Evolution, what evidence is there and what does creationism have?

[Nepenthe]

Humans are actually very low in diversity....

Humans come in a variety of colors, facial bone structure, stature, walk gait, the length of their arms and legs, you have Negroes, Asian, Chinese, Semites, blonds, red or black hairs, Albinos, etc, etc.

Negroes Asians and Chinese! Wow.... Are you consulting an anthropology textbook from 1923 perhaps?

Humans have a very low genetic variability; 85% of our genetic variation is within populations, not amongst them. Statistical divisions of humans based on genetics do not yield consistent markers for race classification. Simply put, race isn't a clear division and some biologists think it's a useless marker.

So yeah, human diversity is genetically very low.

 

[Nepenthe]

I am certain of ID and it has been well defended by Michael Behe.

You and Behe are the only ones who seem certain. No other biologist/anthropologist seem particularly convinced. Behe's claims are unsubstantiated, undefendable, and sheer nonsense.

Random evolution works well up to the species level, perhaps to the genus and family level too.

You once again show you don't understand evolution- it's not random.

But at the level of vertebrate classes (birds, fish, etc), the molecular developmental programs needed would be beyond the edge of evolution.

What does this even mean?!?! It's not even coherent enough to say it's incorrect.

Darwinian evolution works well when a single small change in an organism’s DNA produces a notable effect.

I'll ignore the "Darwinian evolution" snark, but there ya go, a change of alleles over time is evolution.

That’s what happens to give the various breeds of dogs. But when multiple, coordinated changes are needed for an effect, chance mutation loses its power.

There's that "chance mutation" thing again. What you describe is evolution. Very simply, incremental changes over time result in new species. You're basically saying that you accept the existence of California, Utah, Minnesota, Virginia, etc., when someone drives from L.A. to N.Y., but deny the existence of these places when someone takes a much longer time by walking across the states. It's the same thing, just different lengths of time.

I like this one: If you and a friend walked by Mount Rushmore, even if you had never heard of it before, you would immediately realize that the faces on the mountain were designed- <snip Paley argument>

Trotting out Paley's design argument when he was made irrelevant by Darwin just shows how little you understand evolution. Paintedwolf and themadhair are beyond patient, and they know their stuff. But when you show such a basic misunderstanding of basic biology I kind of have to shrug in apathy. When a student comes to a trig' class with no textbook, no pen or paper and absolutely no understanding of basic math I'd suggest they come back after brushing up on the basics.

But I'm impatient like that.

 

[painted wolf]

Humans are just that, Humans and what makes them humans is that they have 23 pairs of chromosomes, what proofs is there that this is because the short pairs fused? As far as I can see this is just Jose says so.

Anyone who studies genetics can see that there was a fusion event. It's not that uncommon and it's not that surprising.
Genomic Structure and Evolution of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in 2q13–2q14.1 and Paralogous Regions on Other Human Chromosomes — Genome Research
Chromosome fusion
Identification of chromosomal fusion sites in Arab...[Genome. 2006] - PubMed Result

Why should I? Jose says so? As I have s responded before you my be an ape, not me, I believe that I am a human being create as such and the crown of God’s creation, the apple of his eyes.

That doesn't make us not apes... that just makes you prejudiced against other apes.

Humans come in a variety of colors, facial bone structure, stature, walk gait, the length of their arms and legs, you have Negroes, Asian, Chinese, Semites, blonds, red or black hairs, Albinos, etc, etc.

:banghead3:
Racism aside.... there is less genetic diversity in humans than there is between chimps that live on opposite sides of a river. (never mind the difference between a great dane and a wolf) Humans vary among each other by less than 1% of their genetic make up. Genetically speaking we are all but identical despite the racist classifications that seek to divide us.
This is why you will never find a respectable biologist who even considers race to be a valid classification between humans. It's a myth.

I am certain of ID and it has been well defended by Michael Behe.

that is why you fail... you have already made up your mind and you don't actually care about the evidence.

I like this one: If you and a friend walked by Mount Rushmore, even if you had never heard of it before, you would immediately realize that the faces on the mountain were designed.

Show me a mountain that reproduces sexually and undergoes selection.... see that is the problem with ID they compare apples and houses. They have to make such pointless comparisons because they have no choice and they have very little biology to back up their statements.

