evidence is overwhelming so i wont deal with that, but evidence for creation starts with the fact that the universe has a beggining, now who or what began it, is the question that many are trying to answer. I dont care if its taught in schools at this point, but fair criticism of any view is called strong academics. even criticism of evolution.
Just claiming that there is evidence is not evidence in and of itself. Show me the evidence? If the global flood were real, we would expect to find the vast majority of fish extinct. Do we see this? If the global flood were real, we would also expect to find the majority of mammals extinct because they can't all fit on the same boat. Do we see this? If they were on a boat, we would expect to find animals everywhere despite what type of animal they are. Do we see this? NO.
Also, there is not enough h20 in the atmosphere to flood the entire world. There is so much evidence 'against' a global flood and there is no evidence 'for' a global flood.
I agree. Go ahead and criticize evolution. It has been criticized for the last 150 years and it 'still' stands strong. Evolution is the best explanation for how life got here. To really deny that evolution occurs is ignorant. How it occurs is what is currently up for debate.
@verzen the flood of genjesis did not come from the atmosphere in the form of rain. its main source of h20 actually came from the ground. under the earth there is huge stores of water. in some cases entire sea beds under the continents. the bible says that the great deep burst forth.. in other words the rain was secondary to it. there is very large amount of evidence for a global flood..
Claiming that there is evidence for a global flood does not mean there is actual evidence for a global flood. After all, if a global flood actually happened, you would expect to see random assortments of fossils scattered around the same strata. We do not see this.
@verzen actually you are wrong. we do see this. there are many examples of this happening in the fossil record. they are simply snuffed off as oopses or pheomenons. evidence for world wide flood includes, trees barried tyhrough strata, rapid forming stalagnites, strata itself is something that can be laid down by water. its scientifically replicable. we see layers all over the world.
"evidence for world wide flood includes, trees barried tyhrough strata"
This isn't evidence for a world wide flood. This is evidence actually for mud slides.
"rapid forming stalagnites"
Funny how when I looked that up on google.. the only sites that say this could happen are websites with a biased slant where they are trying to prove that creationism happens.. I couldn't find a single website other than those biased ones such as creationwiki to back up your claim. FAIL.
@verzen its assumed mud slides but thats biased too my friend. Talk to doctor emil silvestru, he a geologists that confirms these things. and you didnt address the issue of strata, which by the way was featured on a discovery channel secular show. its was arguing for strong evidence of a world wide flood catastrophe. So im not going to be an immature child and yell FAIL back at you, but you better button up if you dont know what your talking about.
No, it's not biased to consider mud slides. It makes perfect sense.. more than a global flood does which would of wiped out almost all plant life off of the face of the Earth.. including all insects, all animals, all life. And no, a boat couldn't hold that many creatures. There is a weight displacement that needs to be calculated when boarding various objects. If the displacement becomes too stressed, the boat will sink.
@verzen actually you mention the mud slide with tress growing through strata, not strata itself.. also the ark didnt take every single creature on the planet, it called for every kind of creature, which means theres a level of evolution that can occur. so you dont take every single dog, you take a dog with the genetic ability to reproduce the various dogs we have today. heck the grand canyon is a giant spillway for a flood... a very massive one. how bout fish fossils on mountains, or desserts?
The boat still isn't big enough to house that many creatures and still remain floating. Biologists dont even accept the fast rate of evolution that you are suggesting.
The grand canyon is the result of a dried up river that lasted for millions and millions of years.
Fish fossils on mountains are due to plate tectonics. Fish fossils in a desert is due to the desert being a dried up river bed.
@verzen you dont know how many animals there would have been so you cant make a suggestion. also that rate of evolution was seen in a lizard in italy. grand canyon froming over millions of years is naturalist assumption and humanist bias on evidence. again there are other opinion from scientists looking at the evidence. and as for your theory of the desert fossils being dried up river beds, im talking about sharks and whales. ocean dwelling creatures.
There are over 250.000 different species of animals on the planet... or what you like to call "kinds." Some have the possibility of weighing quite a bit like rhino's and elephants.
Then you must ask yourself.. what in the world did they eat?
"grand canyon froming over millions of years is naturalist assumption"
No it isn't. We look at the Strata on the sides of the grand canyon.
@verzen i dont know why you deny the evidence.. not to mention the countless world wide flood stories that we find all over the world.. in almost every single culture... with almost the exact same story and events. its strong to say that it is part of peoples hisory, wether you believe the miracle accounts of the noahs flood or not..
I'm not denying any evidence. You're just making stuff up and refusing to look at any 'rational' answer while supplementing your irrational views.
The countless world wide flood stories? Is that your evidence of a global flood? Ok, step back for a second and look around. What are civilizations built around? WATER... What does water occasionally do? It floods! So a story about a flood is not far fetched.
And each story isn't same at all. Neither are the events.
@verzen you know what i have had enough conversation of this caliber and on this topic that far exceed the brain cells that you are showing me.. i have been lazy in my responses because i am sick of talking about it frankly... there is plenty of evidence FROM SCIENCE for a world wide flood.. i dont need to justify it to you, because it makes no difference on your life anyways.. so please stop talking to me. I dont really care what you have to say. sorry.
Ah, Ad hominem attacks. Brilliants! If you don't agree with what Kent Hovind says, then that must mean you're an idiot.. right? Brilliant argument. =\
There is absolutely no evidence from SCIENCE that a world wide flood happened. Do you see insects on the ground? Plant life that can't survive if drenched in too much water? Bam! Direct evidence against a world wide flood. Not to mention that there isn't that much water ON EARTH to cover all the land!
@verzen first of all your not open to the prospect of miracles which permeates science. also theres is plenty of water underground to flood the earth. thats a scientific fact. but as i said before i really honestly dont care what you think. i have a college degree and have studied it to death.. i just simply dont care what you think.. honestly. its not ad hom, i just dont care if you have an opinion, your a nobody to me. i have no care for your limited opinion. im not trying to be mean.
Miracles don't permeate anything in science. Science is the study of the NATURAL world. All a "miracle" is, is a concept which has not been scientifically explained yet. For example, lightning was a "miracle" prior to us being able to explain why it happens.
The water that is underground is built up by pressure. Pressure makes the water much hotter than it normally is. Releasing boiling water into the ocean would again.. kill all life.
@verzen please stop talking.. i dont care what you have to say. your not doing me or you any good by talking.. your opinion is faulty and is extremely religious in nature.. i have already had this conversation with many other people including my friends in the science field who agree with me. geologists actually. thankfully flooding has nothing to do with biology. anyways, i dont care if your going for a phd, your just looking to pick a fight because of your religious views, and i dont care!
My opinion is 'not' faulty. A good scientist looks around the NATURAL and TESTABLE world to find conclusions. They don't throw their hands up into the air and then claim that it must be the supernatural because they don't have an answer for what's going on. That's simply bad science.. In fact, it isn't even science at all. And no, real science is not religious.
I have many geologist friends also. You should type into google, "why a global flood is impossible." Research it sometime.
@verzen screw google, when i have actual scientists to talk to... people dont realize that sources like wikipedia arent even allowed in most academic circles as a reliable source to cite.. internet is a very troubling place to gain information sometimes. and you say that science is testable.which is intersting because watching dirt become a single amino acid turn into a fully functioning cell has never been tested yet we assume it as fact in science.. thats where the religion comes in my friend
Screw google? Obviously you fail to understand that when you google it, it brings up a list of peer reviewed papers explaining why a global flood is impossible. Likewise, on pubmed, there are over 200,000 papers on evolution. there are around 100 on creationism and none of those on creationism are actually for creationism.
We don't assume that dirt became an amino acid and then a cell... WTF? You need to do actual research on what abiogenesis is.
Abiogenesis requires energy. Chemical energy may be able to be used, but the energy we currently get is from the sun or from electricity from lightning. It also requires a liquid environment. We have created amino acids in the lab from scratch using natural processes.
