The author of this video has evidently confused a mistaken identification by a single individual that never achieved widespread acceptance and that was quickly discarded even by the original mistaken identifier after further study with an attempt to engage in willful deception. Such confusion is understandable from individuals with no willingness to engage in actual research and with no interest in an honest presentation of data.
Phillip E. Johnson known as "The father of intelligent design" and co-founder of the Discovery Institute, which rejects darwinism in favor for intelligent design, admitted that he lies for his god in 'Reclaiming America For Christ'. He states,"The objective is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God
creationism is straight impossible. I will explain if you want. But as it stands, it doesn't matter what creationists think. The evidence, simply put, is in favor of evolution. If it wasn't, we would all be young earth creationists. It's that simple. Science searches for truth, no matter what it is, based on the avaliable evidence. Too bad science isn't always on the side of religion. But just because it disagrees with you doesn't mean it has some anti-religion agenda....
I always wonder how creationists can enjoy the benefits of science every minute of every day, from technology to medicine, and yet are still capable of throwing the switch of rational thought into the OFF position when the same sciences interfere with the primitive myths of their religious cults. Instead of raving about evolution, why aren't they declaring genetic engineering, computers, and medical imaging devices to be the work of the devil? At least be consistent.
I always wonder how Darwinists can enjoy the benefits of science every minute of every day, from technology to medicine, and yet are still capable of throwing the switch of rational thought into the OFF position when the same sciences interfere with the primitive myths of their Darwinists cults. Instead of raving about creation, why aren't they declaring genetic engineering, computers, and medical imaging devices to be the work of the intelligent design? At least be consistent.
@sailcat9 Explain how Darwinism relates to "computers", "medical imaging devices"? You are full of hyperbole. Darwinism is hyperbole. Darwinism is a religion.
our (also pretty crappy) spines, the fact that our oesophagus and windpipe are connected and we can choke on our food, the geographical distribution of animals,
the fossil record which contains several transitional species. need more?
@ndzoko Equivocation. You people equivocate "evolutionism" with "science". Some of the greatest scientists of all time have been Bible-believing Christians. Now, you lot want to say that if we are against the religion of evolutionism, we are "against science". Anyone with a half a brain can see the outrageous, manipulative that is.
@PiltdownSuperman : NUTS.. Some of the greatest scientists of all time have been Bible-believing Christians>>>. Of course in a christian dominated society, most scientists are christians. In a moslem dominated society, most scientists are moslem. But in a free society, where religion has no political power, most scientists are non-believers. Religion has always been against science,if it runs into the bible. Religion was against toilet paper, lightning rods, stem cell research, etc etc.
@PiltdownSuperman : Christianity opposed :anatomy, invitro fertlization, condoms, cremation, autopsy , I am sure it opposes assisted suicide of the suffering, terminally ill , people.. Indeed, anyone with half a brain knows how backwards religion is. Religion is about a century behind science.
@TheScienceFoundation The Genetic Fallacy is a useful tool to dodge the unpleasant evidence showing flaws in evolution, don't you agree? You must agree, you just used it. I dare you to look at the scientific evidence for creation. And none of that nonsense of "there is none", because cowards and liars pull that trick.
@PiltdownSuperman No fallacy there, I was pointing out that anyone who understands biology also understands that evolution is the only explanation for the diversity of life on earth.
'I dare you to look at the scientific evidence for creation'
Such as?
"And none of that nonsense of "there is none", because cowards and liars pull that trick."
So you've set it up where anyone who points out that your claims are without evidence are liars by default. That's a complete non-sequitur
@TheScienceFoundation No, you are a completely intellectually dishonest, an ideologue and a coward. "Such as?", my joyfully bouncing buttocks. Do the work, Mr. Science Liar.
@TheScienceFoundation No, do your own homework. It's all over the internet, including at Piltdown Superman dot com for a starting point. But since you're a liar, claiming to be a "Science Foundation", I doubt that you have the courage or intellectual integrity to even examine the evidence that even hints that your religion of evolutionism is full of holes.
@PiltdownSuperman Do you have the evidence or can you only continually claim it exists?
I doubt you have the courage or intellectual honesty to admit the reason that you have to keep asking me to search for the evidence you claim exists is because it doesn't exist.
@TheScienceFoundation I just gave you a link, Cupcake. Instead of resorting to dishonesty and attacks, DO THE RESEARCH. Now stop bothering me, I have other fools to humiliate.
@PiltdownSuperman I've asked four times now for a specific example of evidence for creation or against evolution. The only person you've humiliated with your dodging is yourself.