Whenever we perceive a “purposeful arrangement of parts” we suspect design. The more parts there are, and the more clearly they fit the purpose, the more confident our conclusion of design becomes. In the past fifty years science has discovered a very purposeful arrangement of parts in the cell’s molecular machinery. That is the evidence for the involvement of a designer in life on earth.

Cute but meaningless.... you could point to anything and claim it has "purposeful arrangement"... But that doesn't prove that it has any sort of designer behind it.

Obviously the designer would be 'purposefully arranged'... so who designed the designer?

wa:do

 

[Jose Fly]

Emiliano,

Humans are just that, Humans and what makes them humans is that they have 23 pairs of chromosomes

Really? So it's nothing more than chromosome count that makes something "human"? People born with more or less than 23 pairs of chromosomes are not human?

what proofs is there that this is because the short pairs fused?

That's already been explained to you. The extra telomere, pretelomere, and centromere regions in human chromosome 2. Perhaps you should go back and re-read post #317 again.

As far as I can see this is just Jose says so.

Then you're simply not paying attention. If you don't understand something, just ask.

This is just another Jose says so statement

No, it's a fact that courts determine familial relatedness via genetics all the time. Are you arguing that they don't?

It seems to me that you make the rules so as to get the answer that you want and of course you don’t have to specify anything after all you make your own rules.

You have yet to show where I have done anything of the sort. Any 10 year old with a computer can go online and accuse people of things. Can you actually back up your accusation with a specific example, or are you going to rely on playground tactics?

Why should I?

LOL! Why should you use terminology properly? You honestly have to ask that question? Come on Emiliano, own up. You're not here to do anything other than preach, are you?

As I have s responded before you my be an ape, not me, I believe that I am a human being create as such and the crown of God’s creation, the apple of his eyes

Yes, I think we all understand that's what you believe. People believe all sorts of things. What makes your beliefs any more valid than the millions of other religious beliefs held by people throughout the world?

Again humans are humans and Chimps are Chimps

Yes they are.

Both have been sequenceed and co-exist

Yes they have and do. So what? Are you making the standard creationist argument, "If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" If you are, perhaps you can answer: If I am descended from Germans, why are there still Germans?

I am certain of ID and it has been well defended by Michael Behe.
Random evolution works well up to the species level, perhaps to the genus and family level too.

You have no idea what you just posted, do you? If evolution "works to the family level", then you should have no problem with human-chimp common ancestry, or human-gorllia common ancestry. We're all in the same taxanomic family.

I like this one: If you and a friend walked by Mount Rushmore...

Are mountains biological organisms? If not, you're guilty of the logical fallacy of false analogy.

So seriously Emiliano, are you going to do anything more here than say "I believe humans have always been humans and chimps have always been chimps" and copy-n-paste from ID creationist websites?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So seriously Emiliano, are you going to do anything more here than say "I believe humans have always been humans and chimps have always been chimps" and copy-n-paste from ID creationist websites?

Uh, what else is there?

 

[Jose Fly]

Well, perhaps Emiliano can be one of those rare creationists that Painted Wolf described and he's just "undereducated on the subect" and "genuinely wants to learn".

Or maybe not.

 

[painted wolf]

Likely not... but he may yet surprise me.

wa:do

 

[themadhair]

I am certain of ID and it has been well defended by Michael Behe.

I encourage you, once again, to read the decision from the Dover trial. ID was anything but ‘well defended’ by Behe. http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

From an article in New Scientist that summed it up:

Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard on Tuesday.
Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of "theory" was so broad it would also include astrology.
The trial is pitting 11 parents from the small town of Dover, Pennsylvania, against their local school board. The board voted to read a statement during a biology class that casts doubt on Darwinian evolution and suggests ID as an alternative.
The parents claim this was an attempt to introduce creationism into the curriculum and that the school board members were motivated by their evangelical Christian beliefs. It is illegal to teach anything with a primarily religious purpose or effect on pupils in government-funded US schools.
Supporters of ID believe that some things in nature are simply too complex to have evolved by natural selection, and therefore must be the work of an intelligent designer.
Peer review

Behe was called to the stand on Monday by the defence, and testified that ID was a scientific theory, and was not "committed" to religion. His cross examination by the plaintiffs' attorney, Eric Rothschild of the Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton, began on Tuesday afternoon.
Rothschild told the court that the US National Academy of Sciences supplies a definition for what constitutes a scientific theory: "Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."
Because ID has been rejected by virtually every scientist and science organisation, and has never once passed the muster of a peer-reviewed journal paper, Behe admitted that the controversial theory would not be included in the NAS definition. "I can't point to an external community that would agree that this was well substantiated," he said.
Behe said he had come up with his own "broader" definition of a theory, claiming that this more accurately describes the way theories are actually used by scientists. "The word is used a lot more loosely than the NAS defined it," he says.
Hypothesis or theory?

