• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Creationists, please provide evidence

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
NewHope has constantly danced around the OP. She, and all her Creationist buddies, have absolutely no objective empirical evidence in support of their pseudoscientific nonsense.
What she does is copy and past articles from pop-science websites that she feels (subjective) "proves" she is right.
The intellectual dishonesty is so blatant, it would be laughable if wasn't a threat to actual scientific learning.
 
NewHope has constantly danced around the OP. She, and all her Creationist buddies, have absolutely no objective empirical evidence in support of their pseudoscientific nonsense.
What she does is copy and past articles from pop-science websites that she feels (subjective) "proves" she is right.
The intellectual dishonesty is so blatant, it would be laughable if wasn't a threat to actual scientific learning.

the funny thing is that she probably doesn't even understand half of what she's copying.

or is that a sad thing?
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
micrurus..again I'll restate you opinion is worthless without providing research to refute me. If you have insufficient skills to find or quote research that is your problem, not mine. Your opinion on its' own means zilch, squat, nothing.

You do not know the differnce between evidence and facts as is demonstrated by your comments.

If you do, put some research where your mouth and useless opinions are and refute my points.

I can provide evidence from your own evolutionists to support each and every point I have made. I cannot fit it into one post. Feel free to refute any point and I'll provide the research to validate my points of evidence for creation without the need for useless opinions, alone.

The reason why you will continue to voice hot air is because you cannot provide any evidence to refute me and if you use your theoretical assumptions I can blast them fairly easily. Why?..because your assumptions change like the wind and every one is debated and contested with equally valid contradictory assumptions.

Here is some evidence in support of creation:
1. For now, it appears the MRCA is set at 5,000 years. This demonstrates all of mankind alive today are related to a group of people at that time, which is likely Noah and his family.
2. The Y chromosome is meant to say the same from generation to generation. The Y chromosome is remarkably different in the Chimp and human male chromosome. If we share a common ancestor the Y chromosome should be very similar between descendants. It is not. Rather they are compared to a chicken and human at 310 million years of separation.
3. For now the human version of the FoxP2 gene is also set to 5,000 years which also coincided with the appears of written language an arts.
4. An abundance of life is shown to arise during the Cambrian period. This is the evidence and this is proof of creation. Anything else apart from this evidence are hypothetical assumptions. Evolutionists attempts to assert ancestry to the Precambrian creation have failed. Researchers are unable to provide anything more than assumptions and hypothesis re oxygen levels and why such a plethora of life suddenly begins to appear at the one time. Many Precambrian creatures still exist today, eg sponges, illustrating that sponges were created to be sponges and have remained so until today.
5. Mankind appears fully formed in one domain. This is evidence for creation. Your dating methods are theoretical and biased. SkhulV was initially dated to 40ya then redated to suit the assumption of ancestry. Your theoretical dating methods are tied to evolutionary assumptions and not valid as evidence. Researchers attempts to show ancestry through the fossil record to chimpanzees have failed. The constant debate and reclassification of fossil evidence along with proof that homo cranial features are not unique to the homo line, invalidate any attempt to prove ancestry through morphological similarity. False assumptions re knuckle walking ancestry and inability to classify LUCY demonstrate that researchers are unable to validly identify mid species, which are not mid species at all. Genomic information is reliant on fossil evidence to inform same and hence is not a reliable source of data. Your attempts to tie bipedal walking to brain increases have found no substance to the claim. Your attempts to tie humans to knuckle walkers have failed and had to be reworked. Your attempts to classify bipedal walking as a move to humanness have failed. Your attempts to consolidate another evolutionary path into a new version of human evolutionary theory will not stand the test of time, as past behaviour is the best predictor of future performance..
6. The search for Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) has failed and no longer ties all life to a single LUCA. This supports creation. Your assumption in relation to horizontal gene transfer remain controversial and provide no substance other than assumptions and hypothesis as to why there is no LUCA. The fact is simply, there is no LUCA and that is evidence in favour of creation.
5. Researchers have now shown that the sharing of genes means little in the understanding of what makes humans special or other creatures unique. After all humans share 50% of their genes with a banana. It is about gene expression and gene families. The fact that a human and a plant share genes is proof of common design, and not ancestry.


