After going through that laughable list: 80% are so insignificant they're not even on Wiki; I'm confused as to why you would think anyone could possibly care what some Chinese geographer, or a linguist thinks about evolutionary biology... The only one with a proper education is Kurt Wise, who in his own words: "I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate." Right there he is saying: "I am putting my religion abover scientific evidence."
Since you couldn't even name 30 creationist scientists of any value who believe in magic, would you like me to list all the famous evolutionary biologists? Oh wait I can't as there are MILLIONS.
BUT what is really telling is the fact that you would at all think that appeals to authority actually mean anything! Science is based on FACTS and EVIDENCE not "authorities", only primitive superstitions like RELIGION accepts as right that which is said by the highest authority.
Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist: Dr. Ian Scott, Educator Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist George S. Smith, M.S., Chemistry
Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher Prof. John Oller, Linguistics Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology) Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon Prof. Richard Porter Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research. Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist Dr. John McEwan, Chemist Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics Dr. David Menton, Anatomist Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist Colin W. Mitchell, Geography Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation Dr. Johan Kruger, Zoology Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology Dr. John G. Leslie, Biochemist, Physician, Archaeologist Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist Dr. Alan Love, Chemist Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist: Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist Dr. Ronald C. Marks, Associate Professor of Chemistry Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation George T. Javor, Biochemistry Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology Dr. William F. Kane, (Civil) Geotechnical Engineering Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation Dr. Vicki Hagerman, DMV Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics Dr. Mark Harwood, Engineering (satellite specialist) Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry Dr. Kenneth W. Funk, Organic Chemistry Prof. Robert H. Franks, Assoc Professor of Biology Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History Dr. Stephen Grocott, Chemist
Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics Dr. Andrew J. Fabich, Microbiology Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist Timothy C. Coppess, M.S., Environmental Scientist Dr. Bob Compton, DVM Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics Dr. Rob Carter, Marine Biology Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
So the Earth was created in 7 days (Animals Plants trees Insects Fish Reptiles Dinosores Water Air the Periodic table) OK ... Then Adam and Eve went on to populate a world of mixed races, We weere all Saved when Noha built the Ark and saved all the animals and us of course.. The One thing that bothers me why did God the christian one also Create Other Groups of People who would belive in Other Gods and Religions..
@aClockworkBoec There is a big difference between disputing the evidence or disagreeing with the theory and coming out and saying things like "there is NO evidence." We CAN have evidence that supports a Hypothesis, yet still disprove it based on other data. You don't do your argument any good with statements like "NO evidence," it just makes you appear rigid and ignorant. For instance, there WAS evidence for the geocentric model however it has since been proven false.
@Bailey828282 Yes, you do. Your inability to spell or construct a basic sentence denotes ignorance, and the concepts we are talking about require intelligence to comprehend. Further, don't make assumptions about what I believe; you don't know me. Only an ignoramus would say evolution is a religion (is gravity one too? ) and is losing every debate...oh really? Every debate? Come on, be serious. Statements like that just make you look bad.
@aClockworkBoec Uh, no. There is a LOT of evidence for evolution! Clearly you have NO understanding of modern Phylogenic and Genomic research. One simple example is the pattern of retrovirus DNA that links certain species together in historical terms. We are talking about patterns that make sense in the context of evolutionary biology AND were actually predicted by the theory before they were observed AND correspond exactly to other observations in terms of the Phylogenic tree.
Evrything thing this guy is saying is right u know there's no prove that evolution happend d and its a very Jung earth. So stop lying to yourself there's is a God because DNA that man nor bacteria can crested from nothing. Ok morons wake up.
First of I don't need to know how to spell to know that evolution is stupid. U r stupid because u believe all that exist today started from a small dot that put all universe in order. Then u believe the wildest thing witch is humans came from animals or better yet a bacteria. Evolution is a dying religion and its lose every debate against creationist. No humans on earth can create DNA from nothing but say a bacteria millions of years ago was able to do it. U fool really believe u r an xmen.
This guy's in Mensa? I'm sorry, but clearly this indicates to me that Mensa is highly overrated. Either this guy is dumbing things down for the audience, or he's an idiot. Or both. Blind assertions, mockery and snobbery =/= knowledge or wisdom. He also clearly doesn't understand the scientific method, and therefore has no business teaching science. We don't "knock" science for revising it's understanding to conform to the data; THAT is an admirable intrinsic quality in the method.
Rigidity is the sign of a dying theory, NOT the acceptance of new data. Science is self-correcting; that is the beauty of the scientific method. We continually grow the body of evidence and data and conform our concepts to fit the most current data. That's why it is mostly creationists that call it "Darwinian evolution"...the current state of knowledge is light years beyond Darwin. You're going to have to try harder if you want to demonize a self-correcting system based on empiricism.
@aClockworkBoec I find it humorous that you used so many products of science to now mock it publicly. Here are some suggestions if you feel science is so laughable: Throw your computer away, quit driving or taking any form of motorized transportation, discard your cellular telephone, throw your TV out the window and call your power company to have your electricity shut off. THEN you have a leg to stand on bashing science.
@getsupercharged Easy there, science worshiper. I am sorry if I offended your religion, but please tell me what tv and electricity has to do with evolution?
@aClockworkBoec Even funnier; no science is no more my religion than is gravity...I am affected by it, and it benefits me. As for electricity and evolution, both are gleaned from the scientific method....and if you don't like the assertions of the TOE, I'd suggest you stay away from hospitals, doctors, medicines and vaccines; these all benefit from the study of microbiology and yes, evolution. I don't worship science, I use it.
@aClockworkBoec LOL, using these "reverse psychology" baiting techniques is nothing new for creationists. Calling atheism and/or science or evolution "religions" and referring to "worship" is a cute little reversal, but it adds nothing to the conversation. Just like the word "evolutionism," which is a non-word. If you would like to talk, let's talk....but how about we leave out all the trick little argumentative name-calling.
@getsupercharged Science isn't religion? Well, how do you call something in which you believe even though you don't see it and can't prove it's existence?
@aClockworkBoec What in science is based on something completely unseen with no evidence? Such an assertion would be completely un-scientific. Rogue scientists aside, the scientific method would prohibit such things, both due to the requirement of data and the peer-review process. Science may not be perfect (nothing is) however the scientific method does not fit any definition of religion. It actually doesn't do your position any good to run around asserting that, most people don't respond.
@getsupercharged What you are trying to say is that even though there's absolutely NO evidence for evolution, somehow completely biased theory when put through peer-review process becomes fact?
It's a bit hard to reply when your friend slaves4christ bans every person who speaks any scientific sense.
I looked up "Dr Gary Parker" and the ONLY links were "AnswersinGenesis" and "Creationwiki". Furthermore the guy doesn't even have a PhD in science, rather in "education".
@aClockworkBoec If someone does resort to banning and censoring the opposing arguements, they have lost the debate.
when he says "Scientific sense", he is refering to people who actually know and understand how science works. You, as well as many creationists, clearly do not understand.
You haven't really brought anything new to the debate. Now you are just refering to childish insults and immature rebuttles.
So, it doesn't matter how much you know? PHD's are a waste of time? If it doesn't make "common sense" it doesn't make sense? Rubbish. Many things proven by science are counter-intuitive. That's why we test and study. From earth it appears that the sun and moon are circling US...(just like in the bible, oh my) but we know from scientists and space travel that this is not the case. Heck, even some "magnetic hills" (where it appears water is running uphill) refute your "common sense" argument.
@atheeizm: a stupid athiest will say something retarded like this, I'm not surprise because u morons belive that the entire universe was started by a small little pen dot. That's why evolution is fales never happend a fantasy. God is very much real.
@Bailey828282 Learn how to spell "fails" before you call others stupid. Also, being an atheist says nothing about what someone believes about how the universe came into existence.
U sound stupid its been proven there's mutation within bacteria and all it does is reproduce within their own kind. No new information. Till this day no new species evolve none evolution is stupid. Look it sound we came from animals just that alone sounds stupid. No fossil record. How many steps does it take a t-Rex to evolve to a chicken numbers please.
Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information.
It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting.
By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991) increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003) novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996) novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
@benaberry I really wouldn't have the faintest clue where to begin with these people. Considering who they represent, I cannot believe they are accusing scientists of flip flopping!!! That's just the capper!! They do not understand science. They act like it is some conscious evil being with a purpose. It takes a primitive mind to defend the innate urge to personify everything.
@level7atheist And what make's you think i newer saw an useless link i alredy read (from useless talkorigins)??You little dumbass?Truly, i'll say once again, you are an DUMB ARSE ok?And, while im telling you this as a student who actually study these things, you'll still going to claim same BS without any knowledge, beside the ,,knowledge,, you ,,googled,, you ignorant piece of shit!
Now, name it, or please, dont embarrase yourself even further than you alredy are embarrased!
@AnaximanderLindemann If talkorigins is useless, then why does it consist of thousands of peer reviewed scitific papers?
If you are a student, you must be at the bottom of your class. If you don't understand it is a fact, you have no right to be in university or where ever the hell you study.
I know you know its a fact, but you just wont admit it. That is why you are just responding to my comments in personal attacks.
@level7atheist LOL. Are you serious?Oh no, wait, i know....you are, because you are an typical DUMB ASS AMERICAN!!!Haha, you know that talkorigins is actually site just like wikipedia, site run by LAYMEN not by relevant professors and research scientists do you?Ask ANY professor, scientist or ...well, normal, EDUCATED human being if talkorigins is reliable and relevant and check how they'll respond to you.Fool.
Btw, i am at the bottom of my class?Yeah, thats what i thought.Dummies always ..
@level7atheist ...will be dummies, but just so i can let you know, i am so bad, that my average score is 9.7 (i have pure 10, which is in your dumb american system A, you should probably know it, in genetics, molecular biology, bionics, biophysics, physics, cosmology and mcrobiology) so anyway ....my lowest is in botanics, in subdiscipline noenoculture which is 8.4 so ...i guess I am pretty bad am I?
Anyway, dude, when you actually decide TO NAME me here those famous mutations, then reply ok?bye
@benaberry Hey, dumbberry, hajde ne seri, mamu ti jebem usranu.I'm waiting proof for his claims (nnsense btw) so i can easily refute them.Now, you little diskheaded cumdrung dwarf, you should take that pentagram from your avatar, and shoove it in your arse, just like your daddy used to shoove his disk into your tiny litte ass when you watched spongebog.(while you was tiny little 4 years old bitch).
@level7atheist Haha, im insulting you?Dude, check out your comments you little idiot.Now, as i said, STOP replying to me unless you are willing to name me mutations that can add new information ok?God bless ...(stupid canadian)
wow! where did retard @AnaximanderLindermann come from??? Its like, blah, blah, blah! Bad spelling, bad grammer....blah blah blah!! Retardo or what! Even if it was studying all those fields doesnt mean any retardo thing it says is an argument. Appeal to authority or what?
@level7atheist Still trying to figure out what level of education they actually have, being at university myself and having access to peer reviewed journals in a wide range of subjects it was simple enough to enter DNA and Additions and get thousands of results including nar . oxfordjournals . org /content/16/20/9677 which if our friend is at the level of education they claim will have to problem checking themselves...
@TheBlondDaemon Why thank you sir. I figure if I do give him any links or what not cause he will just deny them. To creationist, new information will mean a new gene completly, when in fact it is the order of the genes that provide information. We have thousands of recorded instances of this happening. And i agree with you, if this guy had any brains at all, he would just look for it himself.
First, we have to get the definitions right. The following terms are defined: macroevolution, microevolution, cladogenesis, anagenesis, punctuated equilibrium theory, phyletic gradualism
Creationists often assert that "macroevolution" is not proven, even if "microevolution" is, and by this they seem to mean that whatever evolution is observed is microevolution, but the rest is macroevolution.
cont- In making these claims they are misusing authentic scientific terms; that is, they have a non-standard definition, which they use to make science appear to be saying something other than it is. Evolution proponents often say that creationists invented the terms. This is false. Both macroevolution and microevolution are legitimate scientific terms, which have a history of changing meanings that, in any case, fail to underpin creationism.
In science, macro at the beginning of a word just means "big", and micro at the beginning of a word just means "small" (both from the Greek words). For example, "macrofauna" means big animals, observable by the naked eye, while "microfauna" means small animals, which may be observable or may not without a microscope. Something can be "macro" by just being bigger, or there can be a transition that makes it something quite distinct.
In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families,
cont- phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.
Over a period of generations, microevolution does take place. And what do you get when you have a build up of small changes? You get big changes. The ideas that these changes just stop is completely wrong. You are ignoring the evidence we are providing you.
@level7atheist No, microevolution is based on information in the gene pool. You cannot magically create the information needed for macroevolution to take place.
I feel it is worth while to backup what we say, it might not get through to the person with whom you are directly conversing with because they are going to hold strongly to their position no matter what, but the info benefits those who are openly and actively looking for answers who may be on the fence, so keep up it, appreciate the support.
@Phanerozoic1 Have you seen a guy with a tail lately? NO? Well, it seams to me that the atavistic genes for tail are long dead, together with the genes for wings and spider senses.
So why do you think microbes like bacteria, when placed in a medium with anti-biotics, suddenly after many generations they're resistant to that anti-biotics???
Hmmm.... I WONDER how that happens. Could it be that in the original population all those that aren't resistant die, leaving those that are to breed, therefore changing the allele frequency??? Ie: E-V-O-L-U-T-I-O-N???
Also, did your "God" ALSO create ebola and HIV? He's one sick freak.
evolution does not say that. You are misrepresenting evolution. Show me any where thats what evolution states.
If god created all life as we see it today why is it that 99% of all species have become extinct? Great design dont you think? Why is it if humans are the top of the design we cant see like a hawk? Or see in the dark? Or have blind spots? Great design. Why does it take millions of sperm to fertilize an egg? If i design it, it would take one sperm!
@aClockworkBoec Flu viruse strains are rapidly evolving, that is why we need to get a different flu shot every year. Drug resistance for antibiotics. Bacteria evolves to be less sensitive to the drugs.
Agriculture is another example, Every animal or plant you see and eat has been breeded by humans selective breeding.
@level7atheist Really? How rapid is "rapid"? According to Richard Dawkins, evolution is a SLOW process, so slow that we can NOT prove that exists. But it's obvious that every evolutionist has its own evolution theory.
Bacteria becoming resistant to drugs is NOT evolution, but DEVOLUTION, a loss of information in chromosomes on which the drug attach itself.
Agriculture, you say? You mean farmers helping corn to evolve into another type of... corn? You've got quite an imagination.
@aClockworkBoec Okay, If you are being serious, you must have not gone to school. Science is accepted as a fact among school books, teachers and real scientists everywhere. It is only a theory the same way gravity is only a theory, and tide theory as well. Search evolution as a Fact and theory and just look at how many sites come up provideing difinative proof.
Devolution? Are you dumb? Bacteria gains information. You can read that in any science textbook.
@level7atheist I am afraid that the dumb one is YOU. You took science as religion without even knowing what it is. Science is something that can be proven. Mixing facts with fiction is a well known imbecilic tactic used by fools with hidden agendas. Gravity is ONLY A THEORY? Really? Well, jump from your roof and put the theory into practice. Will it took billion of years for you to realise that it works?
@aClockworkBoec You do realize there is more rhan just earth, correct? Gravity doesn't just apply to us here on earth. There are hundreds of questions about gravity that scientists cannot explain, making it a theory and not a law. Scientists will often agree that evoloution is a more solid theory than gravity.
As well, i don't think you understand how science works.
And why don't you think evolution is a fact? I havn't heard one anti-evolution claim that could not be debunked.