Rothschild suggested that Behe's definition was so loose that astrology would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that Behe's definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS's definition of a hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions.
The exchange prompted laughter from the court, which was packed with local members of the public and the school board.
Behe maintains that ID is science: "Under my definition, scientific theory is a proposed explanation which points to physical data and logical inferences."
"You've got to admire the guy. It's Daniel in the lion's den," says Robert Slade, a local retiree who has been attending the trial because he is interested in science. "But I can't believe he teaches a college biology class."
The cross examination will continue Wednesday, with the trial expected to finish on 4 November.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Likely not... but he may yet surprise me.

wa:do

The eternal optimist.

 

[painted wolf]

The eternal optimist.

or just a sucker for punishment. :jiggy:

wa:do

 

[Kilgore Trout]

or just a sucker for punishment. :jiggy:

wa:do

Hah, in my experience, they usually go hand-in-hand.

 

[Autodidact]

If you are referring to mutations that result in a new species as evolution, the answer is no I don't understand, what I believe is that species and in the case of humans has had changes over time; for example I don't understand natural selection and the existence of apes and humans at the same point in time, if walking on two instead of four gave an ape like creature some survival advantage why there are apes still walking on all four? The other thing that I have trouble with is the resistance in nature to the changed creatures/hybrids ability to propagate most known specimens are mules. As for example the result of hose crossed donkey, or Canary crossed Finch. In other word I do not believe in Macro-evolution.

So again, just to be clear, you do not understand what the ToE is, but you know that you're against it? Is that right?

 

[Autodidact]

To Jose,

Humans are just that, Humans and what makes them humans is that they have 23 pairs of chromosomes, what proofs is there that this is because the short pairs fused? As far as I can see this is just Jose says so.

It has nothing to do with Jose. Like all science, it can be independently verified, so you don't have to rely on anyone's say-so. You do have to do some work, think, and learn. This diagram explains it pretty well:

Chromosomes have distinct patterns. Human chromosome number two combines the tell-tale patterns of two separate chimp chromosomes: see it? That's why Biologists believe that these two chromosomes fused to form the bigger one.

Again humans are humans and Chimps are Chimps.Both have been sequenceed and co-exist.

Yes, we all know that. We also know that humans and chimps are very closely related. Among other things, our genes are very, very similar. So are our bones:

See the similarities?

 

[Autodidact]

I am certain of ID and it has been well defended by Michael Behe.

But since you have shown that you know almost nothing about Biology, your acceptance is less than a ringing endorsement.

Random evolution works well up to the species level, perhaps to the genus and family level too.

What is random evolution? Please explain it, as I'm not familiar with it.

But at the level of vertebrate classes (birds, fish, etc), the molecular developmental programs needed would be beyond the edge of evolution.

This sentence is gibberish.

Darwinian evolution works well when a single small change in an organism’s DNA produces a notable effect. That’s what happens to give the various breeds of dogs. But when multiple, coordinated changes are needed for an effect, chance mutation loses its power.

Good thing evolution isn't based on it then.

I like this one: If you and a friend walked by Mount Rushmore, even if you had never heard of it before, you would immediately realize that the faces on the mountain were designed. Not for a moment would you think they were the result of random forces such as wind and erosion. Your conclusion of design would be certain, because you would see how well the pieces of the mountain fit the purpose of portraying an image.

Exactly. In contrast the surrounding countryside, which is not designed. Are you sure you want to argue that God did NOT design and create the world? Because that's what you're arguing. That is why ID is not only bad science, it's bad theology.

Whenever we perceive a “purposeful arrangement of parts” we suspect design.