@TheScienceFoundation I GAVE YOU A LINK TO CHECK, FOOL! Stop being a liar, a fraud and a self-humiliating charlatan. Give me a call when your frontal lobes develop and you can actually think logically, kid.
@theinsectmanofwv Religion is good for many things."E.G. Murder:The Crusades, the Inquisition: the 30 year war,The witchhunt, The Conquistadores, The plunder and destruction of the indigenous cultures of the Americas, The participation in the slave-trade, The expulsion and pogroms of jews in several chris,countries, The open support of Apartheid. The support of the elimination of the jews leading up to .W.W.2. The publication of the worst racist anti-semitic writings ever. etc etc.
Do we have direct evidence that primate chromosomes can fuse end to end while not affecting reproductivity? Yes. Search for 'The 44 chromosome man.
Do we have any mechanism or evidence at all by which it was magically created? No
Do creationists have only bare assertion while ignoring the actual data? Yes.
Is our genetic homology with chimps within range of genetic mutation rates and divergence time (Which was known before mutation rate, by the way) since our last common ancestor? Yes
Ah, the lovely, magical, imaginary world of evolution! Where you just add ingredients that you can't possibly test, and then inform the mindless masses that it's all true, true, true! And also, don't forget to tell them that they're just a bunch of ignorant, unscientific idiots if they don't buy into it. Never mind that your hypothesis can't be tested -- call it a THEORY, and the world will beat a path to your door! Fame for a lie - can't beat that!
Well, THERE you are! What took you so long to get here?
I don't think I'm projecting much ....have never verbally assaulted evolutionists with accusations of (them) being ignorant, unscientific idiots. But rather than provide something useful, evolutionists are known to launch into highly unscientific, vulgar, foulmouth tirades, when, if they ONLY had some valid, testable data, they could be carrying on any number of intelligent debates!
@TheScienceFoundation - That's not evidence. That's conjecture based upon lots of assumptions. They assume that humans used to have 48 chromosomes before we allegedly became humans. Where's the evidence of that? They assume that a pair of chromosomes fused. Where's the evidence that chromosomes can do any such thing without killing the species? (You'll note that the says losing chromosomes would kill the species, but fusing is apparently always harmless.)
@JMcH That's the the data in that video shows, that one of our chromosomes shows signs of telomeric fusion. You're just ignoring the evidence and rejecting it out of hand, this is not a valid argument.
'Where's the evidence that chromosomes can do any such thing without killing the species?'
thetech(.)org/genetics/new(.).php?id=124
Fusion doesn't kill because the information hasn't actually gone anywhere and the gamete count is still balanced.
@TheScienceFoundation - So then Miller's assertion that losing chromosomes is necessarily "lethal" is, in fact, 100% wrong. Indeed, that there allegedly is a man with 44 chromosomes who remains a human being (homo sapien) and is not radically different, like apes with 48 chromosomes are radically different from us with 46, proves that the whole chromosome argument for evolution is pure bunk.
@JMcH No, because no chromosomes were lost. That was the point, they fused. The information didn't go anywhere.
No one who actually understands genetics is claiming that the chromosome fusion caused any radical difference in humans, it's merely a tell tale sign of our ancestry. You're just combating strawman at this point.
@TheScienceFoundation - There is absolutely no empirical evidence that any chromosomes fused nor any evidence that any allegedly fused chromosomes mean anything regarding supposed common ancestry. Indeed, there are living things on this planet which have many more -- hundreds, even -- of chromosomes than we do and those livings things are said to have common ancestry with us. So does that mean that more primitive forms of life had more complex chromosomes than we do now? How absurd!
@JMcH Once again not understanding the data doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Our chromosome 2 has subtelomeric duplications and two centromeres. The only thing that could cause that is a telomeric fusion. Of course it's evidence for common ancestry, our chromosome 2 is matchable to within 15 bases to two chromosomes that are independent in other primates. The number of chromosomes alone is not, nor has it ever been used as an argument for relatedness.
The population of our common ancestor diverges into multiple subunits
The population leading to chimps doesn't incur a fusion
The population leading to us does
Keep in mind that no one is claiming the fusion itself caused any drastic change in the population just that it explains the disparity between primate chromosome count.
@TheScienceFoundation - I understand the data. I also understand the bizarre leaps of logic and reason being used to warp the data to fit the theory of evolution.
It's interesting to note that apparently only chromosome 2 has these allegedly "vestigial" structures.
And yes, the very fact that evolutionists are arguing that chromosomes fused actually is an argument that the number of chromosomes denotes relatedness. If it didn't, then the whole "fused chromosome" idea would be meaningless.