Let's see if volumes of hot air ensues as a demonstration of your inability to appropriately refute me!

Until you provide some evidence, there's nothing to refute. And you can't provide evidence until...wait for it...

YOU STATE YOUR HYPOTHESIS!
 

McBell

Unbound
I have insufficiant skills to research? the onley thing that I have argued about with you is taxonomy.
and you have still not presented me with an irregularity in the thamnophis genus.
what was your research skill there? a wikipediapage that was grossly outdated and oversimplified.

I strongly suspect that newhope has confused the term 'research' with the term 'ratification'.
 

newhope101

Active Member
Auto..

You articulate your hypothesis.

You are unable to do better than paste up picture. Go on state a hypothesis for your evolution..and while you're at it..

Explain HOW HOW HOW evolution works and HOW HOW HOW life poofed into existence.

You can't, and you already know what that makes you.

You and outhouse have satisfactorily bored me to tears, just like the other thread with nothing to contribute than the same old war cry. You are both totally unable to refute anything and the fact that both of you always manage to instantly reply and always seek to have the most recent reply demonstrates to me you that do not have a life and RF is your life. CONGRATULATIONS...whose child has a fanatical and emotionally unavailable mother?

My hypothesis is,,,as I have told you many many times is
GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND ALL LIFE..are you unable to comprehend amongst your other flaws.
 
Last edited:

newhope101

Active Member
Seriously..instead of woffling on about asides. Let’s look at just one point within my evidence for creation. Let’s look at the remarkable difference in the male human and chimpanzee Y chromosome.
According to your evolutionary assertions the male human Y chromosome should be very similar to the chimp Y chromosome because they are our closest ancestor. I have already spoken to the article that appeared in Nature speaking of these remarkable differences.

An article from a creationist site has summed up my assertion that the human and chimp Y chromosome is evidence that humans and chimpanzees were created individually and they did not descend from a common ancestor. If they did, our Y chromosomes should be very similar and not remarkably dissimilar. Remember it is your researchers that have dicovered this difference.

Of course there are many theories has to how this came about. These only add to the ‘Precambrian rabbit’ discussions that no matter what you find, no matter how unexpected the findings, no matter how they go against predicted expectations, whatever flies in the face of your TOE, will be explained away by additional theories. Again I restate the obvious; The evidence (what you find) supports creation, your theoretical assumptions (why the evidence cannot be taken as evidence) supports evolution.