Cells are not infinitely complex. but you believe that a God created everything and that God is by far more complex than a cell. So how did that God create itself without it's own creator? If he doesn't need a creator himself, being more complex than a cell, then why does a cell NEED a creator? Why can't a cell create itself?
@verzen because a cell isnt god. God by definition is self existing which is what qualifies Him to be the creator.. philosophically there is no argument here. and comparing the definition off God to a cell is rediculous. a cell is 100 times more complex then an amino acid. read michael BEHE . he has a great book. Darwins black box.... hes a chemical biologist.
Not a good enough reason. That's special pleading. It is fallacious reasoning.
Philosophically, there is no argument here because you are making an argument based off of fallacious reasoning.
Michael Behe got torn to bits at the dover trial by Dr. Kenneth Miller. Dr. Miller brought up many questions to Behe and Behe couldn't answer any of them. Irreducible complexity has been peer reviewed. And according to the peers, it's a bad notion or idea that falls apart.
Like I said, there is over 200,000 peer reviewed papers on pub med for evolution. None against. There are less than 100 papers on creationism.. all against it. Actual scientists put their papers on pubmed. What do you have to say about this fact?
@verzen I would like to say that majority opinion means nothing and that the study of God and creation goes beyond what science is able to answer... science is very limited. Any honest scientist i know recognizes the limits of science. Even Dawkins said that science came out of religious world view. Its because of the interest in God that man decided to look and see what God has made through science.. there was an expectation of design if it was made by a designer. thats what we see today.
Majority certainly means something in science. That's why the peer review process works so dang well. The fallacy only comes in when you claim that the majority MUST be right simply because they are the majority. That's not what I'm saying at all. I am saying that almost all scientists accept evolution because the evidence is overwhelming.
Science has brought us EVERYTHING. The notion of God has brought us nothing but war and strife.
Humans are also very imperfect. If we were intelligently designed, I would hate to see what idiotic design looks like. If you actually look at the human body, you can see how many mistakes are made on the human. In fact, our jaws are too small for all of our teeth. Our appendix is useless. (some claim it has a use, but I have mine removed and I feel no effects.. at all. Same with everyone who gets their appendix removed)
Nothing on Earth looks to be intelligently designed.
And I did mention it. The different sets of "strata" was due to a mud slide. Look it up. Plus, regional evidence of floods is evidence for regional floods. It is not evidence for a global flood.
hey someone let me into a chimp or ape cage and i will shag the females both of them for science...but no one will let me in their cages to proof your theory
This video shows clear evidence of interbreeding between primates and humans in ancient times. It is not that difficult to understand. Yet your dumb ass beliefs cause you to overlook the obvious.
Humans did not have sex with Gorillas and produce the Chimpanzee.
Are you STILL pushing your crap fringe hypothesis?
You have allready been told the problems with your hypothesis many times over, yet you refuse to listen (or understand)
Dont pretend you know "all about genetics" and have studied "this for over 40 years" because your not fooling everyone, we all know your a pathological liar.
Just go back to your YEC YouTube group and back to selling crap rebranded spas.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It is highly probable that humans created all the primates. It makes far more sense than some imaginary "great grand daddy" primate" that has never existed.
Hey Bonobobill, First of all thank you so much for this video. One of the things you said leaves me wondering if I am understanding this well. You said that ltr21q22.2 is the latest insertion? Don't you mean to say that it was the latest insertion of the K family virus known to occur before the speciation event in which human and chimp lines diverged or something like that? I see in the tree other insertions such as ltr3q31.1.
Oh my god, GSFY. You really are an idiot. '' OH NO MY IQ IS 180 '' I bet its pushing 125. I'm not gonna lie, my IQ is 120, but IQ is not general intelligence, its logical, mathematical and random questions thrown at you as fast as possible. You have no idea about ERV's, GSFY. I suggest you learn some.
It is pretty funny that all of this effort to show that Chimps are so close to Humans and have ERV's so tight is also extreme evidence that Humans are the parent (ancestor) of the Chimp more so than any plausibility of "cousins". 94.7 DNA an 48 almost indentical chromosomes. Get real. The ERV's put the "fork" in that hypothesis as being far more plausible than common "great primate" ancestor. The "great primate" is a human who mated with some primate and produced chimps.
Everything in this video points to Humans as the "ancestor" of all primates, the first in the genus. Take some classes on genetics then get back to me. How else did those genetic similarities happen. Science has to follow pure logic, not some religious like belief.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I see we have the mystical hiku man back, with no real comments as usual. Only snide remarks is all you are capable of.
For someone who lays down like a female dog and accepts ever logical fallacy these "authorities can feed you", because you are too weak minded to actually consider what the hell they are saying. Instead of accepting bull shit, why not reject it right away and find the truth.
Seriously, GSFY, you're a joke. You're a probably a nice grampa and you may have been a good HFAC tech. But when it comes to science, you're a loon. Logic really *is* a mystery to you. And so is science. Focus on your grandkids and leave the science to the people who are willing to do the homework.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This is you standard bull shit, lazy weak bitch. You need to study this stuff away from the indoctrination.
You are not capable of independent thought. You are only capable of laying down like a weak bitch dog to every authority who feeds there crap beliefs to you.
Your comic book understanding of science is hilarious! Go back to your day job as a technician and leave the science to the people who aren't mentally lazy like you!
We would share ALL ERVs with chimps if we were the parent, ERVs are inserted in a germ line cell, so they are passed on.
Recent cousins would share the vast majority of ERVs, but not all. Humans and Chimps share the vast majority, but not all.
After Human and Chimps split from the common ancestor, they would get newer different infections form each other, so cousins would have some ERVs that are different.
Take your own advice and take a class in genetics.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Yes and over 4000 years of "separation" would allow these additional ERV's to show at different integration sites. Dumb ass. Stop looking at evidence with evodelusion glasses.
google Neutral Evolution Forum Index and post your evidence over there. I already have many long posts that destroy this as evidence for common ancestor other than humans are the common ancestor.
I pity people as ignorant as you. There is no help when the delusions are so strong in your mind.
You let other people HEMG control your thinking and you think you are smart? The irony.
If you have any evidence that you think is so compelling then bring it over to the
Neutral Evolution Forum Index and start sharing. Non of you have the courage of your convictions to be vulnerable enough to face ridicule. I have full convictions of my knowledge of your pseudo science.
You are a very confused individual, GSFY. Your "neutral evolution forum" is not the place to discuss the evidence. That's what the peer review journals are for. Your convictions are irrelevant to the actual science, as is your emotional drivel.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Man, you are so stupid. I don't have any peers. With my IQ the Nobel people sound like nitwits.
There is no science in your delusion. You are too brainwashed and weak to even begin to understand what I teach. I teach people to get free of delusions. You want to perpetuate delusions because your weak ego is attached to them and you made your declarations of faith and belief in your religion to your "peers".
Strong text from a guy who thinks chimps and humans are similar because humans had sex with gorillas in the past an produced chimps as their bastard children. :)
I do not believe anything that cannot be absolutely proven, so no I don't believe that Humans and Apes had sex and reproduced, but that is far more plausible, based on the evidence we actually have, than some mystical great primate common ancestor.
Interbreeding follows the evidence exactly. The absolute truth is unknown, so don't believe. There no evidence at all of some mystical ape man that had mutant genes and became humans and primates. We do have DNA,ERV's, Chroms and living creatures.
"I do not believe anything that cannot be absolutely proven"
Well then apparently science is entirely off-limits to you because nothing in science is "absolute" and nothing in science is "proven". Stick with mathematics if you want proofs.
"no I don't believe that Humans and Apes had sex"
Humans are classified as apes.
"Interbreeding follows the evidence exactly."