>Our chromosome 2 has every chromosomal feature of two chromosomes we've observed to fuse, therefore our chromosome 2 is the result of a fusion.
Who said anything about them being vestigial? And it's not terribly interesting, if it had two centromeres but no sub-telomeric duplications that would be interested, or sub-telomeric duplications and only one centromere, *that* would be interesting but what it shows is a pretty clear cut case of telomeric fusion.
@JMcH No, the chromosome count alone is not what is being used as evidence. Again (for the third time) it's the fact that our chromosome 2 is matchable to two independent chimp chromosomes to within 15 bases.
@JMcH So once again, your inability/unwillingness to grasp basic genetic concepts does not constitute an argument against the overwhelming evidence for evolution.
@JMcH Please provide when and where I ever said, "that losing chromosomes is necessarily "lethal." Such misinformation is why I rarely waste time reading your assertions. This blatant lie happened to catch my eye
@CreationMinistries - Oh! I see now. My comment was about evolutionist Ken Miller (who is featured in a video someone directed me to), not Creationist Russ Miller. I completely blanked on the name issue and didn't even consider the confusion.
@JMcH My apologies. I hadn't read all the comments and assumed you were one o the Psuedo-Science Foundations cronies. I was confused (now I know how a Darwinist feels). Again, sorry. I can see Kevin Miller saying something like that. I just read your other comments and you make some great observations.
@TheScienceFoundation - That chromosome 2 appears fused does not mean that it was fused from two chimp/ape chromosomes. Besides, I thought that the argument was that humans didn't evolve from chimps/apes, so why are you using chimps/apes chromosomes to "prove" that humans evolved from lower primates?
@TheScienceFoundation - Look in the mirror sometime. You're the one making things up. You make up nonsense about fused chromosomes proving that we share a common ancestor with chimps/apes. You prove that by using the chromosomes of chimps/apes. Shouldn't you be using the chromosomes of the alleged common ancestor? Oh, how convenient that you can't, but that doesn't stop you from filling in the blanks with massive amounts of imagination and fantasy.
@JMcH Don't know if you noticed but the common ancestor isn't around. "We don't have a time machine" is not a valid argument. We compare our chromosomes to chimps because they're our nearest living relative.
@JMcH You really should try learning instead of remaining so willfully ignorant that you can't even have an adult conversation. Learning doesn't hurt, I promise.
@JMcH I've always been 'at that point' of trying to educate you. That's part of your fear of learning I'm talking about, the first thing you have to realize is that the 'just so' garbage is creationist projection.
Ask any other creationist the creation explanation for chromosome 2, the most you'll get is 'god *just* made it that way'
@TheScienceFoundation No you are not. I've answered it before. All you provide is the desparate cry that "apes have 48 chromosomes while humans have 46 so it just evolved that way." The truth is you see similarities as proof of evolutionism while I see them as proof of our Biblical Designer. Afterall, tobacco plants, like apes, have 48 chromosomes yet no one is calling them twins
@CreationMinistries You've never even tried to answer it, you simply remain willfully ignorant as to the actual genetic processes which empirically explain the arrangement of primate chromosomes. Of course no one is saying 'it just evolved that way' the actual biologists present actual mechanisms (IE telomeric fusion) to explain it.
@TheScienceFoundation Invoking "telomeric fusion", "hocus pocus" or any other bio-babble isn't proving anything. Please provide an example of our supposed common ancestor where this fusion event supposedly occurred - you know, real observable science
@CreationMinistries 'Afterall, tobacco plants, like apes, have 48 chromosomes'
This is a great example of the ignorance I was referring to, no one who has any understanding of molecular biology is claiming that it's the number of chromosomes alone that indicate the level of relatedness. I've explained to JMcH four separate times in this comment section alone, it's the fact that our chromosome 2 is matchable to within 15 bases of two separate chimp chromosomes.
@CreationMinistries *Ken* Miller said something like that because he is actually educated in genetics. If an entire primate chromosome were lost that would be lethal.
@TheScienceFoundation - Incidentally, you messed up the link when you altered it for YouTube. For those who may not be as web-savvy as I, that should be "news" instead of "new" and there is an extra dot to remove before the "php."
@JMcH As I was saying, evolution would explain the current arrangement primate chromosomes by divergence followed by a fusion in one lineage which is also supported by the rest of genetics, morphology etc.
What testable observable mechanisms would creation use to explain the current arrangement of chromosomes?
Also, why not take 1% of your skepticism and inquisitive inquiry towards evolution and apply it to creationism?
@TheScienceFoundation - When I was an atheist, I applied skepticism towards Creationism all the time. Then I finally got around to applying it towards evolution and found it to be extremely wanting. I also found that my skepticism about Creationism was completely unfounded.