New Chromosome Research Undermines Human-Chimp Similarity Claims
by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D., & Brian Thomas, M.S. *
A recent high-profile article in the journal Nature released the results of a study with implications that shocked the scientific community because they contradict long-held claims of human-chimp DNA similarity.1 A previous Acts & Facts article showed that much of the research surrounding the often touted claims of 98 percent (or higher) DNA similarity between chimps and humans has been based on flawed and biased research.2 The problem is that the similarity has been uncertain because no one has performed an unbiased and comprehensive DNA similarity study until now. And the results are not good news for the story of human evolution.
One of the main deficiencies with the original chimpanzee genome sequence published in 20053 was that it was a draft sequence and only represented a 3.6-fold random coverage of the 21 chimpanzee autosomes, and a 1.8-fold redundancy of the X and Y sex chromosomes. In a draft coverage, very small fragments of the genome are sequenced in millions of individual reactions using high-throughput robotics equipment. This produces individual sequence fragments of about 500 to 1,200 bases in length. Based on overlapping reads, these individual sequences are assembled into contiguous clusters of sequence called sequencing contigs. In the case of a chimpanzee, an organism with a genome size of about 3 billion bases, a 3.6-fold coverage means that approximately 10.8 billion bases of DNA were sequenced (3.6 x 3.0). The result is a data set consisting of thousands of random sequencing contigs, or islands of contiguous sequence that need to be oriented and placed in position on their respective chromosomes.
In the 2005 chimpanzee genome project and resulting Nature journal publication, the sequence contigs4 were not assembled and oriented based on a map of the chimpanzee genome, but rather on a map of the human genome. Given the fact that the chimpanzee genome is at least 10 percent larger5 overall than the human genome, this method of assembly was not only biased toward an evolutionary presupposition of human-chimp similarity, but was also inherently flawed.
The title of the recent journal article accurately sums up the research findings: "Chimpanzee and Human Y Chromosomes are Remarkably Divergent in Structure and Gene Content." Before getting into the details of their results, it is important to understand that for the first time, the chimpanzee DNA sequence for a chromosome was assembled and oriented based on a Y chromosome map/framework built for chimpanzee and not human. As a result, the chimpanzee DNA sequence could then be more accurately compared to the human Y chromosome because it was standing on its own merit.
The Y chromosome is found only in males and contains many genes that specify male features, as well as genetic and regulatory information that is expressed throughout the whole body. Because of the recent outcome comparing the chimp and human Y chromosomes in a more objective assessment, it is possible that major discrepancies will be revealed among the other chromosomes that are claimed to be so similar.
From a large-scale perspective, the human and chimp Y chromosomes were constructed entirely differently. On the human Y chromosome, there were found four major categories of DNA sequence that occupy specific regions. One can think of this in terms of geography. Just as a continent like Europe is divided into countries because of different people groups, so are chromosomes with different categories of DNA sequence.
Not only were the locations of DNA categories completely different between human and chimp, but so were their proportions. One sequence class, or category containing DNA with a characteristic sequence, within the chimpanzee Y chromosome had less than 10 percent similarity with the same class in the human Y chromosome, and vice versa. Another large class shared only half the similarities of the other species, and vice versa. One differed by as much as 3.3-fold (330 percent), and a class specific to human "has no counterpart in the chimpanzee MSY [male-specific Y chromosome]."1
As far as looking at specific genes, the chimp and human Y chromosomes had a dramatic difference in gene content of 53 percent. In other words, the chimp was lacking approximately half of the genes found on a human Y chromosome. Because genes occur in families or similarity categories, the researchers also sought to determine if there was any difference in actual gene categories. They found a shocking 33 percent difference. The human Y chromosome contains a third more gene categories--entirely different classes of genes--compared to chimps.
Under evolutionary assumptions of long and gradual genetic changes, the Y chromosome structures, layouts, genes, and other sequences should be much the same in both species, given the relatively short--according to the evolutionary timeline--six-million-year time span since chimpanzees and humans supposedly diverged from a common ancestor. Instead, the differences between the Y chromosomes are marked. R. Scott Hawley, a genetics researcher at the Stowers Institute in Kansas City who wasn't involved in the research, told the Associated Press, "That result is astounding."6
Because virtually every structural aspect of the human and chimp Y chromosomes was different, it was hard to arrive at an overall similarity estimate between the two. The researchers did postulate an overall 70 percent similarity, which did not take into account size differences or structural arrangement differences. This was done by concluding that only 70 percent of the chimp sequence could be aligned with the human sequence--not taking into account differences within the alignments.
In other words, 70 percent was a conservative estimate, especially when considering that 50 percent of the human genes were missing from the chimp, and that the regions that did have some similarity were located in completely different patterns. When all aspects of non-similarity--sequence categories, genes, gene families, and gene position--are taken into account, it is safe to say that the overall similarity was lower than 70 percent. The Nature article expressed the discrepancy between this data and standard evolutionary interpretations in a rather intriguing way: "Indeed, at 6 million years of separation, the difference in MSY gene content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years of separation."1
So, the human Y chromosome looks just as different from a chimp as the other human chromosomes do from a chicken. And to explain where all these differences between humans and chimps came from, believers in big-picture evolution are forced to invent stories of major chromosomal rearrangements and rapid generation of vast amounts of many new genes, along with accompanying regulatory DNA.
However, since each respective Y chromosome appears fully integrated and interdependently stable with its host organism, the most logical inference from the Y chromosome data is that humans and chimpanzees were each specially created as distinct creatures.

The research is sited in the article;

 
Your acceptance of the evidence for creation is not required. It is there, whether you accept it or not; ignore it or not; have a myriad of assumptions to explain it or not. The evidence is there.

There is ample evidence to support creation. The trouble is, evolutionists would not see it if it smacked them in the face. The thread requested evidence for creation. I have provided some.
 
Last edited:

jarofthoughts

Empirical Curmudgeon
Auto..

You articulate your hypothesis.

You are unable to do better than paste up picture. Go on state a hypothesis for your evolution..and while you're at it..

Explain HOW HOW HOW evolution works and HOW HOW HOW life poofed into existence.

