Evidence for Evolution - Analysis of Human Chromosome 2 pt2

[GoodScienceForYou]

If you are not seeking the Truth of the matter, then you are only seeking to perpetuate yours and other peoples ignorant beliefs based on faith and wanting magical answers.

There is no magic in science. Evotards believe in the "magical mutation fairy" that is supposed to fix screwed up DNA.

We only have absolutely irrefutable evidence of human genetic degradation. It also apparent in the universities in religious mythological Evodelusionism crap being taught as if it was science.

[GoodScienceForYou]

Cult is defined by both the effects on the brainwashed members as well as by the precepts and dogma of the cult:

1/ Only the high priests are allowed to tell you what is correct thinking.

[GoodScienceForYou]

2/ There are rules, specifically designed to stop any outside influence from affecting your belief in the cult. ( I call them the prison bars you let them put on your brain.)

[GoodScienceForYou]

3/ There has to be a foundational dogma of the belief. In this case the dogma is that there is no God, and that all life started by accident. (They represent "science" and are opposed to religions.) 

[GoodScienceForYou]

4/ Cults always brainwash children. (So do Communist and fascists.) Hitler was famous for his pushing people into institutions that indoctrinated his fascist beliefs into something that was "good" for them.)

[AlanCFA]

@GoodScienceForYou "Cults always brainwash children" In your case, the Siddha Path Yoga cult brainwashed you when you were an adult.

[GoodScienceForYou]

5/ Anyone who is not in the cult is considered to be inferior, or lacking in "knowledge of this great truth". (If you want to be accepted as an "intelligent person" you must believe in their doctrines.) 

[GoodScienceForYou]

6/ They set up goal posts and rewards for the indoctrinated. In this case it is a degree or a certificate of achievement, often a Ph D. in this religion is the reward. (The next level is always better than the one you are on now.)

[GoodScienceForYou]

7/ They make it so that money is the fuel and the carrot you get, so that you become the new high priest of this cult. When you get paid a high salary to perpetuate the cult's dogma, you are screwed. 

[GoodScienceForYou]

8/ They make you declare your allegiance to the cult by stating your belief in writing and in speaking. I call it the "baptism". Once your ego is attached to this and you declare your belief, you are no longer a scientist or even a rational person. Belief in fantasy is instant loss of credibility as a scientist. (After declaration all you do is perpetuate the belief.) They make sure that this fanaticism and religion goes on, by making you into a delusional believer.

[GoodScienceForYou]

9/ They create these methods to perpetuate, by they way the "students" are indoctrinated. In their school classes they are taught to never listen to anyone outside the cult, because these people are not certified by them. In this case you can get a "science" degree and make money from this delusional nonsense. In classes any opposing evidence is never looked at and only that which perpetuates the delusion is allowed.

[GoodScienceForYou]

10/ They steal precepts from other religions and from science that are obviously true and use that in the early parts of the indoctrination or brainwashing. (always used something that is obviously true and imply that that truth, supports their dogma.)

[GoodScienceForYou]

11/ The "prison bars" are not apparent to the students. They simply follow and trust the leaders of the cult. They are always convinced that the cult is the best thing there is. (What better icon in society than to use science, education and pollute it with political and religious and anti religious agendas.)

[GoodScienceForYou]

12/ They make examples out of anyone who would question the cults power and authority. Nowadays, that means once you understand that it is not science but is a religion, you are not going to agree with the leaders who hold power. So you lose your job, and get humiliated in public as much as possible. They often attack in what I call "Nazi Wolf Packs" on the internet and in school. They try to make examples of what happens if you question their authority.

[GoodScienceForYou]

13/ DNA is absolutely irrefutable evidence showing only genetic degradation over time in all complex creatures. There is only a "refinement" by lost genetic strength, lost genetic features, and a general loss of fitness for survival as each species heads for extinction.

This is not debatable. It is reality. Once the gene is screwed up it never comes back and there are no magical fixes in genetics.