@TheScienceFoundation - They assume that there is a common ancestor. Where is the evidence of that? Shouldn't he be presenting the common ancestor instead of animals that are currently alive? He assumes that there is no argument against what he presents because of a meaningless little court case in Kansas a few years back when a witness couldn't respond immediately to a question which was sprung on him.
@JMcH You keep confusing 'assume' and 'what the data shows'
The fact remains that descent with modification is the only process that empirically explains the arrangement of primate chromosomes with actual mechanisms. The trial was in Dover the 'witness' was Michael Behe, probably the most intelligent ID proponent to date and the trial actually took course of a period of weeks so he had ample time to respond if he were going to. He didn't.
@TheScienceFoundation - He assumes that the chromosome findings were predicted before the allegedly fused chromosomes were found. Where is the evidence of that? We never heard of this "fused chromosome" idea until after the fact. Seems more like the evidence was interpreted to fit the conjecture of evolution.
Russ Miller has been proven to be a liar, especially in the videos by LithodidMan. Why doesn't Mr. Miller respond and clarify his statements ? Because he is unable to justify his claims and doesn't have the balls to correct himself when he is proven wrong.
@CreationMinistries You mean you haven't found any actual evidence against evolutionary theory so instead of trying and failing to address the overwhelming data supporting common ancestry, you just ignore it.
@CreationMinistries Who do you think you are kidding ? You have been shown to lie on several occasions and all your (so called) theories have been torn to bits.
And you haven't found anything worthwhile of a response yet ? You are deluding yourself ...
Nebraska man was not a hoax. A scientist found a tooth wrote a paper on why he thought it was human and it turned out he was wrong. A hoax is when information is falsified to convey a false truth and that isn’t what happened here. In fact if Nebraska man had been really that would have hurt evolution more.
The author of this video has evidently confused a mistaken identification by a single individual that never achieved widespread acceptance and that was quickly discarded even by the original mistaken identifier after further study with an attempt to engage in willful deception. Such confusion is understandable from individuals with no willingness to engage in actual research and with no interest in an honest presentation of data.
Dimensiom 2 months ago
Phillip E. Johnson known as "The father of intelligent design" and co-founder of the Discovery Institute, which rejects darwinism in favor for intelligent design, admitted that he lies for his god in 'Reclaiming America For Christ'. He states,"The objective is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God
thybigballs 3 months ago
Creationism is pretty much dead. There is no more point on pushing the issue. I suggest they go down to the local BBQ Shack and have some ribs.
LordAvoc 3 months ago
This is creationists clutching at straws.
They are trying to mock reality; because their delusions can not be proven on any level.
The Earth is not 6,000 years old, and snakes can't talk.
Atheists didn't have to wait for Darwin to come along, there have always been Atheists since ancient times.
And theists have always thought it was correct and proper to kill them; because their Bibles and Qur'an told them to.
legion1a 4 months ago
creationism is straight impossible. I will explain if you want. But as it stands, it doesn't matter what creationists think. The evidence, simply put, is in favor of evolution. If it wasn't, we would all be young earth creationists. It's that simple. Science searches for truth, no matter what it is, based on the avaliable evidence. Too bad science isn't always on the side of religion. But just because it disagrees with you doesn't mean it has some anti-religion agenda....
ItsEasyIfYouThink 5 months ago
I always wonder how creationists can enjoy the benefits of science every minute of every day, from technology to medicine, and yet are still capable of throwing the switch of rational thought into the OFF position when the same sciences interfere with the primitive myths of their religious cults. Instead of raving about evolution, why aren't they declaring genetic engineering, computers, and medical imaging devices to be the work of the devil? At least be consistent.
sailcat9 5 months ago 13
I always wonder how Darwinists can enjoy the benefits of science every minute of every day, from technology to medicine, and yet are still capable of throwing the switch of rational thought into the OFF position when the same sciences interfere with the primitive myths of their Darwinists cults. Instead of raving about creation, why aren't they declaring genetic engineering, computers, and medical imaging devices to be the work of the intelligent design? At least be consistent.
Entropy56 1 month ago
@Entropy56 At least be original. Fail.
sailcat9 1 month ago
@sailcat9 Explain how Darwinism relates to "computers", "medical imaging devices"? You are full of hyperbole. Darwinism is hyperbole. Darwinism is a religion.
Entropy56 1 month ago
tiktaalik, australopithecus afarensis, our (crappy) eyes, junk DNA, wisdom teeth,
our (also pretty crappy) spines, the fact that our oesophagus and windpipe are connected and we can choke on our food, the geographical distribution of animals,
the fossil record which contains several transitional species. need more?