Gravity is a theory. You understand what that means right? There is no absolute truth. We understand gravity to a point, but not entirely. And based on your logic gravity could be a scam created by scientists to get money. You said science is something that can be proven, yes but it changes as new information is found.
@aClockworkBoec Take a look at a banana. You know it as a yellow, slender fruit. These bananas that you have grown to know are not grown naturally. they are an entirely different product than plantanes, which are the natural banana.
The scientists had dissolved the bone in acid, leaving behind the blood vessel- and cell-like structures.
But in a paper published July 30 in PloS ONE, a journal of the open-access Public Library of Science, Kaye and his co-authors contend that what was really inside the T. rex bone was slimy biofilm created by bacteria that coated the voids once occupied by blood vessels and cells.
You saw something and thats your evidence? You the easily deluded, ready to see what they want to, to support there unproven, no evidence based position of faith. Stop bringing ya big gun to a fight with no bullets.
@benaberry Ah man, you really are something. What everybody saw was a group of scientists proving something that destroyed that fantasy in which the money establishment desperately wants people to believe. And if a scientist wants a research founds, he or she must dance according to the tune.
whats your native tongue? I was being silly. What else has science lied about? Climate change? Genetics? Geology? Are there any sciences you think are right? Your using a computer right now, science created that thingy your using. Medicine, is that ok? Antibiotics? Do you believe that is right?
@benaberry My native tongue is not an issue. Of course you were being silly, but the sad thing is that you can't stop. Science is a neutral phenomena, it can be used for good, bad or evil. Scientists are humans, they often twist truth and openly lie in order to promote their selfish agenda. Scientists are NOTHING without money for their research, and the money is in the hands of luciferian establishment.
Ok so all science is ok just when used by humans its not, so then science as a method is pointless. So if your child is sick what will you do, pray? or take the chance on medicine which has been developed using the scientific method by fallible humans? If you pray and the child dies its gods plan right?
@benaberry Your attempt to present yourself as someone who represent and defend science is very amusing. If some natural phenomena can be observed, tested and measured, then it's considered a part of science.
Evolution is NOT science because it can NOT be observed, tested and measured because it takes (according to the theory) millions of years to occur. Therefore, attempt to be presented as a part of science, only proves biased hidden motives of people who are doing it.
Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.
"change in the gene pool of a population over time"? NOT exactly! They observe very small changes and on top of which they add their wishful imagination. Body can change itself in order to adapt to changes in the environment, that's no big secret, that's a fact. But is you think that it automatically means that a rat can evolve into elephant over a period of time, then science becomes science fiction. Your blind pride prevents you from seeing that. Gravity is a FACT.
@benaberry You are not helping yourself by acting as child. Evolutionists teach that anything can evolve into anything if you give it enough time and right conditions.
Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).
How old is the universe? If it is closer to 13.7 billion years old therefore macro evolution could be possible yet unproven? Or is it younger, say closer to 10 thousand years old? Or you don't believe we know that answer? What is your position here?
Standfast, A. L. (1992) "The human tail." New York State Journal of Medicine. 92: 116.
Sugumata, A., Sato, M., Ikeda, J., Kinosita, J., Tanihira, S., and Makimo, K. (1988) "Two cases of a true human tail." Jpn J Plast Reconstr Surg 31: 1072.
If you want anymore just ask, but you should really learn to use a search engine, it's sort of a good skill to have these days.
@benaberry Im still waiting for you, or your friend to name me one mutation that can add new genetic information, change biohemical compounds, switch or improve biochem. processes in organism, result in a change of molecular (at least minor) morphology, or at least sequencing chains in an organism ok?Can you?Also, i want you to name me at least one insertion (mutation) change that occure without deleterious side effects, and loss of original genetic infromations, plus recombination--
@benaberry ---and is it limited or not.If not, why, and can you actually deny limited barrier and ref. values withing every single generic sequencingl, which of course not only stops ANY possible evolvability of an organism, but also makes primary speciation impossible.(literally).
Firstly, before redefining your original question please acknowledge my response. Your question was in essence - Give me the name of a mutation that adds new information to a gene. I gave you the name of a mutation which does exactly that. So, again acknowledge the response then proceed to ask your next question.
@benaberry You newer gave me a name of a mutation which can add new genetic information, so please be kind and give me a name of such mutation can you?(btw i know you cant, because there is NO such mutation).Oh, and trust me, i alredy know names of mutations you'll find on google (since you are an clueless layman) and give me a name of rarely beneficial mutations (mostly deleterious, or insertions) that are only relatively beneficial in highly selected environments.But anyway, lets try with you
@benaberry So, if you really can give me a name for such miraculous mutation (mutagene, error in copying and translating DNA genetic material) than i would be truly happy to hear it?Well ...??
Gene BRAF. I posted this to you a day ago. Do you agree this adds information or not. Answer this question first. Common mutations - D9N and N291S, reduce LPL activity. Do you agree that SNP's are so common (reflecting the variability of the human genome) that they occur at a frequency of 1 in 1,000 base pairs? The importance of these mutations is the allowance of variability for human adaptability.
@benaberry Oh im sorry, my bad, i newer saw you mentioned B-Raf mutation.Well, well ... how on earth B-Raf mutation is beneficial, or can cause adding new genetic information?Do you even know what is b-raf mutation and how dangerous it is(or at least can be)?If BRAF gene is mutated it completely alter b-raf protein.It decreases fitness of an organism, causing birth defects and in oncogene aq. mutations it causes cancer.Inherited mutation in this gene cause cardiofaciocutaneous syndrome ...
@benaberry and also acquired BRAF mutation example you just gave causes malignant melanoma, adenocarcinoma of lung, papillary thyroid carcinoma, non-small cell lung carcinoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, colorectal cancer and tons of other serious conditions, and there is not even ONE single new genetic info. added, or even upgraded(via insertion) dear sir, because this mutation is not even beneficial.Of course, under certain (extremly rare) factors, and highly selective environments it can cause ..
@benaberry ...like for example, rarely in some humans it stimulate enhanced B-Raf kinase activity toward MEK, but thats not new genetic information, nor primarly beneficial, considering the fact that this gene mutation can trigger (at any time) abnormal multiplying of cancerous cells, especially since it interacts with likes such as G463V, G465A, G465E, V599D, V599E, F594L, G595R, L596V, K600E, A727V and other serious mutagenes, and in most cases it is fatal for organism.So, please sir, explain
Please when responding do not copy and paste from Wiki pages, now you are being a hypocrite. Please give me evidence and source for you response, otherwise its your opinion.
@benaberry ... to me, when it is observed that gene B-raf by reducing (like in case of LPL activity) actually IMPROVED something, added any new genetic information (and which is it) or at least how many carriers of such mutation had any advantage over the ones witout the same mutagene???Like i said, i heard really bad examples, but i newer heard example as bad as this one, where you actually cannot observe any evolvability of an organism, let alone an benefit of advantage over others.
@benaberry What?Are you kidding me?Wikipedia is not even relevant source, just like talkorigins (runed by laymen, and so called ,,editors,, ) Im using scientific data and knowledge OUR PROFESSORS and scientists teaching us in University of Durham, you clueless man.So, please, give an proper answer, now just useless short rant without any refutation. (but i honestly dont know how can you refute the facts, plain and simple facts) ..;)
Bacteria becomes penicillin-resistant - DNA sequenced before and after. Result confirmed.
Counter claim to bacteria
Some Creationists have argued that these beneficial mutations involve simplification of the bacteria, so that some aspect attacked by the antibiotic is no longer present. That idea would rarely explain the ability to consume a new food, since that requires new chemical pathways.
@benaberry No my friend, gene pool cant be increased, there is just no chance.We are actually ENDANGERED, genetically speaking, in every possible way you can imagine.Actually, we reached full potential for variability of our genome, you know we only have abput 5-7 ,,race's,, of humans on earth?And two of them are controversial, since some experts actually dont agree that genetically speaking, vlachs (mostly romanians from balkan) and indians (from india) are not 2 distinctive races.