You can't, and you already know what that makes you.

You and outhouse have satisfactorily bored me to tears, just like the other thread with nothing to contribute than the same old war cry. You are both totally unable to refute anything and the fact that both of you always manage to instantly reply and always seek to have the most recent reply demonstrates to me you that do not have a life and RF is your life. CONGRATULATIONS...whose child has a fanatical and emotionally unavailable mother?

My hypothesis is,,,as I have told you many many times is
GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND ALL LIFE..are you unable to comprehend amongst your other flaws.

Already taken care of.

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974
Source

So a formulation of a central hypothesis regarding evolution could be spelled out as:
"Does the frequency of alleles within a gene pool change from one generation to the next?"

And this is exactly what we see happening, is fully observable to anyone, and can easily be shown to be correct, which means that instead of being a hypothesis this is an observable fact, which in turn means that Evolution, by its textbook definition, is a fact.
Sorry.

But for anyone even vaguely aware of what the Theory of Evolution says this can hardly be called "news"...

Also; "GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND ALL LIFE" is a WHO not a HOW. Just thought I'd bring that to your attention. ;)
 
Last edited:

newhope101

Active Member
Micruras...you'll need to ask autodidact why she is on about this crap. It appears to be the best refute she can come up with. I have stated a hypothesis many times "God created all life" and still goes on like a broken record. As annoying as it is I love it as it demonstrars she has nothing intelligent to add as an appropriate refute. Nor is she able to articulate an evolutionary hypothesis. There is none other than all life evolved from something else, some time, some how. So go tell Auto to shut up because she is bound to put up more irrelevant woffle.

She nor you will be gane to put upany hypothesis for Toe as they can all be instantly refuted.

I agree what the heck is Auto going on about? This is thread about providing evidence for creation, not provide an irrefutable hypothesis for creation that you evolutionists like or will accept.
 

newhope101

Active Member
Already taken care of.


So I see you also are uneducated. Nothing in your evolutionary science is taken care of, pal.

Again you are simplistically referring to in kind variation. Indeed it was your human population genetics that have found paternal mtdna is passed on and has virtually killed MtEve. You know very, very, little about your science.

Most of you remain buried in the last century and have no idea of recent advances in your evo sciences.

Your reply is most simplistic and demonstrative of less education than myself..
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony


You are unable to do better than paste up picture. Go on state a hypothesis for your evolution..and while you're at it..

Explain HOW HOW HOW evolution works and HOW HOW HOW life poofed into existence.

If you truly knew anything about what the ToE says there would be no need to ask the question. Additionally what you're asking has nothing to do with Evolution but has no problem working with evolution. You're asking about Abiogenisis. Evolution is silent on that as it is about "change over time" not the beginning per se.

You are unable to refute evolution just as no one can, at this point in time, refute Abiogenisis. I gave you a simple bacteria (Nylon Eating Bacteria) to falsify and you went silent. That is strong evidence for evolution in something so simple to study and understand while on the other hand you have presented NO "independent" evidence from any "creation scientist" that confirms creation. Why is that? If creation is fact then surly you don't need to take and skew "our" research to fit your ideas. Surly you guys have some independent scientific evidence you can share....




You and outhouse have satisfactorily bored me to tears, just like the other thread with nothing to contribute than the same old war cry. You are both totally unable to refute anything and the fact that both of you always manage to instantly reply and always seek to have the most recent reply demonstrates to me you that do not have a life and RF is your life.

Yea well this thread is not so much of us refuting your claims considering you've presented nothing that contradicts evolution. You haven't even, per the OP requirements, presented anything that confirms creation.



My hypothesis is,,,as I have told you many many times is
GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND ALL LIFE..


OK..........HOW?

The tribal writers of Genisis knew nothing about how the body really works. They have Eve being created from the genetic material of Adam. HOW is that possible considering mtDNA is not passed on by males rather it's passed on by the mother?