What "evidence"? You mean the evidence that the DNA of humans and the other great apes are too dissimilar to produce offspring?
I understand far more about genetics than you do. Can you please quote the part of my comment which led you to believe that I do not/am not capable of understanding genetics? Because my comment seems pretty solid to me. The genes of humans and the other Great Apes are too dissimilar to produce viable offspring (let along viable fertile offspring). So why would you say "interbreeding follows the evidence exactly".
I understand perfectly well the genetics involved in breeding. And I know for a fact that there is no other primate species that humans are capable of successfully reproducing with. Don't believe me? Go have sex with a chimpanzee at your local zoo and see if it gives birth in 8 months. If I had a million dollars I would bet it all that the chimpanzee would not have little GoodScienceForChimps babies.
Why don't you prove that humans can reproduce with another ape species instead of asserting it?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
So, now you are just a liar and nothing else.
You go study. Humans had 48 Chromosomes back then, dumb ass!
That is all that is missing from the breeding compatibility.
Read about the CAMA and other creatures that mate who are not even in the same species anymore, but their genetics align.
What a dumb ass. On the one hand you are all agreeing that humans had 48 chromosomes at one time, now because is messes up your mystical religion you deny it? Bunch of brainwashed idiots!
I have never denied that humans had 48 chromosomes at one point. When did I ever say that?
The number of chromosomes is not the only issue in breeding. It is also a matter of the similarity between genes. For example. Chimpanzees and orangutans both have 48 chromosomes, but they are two different species and can not produce viable, fertile offspring because their genes have diverged far too much.
how am I denying that chimps have 48 chromosomes by denying that a human had sex with a chimpanzee? The mechanism behind the fusion in human chromosome number 2 is entirely separate from breeding between two different species. It took place by a random fusion event in an ancestor of humans.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I don't think you are capable of telling me how to think. But obviously you are weak and unable to think for yourself.
The world is my peer review. I am not going to try and save the scientific community from its infection of mystical causes and mystical bull shit.
There is only cause and effect in physics.
Your bull shit violates that law of physics and is not science. So, what peer that is not full of bull shit is going to even understand what I teach? Not some idiot like you for sure.
@GoodScienceForYou Thank you for that staggering bit of self-aggrandizing bullcrap, GSFY. Every sentence you type reveals you to be a pompous, ignorant, know-nothing twit.
Guess what, GSFY! You don't determine what is science and what isn't. You pull ignorant crap out your backside without having the slightest clue what you're talking about. YOU are the troll. You haven't contributed anything intelligent to this thread. Considering your "intellectual" level, this is not surprising. Discussing science with you would be slightly less stimulating and informative than discussing it with my dog. She, at least, doesn't have a head full of crap.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
See what I mean. You can't even make English sentences and you argue science with me. You are perfectly welcome to discuss real science with me in detail on the evolutoinforum info site.
If you have any objective reason left after the brainwahing.
GSFY, you're probably just confused by sentences more complicated than what a 2nd grader might use. You don't know anything about real science and so we wouldn't have anything to discuss. We can discuss ERVs in this thread, if you are willing to do some actual homework on the subject. Otherwise, you can keep saying stupid crap.
Give it your best shot. Prove that creatures have evolved over any length of time into an entirely new species with a totally new morphology?
You cannot use any "opinions" ever. You are only allowed to use absolute observable, objective evidence that is OBVIOUS and requires no "opinions" from anybody.
It is sad to see so many people willing to turn their intelligence over to a dumb belief.
Then I dont understand what he means. I can understand that the intergration sites have a unique sequence. But there are only 4 different nucleotides. So at least they have to have similar nucleotides.
amazing
roccobaroccoSC 1 month ago
religions stupid
scribbie145 1 month ago
haha when he said "NO" i was like ummm...
konohanominato 4 months ago
wikipedia : ERVs are sequences in the genome THOUGHT to be derived from ancient viral infections. Endogenous retroviruses MAY BE a variant of a retrovirus. THOUGHT and MAY BE suddenly become irrefutable evidence? New studies suggest that those sequence so called ERV actually aid during transcription. Even now biologists still unable to decipher so many segments in DNA. How can they be so sure about something they dont know much about? Genes only make up around 1.5% of the genome.
daogdaog 5 months ago
@daogdaog
...You really quoted from wikipedia?
Lol
saiyanmage 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@saiyanmage Even if it is not from wikipedia. How else would you describe it? You will still describe it the way wikipedia described it, that ERVs are sequences in the genome THOUGHT to be derived from ancient viral infections.
daogdaog 4 months ago
@daogdaog Read what you just wrote and just for a moment, pretend your not anti-evolution, and see how desperate you are. You point out words like 'thought' and 'may be' to criticize, and then use a similar word: new studies 'suggest'. Chromosome fusion and erv's are not shaky biology. Your words are that biologist are too sure about something because they dont know enough about dna. genetic biologists are very positive of how to sequence the genome. Using a 1.5% number doesnt change facts.
Johnf85 3 months ago
@Johnf85 Having sequenced a human genome does not mean the sequence is understood. In fact there is so much in human genome sequences that are still not understood. The phrase "mapped the human genome" is actually misleading. Ask any biologist so that you will know that only a small percentage of a human genome is well understood. Do you even know that there are no fossil evidence a human-chimp common ancestor? A common ancestor is just a speculative concept based on rate of mtDNA mutation.
daogdaog 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm eager to read the history of my Family Name. So, if I was interested on it perhaps you also consider to be useful.
Resolve one of the mystery of your existence. Enjoy telling to your grandsons the best tale they has never listen to before.
familynametree(.)com
Hope it helps!
iEntangled 8 months ago
Hi. Why your channel is unavailable? I live in the Isle of Man mby that's why?
ray4ix 8 months ago
So... Maybe a silly question.... Couldn't they have just been created that way ? Makes sense to me. They were created with common genes.
flatpicker1234 9 months ago
@flatpicker1234
why would a creator create organisms with infectious remnant viruses in their sex cells?
itzahazylife 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@flatpicker1234 [So... Maybe a silly question.... Couldn't they have just been created that way ? Makes sense to me. They were created with common genes.]
It makes sense to you because you're an idiot.
fdasherv 7 months ago
@flatpicker1234 Maybe if the creator wants to trick everybody. YOUR genome contains this virus. So either a creator just put all the same viruses in you as a suspiciously similar group of species (actually cousins) all the way back to a random origin (actually a common ancestor who originally got infected). If you get aids, it will transcribe into your dna and you will pass it to your kids. Its not "created with common genes" in that a creator just put it there. your right its a silly question
Johnf85 6 months ago
mate ERV's clearly stands for Emergency Rendez Vous, clearly ( you'll know what I'm talking about if you've read Andy McKnab books and are familiar with military language) :D I kid of course, great video, thanks a lot.
superiorplanet 10 months ago
mate ERV's clearly stands for Emergency Rendez Vous, clearly ( you'll know what I'm talking about if you've read Andy McKnab books and are familiar with military language) :D I kid of course, great video, thanks a lot.
superiorplanet 10 months ago
Why are humans so much more intelligent than orangutans if they existed much before us? Or why aren't chimps as developed or even close to our intelligence?
JAKEHARRIS281 11 months ago
@JAKEHARRIS281 :"Why are humans so much more intelligent than orangutans if they existed much before us?" this question doesn't make sense, we should expect the later ones to be more advanced than the prior, like a phone of today should be better than ones in 1970s.