Madman1234855 5 months ago
The fight of religion against science has been going on for millenia, It seems that it is not going to stop soon. NUTS.
ndzoko 5 months ago
@ndzoko Equivocation. You people equivocate "evolutionism" with "science". Some of the greatest scientists of all time have been Bible-believing Christians. Now, you lot want to say that if we are against the religion of evolutionism, we are "against science". Anyone with a half a brain can see the outrageous, manipulative that is.
PiltdownSuperman 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PiltdownSuperman : NUTS.. Some of the greatest scientists of all time have been Bible-believing Christians>>>. Of course in a christian dominated society, most scientists are christians. In a moslem dominated society, most scientists are moslem. But in a free society, where religion has no political power, most scientists are non-believers. Religion has always been against science,if it runs into the bible. Religion was against toilet paper, lightning rods, stem cell research, etc etc.
ndzoko 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ndzoko
For some reason the Christians have been flagging your comments as spam.
I guess it's because they don't have a leg to stand on, and they don't want people to see the truth.
I clicked on "not spam" when I read your comments, and I hope others will do the same, and give you a thumbs up too!
Keep up the good work, and don't let the delusional ones get you down
legion1a 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PiltdownSuperman : Christianity opposed :anatomy, invitro fertlization, condoms, cremation, autopsy , I am sure it opposes assisted suicide of the suffering, terminally ill , people.. Indeed, anyone with half a brain knows how backwards religion is. Religion is about a century behind science.
ndzoko 5 months ago
@PiltdownSuperman No, anyone who has any understanding of biology can see how utterly retarded creationism is.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation The Genetic Fallacy is a useful tool to dodge the unpleasant evidence showing flaws in evolution, don't you agree? You must agree, you just used it. I dare you to look at the scientific evidence for creation. And none of that nonsense of "there is none", because cowards and liars pull that trick.
PiltdownSuperman 5 months ago
@PiltdownSuperman No fallacy there, I was pointing out that anyone who understands biology also understands that evolution is the only explanation for the diversity of life on earth.
'I dare you to look at the scientific evidence for creation'
Such as?
"And none of that nonsense of "there is none", because cowards and liars pull that trick."
So you've set it up where anyone who points out that your claims are without evidence are liars by default. That's a complete non-sequitur
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation No, you are a completely intellectually dishonest, an ideologue and a coward. "Such as?", my joyfully bouncing buttocks. Do the work, Mr. Science Liar.
PiltdownSuperman 5 months ago
@PiltdownSuperman You claimed there was evidence, it's your onus to produce it.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation No, do your own homework. It's all over the internet, including at Piltdown Superman dot com for a starting point. But since you're a liar, claiming to be a "Science Foundation", I doubt that you have the courage or intellectual integrity to even examine the evidence that even hints that your religion of evolutionism is full of holes.
PiltdownSuperman 5 months ago
@PiltdownSuperman Do you have the evidence or can you only continually claim it exists?
I doubt you have the courage or intellectual honesty to admit the reason that you have to keep asking me to search for the evidence you claim exists is because it doesn't exist.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation I just gave you a link, Cupcake. Instead of resorting to dishonesty and attacks, DO THE RESEARCH. Now stop bothering me, I have other fools to humiliate.
PiltdownSuperman 5 months ago
@PiltdownSuperman I've asked four times now for a specific example of evidence for creation or against evolution. The only person you've humiliated with your dodging is yourself.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation I GAVE YOU A LINK TO CHECK, FOOL! Stop being a liar, a fraud and a self-humiliating charlatan. Give me a call when your frontal lobes develop and you can actually think logically, kid.
PiltdownSuperman 5 months ago
@PiltdownSuperman Which evidence on that site do you consider particularly strong for creationism?
If you don't want to present your 'evidence' because it's going to be refuted, just say so. It's already obvious to anyone else who may read this.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@PiltdownSuperman So nothing then?
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
Evolutionism is good for one thing--cartoons and jokes.
Great job!!
theinsectmanofwv 7 months ago
@theinsectmanofwv Lol, implying that you have any understanding of science whatsoever.
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@theinsectmanofwv Religion is good for many things."E.G. Murder:The Crusades, the Inquisition: the 30 year war,The witchhunt, The Conquistadores, The plunder and destruction of the indigenous cultures of the Americas, The participation in the slave-trade, The expulsion and pogroms of jews in several chris,countries, The open support of Apartheid. The support of the elimination of the jews leading up to .W.W.2. The publication of the worst racist anti-semitic writings ever. etc etc.
ndzoko 5 months ago
@Cacterpus I did, and got basically 'we don't have a time machine so thats not evidence'
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@Cacterpus It was a comparison with the common chimpanzee, they used the data from the chimpanzee genome sequencing consortium
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
You are an embarrassing mammal. You just don't understand anything and then seek to rob the ignorant. You are a fraud, a liar and a con-artist.