Considering we know it takes two sets of 26 chromosomes to produce offspring HOW was it done with only one set from "Adam" to make a female
?
 

newhope101

Active Member
New Chromosome Research Undermines Human-Chimp Similarity Claims
by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D., & Brian Thomas, M.S. *
A recent high-profile article in the journal Nature released the results of a study with implications that shocked the scientific community because they contradict long-held claims of human-chimp DNA similarity.1 A previous Acts & Facts article showed that much of the research surrounding the often touted claims of 98 percent (or higher) DNA similarity between chimps and humans has been based on flawed and biased research.2 The problem is that the similarity has been uncertain because no one has performed an unbiased and comprehensive DNA similarity study until now. And the results are not good news for the story of human evolution.


In the 2005 chimpanzee genome project and resulting Nature journal publication, the sequence contigs4 were not assembled and oriented based on a map of the chimpanzee genome, but rather on a map of the human genome. Given the fact that the chimpanzee genome is at least 10 percent larger5 overall than the human genome, this method of assembly was not only biased toward an evolutionary presupposition of human-chimp similarity, but was also inherently flawed.

The title of the recent journal article accurately sums up the research findings: "Chimpanzee and Human Y Chromosomes are Remarkably Divergent in Structure and Gene Content." Before getting into the details of their results, it is important to understand that for the first time, the chimpanzee DNA sequence for a chromosome was assembled and oriented based on a Y chromosome map/framework built for chimpanzee and not human. As a result, the chimpanzee DNA sequence could then be more accurately compared to the human Y chromosome because it was standing on its own merit.

The Y chromosome is found only in males and contains many genes that specify male features, as well as genetic and regulatory information that is expressed throughout the whole body. Because of the recent outcome comparing the chimp and human Y chromosomes in a more objective assessment, it is possible that major discrepancies will be revealed among the other chromosomes that are claimed to be so similar.

From a large-scale perspective, the human and chimp Y chromosomes were constructed entirely differently. On the human Y chromosome, there were found four major categories of DNA sequence that occupy specific regions. One can think of this in terms of geography. Just as a continent like Europe is divided into countries because of different people groups, so are chromosomes with different categories of DNA sequence.

Not only were the locations of DNA categories completely different between human and chimp, but so were their proportions. One sequence class, or category containing DNA with a characteristic sequence, within the chimpanzee Y chromosome had less than 10 percent similarity with the same class in the human Y chromosome, and vice versa. Another large class shared only half the similarities of the other species, and vice versa. One differed by as much as 3.3-fold (330 percent), and a class specific to human "has no counterpart in the chimpanzee MSY [male-specific Y chromosome]."1

As far as looking at specific genes, the chimp and human Y chromosomes had a dramatic difference in gene content of 53 percent. In other words, the chimp was lacking approximately half of the genes found on a human Y chromosome. Because genes occur in families or similarity categories, the researchers also sought to determine if there was any difference in actual gene categories. They found a shocking 33 percent difference. The human Y chromosome contains a third more gene categories--entirely different classes of genes--compared to chimps.

Under evolutionary assumptions of long and gradual genetic changes, the Y chromosome structures, layouts, genes, and other sequences should be much the same in both species, given the relatively short--according to the evolutionary timeline--six-million-year time span since chimpanzees and humans supposedly diverged from a common ancestor. Instead, the differences between the Y chromosomes are marked. R. Scott Hawley, a genetics researcher at the Stowers Institute in Kansas City who wasn't involved in the research, told the Associated Press, "That result is astounding."6

Because virtually every structural aspect of the human and chimp Y chromosomes was different, it was hard to arrive at an overall similarity estimate between the two. The researchers did postulate an overall 70 percent similarity, which did not take into account size differences or structural arrangement differences. This was done by concluding that only 70 percent of the chimp sequence could be aligned with the human sequence--not taking into account differences within the alignments.

In other words, 70 percent was a conservative estimate, especially when considering that 50 percent of the human genes were missing from the chimp, and that the regions that did have some similarity were located in completely different patterns. When all aspects of non-similarity--sequence categories, genes, gene families, and gene position--are taken into account, it is safe to say that the overall similarity was lower than 70 percent. The Nature article expressed the discrepancy between this data and standard evolutionary interpretations in a rather intriguing way: "Indeed, at 6 million years of separation, the difference in MSY gene content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years of separation."1

So, the human Y chromosome looks just as different from a chimp as the other human chromosomes do from a chicken. And to explain where all these differences between humans and chimps came from, believers in big-picture evolution are forced to invent stories of major chromosomal rearrangements and rapid generation of vast amounts of many new genes, along with accompanying regulatory DNA.
However, since each respective Y chromosome appears fully integrated and interdependently stable with its host organism, the most logical inference from the Y chromosome data is that humans and chimpanzees were each specially created as distinct creatures.

