You have demonstrated time after time how you know nothing about the science of evolution and science in general. Good grief.Lol. And I "know nothing"! Funny stuff!
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You have demonstrated time after time how you know nothing about the science of evolution and science in general. Good grief.Lol. And I "know nothing"! Funny stuff!
Please stop evoking the ad hominem fallacy until you actually know how to use it.No ad hom or false accusations needed, in a scientific rebuttal.
Then please define exactly what constitutes a new species...only if you arbitrarily define 'species!' But if you go by genetic architecture. follow the mtdna flags, and let haplogroups define speciation, there is no evidence of new 'species!', traits, and unique genomic architectures. It is circular reasoning, by definition, and uses the ambiguity of terminology to fool the uninformed.
So you can't actually provide any evidence whatsoever that there is more than one "type" of DNA?Easy. Look at the traits of a chimp. Now look at the traits of a human. There are huge genetic differences. Their genes are different. Their bones, muscles, skin, hair, eyes, and just about everything is completely different, non-interchangeable, and unique to that species/haplotype.
You have not presented evidence of what you have claimed.I would say it likely conflicts with the indoctrination, but not the actual facts.
Scientifically, there is no evidence that the chimp's 24 chromosomes, & their thousands of genes, could or did fuse to form the human chromosome, with their thousands of genes in each one. There is too much variety, & the leap between the 2 is too great, genetically, to have happened naturally. We can't even do it in a lab.. Unless you can come up with a mechanism that can affect these kinds of changes, the leap is too great, & the concept is absurd. it is a belief, with no basis in science.
Christine You are arguing with a psycholgy of a fantasy there is a reality outside reality guiding reality. Like a very advanced computer thats personal and thats all.
Whats the problem? eliminate the bible from the equasion its not the problem its merely used to justify the problem not is the problem.
Why does the problem exist? Do not use the bible at all.
As promised, i will examine this evidence FOR common descent.
You posted supporting information, and sourced it. This was a very good reply to this thread, and is the kind of 'debate', i proposed in the OP.
I'll post a reply, from another recent thread, regarding this issue:
Can you fuse 2 pair of chromosomes from a human and produce an ape, with completely different genes, chromosomal makeup, and architecture? No. If they were the same, genetically, there might be some credence for a chromosome fusion theory. Merely counting chromosome pairs does not make an ape into a man, or vice versa.
A sable antelope has 23 chromosome pairs.. did it come from the ape, too?
A potato has 24 pairs. Did man descend from a potato?
And, btw, i was indignantly condemned for suggesting what you have presented here.
The problem with counting chromosomes, and theorizing 'fusion!', or 'splits!', is the organization and genes located in those splits. Assuming 'splits and fusions!' as the mechanism for evolving a distinctively new haplotype requires more compelling evidence than assertion, and ignores the huge hurdles therein. It reveals a faulty view of genetics.. i call it the 'Lego Block' view.
The idea there, is that all genes are the same, and just interchange like lego blocks, arranged differently to create each distinct species.
But that is not the case. Each species has unique and specific genes, that comprise their DNA. To theorize 'split & fusion!' in dna, it would have to be shown that the genes were the same. They are not. There are similarities in genes, and splicing can occur to fool the host with a similar gene, such as the iridescent cats. But unless the genes were the same, in the claimed 'split & fusion!', there is only conjecture, not evidence. The fact that human genes are different, along the telomere, shows this as a very unlikely possibility. How or why did they all change into human genes, if it was just an ape chromosome? How did you get two SIMULTANEOUS 'splits and fusions!', that could interbreed, to form the new species?
We cannot even FORCE 'splits and fusion!', in carefully controlled lab environments, to create new species.. how did this allegedly happen in nature?
The conjecture and assumptions needed to arrive at this conclusion are highly speculative, with no evidentiary support. It is desperation, not science, that concludes common descent from 'splits and fusions!'