"Or why aren't chimps as developed or even close to our intelligence?" Because with their intelligence they fit in very well with their habitat in the jungle and there is not much evolutionary pressure to evolve.
uyenst 6 months ago
@JAKEHARRIS281 :Who do you should beware of more, the dumb ones or the smart ones? You sell fruits,who is your competitor?The fashion shop or the other fruit shop?We more similarity we share with other apes, the greater the competition. In fact, Netherlands were close to our intelligence, but because they ate the same foods and threatened us so we eradicated them, not the harmless chimps deep in the jungle.That's why there is nothing close to us now, we directly or indirectly killed them all.
uyenst 6 months ago
@JAKEHARRIS281
You already know, we were individually created. Believing otherwise just makes a monkey outta ya.
h2omanz 6 months ago
something about this video makes me think. i have to ask if they are fooling there self or others? why would they try to fool us?
MasqueradeOfTruth 1 year ago
It is only the belief in Evodelusionism religion that forces itself on the evidence. There is no evidence for any common ancestor, but there is clear evidence of interbreeding of humans and animals to produce the Chimp. ERV's can only be transmitted by sexual contact, breeding. It is literally impossible for chimps to be as close as they are to humans any other way. The divergence from some fantasy common ancestor would cause them to be far different. The closeness to humans is fact.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
GSFY - when are you going to make a video about your claim that humans mated with gorillas to produce chimps and then with the chimps to produce Neanderthals, and all less than 4,000 years ago - over 500 years after the building of the pyramids! Come on Jimmy, you're bound to win the Golden Crocoduck with that!
KrokrX 1 year ago
@KrokrX - I still want to see a video of him mating with a gorilla to show us that it is possible. That'd be worth the price of admission.
AlanCFA 1 year ago
@AlanCFA – but don't you think he'd have more luck mating with a chimp and proving his notion that it would produce a Neanderthal? I was tempted to make a remark about cruelty to dumb animals but with Jimmy being even dumber it seemed inappropriate!
KrokrX 1 year ago
@KrokrX - Jimmy believes in things that are proven absolutely, so it is my guess that he has actually tried that, but no chimp would have him.
AlanCFA 1 year ago 3
@AlanCFA – thus far the only thing that Jimmy the Joke has 'proven absolutely' is that he knows nothing about science. Isn't today the day that Jimmy's repossessed home is getting sold? Wonder how much it'll go for and how much he'll then have outstanding on his loans?
KrokrX 1 year ago
GSFY – this year's Golden Crocoduck nominations have just been posted and because you've been so slow you're not even in the running this year. Never mind, if you make that one about your claim that humans mated with gorillas to produce chimps, and then with the chimps to produce Neanderthals you'll be a red-hot favourite for next year.
KrokrX 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou ". There is no evidence for any common ancestor, but there is clear evidence of interbreeding of humans and animals to produce the Chimp"
Yes, the same evidence that you claim is not evidence of common ancestry is exactly that. Your video shows you stating that the fusion of chromosome #2 never happened. You had no idea what a telomere or a centromere was.
You also did not know that nobody posited the idea that ERVs were responsible for the fusion - you confused the two.
AlanCFA 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou
"...there is clear evidence of interbreeding of humans and animals to produce the Chimp" Nope, any such offspring would be infertile even if it was possible. Go screw a gorilla and prove me wrong.
"ERV's can only be transmitted by sexual contact" Yep, thus demonstrating common ancestry.
"It is literally impossible for chimps to be as close as they are to humans any other way" This uninformed, ludicrous, anti-scientific conjecture is not only untrue, it is stupid.
AlanCFA 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GoodScienceForYou Let's say you are right (you're not). You still have not come one step closer to a hypothesis about the origins of man or of gorillas for that matter. So how do you think that happened?
foxlake02 1 year ago
This whole video is evidence of a much closer relationship between humans and chimps that has nothing to do with "common ancestor". It is pretty clear that humans had 48 chromosomes and bred with animals to produce the chimp. Then the fusion took place.
The DNA evidence is clear on this. Chimps are 94.6% human and that can only happen by interbreeding as is specified in this video. ERV's r transferred by interbreeding, not by some magical Evodelusionism BS. The Neutral Evolution Forum
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "s pretty clear that humans had 48 chromosomes and bred with animals to produce the chimp. Then the fusion took place.'
An impossibility that you invented once you found that there WAS evidence for a fusion that you had DENIED when you made your video.
Here is the vid without the annotations you added to try and suggest that you were right: watch?v=29e8brRBEVI
Your comment @ 4:10 – 4:14
"First of all, there is no such thing as a fused chromosome here, it’s just a guess"
AlanCFA 1 year ago
@AlanCFA Thanks for getting people to listen to my video. the full real version that has not be edited is on my site. It is called "Final Proof......."
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
GSFY - like AlanCFA, I'm only too happy to tell people to watch your videos and read your forum, the entertainment value as you parade your boundless ignorance is unparalleled here on YT. Just a word of warning to readers unacquainted with your material, don't watch Jimmy's videos with a hot drink in your hand, you're liable to spill it!
KrokrX 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@GoodScienceForYou - "Thanks for getting people to listen to my video. "
You're welcome - it is time that people saw your flat-out lies on the video itself.
"the full real version that has not be edited..." Oh, so you imply that I edited your video? That was not you saying "First of all, there is no such thing as a fused chromosome here, it’s just a guess"? Yes, it was you. You now lie and claim that the video was about WHEN and not IF the fusion took place.
AlanCFA 1 year ago
@GSFY
p.s. you are a moron. You do not even know the titles of your own videos.
The video from which I quoted was called "Fused Chromosomes, ERVs number 5". It is a video that is 8:10 in length - exactly the same as on the GoofyScienceForYou mirror site. It is the exact same video, but one to which you ADDED your annotations. Your annotations do not further explain your video, they CONTRADICT IT.
You are lying through your teeth. You CLEARLY state in the video the fusion NEVER HAPPENED!
AlanCFA 1 year ago
This is utter nonsense from the perspective of actual evidence. This is STRONG evidence that humans are the "common ancestor" of both modern humans and chimps as well as the large primates. It is utter and nearly absolute evidence of interbreeding humans with some ape creatures. The extreme closeness of Humans to Chimps cannot come from some extreme distant common ancestor. There would be much more divergence away from similarity if that was the case.
Belief in Evodelusionism is not science.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
GSFY – what, you're stark staring mad! No matter how much you may fantasise about mating with a gorilla it won't produce a chimp, people have already suggested you can try it and prove it for yourself! And let's not forget that you also claimed that humans mated with chimps to produce Neanderthals, perhaps you could try and replicate that as well? Let us know when you've been successful!!
KrokrX 1 year ago 13
@GoodScienceForYou
"This is STRONG evidence that humans are the "common ancestor" of both modern humans and chimps as well as the large primates. It is utter and nearly absolute evidence of interbreeding humans with some ape creatures"
You only developed this obviously false and unsupportable theory after people proved to you that chromosome #2 was fused. In your video, prior to adding annotations, you claimed that the fusion was a myth. When you saw that you were wrong, you came up with this
AlanCFA 1 year ago
@AlanCFA I use what is called "using your own energy against you." It is a well known method of taking people from delusions towards the truth. You don't have the capacity to understand what is in that video. Very few do ,but by bringing attention to it, you have made it very popular. The number 2 chromosome was referred to as WHEN not if. Show me when you saw this happen. The evidence points to a much closer relationship between humans and chimps. Not enough divergence.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GSFY: "The number 2 chromosome was referred to as WHEN not if"
You are a damned LIAR!
Here is YOUR comment from the audio portion of that video:
4:10 – 4:14
"First of all, there is no such thing as a fused chromosome here, it’s just a guess"
That does NOT accept the fusion of chromosome #2 but ask when it happened. You found out about the evidence AFTER you made the video and added annotations and LIES to pretend that you always knew it.
You are nothing more, nothing less than a LIAR.
AlanCFA 1 year ago
i wanna subscribe....why cant i find the channel?
cuscardo 1 year ago
stop censoring... it's not cool
sweetmikser 1 year ago
Very cool video btw. Biology rocks my socks.