The research is sited in the article;

 
Your acceptance of the evidence for creation is not required. It is there, whether you accept it or not; ignore it or not; have a myriad of assumptions to explain it or not. The evidence is there.

There is ample evidence to support creation. The trouble is, evolutionists would not see it if it smacked them in the face. The thread requested evidence for creation. I have provided some. [/quote]
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

If none of you are able to stay on track and refute my assertion that the remarkable difference in the male chimp and human Y chromosome is proof that we did not decend from a common ancestor then I can only assume none of you cannot refute my claim and must sidewind to get out of it, and distract as best you can.

This is your science. Some sort of accelerated evolution is now meant to explain it away.

Anyone that thinks evo scientists are even close to undertanding what makes any organism unique is incredibly uneducated and totally ignorant of todays research that has generated more questions than answers.


Here is an article to demonastrate your researchers have only just begun their quest.

Feature: Epigenetics key to human evolution

Epigenetics and RNA, not just genes and proteins, hold the key to understanding human evolution, including the inevitability of the evolution of consciousness, says Professor John Mattick.
Graeme O'Neill (Australian Life Scientist)18 May, 2010 15:22
Humans possess the most complex Rnome – the RNA equivalent of a genome – of any animal, allowing us to at least lay technical claim to being the most highly evolved species on Earth. Prune down the enormous assemblage of non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs) that are thought to coordinate the activity of our 20,000-odd protein-coding genes, and you might end up with something like a nematode worm, one of the simplest multicellular animals.

“The basic toolkit for multicellular development, such as the Hox body-patterning genes and the Wnt cell-polarity genesare all there in worms,” says Professor John Mattick, of the Institute for Molecular Bioscience at the University of Queensland, and a pioneer in the still-new frontier of Rnomics.

Mattick says the genetic programming of complex organisms has been largely misunderstood for the past 50 years because of the assumption that proteins transact most genetic information. He says that even after more than half a billion years of evolutionary divergence, most genes are still recognisably common to all animal species. All animals share a basic complement of about 20,000 protein-coding genes. In humans, protein-coding genes account for only 1.2 per cent of genomic DNA.


“It is now obvious that the differences between us and other animals are not just embedded in the combinatorics of a similar complement of transcription factors,” says Mattick. “They stem from a massive expansion in humans of the genome’s RNA regulatory architecture.”
 
Last edited:

jarofthoughts

Empirical Curmudgeon
So I see you also are uneducated. Nothing in your evolutionary science is taken care of, pal.

Again you are simplistically referring to in kind variation. Indeed it was your human population genetics that have found paternal mtdna is passed on and has virtually killed MtEve. You know very, very, little about your science.

Most of you remain buried in the last century and have no idea of recent advances in your evo sciences.

Your reply is most simplistic and demonstrative of less education than myself..

In addition to feeble ad homine attacks I make a note of the fact that you utterly and completely failed to address the point I made. Guess that's what we've come to expect from Creationists. Sad really. :facepalm:
 

jarofthoughts

Empirical Curmudgeon
Micruras...you'll need to ask autodidact why she is on about this crap. It appears to be the best refute she can come up with. I have stated a hypothesis many times "God created all life" and still goes on like a broken record. As annoying as it is I love it as it demonstrars she has nothing intelligent to add as an appropriate refute. Nor is she able to articulate an evolutionary hypothesis. There is none other than all life evolved from something else, some time, some how. So go tell Auto to shut up because she is bound to put up more irrelevant woffle.

"God created all life" is a WHO, not a HOW, and a hypothesis is all about HOW things happen, which is what makes it falsifiable.

In other words, you have NOT stated any kind of hypothesis.

She nor you will be gane to put upany hypothesis for Toe as they can all be instantly refuted.

And yet, you utterly failed to address the one I proposed, instead choosing to make ad homine claims, the last refuge of someone with no facts and no arguments.

I agree what the heck is Auto going on about? This is thread about providing evidence for creation, not provide an irrefutable hypothesis for creation that you evolutionists like or will accept.