[arealisticone]

@Goosfys Is this what you mean? -69/ DNA is abslutely irefutable evidnce showng organic genetic fitnes over time in all creatures (by god). There is only a "refinement" by lost genetic strength, lost genetic features, and a general loss of fitness for survival as each species heads for extinction.Once the gene is screwed up it never comes back and there are no magical fixes in genetics - Question - when and how do the genetics screw up? and where do they go?

Do you believe in the big bang

?

[GoodScienceForYou]

@arealisticone The loss of fitness is obvious. Humans have genetic diseases. All humans are mere ghosts of their most ancient ancestors when it comes to health and strength. We cannot live with out medical doctors. The medical industry is huge and will soon be the largest industry on the planet, and you think humans are getting better? What planet are you from? This is obvious beyond my ability to understand you not being able to see this. I will repeat it for you.

[GoodScienceForYou]

@arealisticone There are over 6800 genetically caused diseases in humans found so far. They are caused by many thousands of mutations found in the human DNA. We know these are screwed up DNA sequences because we can see the PRIOR FIT condition before the mutation in living humans without a particular genetic disease. However, all humans have genetic diseases.

These diseases are the result of "evolution" which is and has always been about genetic degradation from mutations.

[GoodScienceForYou]

@arealisticone According the the CDC 33% of people in the US from the ages of 15 to64 will die from cancer. Cancer is a genetically caused disease in which the immune system cannot destroy the cancer cells, because the immune DNA is screwed up.

Childhood cancer incidents in the US has risen by 129% in less than 20 years. Children are young people, in case you don't know that?

[GoodScienceForYou]

@arealisticone 1 in 3.8 people in Canada have diabetes, according to the Canadian Diabetes Association. 1 in 12 in the US have Diabetes. We know it is caused by genetics and only genetics from DNA studies on it. It can be triggered by environment. We know this because there are fat people who eat crap by the millions who do not have diabetes, because they are not genetically set up for diabetes.

[GoodScienceForYou]

@arealisticone The "big bang" is a religious concept from ancient Indian scriptures. I am not the only one who knows this.

As Einstein said: "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."

The whole theory was plagiarized by some student.

All of life came from what is called the "Blue Bindu" or a single point in space. It is where all life arises. All of life proceeds from one point in space. Goto my basic science video.

[gregrutz]

GoodScienceForYou will watch this and not understand how DNA proves evolution happens.

They are brainwashed, want proof?

What evidence would prove evolution to you? Hmmmm?

Nothing !?

I rest my case.

[GoodScienceForYou]

3:09 This is only further evidence of genetic degradation. DNA only shows genetic degradation, meaning that the common ancestor of both humans and chimps was a far superior human.

Chimps degraded far faster than modern humans, but modern humans are speeding up their genetic degradation much faster now.

Chimps are a message as to where humans are heading. They are far more genetically degraded than we are now, but do show where we are heading.

[gregrutz]

@GoodScienceForYou >Wrong, our ancestors were dumb like you. Chimps have a better short term memory and are stronger than humans.

And how would you know ''degradation rates' anyway. You are not a DNA expert.

[GoodScienceForYou]

@gregrutz I am a DNA expert. Yes. Chimps have extremely fast memory because the rest of the logic functions are retarded. Chimp muscles are "retained" strength that humans have lost. Chimps have 160,000 genetic mutations that cause degradation and are nearly extinct. Humans have about 6000 and counting, heading for extinction and faster now than ever.

You have a genetic disease because of human genetic degradation. There is no evolution.

[gregrutz]

@GoodScienceFor  ''I am a DNA expert'' You are not even a scientist, you are a quack. ''Humans.... heading for extinction'' Yes by overpopulation dummy.

[GoodScienceForYou]

@gregrutz Mutations only result in a net genetic degradation. It is how mutations work. There is no evolution shown on this planet. Because mutations are the way in which any change to DNA is shown, there are only negative results from them. You do not want any mutations. You want genetic preservation. I don't think humans are capable of doing anything to stop their eventual extinction. Only God can fix this.