..not sure of your point.. good articles, and it shows the amazing ability of man to delve deeply into the mystery of life.Scientists have successfully fused the 16 chromosomes of yeast species Saccharomyces cerevisiae to create new strains that hold almost the entire genome on just two.
Please demonstrate your claim that there are different TYPES of DNA, rather than only a single TYPE of DNA that is re-arranged in different organisms.
Or, were you just attacking a straw man?
But the fused yeast chromosomes were still yeast, with the same genes attached to the telomeres. A distinct, new genetic structure was not created, just a variation of the parent stock.
Post 94:That is not my claim, but a distortion..
By the way, for reference, THIS is what an ad hominem REALLY looks like...progressive indoctrinees and reading comprehension..
So you're not aware of how that's literally how evolution works? Variation on previous genetic material?But the fused yeast chromosomes were still yeast, with the same genes attached to the telomeres. A distinct, new genetic structure was not created, just a variation of the parent stock.
ah, ad hom, not just straw men.. i guess either work as well..To me it looked like attacking a clueless *insert word of your choosing*
See what you want. I have responded to any actual arguments or evidence presented.. i have no real rebuttal for fallacies, except to expose them, from time to time.this is one of the most dishonest threads i've ever seen. Fake interest in "discussion" then hand wave everything away with a bunch of arguments from incredulity
ah, ad hom, not just straw men.. i guess either work as well..
..progressive indoctrinees and reading comprehension..
See what you want. I have responded to any actual arguments or evidence presented.. i have no real rebuttal for fallacies, except to expose them, from time to time.
But crafting caricatures to ridicule is a favorite tactic of progressive indoctrinees..
No evidence? Just personal ad hom and dismissal? You're not interested in a debate about common descent?
When you talk about producing a "distinct, new genetic structure", what exactly are you imagining?
I can see that! This was hilarious!I.E i'm here for humor, not discussion.
I can see that! This was hilarious!
..but some want to discuss evidence for common descent.. could you direct the ridicule and indignation to another thread?
Also, don't try to talk down to me. I'm smarter than you.
This is not a playground competition.
I return facts and reason, and some return quips, if they are thrown my way. Toss all the ad hom grenades you want.. I'll pull the pins, and toss them back..
It's very telling that you say this, and yet haven't actually examined any evidence presented to you.You can believe and assert whatever you like. This is not a playground competition. Its a simple examination of evidence, for a widely held, and widely indoctrinated, belief.
It might help if you learned what an ad hominem was, first. Just a suggestion.I return facts and reason, and some return quips, if they are thrown my way. Toss all the ad hom grenades you want.. I'll pull the pins, and toss them back..
Have you presented any claims and supporting arguments against science yet? How are you going to address the evidence that supports common descent?I know it is hard to deal with evidence, with a topic that is allegedly scientific, but is an illusion. So far there has been little presented, as actual evidence. Mostly i see fallacies, deflections, ad hom, moral outrage.. anything but presenting actual science, as the basis for your beliefs.
A couple have, and i thank and applaud you for doing so.
I will not go through every post and expose the hysterical deflections and insulting indignation, from many who have no arguments or evidence..
"You are really stupid!", is not an argument, nor evidence for universal common descent, much as you would like it to be. It is, however, a favorite tactic for irrational, hysterical religious fanatics, if the sacred cows of their cherished beliefs are questioned.
So continued ad hom and outrage, in a scientific thread, only exposes you as a True Believer, not a rational, scientifically minded person.
I've replied to any actual evidence presented, and my points have been ignored and dismissed. That is your right, in a public discussion. You can also berate me, personally, accuse me falsely, and disrupt the discussion. Your call.
Thanks for the discussion. Any other evidence for common descent? Want to look at the building blocks for your worldview?
Please present the evidence, your assertions and your arguments. I would love to read them.
You can believe and assert whatever you like. This is not a playground competition. Its a simple examination of evidence, for a widely held, and widely indoctrinated, belief.
I return facts and reason, and some return quips, if they are thrown my way. Toss all the ad hom grenades you want.. I'll pull the pins, and toss them back..