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
Comment removed
charliesplinterTV 1 year ago
soo im confused, why couldnt the conclusion just be that both humans and chimpanzees caught the same cold??? who cares if there the same.. i dont see how that logicaly mean common ancestry?
BigG99 2 years ago
It's not just that it was the same virus. It was the same virus that MUST have injected intself into a human embryo, but because of a mistake replicating itself, it became harmless, and it inserted itself in EXACTLY the same point in your DNA. As he says in the video, it's a matter of probability.
Englishdosser86 2 years ago
so we have exact same markers in our dna as do chimps? is that the point? again even so, that does not leave an exclusive conclusion of ancestry but it is compelling.
BigG99 2 years ago
Exactly. We have the same markers that must have been added in the same place in our DNA code. I have a small addition to my comment: by looking at the patterns of which apes have the same ERVS and which do not, it is possible to create a phylogenetic tree illustrating where each species alive today must have diverged from our own line in the past. This tree perfectly matches what scientists had already predicted. The diagram is at 7:15.
Englishdosser86 2 years ago
may i make one suggestion.. and i dont want to fight its just a point... isnt this assuming or making the assumption of evolution... is there any other possible way, that these two species could have gotten the same ervs apart from evolution???? be honest, no matter how far fetched the scenario may be lol im still trying to grasp exactly what they are, i get lost in the language a bit!
BigG99 2 years ago
One of the difficulties in disgarding evolution and accepting an omniscient, invested creator is that God MUST have created this scenario with all the probability acting in favour of there being no creator. This doesn't make sense, but it is possible. Perhaps 'God' likes the idea of people believing in him for insuffiecient reasons.
Englishdosser86 2 years ago
i dont understand why you think that the majority of evidence points to the improbability for the necessity of a creator. there is many many reasons un explained by science that God or a creator seems very likley or logical... like the information for instance.... where do the laws and information that govern this world come from.... its seems endless and complete. in fact mathematically evolution is very improbable... which is why we keep extending the amount of time it takes.
BigG99 2 years ago
When I mentioned probability, I was specifically talking about ERVs. The timescale for evolution hasn't been extended because it is improbable. It is changed in accordance with new data. But it has always been understood that it is a process of incremental changes.
Englishdosser86 2 years ago
the problem with evolution is that those small incremental steps havnt been observed. so we are looking at fragments of information that gives us a very brief understanding of our past.. i agree with DR berlinski that the data required to uphold such a theory as evolution, is simply just not available as of yet and thus its highly contendable...
BigG99 2 years ago
I don't really want to get into a full on discussion about evolution, which I can see this becoming. So I'll just make one more point: the small incremental steps HAVE been observed. These include organisms mutating new 'irreducibly complex' chemical pathways, speciation (one species branching off into others that can no longer reproduce), a transition from single cell to multicellular, adaptation by an organism to a new environment so that it can only live there.
Englishdosser86 2 years ago
Re-reading your comment, I think that I actually misunderstood what you meant. Did you mean that there aren't sufficient transitional fossils, or incremental stages still occuring in the present?
Englishdosser86 2 years ago
well if we use an example such as finch beaks, as darwin did, we see the beaks getting bigger and then smaller and then longer and then shorter but the finch never becomes a non bird... or if you look at the dog population, we see big dogs and small dogs with minor changes but we never see them become a non dog, so we arent observing beyond that, so we turn to homology in fossils to try and see major changes in species, but homolgy has many issues, admittied by the evolution community.
BigG99 2 years ago
What are the major issues admitted by the evolution community? Does this mean that they are not credible?
Englishdosser86 2 years ago
no it certainly doesnt mean its not credible, it simply means that it has loop holes for debate and is hard to make claim to fact but more so probability. the admitted problem in homology is that animals with similar structures can sometimes have two completley different evolutionary family trees. so suddenly the line gets fuzzy as too how much we can depend on homology for determining evolutionary descent. I hope that came out clear enough its hard when your limited to certain amount of words
BigG99 2 years ago
That was perfectly clear. Absolute certainty is never going to be possible in science. However, one comforting thought is that every paleontologist believes in the validty of evolution.
Englishdosser86 2 years ago
true true... however there are those who are paleontologists and who dont agree with evolutionary paradigm and I think we need to be careul to assume majority as always right... if that were the case then darwin would never have been heard as his peers would have rejected and silenced him... we need to make sure we dont do the same today, however strange the theory may be. I appreciate your polite conversation by the way, its hard to find. especially on this topic lol.
BigG99 2 years ago
@BigG99 "however there are those who are paleontologists and who dont agree with evolutionary paradigm."
Errr.... no. No legitimate paleontologist is stupid enough not ro realise the evolutionary pattern, they;re at ground-zero of that very science.
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
@karlkarlkarl1234 errrr yes.
Dr. Joachim Scheven, Dr. John Whitmore, Dr. Kurt Wise, among others... too say that they are not legitimate is rediculous as they hold doctorates in their field. they know the evidence, they simply have differing views and as you should know, the minoroty view doesnt mean something is wrong. otherwise atheists would be out of luck lol.
BigG99 1 year ago
@BigG99
My point is that you can get a doctorate in happy hamburger making from shit-creek disabled university anjd call yourself a doctor. No legitimate academic at a decent university is going to piss on all the scientific evidence and lecture on creationism from the Bible. Why? Because it's not even science in the first place, it's fiction creative writing, belongs in the Arts department of divinity schools, not the science lab.
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
@karlkarlkarl1234. to have an acredited doctorate means that according to the accredidation board you have significant enough knowledge and skill to be given the honor of doctorate. it cant be easily pushed aside.. I think the real battle here is world views. if you take critical thinking, they teach that there is no such thing as a self interpreting brute fact. evidence needs to be interpreted with a world view. its not science vs religion at all.
BigG99 1 year ago
Science is the systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about nature & organizing & condensing that knowledge into testable laws & theories.
1. Creationism is not natural, it is artificial.
2. Every possible law & theory of Creationism (very few) has been systematically disproven with either no evidence or contrary evidence.
Creationism is religious allegory. It has NO place in the science lab for these reasons.
The Bible also said that Pi = 3, do you blindly believe that as well?
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
@karlkarlkarl1234 creationists are not asking for faith to be taught in schools at all.. they want science thats supports another worldview to be taught .. to show that evolution is not good enough to describe origins... were talking about scientific systems, flood evidence etc. ... and please explain where the bibe says that Pi=3?
BigG99 1 year ago
@BigG99
There is no evidence for creationism. None. So why should we teach it? LIkewise, there is no evidence for a global flood. None. So why should we teach it?
Who cares if it is to appease another worldview that is simply wrong? Teachers take an oath not to knowingly lie to their students. Sorry, but science teachers cannot break this oath by teaching creationism alongside evolution.
verzen 1 year ago
@verzen there is evidence for creationism, and world wide floods. so im not sure why you make such broadsweeping statements. the flood evidence is overwhelming so i wont deal with that, but evidence for creation starts with the fact that the universe has a beggining, now who or what began it, is the question that many are trying to answer. I dont care if its taught in schools at this point, but fair criticism of any view is called strong academics. even criticism of evolution.
BigG99 1 year ago
@BigG99
Just claiming that there is evidence is not evidence in and of itself. Show me the evidence? If the global flood were real, we would expect to find the vast majority of fish extinct. Do we see this? If the global flood were real, we would also expect to find the majority of mammals extinct because they can't all fit on the same boat. Do we see this? If they were on a boat, we would expect to find animals everywhere despite what type of animal they are. Do we see this? NO.
verzen 1 year ago
@BigG99
Also, there is not enough h20 in the atmosphere to flood the entire world. There is so much evidence 'against' a global flood and there is no evidence 'for' a global flood.