Niall646 7 months ago
Do we have direct evidence that primate chromosomes can fuse end to end while not affecting reproductivity? Yes. Search for 'The 44 chromosome man.
Do we have any mechanism or evidence at all by which it was magically created? No
Do creationists have only bare assertion while ignoring the actual data? Yes.
Is our genetic homology with chimps within range of genetic mutation rates and divergence time (Which was known before mutation rate, by the way) since our last common ancestor? Yes
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@Cacterpus - "it was chemistry that created life"
Prove it. Use chemistry to make a random mix of inorganic chemicals form into life.
JMcH 7 months ago
Ah, the lovely, magical, imaginary world of evolution! Where you just add ingredients that you can't possibly test, and then inform the mindless masses that it's all true, true, true! And also, don't forget to tell them that they're just a bunch of ignorant, unscientific idiots if they don't buy into it. Never mind that your hypothesis can't be tested -- call it a THEORY, and the world will beat a path to your door! Fame for a lie - can't beat that!
taratorah 7 months ago
@taratorah You really should read up on projection.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Well, THERE you are! What took you so long to get here?
I don't think I'm projecting much ....have never verbally assaulted evolutionists with accusations of (them) being ignorant, unscientific idiots. But rather than provide something useful, evolutionists are known to launch into highly unscientific, vulgar, foulmouth tirades, when, if they ONLY had some valid, testable data, they could be carrying on any number of intelligent debates!
taratorah 7 months ago
@taratorah Apparently you missed the conversation on chromosome 2.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
You're being silly again!
taratorah 7 months ago
@taratorah Read the discussion on chromosome 2 yet?
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
'Why don't Darwinists present the 'real' evidence?'
You mean like this? /watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
And this? genome(.)gov/15515096
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - That's not evidence. That's conjecture based upon lots of assumptions. They assume that humans used to have 48 chromosomes before we allegedly became humans. Where's the evidence of that? They assume that a pair of chromosomes fused. Where's the evidence that chromosomes can do any such thing without killing the species? (You'll note that the says losing chromosomes would kill the species, but fusing is apparently always harmless.)
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH That's the the data in that video shows, that one of our chromosomes shows signs of telomeric fusion. You're just ignoring the evidence and rejecting it out of hand, this is not a valid argument.
'Where's the evidence that chromosomes can do any such thing without killing the species?'
thetech(.)org/genetics/new(.).php?id=124
Fusion doesn't kill because the information hasn't actually gone anywhere and the gamete count is still balanced.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - So then Miller's assertion that losing chromosomes is necessarily "lethal" is, in fact, 100% wrong. Indeed, that there allegedly is a man with 44 chromosomes who remains a human being (homo sapien) and is not radically different, like apes with 48 chromosomes are radically different from us with 46, proves that the whole chromosome argument for evolution is pure bunk.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH No, because no chromosomes were lost. That was the point, they fused. The information didn't go anywhere.
No one who actually understands genetics is claiming that the chromosome fusion caused any radical difference in humans, it's merely a tell tale sign of our ancestry. You're just combating strawman at this point.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - There is absolutely no empirical evidence that any chromosomes fused nor any evidence that any allegedly fused chromosomes mean anything regarding supposed common ancestry. Indeed, there are living things on this planet which have many more -- hundreds, even -- of chromosomes than we do and those livings things are said to have common ancestry with us. So does that mean that more primitive forms of life had more complex chromosomes than we do now? How absurd!
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH Once again not understanding the data doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Our chromosome 2 has subtelomeric duplications and two centromeres. The only thing that could cause that is a telomeric fusion. Of course it's evidence for common ancestry, our chromosome 2 is matchable to within 15 bases to two chromosomes that are independent in other primates. The number of chromosomes alone is not, nor has it ever been used as an argument for relatedness.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Tell me where you're getting lost
The population of our common ancestor diverges into multiple subunits
The population leading to chimps doesn't incur a fusion
The population leading to us does
Keep in mind that no one is claiming the fusion itself caused any drastic change in the population just that it explains the disparity between primate chromosome count.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - There simply no empirical evidence of any of that. It's unprovable imagination and fantasy.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH Again you confuse your inability to understand basic genetics as an argument against evolution.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - I understand the data. I also understand the bizarre leaps of logic and reason being used to warp the data to fit the theory of evolution.