@benaberry So, genetically speaking, we always had one of the lowest potential variability potentials (lowest variability capacity) and that's the reason why we have so small number of different variations (so called ,,race,,) of humans on earth.You can count them on fingers of your hands, and just to assure you, you can check this data, our genome alredy reached full potential, long time ago. (because it's limited, like every other genetic pool, but our is ,,pretty damn limited,, )
SO you agree their is variation, you call it small, but none the less using your words the variation is there. The other point being the need to evolve is not so much based on outside factors like environment, it is based on intelligence. Do you know if brain sizes have changed since humans began? Please also tell me how long have humans been on this planet?
@benaberry So the fact is, if you think there is mutation, which can improve our gene pool, and ,,update,, or change our diversity potential, you arfe wrong my sir.And, i still cannot see your exmplanation of ,,added new genetic info.. ,, in that BRAF example, or any other for that matter.
@Ecologicalification Wow dude...You just did it Haha :/ You gave the most unreliable and outdated sources, one is even 100 years old.Latest data was from 2001?Are you serious?Find me ONE just ONE data from lets say ummmm:2008,2009,2010, 2011 ....can you?Because ,,human tail,, and ,,fetal development of human tail,, are such oputdated MYTHS my friend, even for american its wayyy too false and outdated to bring it up.Do you know what coccyx is my friend?
Ah yes a typical coward refusing to respond to the questions!
Why is is that the human second chromosome has the telomeres of the 2p & 2q ancestral telomeres present in the genomes of great apes, PROVING that our second chromosome arose from the fusion of these two chromosomes, therefore PROVING that we share an ancestor with great apes (who as a result have 2 mote chromosomes than us)??
Funny how I'm talking science, and you're talking mysticism and superstition!
Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation
Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology
slaves4christ 3 days ago
@slaves4christ
After going through that laughable list: 80% are so insignificant they're not even on Wiki; I'm confused as to why you would think anyone could possibly care what some Chinese geographer, or a linguist thinks about evolutionary biology... The only one with a proper education is Kurt Wise, who in his own words: "I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate." Right there he is saying: "I am putting my religion abover scientific evidence."
thoreau11111 4 hours ago
Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
slaves4christ 3 days ago
@slave
Since you couldn't even name 30 creationist scientists of any value who believe in magic, would you like me to list all the famous evolutionary biologists? Oh wait I can't as there are MILLIONS.
BUT what is really telling is the fact that you would at all think that appeals to authority actually mean anything! Science is based on FACTS and EVIDENCE not "authorities", only primitive superstitions like RELIGION accepts as right that which is said by the highest authority.
thoreau11111 4 hours ago
Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Dr. Stephen J. Vinay III, Chemical Engineering
Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
slaves4christ 3 days ago
slaves4christ 3 days ago
slaves4christ 3 days ago
slaves4christ 3 days ago
slaves4christ 3 days ago
slaves4christ 3 days ago
slaves4christ 3 days ago
slaves4christ 3 days ago
slaves4christ 3 days ago
Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation
Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
slaves4christ 3 days ago
slaves4christ 3 days ago
slaves4christ 3 days ago
slaves4christ 3 days ago
Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation
Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
slaves4christ 3 days ago
slaves4christ 3 days ago
slaves4christ 3 days ago
slaves4christ 3 days ago
So the Earth was created in 7 days (Animals Plants trees Insects Fish Reptiles Dinosores Water Air the Periodic table) OK ... Then Adam and Eve went on to populate a world of mixed races, We weere all Saved when Noha built the Ark and saved all the animals and us of course.. The One thing that bothers me why did God the christian one also Create Other Groups of People who would belive in Other Gods and Religions..
Strange .... These type of Americans scare me
Loy365 1 week ago
@aClockworkBoec There is a big difference between disputing the evidence or disagreeing with the theory and coming out and saying things like "there is NO evidence." We CAN have evidence that supports a Hypothesis, yet still disprove it based on other data. You don't do your argument any good with statements like "NO evidence," it just makes you appear rigid and ignorant. For instance, there WAS evidence for the geocentric model however it has since been proven false.
getsupercharged 3 weeks ago
@Bailey828282 Yes, you do. Your inability to spell or construct a basic sentence denotes ignorance, and the concepts we are talking about require intelligence to comprehend. Further, don't make assumptions about what I believe; you don't know me. Only an ignoramus would say evolution is a religion (is gravity one too? ) and is losing every debate...oh really? Every debate? Come on, be serious. Statements like that just make you look bad.
getsupercharged 3 weeks ago
@aClockworkBoec Uh, no. There is a LOT of evidence for evolution! Clearly you have NO understanding of modern Phylogenic and Genomic research. One simple example is the pattern of retrovirus DNA that links certain species together in historical terms. We are talking about patterns that make sense in the context of evolutionary biology AND were actually predicted by the theory before they were observed AND correspond exactly to other observations in terms of the Phylogenic tree.
getsupercharged 3 weeks ago
Evrything thing this guy is saying is right u know there's no prove that evolution happend d and its a very Jung earth. So stop lying to yourself there's is a God because DNA that man nor bacteria can crested from nothing. Ok morons wake up.
Bailey828282 3 weeks ago
First of I don't need to know how to spell to know that evolution is stupid. U r stupid because u believe all that exist today started from a small dot that put all universe in order. Then u believe the wildest thing witch is humans came from animals or better yet a bacteria. Evolution is a dying religion and its lose every debate against creationist. No humans on earth can create DNA from nothing but say a bacteria millions of years ago was able to do it. U fool really believe u r an xmen.
Bailey828282 3 weeks ago
This guy's in Mensa? I'm sorry, but clearly this indicates to me that Mensa is highly overrated. Either this guy is dumbing things down for the audience, or he's an idiot. Or both. Blind assertions, mockery and snobbery =/= knowledge or wisdom. He also clearly doesn't understand the scientific method, and therefore has no business teaching science. We don't "knock" science for revising it's understanding to conform to the data; THAT is an admirable intrinsic quality in the method.
getsupercharged 3 weeks ago
Rigidity is the sign of a dying theory, NOT the acceptance of new data. Science is self-correcting; that is the beauty of the scientific method. We continually grow the body of evidence and data and conform our concepts to fit the most current data. That's why it is mostly creationists that call it "Darwinian evolution"...the current state of knowledge is light years beyond Darwin. You're going to have to try harder if you want to demonize a self-correcting system based on empiricism.
getsupercharged 3 weeks ago
@getsupercharged
"self-correcting system based on empiricism"?! hahahahahahaha, please stop, you R killing me!
aClockworkBoec 3 weeks ago
@aClockworkBoec I find it humorous that you used so many products of science to now mock it publicly. Here are some suggestions if you feel science is so laughable: Throw your computer away, quit driving or taking any form of motorized transportation, discard your cellular telephone, throw your TV out the window and call your power company to have your electricity shut off. THEN you have a leg to stand on bashing science.
getsupercharged 3 weeks ago
@getsupercharged Easy there, science worshiper. I am sorry if I offended your religion, but please tell me what tv and electricity has to do with evolution?
aClockworkBoec 3 weeks ago
@aClockworkBoec Even funnier; no science is no more my religion than is gravity...I am affected by it, and it benefits me. As for electricity and evolution, both are gleaned from the scientific method....and if you don't like the assertions of the TOE, I'd suggest you stay away from hospitals, doctors, medicines and vaccines; these all benefit from the study of microbiology and yes, evolution. I don't worship science, I use it.
getsupercharged 3 weeks ago
@aClockworkBoec LOL, using these "reverse psychology" baiting techniques is nothing new for creationists. Calling atheism and/or science or evolution "religions" and referring to "worship" is a cute little reversal, but it adds nothing to the conversation. Just like the word "evolutionism," which is a non-word. If you would like to talk, let's talk....but how about we leave out all the trick little argumentative name-calling.
getsupercharged 3 weeks ago
@getsupercharged Science isn't religion? Well, how do you call something in which you believe even though you don't see it and can't prove it's existence?
aClockworkBoec 3 weeks ago
@aClockworkBoec What in science is based on something completely unseen with no evidence? Such an assertion would be completely un-scientific. Rogue scientists aside, the scientific method would prohibit such things, both due to the requirement of data and the peer-review process. Science may not be perfect (nothing is) however the scientific method does not fit any definition of religion. It actually doesn't do your position any good to run around asserting that, most people don't respond.
getsupercharged 3 weeks ago
@getsupercharged What you are trying to say is that even though there's absolutely NO evidence for evolution, somehow completely biased theory when put through peer-review process becomes fact?
aClockworkBoec 3 weeks ago
@aClockworkBoec
Where are the scientific papers on creationism? Oh that's right there is NONE.