Two of the best videos on "evolution"

/watch?v=spuZtAa80qI

/watch?v=emPINOUlfnE

[gregrutz]

@GoodScienceForYou What has more mutations, a big wolf or a small wolf? A blue bird or a red bird? Is a Microraptor dinosaur with feathers a mutation? Is a change in DNA a mutation or new information?!? How does it know?

[GoodScienceForYou]

@gregrutz Got "Neutral Evolution Forum" and read. I put over 110,000 links to scientific articles.

If you look at the ancestors of all creatures you will see that the oldest was far more fit for survival. This is obvious from the evidence.

[gregrutz]

@GoodScienceForYou Not >So in the Cambrain Period all those strange marine creatures were ''far more fit for survival'? They are all extinct. And the large dinosarus were ''far more fit for survival''?

They are all extinct. What they evolved into still survive.

Life on the earth changed over time, this is obvious form the evidence.

[GoodScienceForYou]

@gregrutz They are extinct because the water went away.

The ancestor of the Elephant was far more fit. The ancestor of the snakes was far more fit. The ancestor of the cat, dog, chicken, rat, and every creature we have found the living ancestor's DNA we can see the gene loss.

It would be good if you were up to date with your information. Change over time is only showing genetic loss.

There is no evolution from simple to complex.

[gregrutz]

@GoodScienceForYou Not ''There is no evolution from simple to complex'' You just said the PreCambrian had nothing but sponges and the Cambrian animals ''suddenly appeared'' Then land animals, reptiles, suddenly appeared. and then birds suddenly appeared. Sponge then bird...

IT LOOKS LIKE THINGS ARE GETTING MORE COMPLEX TO ME!

[AlanCFA]

@GoodScienceForYou "It would be good if you were up to date with your information. " It would be good if you actually read something about the theory of evolution instead of making up crap to support your religion.

"Change over time is only showing genetic loss." Untrue, but you are too dishonest to admit it.

[GoodScienceForYou]

@gregrutz And speaking of the Cambrian period. There is no prior species in those extinct marine creatures. There is only sponges underneath. Not one single transitional creature exists in those fossils. They just appeared "all of the sudden" in terms of the earth clock.

[gregrutz]

@GoodScienceForYou Not How do new speceis keep appearing over the last 600 million years. Science has a theory on the 'Origen of Species'. You should study it.

[AlanCFA]

@GSFY "There is no prior species in those extinct marine creatures. There is only sponges underneath. Not one single transitional creature exists in those fossils" Incredible ignorance on your part. You keep repeating the lies from The Watchtower instead of learning real science. You are a creotard of the worst kind.

"They just appeared "all of the sudden" in terms of the earth clock" So you finally accept age of earth estimates? The Cambrian explosion was several million years long

[AlanCFA]

@GoodScienceForYou "I put over 110,000 links to scientific articles." Not a single one of which you have read.

[AlanCFA]

@GoodScienceForYou "Only God can fix this." Where is your evidence for God? If you do not have it, then by YOUR definition, you are insane.

[GoodScienceForYou]

@gregrutz Over population is not the problem, yet. It will be another 100 years before that is the problem. There is enough land for food for more than 5 times the population we have now, if people stop eating meat which is proven harmful to the human body. Have you looked at the earth from space?

The problem is mutagens and new forms of human caused virus and bacterial mutations that are destroying our genome. We know what mutagens are, but are too stupid to figure this out.

[gregrutz]

@GoodScienceForYou Darwin didn't know about mutagiens and had no problem showing how evoltuion works.

[AlanCFA]

@GSFY "I am a DNA expert" You are a bumbling idiot and do not know the first thing about the theory of evolution. Your video claimed that the fusion of human chromosome #2 never happened. You lied when you found out that you were wrong about a BASIC piece of information - you claimed that you were only asking for evidence. Bullshit. You stated "first of all, there's no such thing as a fused chromosome" at 4:10 to 4:14 of this video: watch?v=29e8brRBEVI

You're a liar and an idiot

[GoodScienceForYou]

In case you missed the video. A fusion is a genetic degradation. It is not an improvement. This is because the nature of life is that mutations are harmful.