It's interesting to note that apparently only chromosome 2 has these allegedly "vestigial" structures.
And yes, the very fact that evolutionists are arguing that chromosomes fused actually is an argument that the number of chromosomes denotes relatedness. If it didn't, then the whole "fused chromosome" idea would be meaningless.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH Bizarre leap of logic?
>Our chromosome 2 has every chromosomal feature of two chromosomes we've observed to fuse, therefore our chromosome 2 is the result of a fusion.
Who said anything about them being vestigial? And it's not terribly interesting, if it had two centromeres but no sub-telomeric duplications that would be interested, or sub-telomeric duplications and only one centromere, *that* would be interesting but what it shows is a pretty clear cut case of telomeric fusion.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@JMcH No, the chromosome count alone is not what is being used as evidence. Again (for the third time) it's the fact that our chromosome 2 is matchable to two independent chimp chromosomes to within 15 bases.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@JMcH So once again, your inability/unwillingness to grasp basic genetic concepts does not constitute an argument against the overwhelming evidence for evolution.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheScienceFoundation "overwhelming evidence for evolution" LOL
9pt9 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - You are presenting no basic genetic concepts. Neither is Ken Miller. You are presenting pure fantasy and imagination.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH I've presented not only the predictive data from our genome but the direct observation of chromosomal fusion in humans.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - It's funny how the "prediction" didn't come out until after the fact.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH Actually the prediction was made beforehand, it was in the nature paper I linked you to.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@JMcH Please provide when and where I ever said, "that losing chromosomes is necessarily "lethal." Such misinformation is why I rarely waste time reading your assertions. This blatant lie happened to catch my eye
CreationMinistries 7 months ago
@CreationMinistries - I'm confused by this comment towards me.
JMcH 7 months ago
@CreationMinistries - Oh! I see now. My comment was about evolutionist Ken Miller (who is featured in a video someone directed me to), not Creationist Russ Miller. I completely blanked on the name issue and didn't even consider the confusion.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH My apologies. I hadn't read all the comments and assumed you were one o the Psuedo-Science Foundations cronies. I was confused (now I know how a Darwinist feels). Again, sorry. I can see Kevin Miller saying something like that. I just read your other comments and you make some great observations.
CreationMinistries 7 months ago
@CreationMinistries Russ, I'm still waiting on the creationist explanation for chromosome 2
Thus far all that has been done is a shrugging of the shoulders and the desperate cry of 'god just made it that way'
While evolution actually explains it with observable mechanisms.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - That chromosome 2 appears fused does not mean that it was fused from two chimp/ape chromosomes. Besides, I thought that the argument was that humans didn't evolve from chimps/apes, so why are you using chimps/apes chromosomes to "prove" that humans evolved from lower primates?
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH No one said it was fused from two chimp chromosomes nor did I say humans evolved from chimps, we share a common ancestor.
You're really just making things up now.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - Look in the mirror sometime. You're the one making things up. You make up nonsense about fused chromosomes proving that we share a common ancestor with chimps/apes. You prove that by using the chromosomes of chimps/apes. Shouldn't you be using the chromosomes of the alleged common ancestor? Oh, how convenient that you can't, but that doesn't stop you from filling in the blanks with massive amounts of imagination and fantasy.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH Don't know if you noticed but the common ancestor isn't around. "We don't have a time machine" is not a valid argument. We compare our chromosomes to chimps because they're our nearest living relative.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@JMcH You really should try learning instead of remaining so willfully ignorant that you can't even have an adult conversation. Learning doesn't hurt, I promise.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - Oh, you're at that point now, are you? How pathetic.
Sorry, but I don't consider mindless indoctrination in evolution's unquestionable "just-so" story to be learning.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH I've always been 'at that point' of trying to educate you. That's part of your fear of learning I'm talking about, the first thing you have to realize is that the 'just so' garbage is creationist projection.
Ask any other creationist the creation explanation for chromosome 2, the most you'll get is 'god *just* made it that way'
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@JMcH I would still like that evidence against evolution, by the way. And the evidence for creationism
The evidence that you claimed turned you from a skeptic to a believer.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation No you are not. I've answered it before. All you provide is the desparate cry that "apes have 48 chromosomes while humans have 46 so it just evolved that way." The truth is you see similarities as proof of evolutionism while I see them as proof of our Biblical Designer. Afterall, tobacco plants, like apes, have 48 chromosomes yet no one is calling them twins
CreationMinistries 7 months ago
@CreationMinistries You've never even tried to answer it, you simply remain willfully ignorant as to the actual genetic processes which empirically explain the arrangement of primate chromosomes. Of course no one is saying 'it just evolved that way' the actual biologists present actual mechanisms (IE telomeric fusion) to explain it.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Invoking "telomeric fusion", "hocus pocus" or any other bio-babble isn't proving anything. Please provide an example of our supposed common ancestor where this fusion event supposedly occurred - you know, real observable science
CreationMinistries 7 months ago
@CreationMinistries 'Invoking "telomeric fusion", "hocus pocus"'
To a lesser mind, I could see how something like molecular biology would be indistinguishable from magic.