I agree. Go ahead and criticize evolution. It has been criticized for the last 150 years and it 'still' stands strong. Evolution is the best explanation for how life got here. To really deny that evolution occurs is ignorant. How it occurs is what is currently up for debate.
verzen 1 year ago
@verzen the flood of genjesis did not come from the atmosphere in the form of rain. its main source of h20 actually came from the ground. under the earth there is huge stores of water. in some cases entire sea beds under the continents. the bible says that the great deep burst forth.. in other words the rain was secondary to it. there is very large amount of evidence for a global flood..
BigG99 1 year ago
@BigG99
Claiming that there is evidence for a global flood does not mean there is actual evidence for a global flood. After all, if a global flood actually happened, you would expect to see random assortments of fossils scattered around the same strata. We do not see this.
verzen 1 year ago
@verzen actually you are wrong. we do see this. there are many examples of this happening in the fossil record. they are simply snuffed off as oopses or pheomenons. evidence for world wide flood includes, trees barried tyhrough strata, rapid forming stalagnites, strata itself is something that can be laid down by water. its scientifically replicable. we see layers all over the world.
BigG99 1 year ago
@BigG99
"evidence for world wide flood includes, trees barried tyhrough strata"
This isn't evidence for a world wide flood. This is evidence actually for mud slides.
"rapid forming stalagnites"
Funny how when I looked that up on google.. the only sites that say this could happen are websites with a biased slant where they are trying to prove that creationism happens.. I couldn't find a single website other than those biased ones such as creationwiki to back up your claim. FAIL.
verzen 1 year ago
@verzen its assumed mud slides but thats biased too my friend. Talk to doctor emil silvestru, he a geologists that confirms these things. and you didnt address the issue of strata, which by the way was featured on a discovery channel secular show. its was arguing for strong evidence of a world wide flood catastrophe. So im not going to be an immature child and yell FAIL back at you, but you better button up if you dont know what your talking about.
BigG99 1 year ago
@BigG99
No, it's not biased to consider mud slides. It makes perfect sense.. more than a global flood does which would of wiped out almost all plant life off of the face of the Earth.. including all insects, all animals, all life. And no, a boat couldn't hold that many creatures. There is a weight displacement that needs to be calculated when boarding various objects. If the displacement becomes too stressed, the boat will sink.
verzen 1 year ago
@verzen actually you mention the mud slide with tress growing through strata, not strata itself.. also the ark didnt take every single creature on the planet, it called for every kind of creature, which means theres a level of evolution that can occur. so you dont take every single dog, you take a dog with the genetic ability to reproduce the various dogs we have today. heck the grand canyon is a giant spillway for a flood... a very massive one. how bout fish fossils on mountains, or desserts?
BigG99 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BigG99
"it called for every kind of creature"
Which is.. again.. impossible.
"which means theres a level of evolution that can occur."
Which is super evolution. Something that no biologist even accepts is possible because it is not working way too quickly.
"heck the grand canyon is a giant spillway for a flood..."
The grand canyon was a fast moving river that lasted for millions of years and eventually dried up. It was not due to a flood.
verzen 1 year ago
@BigG99
The boat still isn't big enough to house that many creatures and still remain floating. Biologists dont even accept the fast rate of evolution that you are suggesting.
The grand canyon is the result of a dried up river that lasted for millions and millions of years.
Fish fossils on mountains are due to plate tectonics. Fish fossils in a desert is due to the desert being a dried up river bed.
verzen 1 year ago
@verzen you dont know how many animals there would have been so you cant make a suggestion. also that rate of evolution was seen in a lizard in italy. grand canyon froming over millions of years is naturalist assumption and humanist bias on evidence. again there are other opinion from scientists looking at the evidence. and as for your theory of the desert fossils being dried up river beds, im talking about sharks and whales. ocean dwelling creatures.
BigG99 1 year ago
@BigG99
There are over 250.000 different species of animals on the planet... or what you like to call "kinds." Some have the possibility of weighing quite a bit like rhino's and elephants.
Then you must ask yourself.. what in the world did they eat?
"grand canyon froming over millions of years is naturalist assumption"
No it isn't. We look at the Strata on the sides of the grand canyon.
verzen 1 year ago
@BigG99
"im talking about sharks and whales. ocean dwelling creatures."
And? No one argues that floods don't happen. Just that global ones do not.
verzen 1 year ago
@verzen i dont know why you deny the evidence.. not to mention the countless world wide flood stories that we find all over the world.. in almost every single culture... with almost the exact same story and events. its strong to say that it is part of peoples hisory, wether you believe the miracle accounts of the noahs flood or not..
BigG99 1 year ago
@BigG99
I'm not denying any evidence. You're just making stuff up and refusing to look at any 'rational' answer while supplementing your irrational views.
The countless world wide flood stories? Is that your evidence of a global flood? Ok, step back for a second and look around. What are civilizations built around? WATER... What does water occasionally do? It floods! So a story about a flood is not far fetched.
And each story isn't same at all. Neither are the events.
verzen 1 year ago
@verzen you know what i have had enough conversation of this caliber and on this topic that far exceed the brain cells that you are showing me.. i have been lazy in my responses because i am sick of talking about it frankly... there is plenty of evidence FROM SCIENCE for a world wide flood.. i dont need to justify it to you, because it makes no difference on your life anyways.. so please stop talking to me. I dont really care what you have to say. sorry.
BigG99 1 year ago
@BigG99
Ah, Ad hominem attacks. Brilliants! If you don't agree with what Kent Hovind says, then that must mean you're an idiot.. right? Brilliant argument. =\
There is absolutely no evidence from SCIENCE that a world wide flood happened. Do you see insects on the ground? Plant life that can't survive if drenched in too much water? Bam! Direct evidence against a world wide flood. Not to mention that there isn't that much water ON EARTH to cover all the land!
verzen 1 year ago
@verzen first of all your not open to the prospect of miracles which permeates science. also theres is plenty of water underground to flood the earth. thats a scientific fact. but as i said before i really honestly dont care what you think. i have a college degree and have studied it to death.. i just simply dont care what you think.. honestly. its not ad hom, i just dont care if you have an opinion, your a nobody to me. i have no care for your limited opinion. im not trying to be mean.
BigG99 1 year ago
@BigG99
Miracles don't permeate anything in science. Science is the study of the NATURAL world. All a "miracle" is, is a concept which has not been scientifically explained yet. For example, lightning was a "miracle" prior to us being able to explain why it happens.
The water that is underground is built up by pressure. Pressure makes the water much hotter than it normally is. Releasing boiling water into the ocean would again.. kill all life.
You have a college degree? In what?
verzen 1 year ago
@BigG99
I have a degree in biology and I am aiming to get my PHD in genetics.
If you have a college degree in the sciences, you might want to ask to get a refund because you know nothing about how actual science works.
verzen 1 year ago
@verzen please stop talking.. i dont care what you have to say. your not doing me or you any good by talking.. your opinion is faulty and is extremely religious in nature.. i have already had this conversation with many other people including my friends in the science field who agree with me. geologists actually. thankfully flooding has nothing to do with biology. anyways, i dont care if your going for a phd, your just looking to pick a fight because of your religious views, and i dont care!
BigG99 1 year ago
@BigG99
My opinion is 'not' faulty. A good scientist looks around the NATURAL and TESTABLE world to find conclusions. They don't throw their hands up into the air and then claim that it must be the supernatural because they don't have an answer for what's going on. That's simply bad science.. In fact, it isn't even science at all. And no, real science is not religious.
I have many geologist friends also. You should type into google, "why a global flood is impossible." Research it sometime.
verzen 1 year ago
@verzen screw google, when i have actual scientists to talk to... people dont realize that sources like wikipedia arent even allowed in most academic circles as a reliable source to cite.. internet is a very troubling place to gain information sometimes. and you say that science is testable.which is intersting because watching dirt become a single amino acid turn into a fully functioning cell has never been tested yet we assume it as fact in science.. thats where the religion comes in my friend
BigG99 1 year ago
@BigG99
Screw google? Obviously you fail to understand that when you google it, it brings up a list of peer reviewed papers explaining why a global flood is impossible. Likewise, on pubmed, there are over 200,000 papers on evolution. there are around 100 on creationism and none of those on creationism are actually for creationism.