They destroy already functioning healthy cell replication. When a mutation doesn't kill and will still allow breeding, it will propagate through the species, lowering the quality of life, lowering the fitness and loss of intelligence.

[gregrutz]

@GoodScienceForYou ''A fusion is a genetic degradation''. Wrong, it is just a change and any change is new information.

[AlanCFA]

@GSFY "In case you missed the video. A fusion is a genetic degradation." You claimed to have studied the theory of evolution for 40 years and did not know that a fusion even took place on human chromosome #2, so you really missed the video and the books and the scientific papers, etc. But now that you have seen how wrong you were and acknowledge the fusion, please tell us how it is harmful. What horrible diseases are caused? Does it turn people into Jehovah's Witnesses? (that would be harmful)

[JungleJargon]

Fuse them together and see if it makes an intelligent ape or a not so intelligent human.

The truth is that the controlling information previously thought to be "junk DNA" is what makes us different than the apes as the controlling DNA is very different.

watch?v=fE8VO6z4tcg

[agentorange20]

@JungleJargon I don't think merely fusing would result in an intelligent ape, as there has been quite substantial genomic differences since that time. The regulator genes are different, but so are other sequences.

[JungleJargon]

@agentorange20 You are assuming that apes and humans are related. Monkeys all have hands for feet. The evidence is that mutatiions do not accumulate. That means that the variation of the species can only vary existing information. It cannot and does not come up with new information. If something "appears", that is because it was already in the genome. "Grasshoppers" turn into locusts all the time but they never turn into crickets.

watch?v=yAL-jRO6hjE

[agentorange20]

@JungleJargon 'assuming that apes and humans are related'

It's not an assumption, it's an inference, an induction.

'mutatiions do not accumulate.'

sure they do, anything favorable for a species would certainly spread throughout a population & accumulate more changes over time. case & point, nylonase.

[JungleJargon]

@agentorange20 The only mutations that accumulate are bad mutations because that is what most mutations are. The variation of species is not from mutations to begin with. A variation is a whole series of uniform variations that cannot possiblly be the result of a single mutation. A dog with a mark is a dog with a mark. It spreads regardless.

There is a limit to what the genome is able to do. It is not a miracle worker. It can only do what it has informatiion to do. Anything else is speculation.

[agentorange20]

@JungleJargon ‘The only mutations that accumulate are bad mutations because that is what most mutations are.’

No this is wrong. Most mutations are actually neutral, while a very small % are either helpful or beneficial to an organism (PLoS mutations). Meiotic mutations which are harmful are never passed on as they overwhelmingly result in death to zygote as it’s undergoing cell division/replication, the death meaning it won’t later pass on these harmful mutations.

[agentorange20]

@JungleJargon Neutral mutations occur & are passed on as they don’t inhibit the organism, while beneficial mutations are passed on & drift throughout the population & increase in allele frequency as they increase the overall fitness of the organism. (Nylonase).

[agentorange20]

@JungleJargon ‘There is a limit to what the genome is able to do.

The only real constraints are time & physical restrictions of the environment that the organism has no control over. More time allows for more successive generations of accumulated mutations to occur, allowing for more grand changes, more divergence, more genetic isolation, etc. Think of it like tectonic plates. More time means plates moving further, mountains uplifting & areas of subduction.

[JungleJargon]

@agentorange20 The mountains were pushed up after over 200 million cubic miles of sediment were laid down by the flood. That is proof the mountains of today, consisting of the same layers of sediment, did not exist at the time of the flood.

The real actual limit of the genome is the amount of information that it has. It cannot ever do what it does not have information to do. You are imagining things.

[agentorange20]

@JungleJargon 'mountains were pushed up after over 200 million cubic miles of sediment were laid down by the flood'

mountains form from floods according to creationist? too bad all you have is an assertion & no evidence. also, how does a single flood lay down many multiple independent layers?