The more parts there are, and the more clearly they fit the purpose, the more confident our conclusion of design becomes. In the past fifty years science has discovered a very purposeful arrangement of parts in the cell’s molecular machinery. That is the evidence for the involvement of a designer in life on earth.

http://calitreview.com/260

We suspect it, but science has shown us that we would be wrong. ToE explains exactly why organisms cause us to suspect design. However, since you don't know what ToE is or what it says, you would have no way of knowing that.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Sorry, but this song is stuck in my head after reading these posts

Apeman, by the Kinks

I think I'm sophisticated
'Cos I'm living my life like a good homo sapien
But all around me everybody's multiplying
Till they're walking round like flies man
So I'm no better than the animals sitting in their cages
in the zoo man
'Cos compared to the flowers and the birds and the trees
I am an ape man
I think I'm so educated and I'm so civilized
'Cos I'm a strict vegetarian
But with the over-population and inflation and starvation
And the crazy politicians
I don't feel safe in this world no more
I don't want to die in a nuclear war
I want to sail away to a distant shore and make like an ape man
I'm an ape man, I'm an ape ape man
I'm an ape man I'm a King Kong man I'm ape ape man
I'm an ape man
'Cos compared to the sun that sits in the sky
compared to the clouds as they roll by
Compared to the bugs and the spiders and flies
I am an ape man
In man's evolution he has created the cities and
the motor traffic rumble, but give me half a chance
and I'd be taking off my clothes and living in the jungle
'Cos the only time that I feel at ease
Is swinging up and down in a coconut tree
Oh what a life of luxury to be like an ape man
I'm an ape, I'm an ape ape man, I'm an ape man
I'm a King Kong man, I'm a voo-doo man
I'm an ape man
I look out my window, but I can't see the sky
'Cos the air pollution is
fogging up my eyes
I want to get out of this city alive
And make like an ape man
Come and love me, be my ape man girl
And we will be so happy in my ape man world
I'm an ape man, I'm an ape ape man, I'm an ape man
I'm a King Kong man, I'm a voo-doo man
I'm an ape man
I'll be your Tarzan, you'll be my Jane
I'll keep you warm and you'll keep me sane
and we'll sit in the trees and eat bananas all day
Just like an ape man
I'm an ape man, I'm an ape ape man, I'm an ape man
I'm a King Kong man, I'm a voo-doo man
I'm an ape man.
I don't feel safe in this world no more
I don't want to die in a nuclear war
I want to sail away to a distant shore
And make like an ape man.
YouTube - The Kinks - Apeman 1970

 

[emiliano]

Surgiva,
I did not claim authorship of these statements and the dog thing came from a Behe v Dawkin debate if you read the article there is a clam that Dawkin admitted that Darwin theory fails at macro-evolution level.
Many scientists today do believe in a creator. But there is a huge range of beliefs on the creative process. Some scientists believe God created everything outside of natural laws, while others believe He designed or directed natural laws to create our universe and life within it. However, many who speak of an underlying intelligence in the universe are agnostics who are simply reporting objective evidence for something or someone that Einsteinlabeled:
"an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection." Albert Einstein
It seems to me that these guys enjoy the discussion that,that is why they keep at it, is not patience but atheism preaching, atheists don’t like when we tell them that atheism is religion, but it is and they are more diligent/patient at it preaching than we are in our preaching.
A beginning of all matter, energy, and time seems to point clearly to a creator. But some materialists argued that the universe might have begun with some kind of random quantum event that happened on its own. However, as scientists looked at the odds, they soon realized that a random explosion like the big bang could never have led to a universe compatible with life. Cosmologists, physicists, and astronomers all agree: the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for life. This led many like astronomer George Greenstein to ask,
“Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon the scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being?” George Greenstein
“It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.” Stephen Hawking
But even though some materialists have tried to explain away fine tuning of the universe as mere luck, many have been more open to common sense. After carefully looking at the evidence and reversing his original view, the shocked agnostic astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle remarked:
“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” Sir Fred Hoyle
Scientists like Hoyle have been stunned by the overwhelming odds against life occurring by unguided natural processes. Such odds are like purchasing one ticket for a hundred Power Ball lotteries, and being lucky enough to win them all. How likely is that---unless the outcome was fixed by someone who had control of the numbers? And that is exactly what has many scientists like Hoyle are thinking---that the numbers were fixed by a superintellect monkeying with nature’s laws.
Now to Michael Behe, all he did is to take Darwin challenge: If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Charles Darwin
And formulate the Irreducible complexity Theory.
Irreducibly Complex Organs
In fact, new discoveries in molecular biology reveal that some organs and biological systems only work when all their parts are fully developed, thus they could not have developed gradually, one part at a time. Biochemist Michael Behe compares their interdependence to that of a mousetrap which can’t catch mice unless all its parts function perfectly. Behe defines these organs and systems as irreducibly complex.
Darwin knew that his theory had problems. He was especially concerned about the eye, and how it could have originated without design. He assumed that each progressive step in the eyes’ development gave the creature an evolutionary advantage. But that was merely his theory with no empirical evidence to back it up
Behe points out that the eye is an irreducibly complex organ that could never have developed gradually by unguided natural selection. Materialists like Dawkins argue, however, that it is possible to imagine how the eye could have developed gradually like Darwin theorized. But it is one thing to imagine how the eye could have developed gradually, and quite another to say that there is scientific evidence to back up such an idea.
Darwin himself said he was "not concerned" with how the eye actually began, and was never really convinced that his theory of how the eye developed was right.
Later in his life Darwin confided to a friend:
“to this day the eye causes me a cold shudder.” Charles Darwin
http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=home_more3