We don't assume that dirt became an amino acid and then a cell... WTF? You need to do actual research on what abiogenesis is.
verzen 1 year ago
@BigG99
Abiogenesis requires energy. Chemical energy may be able to be used, but the energy we currently get is from the sun or from electricity from lightning. It also requires a liquid environment. We have created amino acids in the lab from scratch using natural processes.
verzen 1 year ago
@verzen i know we have created amino acides in a lab, but thats a far cry from a cell which is infinitley more complex.
BigG99 1 year ago
@BigG99
Cells are not infinitely complex. but you believe that a God created everything and that God is by far more complex than a cell. So how did that God create itself without it's own creator? If he doesn't need a creator himself, being more complex than a cell, then why does a cell NEED a creator? Why can't a cell create itself?
verzen 1 year ago
@verzen because a cell isnt god. God by definition is self existing which is what qualifies Him to be the creator.. philosophically there is no argument here. and comparing the definition off God to a cell is rediculous. a cell is 100 times more complex then an amino acid. read michael BEHE . he has a great book. Darwins black box.... hes a chemical biologist.
BigG99 1 year ago
"because a cell isnt god."
Not a good enough reason. That's special pleading. It is fallacious reasoning.
Philosophically, there is no argument here because you are making an argument based off of fallacious reasoning.
Michael Behe got torn to bits at the dover trial by Dr. Kenneth Miller. Dr. Miller brought up many questions to Behe and Behe couldn't answer any of them. Irreducible complexity has been peer reviewed. And according to the peers, it's a bad notion or idea that falls apart.
verzen 1 year ago
@BigG99
Like I said, there is over 200,000 peer reviewed papers on pub med for evolution. None against. There are less than 100 papers on creationism.. all against it. Actual scientists put their papers on pubmed. What do you have to say about this fact?
verzen 1 year ago
@verzen I would like to say that majority opinion means nothing and that the study of God and creation goes beyond what science is able to answer... science is very limited. Any honest scientist i know recognizes the limits of science. Even Dawkins said that science came out of religious world view. Its because of the interest in God that man decided to look and see what God has made through science.. there was an expectation of design if it was made by a designer. thats what we see today.
BigG99 1 year ago
Majority certainly means something in science. That's why the peer review process works so dang well. The fallacy only comes in when you claim that the majority MUST be right simply because they are the majority. That's not what I'm saying at all. I am saying that almost all scientists accept evolution because the evidence is overwhelming.
Science has brought us EVERYTHING. The notion of God has brought us nothing but war and strife.
Science came out of philosophy. Not religion.
verzen 1 year ago
@BigG99
Humans are also very imperfect. If we were intelligently designed, I would hate to see what idiotic design looks like. If you actually look at the human body, you can see how many mistakes are made on the human. In fact, our jaws are too small for all of our teeth. Our appendix is useless. (some claim it has a use, but I have mine removed and I feel no effects.. at all. Same with everyone who gets their appendix removed)
Nothing on Earth looks to be intelligently designed.
verzen 1 year ago
@BigG99
What 'is' apparent is that life became what it is today through a series of mutations and natural selection which shapes life as we know it.
verzen 1 year ago
@verzen ok whatever you say buddy
BigG99 1 year ago
@BigG99
And I did mention it. The different sets of "strata" was due to a mud slide. Look it up. Plus, regional evidence of floods is evidence for regional floods. It is not evidence for a global flood.
verzen 1 year ago
hey someone let me into a chimp or ape cage and i will shag the females both of them for science...but no one will let me in their cages to proof your theory
Ipluckithard 2 years ago
@Ipluckithard ridiculous comment, but pretty funny.
gaussian 2 years ago
This video shows clear evidence of interbreeding between primates and humans in ancient times. It is not that difficult to understand. Yet your dumb ass beliefs cause you to overlook the obvious.
There are no mystical causes in this.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
No Jimmy.
Humans did not have sex with Gorillas and produce the Chimpanzee.
Are you STILL pushing your crap fringe hypothesis?
You have allready been told the problems with your hypothesis many times over, yet you refuse to listen (or understand)
Dont pretend you know "all about genetics" and have studied "this for over 40 years" because your not fooling everyone, we all know your a pathological liar.
Just go back to your YEC YouTube group and back to selling crap rebranded spas.
Ok?
ChickenHawk110 2 years ago 12
Um, humans are primates...
Gidwan 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It is highly probable that humans created all the primates. It makes far more sense than some imaginary "great grand daddy" primate" that has never existed.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
Many thanks to BonoboBill for this priceless video.
bobx2x2 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
At 3:39 he states that humans have 23 chromosomes. How is this even a scientific video?
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
Hey Bonobobill, First of all thank you so much for this video. One of the things you said leaves me wondering if I am understanding this well. You said that ltr21q22.2 is the latest insertion? Don't you mean to say that it was the latest insertion of the K family virus known to occur before the speciation event in which human and chimp lines diverged or something like that? I see in the tree other insertions such as ltr3q31.1.
hamnose 2 years ago
Oh my god, GSFY. You really are an idiot. '' OH NO MY IQ IS 180 '' I bet its pushing 125. I'm not gonna lie, my IQ is 120, but IQ is not general intelligence, its logical, mathematical and random questions thrown at you as fast as possible. You have no idea about ERV's, GSFY. I suggest you learn some.
MrSimonCowles 2 years ago
It is pretty funny that all of this effort to show that Chimps are so close to Humans and have ERV's so tight is also extreme evidence that Humans are the parent (ancestor) of the Chimp more so than any plausibility of "cousins". 94.7 DNA an 48 almost indentical chromosomes. Get real. The ERV's put the "fork" in that hypothesis as being far more plausible than common "great primate" ancestor. The "great primate" is a human who mated with some primate and produced chimps.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
Everything in this video points to Humans as the "ancestor" of all primates, the first in the genus. Take some classes on genetics then get back to me. How else did those genetic similarities happen. Science has to follow pure logic, not some religious like belief.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
"Science has to follow pure logic, not some religious like belief. "
Logic is a mystery to you.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I see we have the mystical hiku man back, with no real comments as usual. Only snide remarks is all you are capable of.
For someone who lays down like a female dog and accepts ever logical fallacy these "authorities can feed you", because you are too weak minded to actually consider what the hell they are saying. Instead of accepting bull shit, why not reject it right away and find the truth.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
Seriously, GSFY, you're a joke. You're a probably a nice grampa and you may have been a good HFAC tech. But when it comes to science, you're a loon. Logic really *is* a mystery to you. And so is science. Focus on your grandkids and leave the science to the people who are willing to do the homework.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is you standard bull shit, lazy weak bitch. You need to study this stuff away from the indoctrination.
You are not capable of independent thought. You are only capable of laying down like a weak bitch dog to every authority who feeds there crap beliefs to you.
That is what you are.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
GSFY, I recommend your videos all the time!
Your comic book understanding of science is hilarious! Go back to your day job as a technician and leave the science to the people who aren't mentally lazy like you!
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
Your an idiot. You complete moron.
We would share ALL ERVs with chimps if we were the parent, ERVs are inserted in a germ line cell, so they are passed on.
Recent cousins would share the vast majority of ERVs, but not all. Humans and Chimps share the vast majority, but not all.
After Human and Chimps split from the common ancestor, they would get newer different infections form each other, so cousins would have some ERVs that are different.