'l limit of the genome is the amount of information that it has'

& what is information in this context? the genes? so if I show you a new gene, that would constitute new information, right?

[JungleJargon]

@agentorange20 The mountains are still being pushed up as we speak from the ocean plates formed by the pressure of the oceans forming the ocean plates. The moutains consist of the sediment layers put down by the flood.

The older you get, the more "new genes" you have and they will eventually kill you.

[agentorange20]

@JungleJargon 'mountains are still being pushed up as we speak'

but they're not moving at the fast clip speed you & your flood suggest.

'moutains consist of the sediment layers put down by the flood'

If that;s so, then why do we have multiple layers from a single flood?

'older you get, the more "new genes" you have and they will eventually kill'

yeah right cite single source for that.

[JungleJargon]

@agentorange20 What makes you think that the mountains would continue to grow at the same rate?

Floods put down multiple layers. It has been proven multiple times.

Everyone that gets old does so because of mutations and the inability to correct them.

What did you think causes old age?

[agentorange20]

@JungleJargon @JungleJargon 'What did you think causes old age?'

Aging is the result of telomertic mutations, not meiotic mutations. Quite a big difference there as meiotic mutations are passed on & inherited to offspring.

[JungleJargon]

@agentorange20 Fortunately for us meiotic mutations can be and are corrected in the following generations. The result of the mutations is always the same, it always kills us. It never does anything good for us. There is far too much destroyed information for every benefictial mutations. Mutations are like a gamble with the worst odds possible. If we depended on mutations, we would be a bunch mutated of misfits saying, "at least I don't get malaria". The truth is we have to correct mutations.

[agentorange20]

@JungleJargon 'meiotic mutations can be and are corrected in the following generations'

any deleterious meiotic mutations are lethal to the zygote, you wont get an offspring much less a reproducing one to pass on said mutation.. neutral mutations on the other hand can be freely passed on, & there is no selective pressure to preserve them so they can drift in frequency.

'result of the mutations is always the same, it always kills us'

No, clearly beneficial & neutral ones do not.

[agentorange20]

@JungleJargon If we depended on mutations, we would be a bunch mutated ',

Mutations are a natural part of the DNA encoding, as is the error checking process which addresses mutations & natural selection which weeds out mutations which are harmful to the organism. "at least I don't get malaria"

Malaria isn't caused by mutation, it's caused by an infections disease.

[JungleJargon]

@agentorange20 Thre is a known mutation that helps keep a person from getting malraria. It also causes sickle cell anemia.

Mutations are caused by radiation. It is not natural. Mutations only destroy the preexisting directives that make us what we are.

Radiation is not able to make new and better creatures. People have been brainwashed.

There is nothing natural about mutations. The uniform variation of species is variations cause by the genome itself.

[agentorange20]

@JungleJargon 'mutation that helps keep a person from getting malraria. It also causes sickle cell anemia.'

yes, the fitness conferred by a given mutation & thus certain phenotypes depend upon the environment. sickle cell is preferred there.

'Mutations are caused by radiation. It is not natural.'

wrong. 1 cause of genetic errors in cell division is radiation, however most mutations result from the non flawless cell division & error checking process. they're entirely natural.

[agentorange20]

@JungleJargon 'change to the genome is a loss of information'

This is fundamentally wrong, mutations could be a single base pair substitution change (A,C,G,T) in which case unless it impacts the encoding of the proteins (most are neutral again) it has no impact on the organisms survival at all. If you're saying that a single base pair is information, then any new mutation in which a new base pair has been added to the genome is an increase an information (and yes, those happen too).

[agentorange20]

@JungleJargon 'Mutations only destroy the preexisting directives that make us what we are.'

97% of mutations are entirely neutral, you wouldn't know you had them were it not for genetics.

'The uniform variation of species is variations cause by the genome itself.'

as is the variation between species.

[JungleJargon]

@agentorange20 Any change to the genome is a loss of information so 97% of mutations destroy information.

You don't understand. The genome is limited by the limited amount of information that it has.