Where are the scientific papers that dispute any single fact of evolution? Oh that's right there is NONE.
Ecologicalification 2 weeks ago
@Ecologicalification No more questions?
aClockworkBoec 1 week ago
@aClockworkBoec
It's a bit hard to reply when your friend slaves4christ bans every person who speaks any scientific sense.
I looked up "Dr Gary Parker" and the ONLY links were "AnswersinGenesis" and "Creationwiki". Furthermore the guy doesn't even have a PhD in science, rather in "education".
FAIL
ayeayeayeaye1111 1 week ago
@ayeayeayeaye1111 He bans? Really? This is his channel after all, he has every right to ban everyone he wants to ban.
"scientific sense"? What would that be?
"FAIL"? The only fail here is your blind delusion.
aClockworkBoec 5 days ago
@aClockworkBoec If someone does resort to banning and censoring the opposing arguements, they have lost the debate.
when he says "Scientific sense", he is refering to people who actually know and understand how science works. You, as well as many creationists, clearly do not understand.
You haven't really brought anything new to the debate. Now you are just refering to childish insults and immature rebuttles.
Good day sir.
level7atheist 4 days ago
So, it doesn't matter how much you know? PHD's are a waste of time? If it doesn't make "common sense" it doesn't make sense? Rubbish. Many things proven by science are counter-intuitive. That's why we test and study. From earth it appears that the sun and moon are circling US...(just like in the bible, oh my) but we know from scientists and space travel that this is not the case. Heck, even some "magnetic hills" (where it appears water is running uphill) refute your "common sense" argument.
getsupercharged 3 weeks ago
@atheeizm: a stupid athiest will say something retarded like this, I'm not surprise because u morons belive that the entire universe was started by a small little pen dot. That's why evolution is fales never happend a fantasy. God is very much real.
Bailey828282 3 weeks ago
@Bailey828282 Learn how to spell "fails" before you call others stupid. Also, being an atheist says nothing about what someone believes about how the universe came into existence.
getsupercharged 3 weeks ago
U sound stupid its been proven there's mutation within bacteria and all it does is reproduce within their own kind. No new information. Till this day no new species evolve none evolution is stupid. Look it sound we came from animals just that alone sounds stupid. No fossil record. How many steps does it take a t-Rex to evolve to a chicken numbers please.
Bailey828282 3 weeks ago
@Bailey828282 I pity your kids.
Atheeizm 3 weeks ago
Claim CB102:
Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information.
It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting.
cont -
benaberry 3 weeks ago
@benaberry
By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991) increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003) novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996) novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
benaberry 3 weeks ago
@benaberry
If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.
benaberry 3 weeks ago
Also, the TRIM5-CypA.
level7atheist 4 weeks ago
you mean the Durham where they teach that evolution is a fact?
dur.ac.uk/anthropology/research/earg/
dur.ac.uk/reproductionproject/
You shame yourself by lying.
level7atheist 4 weeks ago
What a bunch of blah blah friggin blah.
Atheeizm 4 weeks ago
@Atheeizm
,
this guy thinks he is some kind genius, probably is compared to his cronies.
benaberry 4 weeks ago
@benaberry I really wouldn't have the faintest clue where to begin with these people. Considering who they represent, I cannot believe they are accusing scientists of flip flopping!!! That's just the capper!! They do not understand science. They act like it is some conscious evil being with a purpose. It takes a primitive mind to defend the innate urge to personify everything.
Atheeizm 4 weeks ago
I see that the creationists are getting a bit narky of late. It's cute.
Atheeizm 4 weeks ago
Creationism, proof of observable, verifiable, devolution in the human species
TheBlondDaemon 1 month ago
@TheBlondDaemon This comment makes me happy.
level7atheist 1 month ago
@level7atheist I just read your comments, and you are, by far, the dumbest creature i ever heard in my life.Live or on internet.
Now that being said, i want to hear this revolutionary news about mutation that cann add new genetic info.???
AnaximanderLindemann 1 month ago
@AnaximanderLindemann If you read my comments, you would have noticed that I posted a link. Dumbass.
talkorigins (DOT) org/indexcc/CB/CB102 (Dot) html
level7atheist 1 month ago
@level7atheist And what make's you think i newer saw an useless link i alredy read (from useless talkorigins)??You little dumbass?Truly, i'll say once again, you are an DUMB ARSE ok?And, while im telling you this as a student who actually study these things, you'll still going to claim same BS without any knowledge, beside the ,,knowledge,, you ,,googled,, you ignorant piece of shit!
Now, name it, or please, dont embarrase yourself even further than you alredy are embarrased!
AnaximanderLindemann 1 month ago
@AnaximanderLindemann If talkorigins is useless, then why does it consist of thousands of peer reviewed scitific papers?
If you are a student, you must be at the bottom of your class. If you don't understand it is a fact, you have no right to be in university or where ever the hell you study.
I know you know its a fact, but you just wont admit it. That is why you are just responding to my comments in personal attacks.
you are pathetic.
level7atheist 1 month ago
@level7atheist LOL. Are you serious?Oh no, wait, i know....you are, because you are an typical DUMB ASS AMERICAN!!!Haha, you know that talkorigins is actually site just like wikipedia, site run by LAYMEN not by relevant professors and research scientists do you?Ask ANY professor, scientist or ...well, normal, EDUCATED human being if talkorigins is reliable and relevant and check how they'll respond to you.Fool.
Btw, i am at the bottom of my class?Yeah, thats what i thought.Dummies always ..
AnaximanderLindemann 1 month ago
@level7atheist ...will be dummies, but just so i can let you know, i am so bad, that my average score is 9.7 (i have pure 10, which is in your dumb american system A, you should probably know it, in genetics, molecular biology, bionics, biophysics, physics, cosmology and mcrobiology) so anyway ....my lowest is in botanics, in subdiscipline noenoculture which is 8.4 so ...i guess I am pretty bad am I?
Anyway, dude, when you actually decide TO NAME me here those famous mutations, then reply ok?bye
AnaximanderLindemann 1 month ago
@AnaximanderLindemann
Put some meaningful arguments up for your position or shut the fuck up. Retard!
benaberry 1 month ago
@benaberry Hey, dumbberry, hajde ne seri, mamu ti jebem usranu.I'm waiting proof for his claims (nnsense btw) so i can easily refute them.Now, you little diskheaded cumdrung dwarf, you should take that pentagram from your avatar, and shoove it in your arse, just like your daddy used to shoove his disk into your tiny litte ass when you watched spongebog.(while you was tiny little 4 years old bitch).
Cunt!!!
AnaximanderLindemann 1 month ago
@benaberry Btw, is that picture of you, butt naked, in front of an pentagram?Who took that picture of you?Your daddy?If you have one of course.
I can bet your arse was demolished, right after he took that picture of your naked butt, in front of an pentageram(roflol).
AnaximanderLindemann 1 month ago
@AnaximanderLindemann Okay, If you actually took time to research stuff, you would realize on my profile that I am Canadian.
By the way, Your profile makes you look like a 45 year old pedophile that lives in your parents basement.
It is sad that you have nothing to do but come on youtube and insult people who are smater than you.