 

[emiliano]

Printed wolf
Quote:

Whenever we perceive a “purposeful arrangement of parts” we suspect design. The more parts there are, and the more clearly they fit the purpose, the more confident our conclusion of design becomes. In the past fifty years science has discovered a very purposeful arrangement of parts in the cell’s molecular machinery. That is the evidence for the involvement of a designer in life on earth.

Cute but meaningless.... you could point to anything and claim it has "purposeful arrangement"... But that doesn't prove that it has any sort of designer behind it.

Obviously the designer would be 'purposefully arranged'... so who designed the designer?

I find this a very well put argument/evidence and the endless chain of what was before quite meaningless and for that one there is the first cause and the uncaused cause of Aquinas to answer it.

 

[themadhair]

there is a clam that Dawkin admitted that Darwin theory fails at macro-evolution level.

You don’t really need to know Dawkins that well, or much biology, to know this creationist propaganda. The dude has published books explaining the process ffs.

However, many who speak of an underlying intelligence in the universe are agnostics who are simply reporting objective evidence for something or someone that Einsteinlabeled:

Why do you rely on arguments from authority rather than address some of the evidences people have linked you to on this forum. Why have you avoided those skullslike the plague?

It seems to me that these guys enjoy the discussion that,that is why they keep at it, is not patience but atheism preaching, atheists don’t like when we tell them that atheism is religion, but it is and they are more diligent/patient at it preaching than we are in our preaching.

Actually this is about science. Is this a deliberate tactic on the part of creationists to paint science as being atheism or do you folks really not know any better?

A beginning of all matter, energy, and time seems to point clearly to a creator.
…
I find this a very well put argument/evidence and the endless chain of what was before quite meaningless and for that one there is the first cause and the uncaused cause of Aquinas to answer it.

See the ‘first cause’ argument get discussed here:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/81193-argument-contingency-world.html

However, as scientists looked at the odds, they soon realized that a random explosion like the big bang could never have led to a universe compatible with life. Cosmologists, physicists, and astronomers all agree: the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for life.

Copypasta from here. Plagiarism is rather pathetic don’t you think? Particularly when the claims plagiarised are untrue. Can you link to a single peer-reviewed paper making the claim that the universe is fine-tuned for life or will you admit this is unfounded creationist propaganda?

Scientists like Hoyle….

Hoyle's fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yes, Hoyle’s faulty logic is so well known it has its own fallacy named after it.

Now to Michael Behe, all he did is to take Darwin challenge: If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Charles Darwin

Behe argued for irreducible complexity and did not show any biological system that was unevolvable by slight successive modifications. He got destroyed on this in Dover. I note you are avoiding reading the details of that like the plague, preferring to copypasta unfounded crap from you favourite website.

In fact,….Behe defines these organs and systems as irreducibly complex.

Copypasta’d from here - Molecular Biology: The Evolution of Complex Organs
You really should read the Dover trial decision where it is explained, in great depth, why Behe was wrong. The irony to this is that, in his latest book, Behe all but admits common descent. I note you haven’t mentioned this fact.

Darwin knew that his theory had problems. He was especially concerned about the eye, and how it could have originated without design.

Really? He seemed to have pretty much nailed it in his book on the subject:
Origin: Chap 6

Materialists like Dawkins argue, however, that it is possible to imagine how the eye could have developed gradually like Darwin theorized.