That is the reason cats stay cats and dogs stay dogs. Green grasshoppers of a certain variety always only morph into locusts and nothing else because the genome is limited.

100 million cubic miles of sediments can only be the result of a global flood.

[agentorange20]

@JungleJargon '100 million cubic miles of sediments can only be the result of a global flood'

Oh no, creationists and math again. Right, so where is thsi 100 million cubic mils of sediments? You do realize that a cubic mile is a 1 Mile X 1Mile X 1 Mile, yes? so Where is there 100 million cubed?

[JungleJargon]

@agentorange20 The continents and mountain chains consist of the sediments that also buried all life forms on earth.

[agentorange20]

@JungleJargon 'ontinents and mountain chains'

yeah, so? That in no way means they were all buried in a single period, especially when we find them in different layers that had to be formed at different times or over many years and not in a single instant.

[JungleJargon]

@agentorange20 The life forms were all buried in 100 million cubic miles of sediments that only a flood is able to deposit. That does mean there was a global flood that buried all the life forms on earth.

[agentorange20]

@JungleJargon 'all buried in 100 million cubic miles '

Ok, look gramps, I don't have time for the bullshit, so unless you cite your specific claims I think you can fuck off already. Where is there 100 million cubic of anything on earth, really?

[JungleJargon]

@agentorange20 The layers of sediments that buried the fossils make up the continents and mountain chains including Antarctica and they are are miles thick.

It is the white elephant in the room that no one sees.

[agentorange20]

@JungleJargon 'layers of sediments that buried the fossils'

& again I ask, CITE your source that a single global flood can create dozens of sedimentary layers, CITE your source that there is a '100 million cubic miles' of sedimentary deposits. I swear, this whole dialog is so far off the topic of this video it's ridiculous. How about you try addressing the topics in this video?

[JungleJargon]

@agentorange20 Cite your source that no flood is able to deposit 100 million cubic miles of sediments on the continents. You can't answer that so of course you want to talk about something else.

There are fossil current ripples that prove the direction of the flow of water over the continents.

The thing with the chromosomes is all speculation, conjecture, imagination, assumption and fantasy.

Welcome to the real world, the genomoe is limited by the information that it has.

watch?v=lEledPONpkQ

[agentorange20]

@JungleJargon 'source that no flood is able to deposit 100 million'

Iit's your claim that it's able to this, it's not my job to rebut what you cannot provide positive evidence for in the first place. Positive claims require positive evidence, so it's your burden to back up, not mine. This is basic logic.

'fossil current ripples'

Again, evidence? Source? You haven't provided one thus far, all you provide is assertions.

[JungleJargon]

@agentorange20 If the earth was millions and millions of years old, all of the sediments should be in the oceans and not on land where they are covering all life forms on earth.

I don't have to prove the 60 million (depending on the estimates) cubic miles of sediments are there. You are not even able to say how they got there.

Geologiststs that are not looking evidence that goes against their preconceived beliefs.

It is other geologists that are doing the work to find out what the facts are.

[agentorange20]

@JungleJargon 'earth was millions and millions'

Let's get it straight, it's 4.57 Billion years old. Sea levels rise & fall, & continents move (tectonic plates) resulting in uplift, mountain ranges, so you have sedimentary layers which were on ancient oceans now above today's sea level.

'I don't have to prove the 60 million'

Earlier you stated it was 100 million, now it's 60, what changed? It's your positive claim, it's your burden to provide evidence, otherwise it's hearsay nonsense.

[agentorange20]

@JungleJargon 'You are not even able to say how they got there. '

I'm not the one saying they did get there, or in that volume of 100 million cubic, you are, it's your problem to provide evidence for your claims.

[JungleJargon]

@agentorange20 The sediments are there covering all life forms on earth and no one can remove them. If they did, there would be no continents.

Try 60 million cubic miles of sediments. We know they are there. Just look at the Grand Canyon. There are fossils in the layers a mile down. Where did a mile of sediments come from to cover all life on earth? That is about 60 million cubic miles of sediments covering all of the continents.