As well, all your Education, just talk. I have no clue if any of that is true, and i will not accept it unless it is proven.
level7atheist 1 month ago
@level7atheist Haha, im insulting you?Dude, check out your comments you little idiot.Now, as i said, STOP replying to me unless you are willing to name me mutations that can add new information ok?God bless ...(stupid canadian)
AnaximanderLindemann 1 month ago
@AnaximanderLindemann
Gene BRAF.
benaberry 4 weeks ago
@level7atheist
wow! where did retard @AnaximanderLindermann come from??? Its like, blah, blah, blah! Bad spelling, bad grammer....blah blah blah!! Retardo or what! Even if it was studying all those fields doesnt mean any retardo thing it says is an argument. Appeal to authority or what?
benaberry 1 month ago
@benaberry Haha, he is just insulting us because he knows he is wrong.
level7atheist 1 month ago
@level7atheist Still trying to figure out what level of education they actually have, being at university myself and having access to peer reviewed journals in a wide range of subjects it was simple enough to enter DNA and Additions and get thousands of results including nar . oxfordjournals . org /content/16/20/9677 which if our friend is at the level of education they claim will have to problem checking themselves...
TheBlondDaemon 4 weeks ago
@TheBlondDaemon Why thank you sir. I figure if I do give him any links or what not cause he will just deny them. To creationist, new information will mean a new gene completly, when in fact it is the order of the genes that provide information. We have thousands of recorded instances of this happening. And i agree with you, if this guy had any brains at all, he would just look for it himself.
Untill then, dont feed the fire.
level7atheist 4 weeks ago
What is macroevolution?
First, we have to get the definitions right. The following terms are defined: macroevolution, microevolution, cladogenesis, anagenesis, punctuated equilibrium theory, phyletic gradualism
Creationists often assert that "macroevolution" is not proven, even if "microevolution" is, and by this they seem to mean that whatever evolution is observed is microevolution, but the rest is macroevolution.
benaberry 1 month ago
@benaberry
cont- In making these claims they are misusing authentic scientific terms; that is, they have a non-standard definition, which they use to make science appear to be saying something other than it is. Evolution proponents often say that creationists invented the terms. This is false. Both macroevolution and microevolution are legitimate scientific terms, which have a history of changing meanings that, in any case, fail to underpin creationism.
benaberry 1 month ago
@benaberry
cont-
In science, macro at the beginning of a word just means "big", and micro at the beginning of a word just means "small" (both from the Greek words). For example, "macrofauna" means big animals, observable by the naked eye, while "microfauna" means small animals, which may be observable or may not without a microscope. Something can be "macro" by just being bigger, or there can be a transition that makes it something quite distinct.
benaberry 1 month ago
@benaberry
cont-
In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families,
benaberry 1 month ago
@benaberry
cont- phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.
benaberry 1 month ago
@benaberry
reference - from Talk origins.org
benaberry 1 month ago
@benaberry I got better things to read then your essay. Try again, this time 1 post per comment!
aClockworkBoec 1 month ago
@aClockworkBoec
no problem
benaberry 1 month ago
Over a period of generations, microevolution does take place. And what do you get when you have a build up of small changes? You get big changes. The ideas that these changes just stop is completely wrong. You are ignoring the evidence we are providing you.
level7atheist 1 month ago
@level7atheist No, microevolution is based on information in the gene pool. You cannot magically create the information needed for macroevolution to take place.
slaves4christ 1 month ago
@slaves4christ how can anyone make this claim?
Anything a mutation can do, it can undo as well.Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. We have even observed this.
level7atheist 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@slaves4christ said " You cannot magically create the information needed for macroevolution to take place."
It's called genetic variation, you might wanna read about it sometime, lol.
Ecologicalification 4 weeks ago
@slaves4christ said: "You cannot magically create the information needed for macroevolution to take place."
Ever heard of genetic variation and recombination??
Oh that's right, you actually have to have some basic education in biology to know of that, so OFCOURSE you don't.
But this begs the question: why are you debating a subject you know NOTHING about??
Ecologicalification 3 weeks ago
@slaves4christ here is a peer reviewed scientific article that completley dissagrees with you:
talkorigins (DOT) org/indexcc/CB/CB102 (Dot) html
I understand your probably going to ignore what evidence i have provided.
level7atheist 1 month ago
@level7atheist
I feel it is worth while to backup what we say, it might not get through to the person with whom you are directly conversing with because they are going to hold strongly to their position no matter what, but the info benefits those who are openly and actively looking for answers who may be on the fence, so keep up it, appreciate the support.
benaberry 1 month ago
You're the Dummies. Make no mistake. Stupid is stupid is stupid. No encouragement will make you better. Reading WILL.
Atheeizm 1 month ago
Evolution is going nowhere.
Atheeizm 1 month ago
ISnt this guy now in jail for stupidity? He is doing a great job converting the converted, wow, what an educator.
benaberry 1 month ago
Very nice Video, thank you
TheRustyriddle 1 month ago
Evolution is a fact you can see happening in everyday life. Deal with it Creationists. You`re wrong.
level7atheist 1 month ago
@level7atheist Yeah, I saw a bear evolve into a whale just last week.
slaves4christ 1 month ago 3
@slaves4christ
I saw you evolve into an idiot before my very eyes! See post for evidence.
benaberry 1 month ago
@slaves4christ I just responded to aclockworkboec
see my response to him.
level7atheist 1 month ago
@slaves4christ Yep....I saw a chicken egg hatch into a horse....happens all the time.
KJVWordofGod 1 month ago
@slaves4christ
Funny how you have to resort to sarcasm.... or do you actually think that is how evolution works?
Not surprising coming from an intellectual coward who has to CENSOR questions which prove his worldview to be ridiculous.
ANSWER THE QUESTION YOU COWARD!!!!
-> WHY do all humans have the atavistic genes for tails???
Or are you going to block this account as well because you HAVE NO ANSWER, DO YOU?
Phanerozoic1 1 month ago
@Phanerozoic1 Have you seen a guy with a tail lately? NO? Well, it seams to me that the atavistic genes for tail are long dead, together with the genes for wings and spider senses.
aClockworkBoec 1 month ago
@aClockworkBoec
Lack of education is NOT an argument.
Go to PubMed, type in "human tail" or "coccygeal process" and READ.
Ignorance is NOT a virtue. Just because you're too ignorant to look at the world around you doesn't stop these things from being facts.
Phanerozoic1 1 month ago
@Phanerozoic1 I did. There's nothing there.
aClockworkBoec 1 month ago
@aClockworkBoec
So going to an academic search engine and typing in a word is too difficult for you. You can't even get that right.
No wonder you're the intellectual equivalent of Fred Flinstone.
Phanerozoic1 1 month ago
@Phanerozoic1
Well, give me the direct link.
aClockworkBoec 1 month ago
@aClockworkBoec Derpa derp derp
Bar-Maor, J. A., Kesner, K. M., and Kaftori, J. K. (1980) "Human tails." J Bone Joint Surg Br. 62-B: 508-510.
Baruchin, A. M., Mahler, D., Hauben, D. J., and Rosenberg, L. (1983) "The human caudal appendage (human tail)." Br J Plast Surg. 36: 120-123.
Belzberg, A. J., Myles, S. T., and Trevenen, C. L. (1991) "The human tail and spinal dysraphism." J Pediatr Surg 26: 1243-1245.
Ecologicalification 4 weeks ago
@aClockworkBoec Beware, these are peer-reviewed journal articles, you may actually LEARN something from them!!!
Dao, A. H., and Netsky, M. G. (1984) "Human tails and pseudotails." Human Pathology 15: 449-453.
Dubrow, T. J., Wackym, P. A., and Lesavoy, M. A. (1988) "Detailing the human tail." Annals of Plastic Surgery 20:340-344
Grange, G., et. al. (2001) "Prenatal diagnosis of fetal tail and postabortum anatomical description." Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 18: 531-533
Ecologicalification 4 weeks ago
@Phanerozoic1 You were rude and offensive, from the beginning till end. You are a bad bad bad fabian socialist, benny shaw would be ashamed of you.
aClockworkBoec 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@slaves4christ
So why do you think microbes like bacteria, when placed in a medium with anti-biotics, suddenly after many generations they're resistant to that anti-biotics???