Biologists have explained the process. And, like any good empirical science should, they made testable predictions confirmed by the genetics. The gradual evolution of the eye is the reason why you have a blind spot. The human eye is actually a strong argument against design since in other creatures, such as squid, the problems of the human eye do not exist.

Tell me this emilano – are you incapable of doing research? Do you have to ignore any contradictory evidence to your beliefs in order to continue holding them? Do you have anything other than ignorant posting copypasta?

 

[themadhair]

The gish gallop (what emilano is doing) explained. Taken from Gish gallop - RationalWiki

Named for creationism activist and professional debater Duane Gish, the Gish gallop is an informal name for a rhetorical technique in debates that involves drowning the opponent in half-truths, lies, straw men, and ******** to such a degree that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood that has been raised.
Spurious argument from authority

It is often used as an indirect argument from authority, as it often appears to paint the "galloper" as an expert in a broad range of subjects and the opponent as an incompetent bumbler who didn't do their homework before the debate. (Such emphasis on style over substance is why many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating opinions.)
JAQing off

A somewhat less frenetic version, often associated with denialism in general and 9/11 "truthers" in particular, is referred to as "JAQing off", a term derived from the frequent refrain that the denialist is "just asking questions". In a manner much the same as political push polls, "JAQing off" consists primarily of asking leading questions as an attempt to change listener's minds rather than actually search for a conclusion.
Use by creationists

The evolution of living organisms is a large and complex subject, and even professionals cannot study more than a small part of it during their whole careers. EvoWiki gives some idea of the size of this field. Palaeos also gives an idea. Since many debates involve a three quarter hour presentation with a half hour rebuttal, correcting all the Creationist misinformation under these conditions is difficult or impossible. Generally creationists are more than willing to debate when the debating rules favor them in this way.
Since they have no scientific model of their own to present, they will spend all of their time in what is known affectionately as the "Gish Gallop", in which they skip around from topic to topic spewing out an unceasing blizzard of baloney and unsupported assertions about evolutionary theory, leaving the poor evolutionist to attempt to catch up and correct them all.[1]
Where possible it is best to
(….) narrow the debate down to a single topic--the age of the earth, or the fossil record--and then debate it through to its logical conclusion. This defeats the Gish Gallop, and also prevents the common creationist tactic of suddenly changing the subject whenever he gets uncomfortable.[1]
It is also important to challenge creationists whenever they make unsupported claims.

 

[emiliano]

It has nothing to do with Jose. Like all science, it can be independently verified, so you don't have to rely on anyone's say-so. You do have to do some work, think, and learn. This diagram explains it pretty well:

Chromosomes have distinct patterns. Human chromosome number two combines the tell-tale patterns of two separate chimp chromosomes: see it? That's why Biologists believe that these two chromosomes fused to form the bigger one.

Yes, we all know that. We also know that humans and chimps are very closely related. Among other things, our genes are very, very similar. So are our bones:

See the similarities?

So the evidence is that the two short chromosomes in Chips if they were to fused then the result of this would be a human. What would compel these short chromosomes to fuse?
And what is with the Human- Chimp ancestor baloney? Chimps have 24 pairs chromosomes and that is what makes them Chimps and not human, humans on the other hand have 23 pairs and that makes them humans, their ancestor also had 23 pairs, Darwin assumed that all biological systems including the cell would evolve gradually by natural selection over great periods of time. But science has made great advances since then, and the organs and systems Darwin thought were so simple have been found to be extremely complex and interdependent so is not natural selection, what can it be? I stay with design and that’s that!
Since no scientific process, including natural selection, is able to explain DNA’s origin, many scientists believe that it must have been designed. The amount of DNA that would fit on a pinhead contains information equivalent to a stack of paperback books that would encircle the earth 5,000 times. And DNA operates like a language with its own extremely complex software code. The coding behind DNA is pointing to a designer of such intelligence that it staggers the imagination. That view was stated by none other than the world’s leading atheist for the past 50 years, Professor of Philosophy, Antony Flew.
In Flew’s fifty years of proclaiming atheism in university classrooms, books, and lectures he argued that science had all but disproved God. But when he saw telligence behind DNA, this leading atheist reversed his long-held belief:
“What I think the DNA material has done is to show that intelligence must have been involved….It now seems to me that the finding of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.” Antony Flew
So the irreducible complexity that is required for the development of a rational beings such as humans from an irrational brutes such as Chips is clearly demonstrate.