[agentorange20]

@JungleJargon 'Try 60 million cubic miles of sediments'

Try providing evidence, dip shit. I've only asked like 30 times.

'That is about 60 million cubic miles of sediments covering all of the continents'

Cite your source already or fuck off. I am not debating that a grand canyon exists, or that fossils are in sedimentary layers, I am questioning your assertion of the amount of '100 million cubic miles', that now, w/ out explanation you've reduced to 60 million (still lacking evidence).

[JungleJargon]

@agentorange20 There are almost 60 million square miles of land areas and there is an average depth of one mile of sediments covering all the life forms on earth.

It depends on how you measure the sediments. If it is near two miles of sediments, it is 100 million cubic miles and if it is one mile it is only 60 million cubic miles of sediments.

Tell me why the sediments are on land and not in the oceans after billions of years.

[agentorange20]

@JungleJargon '60 million square miles of land areas'

I simply refuse to do this anymore, cite your source already or in the words of Gordon Ramsey, fuck off.

'sediments are on land and not in the oceans'

What are you talking about, there are sedimentary layers in the oceans, but they are younger as this is where the floor spreading is occur as new morphic layers are laid down. This is all part of tectonic plate theory.

[JungleJargon]

@agentorange20 You got something right, the ocean plates are younger and are spreading and pressing against the continents from all sides, so the earth, as it is, is not billions of years old.

There is close to 60 million square miles of land areas the sediments of which are an average of a mile deep. That is a geologic fact.

Tectonic action is not able to deposit sediments a mile thick buriying all life on earth.

[agentorange20]

@JungleJargon 'ocean plates are younger'

That the sediments in the ocean basins are younger in relation to those above ground doesn't mean they're not billions of years old, what evidence is there that the earth isn't the age I gave (4.57 B)?

'That is a geologic fact.'

That might be, nevertheless I would require a source to accept it as a fact. Tectonic plates result in plates moving, I never said they bury species.

[JungleJargon]

@agentorange20 Sediment layers are what buried all life forms on earth. What made those sediment layers was a global flood because only a global flood is able to move and deposit that much sediment. It did not deposit the sediment in the oceans because the oceans opened up after the sediments were deposited and the pressure from the ocean plates that formed put pressure on the continents from all sides pushing up the mountains.

The flood happened 4400 years ago. Anything else is a guess.

[agentorange20]

@JungleJargon 'nly a global flood'

fail. indeed species were buried under sediments resulting in fossils, but that in no way necessitates a single global flood. your ignoring the regular deposit rates.

'It did not deposit the sediment in the oceans'

but there are sedimentary layers there too.I really am done w/ your bullshit no-way flood, unless you're going to provide evidence, fuck off already.

[MW2Addiction]

@agentorange20 Jungle is a fucking idiot. All creationist are. There all full of shit and they like to claim things without any evidence. And even if they have evidence, that evidence is invalid. Their lack of knowledge of the natural world and geology, science, biology, etc. Shows when they honestly try to debate a well educated being.

[gregrutz]

@JungleJargon All sediment layers are not from water. Plate tectonics moves mountains. The early Egyptians did not all die in a flood or the Chinese. Floods don't sort fossils either.

How did the kangaroos hop to Australia and why didn't they go anywhere else/

[odinata]

@agentorange20

Are these mirrors?

Somebody pulled down part 2

[Threshingfloor814]

@JungleJargon Nice cut and paste.

[agentorange20]

@agentorange20 ‘ destroyed information for every benefictial mutations.’

Again, harmful meiotic mutations end up killing the zygote spot on, result in chromosomal abnormalities that result in spontaneous abortions, still births, or infants that typically don’t live very long let alone long enough to reproduce. That’s how natural selection works buddy

[agentorange20]

@JungleJargon 'Floods put down multiple layers. It has been proven multiple times.'

Sure they do, that's why you didn't cite anything to show they do.

[agentorange20]

@JungleJargon It never does anything good for us.'

Sure they do, CCR5 mutation is good example.