'Please provide an example of our supposed common ancestor
Who said it occurred in the common ancestor?
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@CreationMinistries 'Afterall, tobacco plants, like apes, have 48 chromosomes'
This is a great example of the ignorance I was referring to, no one who has any understanding of molecular biology is claiming that it's the number of chromosomes alone that indicate the level of relatedness. I've explained to JMcH four separate times in this comment section alone, it's the fact that our chromosome 2 is matchable to within 15 bases of two separate chimp chromosomes.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@CreationMinistries *Ken* Miller said something like that because he is actually educated in genetics. If an entire primate chromosome were lost that would be lethal.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@CreationMinistries If you *had* said "Losing chromosomes is necessarily lethal" it would've been the one accurate thing you've said thus far.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - Except that it's not.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH Yes, it is.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@JMcH - Ken Miller's assertion, not Russ Miller. (Darn common-as-dirt surnames. *wink*)
JMcH 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - Incidentally, you messed up the link when you altered it for YouTube. For those who may not be as web-savvy as I, that should be "news" instead of "new" and there is an extra dot to remove before the "php."
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH As I was saying, evolution would explain the current arrangement primate chromosomes by divergence followed by a fusion in one lineage which is also supported by the rest of genetics, morphology etc.
What testable observable mechanisms would creation use to explain the current arrangement of chromosomes?
Also, why not take 1% of your skepticism and inquisitive inquiry towards evolution and apply it to creationism?
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - When I was an atheist, I applied skepticism towards Creationism all the time. Then I finally got around to applying it towards evolution and found it to be extremely wanting. I also found that my skepticism about Creationism was completely unfounded.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH So what was the first piece of evidence against evolution you discovered?
What was the first piece for creation?
If you can present either of those, you'll be the first, because thus far all you've presented is arguments from personal ignorance.
I still want to know where you're getting lost in the chromosome 2 discussion.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - They assume that there is a common ancestor. Where is the evidence of that? Shouldn't he be presenting the common ancestor instead of animals that are currently alive? He assumes that there is no argument against what he presents because of a meaningless little court case in Kansas a few years back when a witness couldn't respond immediately to a question which was sprung on him.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH You keep confusing 'assume' and 'what the data shows'
The fact remains that descent with modification is the only process that empirically explains the arrangement of primate chromosomes with actual mechanisms. The trial was in Dover the 'witness' was Michael Behe, probably the most intelligent ID proponent to date and the trial actually took course of a period of weeks so he had ample time to respond if he were going to. He didn't.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - He assumes that the chromosome findings were predicted before the allegedly fused chromosomes were found. Where is the evidence of that? We never heard of this "fused chromosome" idea until after the fact. Seems more like the evidence was interpreted to fit the conjecture of evolution.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH nature(.)com/nature/journal/v434/n7034/full/nature03466(.)html
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
Russ Miller has been proven to be a liar, especially in the videos by LithodidMan. Why doesn't Mr. Miller respond and clarify his statements ? Because he is unable to justify his claims and doesn't have the balls to correct himself when he is proven wrong.
plumdrix 7 months ago
@plumdrix If creationists admitted everything they were wrong about they wouldn't be creationists.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@plumdrix Because I haven't found any assertions worthy of a response as of yet. Just because you believe anything he says doesn't make him correct
CreationMinistries 7 months ago
@CreationMinistries You mean you haven't found any actual evidence against evolutionary theory so instead of trying and failing to address the overwhelming data supporting common ancestry, you just ignore it.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@CreationMinistries Who do you think you are kidding ? You have been shown to lie on several occasions and all your (so called) theories have been torn to bits.
And you haven't found anything worthwhile of a response yet ? You are deluding yourself ...
plumdrix 7 months ago
Nebraska man was not a hoax. A scientist found a tooth wrote a paper on why he thought it was human and it turned out he was wrong. A hoax is when information is falsified to convey a false truth and that isn’t what happened here. In fact if Nebraska man had been really that would have hurt evolution more.
sweatytoothmadman 7 months ago