Take your own advice and take a class in genetics.
lgr1991 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yes and over 4000 years of "separation" would allow these additional ERV's to show at different integration sites. Dumb ass. Stop looking at evidence with evodelusion glasses.
google Neutral Evolution Forum Index and post your evidence over there. I already have many long posts that destroy this as evidence for common ancestor other than humans are the common ancestor.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
@GoodScienceForYou
Facepalm.
4000 years to get 1000s of ERvs in the exact same place, bearing in mind humans have 3billion plus bps? Sure.
I expect your findings that destroy this as evidence for evolution to be published in a peer reviewed journal soon then,
lgr1991 2 years ago 2
You could try pulling your head out and doing some actual studying on the subject, or you can keep providing comic relief.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
I pity people as ignorant as you. There is no help when the delusions are so strong in your mind.
You let other people HEMG control your thinking and you think you are smart? The irony.
If you have any evidence that you think is so compelling then bring it over to the
Neutral Evolution Forum Index and start sharing. Non of you have the courage of your convictions to be vulnerable enough to face ridicule. I have full convictions of my knowledge of your pseudo science.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
You are a very confused individual, GSFY. Your "neutral evolution forum" is not the place to discuss the evidence. That's what the peer review journals are for. Your convictions are irrelevant to the actual science, as is your emotional drivel.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Man, you are so stupid. I don't have any peers. With my IQ the Nobel people sound like nitwits.
There is no science in your delusion. You are too brainwashed and weak to even begin to understand what I teach. I teach people to get free of delusions. You want to perpetuate delusions because your weak ego is attached to them and you made your declarations of faith and belief in your religion to your "peers".
Are you really that unaware of yourself?
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
@GoodScienceForYou
"I don't have any peers. With my IQ the Nobel people sound like nitwits."
hahahaha .... and with your humility they sound like Mother Teresa. What you "teach" is bullcrap, because what you "know" is bullcrap.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ad hominem attacks all the time, you fucking asshole. You are a coward and we all know this.
Everybody you attack has said the same thing. You never discuss science all you do is attack people with your shit. ESD! MF.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
@GoodScienceForYou Moron, everything you say is ad hom and then you whine like a bitch when you get it back you imbecilic twit.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
You tell 'em GS! Please make more science videos. Show 'em how it's done.
PraktikoolSinik 2 years ago
If you have any real evidence for evolution then present it over on evolutionforum info
This video is discussed and destroyed in detail over there.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
Strong text from a guy who thinks chimps and humans are similar because humans had sex with gorillas in the past an produced chimps as their bastard children. :)
Check out his forum.. it's all there.
arpakyna 2 years ago
I do not believe anything that cannot be absolutely proven, so no I don't believe that Humans and Apes had sex and reproduced, but that is far more plausible, based on the evidence we actually have, than some mystical great primate common ancestor.
Interbreeding follows the evidence exactly. The absolute truth is unknown, so don't believe. There no evidence at all of some mystical ape man that had mutant genes and became humans and primates. We do have DNA,ERV's, Chroms and living creatures.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
"I do not believe anything that cannot be absolutely proven"
Well then apparently science is entirely off-limits to you because nothing in science is "absolute" and nothing in science is "proven". Stick with mathematics if you want proofs.
"no I don't believe that Humans and Apes had sex"
Humans are classified as apes.
"Interbreeding follows the evidence exactly."
What "evidence"? You mean the evidence that the DNA of humans and the other great apes are too dissimilar to produce offspring?
ScientiaVeritasEtLux 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
EtLux; I don't think you are capable of understanding genetics. So, why don't you go study this for a while.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
I understand far more about genetics than you do. Can you please quote the part of my comment which led you to believe that I do not/am not capable of understanding genetics? Because my comment seems pretty solid to me. The genes of humans and the other Great Apes are too dissimilar to produce viable offspring (let along viable fertile offspring). So why would you say "interbreeding follows the evidence exactly".
ScientiaVeritasEtLux 2 years ago
Simple. You do not understand about the genetics involved in breeding.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
I understand perfectly well the genetics involved in breeding. And I know for a fact that there is no other primate species that humans are capable of successfully reproducing with. Don't believe me? Go have sex with a chimpanzee at your local zoo and see if it gives birth in 8 months. If I had a million dollars I would bet it all that the chimpanzee would not have little GoodScienceForChimps babies.
Why don't you prove that humans can reproduce with another ape species instead of asserting it?
ScientiaVeritasEtLux 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So, now you are just a liar and nothing else.
You go study. Humans had 48 Chromosomes back then, dumb ass!
That is all that is missing from the breeding compatibility.
Read about the CAMA and other creatures that mate who are not even in the same species anymore, but their genetics align.
What a dumb ass. On the one hand you are all agreeing that humans had 48 chromosomes at one time, now because is messes up your mystical religion you deny it? Bunch of brainwashed idiots!
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
I have never denied that humans had 48 chromosomes at one point. When did I ever say that?
The number of chromosomes is not the only issue in breeding. It is also a matter of the similarity between genes. For example. Chimpanzees and orangutans both have 48 chromosomes, but they are two different species and can not produce viable, fertile offspring because their genes have diverged far too much.
ScientiaVeritasEtLux 2 years ago
Comment removed
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
how am I denying that chimps have 48 chromosomes by denying that a human had sex with a chimpanzee? The mechanism behind the fusion in human chromosome number 2 is entirely separate from breeding between two different species. It took place by a random fusion event in an ancestor of humans.
ScientiaVeritasEtLux 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I don't think you are capable of telling me how to think. But obviously you are weak and unable to think for yourself.
The world is my peer review. I am not going to try and save the scientific community from its infection of mystical causes and mystical bull shit.
There is only cause and effect in physics.
Your bull shit violates that law of physics and is not science. So, what peer that is not full of bull shit is going to even understand what I teach? Not some idiot like you for sure.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
@GoodScienceForYou Thank you for that staggering bit of self-aggrandizing bullcrap, GSFY. Every sentence you type reveals you to be a pompous, ignorant, know-nothing twit.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago 11
This comment has received too many negative votes show
When you know ANYTHING about science then you can answer me. You never contribute anything, you never discuss the subject you are a fucking troll.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
Guess what, GSFY! You don't determine what is science and what isn't. You pull ignorant crap out your backside without having the slightest clue what you're talking about. YOU are the troll. You haven't contributed anything intelligent to this thread. Considering your "intellectual" level, this is not surprising. Discussing science with you would be slightly less stimulating and informative than discussing it with my dog. She, at least, doesn't have a head full of crap.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
See what I mean. You can't even make English sentences and you argue science with me. You are perfectly welcome to discuss real science with me in detail on the evolutoinforum info site.
If you have any objective reason left after the brainwahing.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
GSFY, you're probably just confused by sentences more complicated than what a 2nd grader might use. You don't know anything about real science and so we wouldn't have anything to discuss. We can discuss ERVs in this thread, if you are willing to do some actual homework on the subject. Otherwise, you can keep saying stupid crap.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
Give it your best shot. Prove that creatures have evolved over any length of time into an entirely new species with a totally new morphology?
You cannot use any "opinions" ever. You are only allowed to use absolute observable, objective evidence that is OBVIOUS and requires no "opinions" from anybody.
It is sad to see so many people willing to turn their intelligence over to a dumb belief.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
In the physical world random does not exist.
It is only a series of events reactions and causes in a continual chain.
Random only exists in pure math.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
None of the ERV imprints are duplicated on the genome. No single nucleotide is replicated, which means a lot of evolution.
reimitate 2 years ago
What does he say at 3.28?
He first says that every intergration site is unique. Then something like: In fact; not even ... nucleotide is used twice.
BioNRGy 2 years ago
3:28 (link)
BioNRGy 2 years ago
not even one nucleotide
Taylor2534 2 years ago
Then I dont understand what he means. I can understand that the intergration sites have a unique sequence. But there are only 4 different nucleotides. So at least they have to have similar nucleotides.
BioNRGy 2 years ago