Hmmm.... I WONDER how that happens. Could it be that in the original population all those that aren't resistant die, leaving those that are to breed, therefore changing the allele frequency??? Ie: E-V-O-L-U-T-I-O-N???
Also, did your "God" ALSO create ebola and HIV? He's one sick freak.
Phanerozoic1 1 month ago
@slaves4christ
evolution does not say that. You are misrepresenting evolution. Show me any where thats what evolution states.
If god created all life as we see it today why is it that 99% of all species have become extinct? Great design dont you think? Why is it if humans are the top of the design we cant see like a hawk? Or see in the dark? Or have blind spots? Great design. Why does it take millions of sperm to fertilize an egg? If i design it, it would take one sperm!
benaberry 1 month ago 2
@slaves4christ
Question: Why do you always resort to censorship and blocking?
Do you FEAR reality THAT much??
Ecologicalification 4 weeks ago
@level7atheist Every day? Really? Where is it, except in your imagination?
aClockworkBoec 1 month ago
@aClockworkBoec
Great come back! REALLY........REALLY!!! Wow - you've read the how to debate with smart people book haven't you, gawd dammit.
benaberry 1 month ago
@aClockworkBoec Flu viruse strains are rapidly evolving, that is why we need to get a different flu shot every year. Drug resistance for antibiotics. Bacteria evolves to be less sensitive to the drugs.
Agriculture is another example, Every animal or plant you see and eat has been breeded by humans selective breeding.
level7atheist 1 month ago
@level7atheist Really? How rapid is "rapid"? According to Richard Dawkins, evolution is a SLOW process, so slow that we can NOT prove that exists. But it's obvious that every evolutionist has its own evolution theory.
Bacteria becoming resistant to drugs is NOT evolution, but DEVOLUTION, a loss of information in chromosomes on which the drug attach itself.
Agriculture, you say? You mean farmers helping corn to evolve into another type of... corn? You've got quite an imagination.
aClockworkBoec 1 month ago
@aClockworkBoec Okay, If you are being serious, you must have not gone to school. Science is accepted as a fact among school books, teachers and real scientists everywhere. It is only a theory the same way gravity is only a theory, and tide theory as well. Search evolution as a Fact and theory and just look at how many sites come up provideing difinative proof.
Devolution? Are you dumb? Bacteria gains information. You can read that in any science textbook.
level7atheist 1 month ago
@level7atheist I am afraid that the dumb one is YOU. You took science as religion without even knowing what it is. Science is something that can be proven. Mixing facts with fiction is a well known imbecilic tactic used by fools with hidden agendas. Gravity is ONLY A THEORY? Really? Well, jump from your roof and put the theory into practice. Will it took billion of years for you to realise that it works?
aClockworkBoec 1 month ago
Comment removed
level7atheist 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aClockworkBoec You do realize there is more rhan just earth, correct? Gravity doesn't just apply to us here on earth. There are hundreds of questions about gravity that scientists cannot explain, making it a theory and not a law. Scientists will often agree that evoloution is a more solid theory than gravity.
As well, i don't think you understand how science works.
And why don't you think evolution is a fact? I havn't heard one anti-evolution claim that could not be debunked.
level7atheist 1 month ago
@aClockworkBoec
Gravity is a theory. You understand what that means right? There is no absolute truth. We understand gravity to a point, but not entirely. And based on your logic gravity could be a scam created by scientists to get money. You said science is something that can be proven, yes but it changes as new information is found.
benaberry 1 month ago
@aClockworkBoec Take a look at a banana. You know it as a yellow, slender fruit. These bananas that you have grown to know are not grown naturally. they are an entirely different product than plantanes, which are the natural banana.
level7atheist 1 month ago
ScienceDaily (July 29, 2008)
The scientists had dissolved the bone in acid, leaving behind the blood vessel- and cell-like structures.
But in a paper published July 30 in PloS ONE, a journal of the open-access Public Library of Science, Kaye and his co-authors contend that what was really inside the T. rex bone was slimy biofilm created by bacteria that coated the voids once occupied by blood vessels and cells.
benaberry 1 month ago
@benaberry "biofilm created by bacteria"? It's too late to cover up the story, we all saw the pictures, and it ain't the "biofilm".
aClockworkBoec 1 month ago
@aClockworkBoec
You saw something and thats your evidence? You the easily deluded, ready to see what they want to, to support there unproven, no evidence based position of faith. Stop bringing ya big gun to a fight with no bullets.
benaberry 1 month ago
@benaberry Ah man, you really are something. What everybody saw was a group of scientists proving something that destroyed that fantasy in which the money establishment desperately wants people to believe. And if a scientist wants a research founds, he or she must dance according to the tune.
aClockworkBoec 1 month ago
@aClockworkBoec
Its Funds not founds, please you try speak english again.
benaberry 1 month ago
@benaberry Sorry, I didn't realise that my english is the subject here. English is not my primary language, but it's not the only language I speak.
aClockworkBoec 1 month ago
@aClockworkBoec
whats your native tongue? I was being silly. What else has science lied about? Climate change? Genetics? Geology? Are there any sciences you think are right? Your using a computer right now, science created that thingy your using. Medicine, is that ok? Antibiotics? Do you believe that is right?
benaberry 1 month ago
@benaberry My native tongue is not an issue. Of course you were being silly, but the sad thing is that you can't stop. Science is a neutral phenomena, it can be used for good, bad or evil. Scientists are humans, they often twist truth and openly lie in order to promote their selfish agenda. Scientists are NOTHING without money for their research, and the money is in the hands of luciferian establishment.
Use your brain.
aClockworkBoec 1 month ago
@aClockworkBoec
Ok so all science is ok just when used by humans its not, so then science as a method is pointless. So if your child is sick what will you do, pray? or take the chance on medicine which has been developed using the scientific method by fallible humans? If you pray and the child dies its gods plan right?
benaberry 1 month ago
@benaberry Your attempt to present yourself as someone who represent and defend science is very amusing. If some natural phenomena can be observed, tested and measured, then it's considered a part of science.
Evolution is NOT science because it can NOT be observed, tested and measured because it takes (according to the theory) millions of years to occur. Therefore, attempt to be presented as a part of science, only proves biased hidden motives of people who are doing it.
aClockworkBoec 1 month ago
@aClockworkBoec
"Evolution has never been observed."
Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.
cont -
benaberry 1 month ago
@benaberry
"change in the gene pool of a population over time"? NOT exactly! They observe very small changes and on top of which they add their wishful imagination. Body can change itself in order to adapt to changes in the environment, that's no big secret, that's a fact. But is you think that it automatically means that a rat can evolve into elephant over a period of time, then science becomes science fiction. Your blind pride prevents you from seeing that. Gravity is a FACT.
aClockworkBoec 1 month ago
@aClockworkBoec
Please show me evidence for evolution stating that a rat can evolved into an elephant? Can you even tell me the common ancestor they share?
benaberry 1 month ago
@benaberry You are not helping yourself by acting as child. Evolutionists teach that anything can evolve into anything if you give it enough time and right conditions.
aClockworkBoec 1 month ago
@aClockworkBoec
Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).
benaberry 1 month ago
@aClockworkBoec
cont -
How old is the universe? If it is closer to 13.7 billion years old therefore macro evolution could be possible yet unproven? Or is it younger, say closer to 10 thousand years old? Or you don't believe we know that answer? What is your position here?
benaberry 1 month ago
@aClockworkBoec
Standfast, A. L. (1992) "The human tail." New York State Journal of Medicine. 92: 116.
Sugumata, A., Sato, M., Ikeda, J., Kinosita, J., Tanihira, S., and Makimo, K. (1988) "Two cases of a true human tail." Jpn J Plast Reconstr Surg 31: 1072.
If you want anymore just ask, but you should really learn to use a search engine, it's sort of a good skill to have these days.