'destroyed information for every benefictial mutations'

what are you talking about, if the mutation is beneficial, natural selection preserves it.

'Mutations are like a gamble with the worst odds possible.'

not really, the overwhelming majority (97%) of mutations are neutral, a small fraction of the rest are either beneficial or deleterious.

[agentorange20]

@JungleJargon 'It never does anything good for us.'

Sickle cell mutation, that on helps the host from contracting malaria. The mutation responsible for Lactose tolerance allows humans to digest animal milk. CCR5 mutation prevents HIV from bonding to T cell. Are those good enough for ya?

[agentorange20]

@JungleJargon 'Floods put down multiple layers. It has been proven multiple times.'

Which is why you don't cite anything supporting that claim. Besides, where else is the evidence for a global flood, shouldn't there be other oddities?

[agentorange20]

@JungleJargon ‘The variation of species is not from mutations to begin with’

Variation is an inherit byproduct of replication via DNA/RNA which while highly accurate, cell replication is not 100% error proof , mutations occur & are passed on, each generation of humans has ~175 mutations neither of their parents had.

[agentorange20]

@JungleJargon ‘A variation is a whole series of uniform variations that cannot possiblly be the result of a single mutation. ‘

No one is saying a single mutation results in massive variation, that’s a fallacy. The amount of variation is contingent on the multitude of mutations & their specificity.

[crichk021]

Although I don't come to the same conclusion about our shared ancestry with other primates, I did enjoy the video. It was informative, clear and easy to follow. Well done.

[Subspace4d]

thanks a lot!

[HV113th]

So wouldn't that mean we should have TWO centromeres on the 'human' chromosome no.2???

1st @ its current position (in the human)

&

2nd @ 2q21 ? ? ?

What happened two the 2nd centormere during the fusion?

[agentorange20]

@HV113th, we do have 2 centromeres (kinda) The one off center is inactive, but it retained the unique sequencing evident in the other great apes so we know it's the remnants of the former centromere.

[arthurdonachy]

your makin me dizzy

also why is the african music appropriate?

many thanks for the big debate

[patrickkrak]

i can't believe this video has only 1566 views at the time of this comment. It is AMAZING! And nice music to go with it too. That put all the creationists in their place. Perhaps one thing it needed was a comparison of the karotypes of humans and dogs in more detail (as a kind of control), otherwise excellent, thanks for taking the time to make it.

[pitbullboy100]

holy shit your funking smart as HELL !!!!!!!

[pitbullboy100]

if we harvest the dna of chimp's to better ourselves we become the slaves we were created to be? I am a spiritual expression of cemicals locked in a time continuim in the milky way . Love you

[kandtell]

Excellent vid! Thanks for posting it!

As others have already said it deserves more views, ratings, and comments.

[hughtub]

I recommend everyone read The Future of Humans by Robert Klark Graham, free online several places. If humans evolved from apes, then we have the capacity to evolve into even more intelligent primates, but only if the more intelligent among us have more offspring than we are having. Otherwise we will become too dependent on our tools and technology, and possibly lose our intelligence eventually becoming like Idiocracy.

[NaturalUniverse101]

another 5 star video, and then some........thanks agentorange

[finalcloud13]

This is my favorite video.

[alexkidd3d]

Hmm, this should certainly have more views that it does, great video, very clear and concise without being dumbed down too much. thanks :)

[Wrigley1245]

Excellent video series. Well done.

[ComplexP2]

Splendid!

[oliverscott2007]

Horses and zebras can breed right? So, could humans and chimps actually be compatible in making a cross species baby?

[agentorange20]

oliverscott2007, I doubt it, and it largely has to do with how many genetic rearrangements we differ from Chimps (10 at least, 1 being the fusion). These rearrangements from my research make fertility across species, or hybridization, very, very unlikely. The evidence of rearrangements, what causes them, and such is also evidence for a shared ancestry.

[Minttzz]

Richard Leakey has suggested it might be possible. But of course he's not a geneticist.

Check out Humanzee on Wikipedia.