Try providing a hypothesis, any hypothesis, first, and then we'll see if it is irrefutable or not...
 

jarofthoughts

Empirical Curmudgeon
New Chromosome Research Undermines Human-Chimp Similarity Claims


<SNIPPED>

“It is now obvious that the differences between us and other animals are not just embedded in the combinatorics of a similar complement of transcription factors,” says Mattick. “They stem from a massive expansion in humans of the genome’s RNA regulatory architecture


Bla blah blah... Another block of irrelevant text which will go ignored.

Nothing you post here will matter until you can come up with a working hypothesis.
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
Seriously..instead of woffling on about asides. Let’s look at just one point within my evidence for creation. Let’s look at the remarkable difference in the male human and chimpanzee Y chromosome.
According to your evolutionary assertions the male human Y chromosome should be very similar to the chimp Y chromosome because they are our closest ancestor. I have already spoken to the article that appeared in Nature speaking of these remarkable differences.

An article from a creationist site has summed up my assertion that the human and chimp Y chromosome is evidence that humans and chimpanzees were created individually and they did not descend from a common ancestor. If they did, our Y chromosomes should be very similar and not remarkably dissimilar. Remember it is your researchers that have dicovered this difference.

Of course there are many theories has to how this came about. These only add to the ‘Precambrian rabbit’ discussions that no matter what you find, no matter how unexpected the findings, no matter how they go against predicted expectations, whatever flies in the face of your TOE, will be explained away by additional theories. Again I restate the obvious; The evidence (what you find) supports creation, your theoretical assumptions (why the evidence cannot be taken as evidence) supports evolution.

Your acceptance of the evidence for creation is not required. It is there, whether you accept it or not; ignore it or not; have a myriad of assumptions to explain it or not. The evidence is there.

There is ample evidence to support creation. The trouble is, evolutionists would not see it if it smacked them in the face. The thread requested evidence for creation. I have provided some.


Here's what is really said from those involved in the findings.

Human Y Chromosome Stays Intact While Chimp Y Loses Genes

"Contrary to the dire predictions that have become popular over the last decade, the sky is *not* falling on the Y," says Whitehead Member and Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator David Page, senior author on the study that will appear in the September 1 issue of the journal Nature. "This research clearly demonstrates that natural selection has effectively preserved regions of the Y chromosome that have no mechanisms with which to repair damaged genes."

"For many years, it's been assumed that the Y chromosome is headed for extinction because, unlike other chromosomes, it has no genetic "mate" with which to swap genes. In 2003, Page published a landmark paper in Nature challenging that claim by demonstrating how a certain region of the Y chromosome possessed a unique mechanism for repairing mutated genes."

This is how evolution works. There's no big mystery here. Our Y is intact most likely do to our technological advancement as well as other environmental factors and the fact that we're living longer and more sexually diverse. The chimpanzee environment has changed significantly over time. A lot of that has to do with us.

"We were looking for any evidence that the human Y has lost genes since parting ways with the chimp," says Hughes. "Had we found active genes on the chimp Y that had become inactive on the human, that would be the smoking gun. But we didn't find any such evidence. In fact, we found the opposite."
On the chimp Y, five genes have suffered mutations that rendered them inactive. On the human Y, those same genes continue to function perfectly. "So then," says Hughes, "even though the Y has lost many genes since its origin about 300 million years ago, it's been holding steady in humans for the last 6 million years."
In other words, if the one region of the Y can depend on itself for survival, the other region has found a friend in evolution"

"Page and his team speculate that the loss of genes on the chimpanzee Y may be due to the chimp's mating habits. Both male and female chimps engage with multiple partners when they mate. This gives a strong selective pressure on those genes that produce sperm. Conversely, it puts less pressure on evolution to preserve those genes on the Y whose functions have nothing to do with reproduction. Because humans historically have been largely monogamous, our Y chromosomes have been spared such selective-pressure imbalance.
"Of course," acknowledges Page, "this is a hypothesis that we have no way to scientifically prove or disprove. However, we believe it's currently the best explanation."
 

outhouse

Atheistically
I wonder if they should change this whole section to "science and the creation myth"

because there is no debate among scientist about evolution. Only uneducated people can believe the myth of creation.

 
Top