Ecologicalification 4 weeks ago
@Ecologicalification
Excellent!
benaberry 4 weeks ago
@benaberry Im still waiting for you, or your friend to name me one mutation that can add new genetic information, change biohemical compounds, switch or improve biochem. processes in organism, result in a change of molecular (at least minor) morphology, or at least sequencing chains in an organism ok?Can you?Also, i want you to name me at least one insertion (mutation) change that occure without deleterious side effects, and loss of original genetic infromations, plus recombination--
AnaximanderLindemann 4 weeks ago
@benaberry ---and is it limited or not.If not, why, and can you actually deny limited barrier and ref. values withing every single generic sequencingl, which of course not only stops ANY possible evolvability of an organism, but also makes primary speciation impossible.(literally).
So ...im waiting ok?Give me arguments please?
AnaximanderLindemann 4 weeks ago
@AnaximanderLindemann
Firstly, before redefining your original question please acknowledge my response. Your question was in essence - Give me the name of a mutation that adds new information to a gene. I gave you the name of a mutation which does exactly that. So, again acknowledge the response then proceed to ask your next question.
benaberry 4 weeks ago
@benaberry You newer gave me a name of a mutation which can add new genetic information, so please be kind and give me a name of such mutation can you?(btw i know you cant, because there is NO such mutation).Oh, and trust me, i alredy know names of mutations you'll find on google (since you are an clueless layman) and give me a name of rarely beneficial mutations (mostly deleterious, or insertions) that are only relatively beneficial in highly selected environments.But anyway, lets try with you
AnaximanderLindemann 4 weeks ago
@benaberry So, if you really can give me a name for such miraculous mutation (mutagene, error in copying and translating DNA genetic material) than i would be truly happy to hear it?Well ...??
AnaximanderLindemann 4 weeks ago
@AnaximanderLindemann
Gene BRAF. I posted this to you a day ago. Do you agree this adds information or not. Answer this question first. Common mutations - D9N and N291S, reduce LPL activity. Do you agree that SNP's are so common (reflecting the variability of the human genome) that they occur at a frequency of 1 in 1,000 base pairs? The importance of these mutations is the allowance of variability for human adaptability.
benaberry 4 weeks ago
@benaberry Oh im sorry, my bad, i newer saw you mentioned B-Raf mutation.Well, well ... how on earth B-Raf mutation is beneficial, or can cause adding new genetic information?Do you even know what is b-raf mutation and how dangerous it is(or at least can be)?If BRAF gene is mutated it completely alter b-raf protein.It decreases fitness of an organism, causing birth defects and in oncogene aq. mutations it causes cancer.Inherited mutation in this gene cause cardiofaciocutaneous syndrome ...
AnaximanderLindemann 4 weeks ago
@benaberry and also acquired BRAF mutation example you just gave causes malignant melanoma, adenocarcinoma of lung, papillary thyroid carcinoma, non-small cell lung carcinoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, colorectal cancer and tons of other serious conditions, and there is not even ONE single new genetic info. added, or even upgraded(via insertion) dear sir, because this mutation is not even beneficial.Of course, under certain (extremly rare) factors, and highly selective environments it can cause ..
AnaximanderLindemann 4 weeks ago
@benaberry ...like for example, rarely in some humans it stimulate enhanced B-Raf kinase activity toward MEK, but thats not new genetic information, nor primarly beneficial, considering the fact that this gene mutation can trigger (at any time) abnormal multiplying of cancerous cells, especially since it interacts with likes such as G463V, G465A, G465E, V599D, V599E, F594L, G595R, L596V, K600E, A727V and other serious mutagenes, and in most cases it is fatal for organism.So, please sir, explain
AnaximanderLindemann 4 weeks ago
@AnaximanderLindemann
Please when responding do not copy and paste from Wiki pages, now you are being a hypocrite. Please give me evidence and source for you response, otherwise its your opinion.
benaberry 4 weeks ago
@benaberry ... to me, when it is observed that gene B-raf by reducing (like in case of LPL activity) actually IMPROVED something, added any new genetic information (and which is it) or at least how many carriers of such mutation had any advantage over the ones witout the same mutagene???Like i said, i heard really bad examples, but i newer heard example as bad as this one, where you actually cannot observe any evolvability of an organism, let alone an benefit of advantage over others.
AnaximanderLindemann 4 weeks ago
@AnaximanderLindemann
You are failing science miserably, please show me acquired knowledge not just regurgitating from wiki.
benaberry 4 weeks ago
@benaberry What?Are you kidding me?Wikipedia is not even relevant source, just like talkorigins (runed by laymen, and so called ,,editors,, ) Im using scientific data and knowledge OUR PROFESSORS and scientists teaching us in University of Durham, you clueless man.So, please, give an proper answer, now just useless short rant without any refutation. (but i honestly dont know how can you refute the facts, plain and simple facts) ..;)
AnaximanderLindemann 4 weeks ago
@AnaximanderLindemann
You have yet to offer a reference.
Bacteria becomes penicillin-resistant - DNA sequenced before and after. Result confirmed.
Counter claim to bacteria
Some Creationists have argued that these beneficial mutations involve simplification of the bacteria, so that some aspect attacked by the antibiotic is no longer present. That idea would rarely explain the ability to consume a new food, since that requires new chemical pathways.
benaberry 4 weeks ago
@AnaximanderLindemann
And again to clarify the argument - we are talking about a gene pool as apposed to an individuals genome. That was clearly stated earlier.
benaberry 4 weeks ago
@benaberry No my friend, gene pool cant be increased, there is just no chance.We are actually ENDANGERED, genetically speaking, in every possible way you can imagine.Actually, we reached full potential for variability of our genome, you know we only have abput 5-7 ,,race's,, of humans on earth?And two of them are controversial, since some experts actually dont agree that genetically speaking, vlachs (mostly romanians from balkan) and indians (from india) are not 2 distinctive races.
AnaximanderLindemann 4 weeks ago
@benaberry So, genetically speaking, we always had one of the lowest potential variability potentials (lowest variability capacity) and that's the reason why we have so small number of different variations (so called ,,race,,) of humans on earth.You can count them on fingers of your hands, and just to assure you, you can check this data, our genome alredy reached full potential, long time ago. (because it's limited, like every other genetic pool, but our is ,,pretty damn limited,, )
AnaximanderLindemann 4 weeks ago
@AnaximanderLindemann
SO you agree their is variation, you call it small, but none the less using your words the variation is there. The other point being the need to evolve is not so much based on outside factors like environment, it is based on intelligence. Do you know if brain sizes have changed since humans began? Please also tell me how long have humans been on this planet?
benaberry 3 weeks ago
@benaberry So the fact is, if you think there is mutation, which can improve our gene pool, and ,,update,, or change our diversity potential, you arfe wrong my sir.And, i still cannot see your exmplanation of ,,added new genetic info.. ,, in that BRAF example, or any other for that matter.
AnaximanderLindemann 4 weeks ago
@Ecologicalification Wow dude...You just did it Haha :/ You gave the most unreliable and outdated sources, one is even 100 years old.Latest data was from 2001?Are you serious?Find me ONE just ONE data from lets say ummmm:2008,2009,2010, 2011 ....can you?Because ,,human tail,, and ,,fetal development of human tail,, are such oputdated MYTHS my friend, even for american its wayyy too false and outdated to bring it up.Do you know what coccyx is my friend?
AnaximanderLindemann 4 weeks ago
@Ecologicalification You really are fool, those claims are refuted long time ago.
aClockworkBoec 4 weeks ago
@aClockworkBoec
Ah yes a typical coward refusing to respond to the questions!
Why is is that the human second chromosome has the telomeres of the 2p & 2q ancestral telomeres present in the genomes of great apes, PROVING that our second chromosome arose from the fusion of these two chromosomes, therefore PROVING that we share an ancestor with great apes (who as a result have 2 mote chromosomes than us)??
Funny how I'm talking science, and you're talking mysticism and superstition!
Ecologicalification 3 weeks ago