My Human Chromosome 2 Challenge

[Naraoia]

What about llamas?

Or mountain goats.

Blast, you two win this!

 

[Greg1234]

Glad we cleared that up.

The fact remains however, that this is not a reason for not teaching evolution, and that creationists are trying to interfere with this unreasonably.

You cannot teach children that chance can build a man and expect coast through. Why are you surprised? You would have gotten the same reaction if you asserted that a 747 could be assembled through chance.

 

[Belk]

You cannot teach children that chance can build a man and expect coast through. Why are you surprised? You would have gotten the same reaction if you asserted that a 747 could be assembled through chance.

That's nice. Feel free to publish a peer reviewed article proposing an alternative to evolution that addresses all the known data. Your Nobel prize awaits.

 

[Naraoia]

That's nice. Feel free to publish a peer reviewed article proposing an alternative to evolution that addresses all the known data. Your Nobel prize awaits.

Wait, that was supposed to describe evolution? I didn't recognise it! Shows what a degree in evolutionary biology is worth

</sarcasm>

 

[Cabal]

You cannot teach children that chance can build a man and expect coast through. Why are you surprised? You would have gotten the same reaction if you asserted that a 747 could be assembled through chance.

Except that's not what we claim. Creationists might claim that's what evolution states, but that's due to their chronic lack of understanding of what they decry. And decrying evolution is not supporting creationism, no matter how much you want it to be.

 

[SithDoughnut]

What about llamas?

People have opposable thumbs; they're still probably more important.

 

[Greg1234]

That's nice. Feel free to publish a peer reviewed article proposing an alternative to evolution that addresses all the known data. Your Nobel prize awaits.

Every single experimentation supports creationism. The "go find a peer review article" is merely a deflection, as minus the speculation, every article is on par with creation. Including those that go against Darwinism. We don't teach children that random mutation can build a man because you have no alternative. The alternative to chance was always design. Just because you cannot handle the implications, dosen't mean that children cannot learn intelligent design.

 

[Cabal]

Every single experimentation supports creationism. The "go find a peer review article" is merely a deflection, as minus the speculation, every article is on par with creation. Including those that go against Darwinism. We don't teach children that random mutation can build a man because you have no alternative. The alternative to chance was always design. Just because you cannot handle the implications, dosen't mean that children cannot learn intelligent design.

Just because you don't understand evolution doesn't mean children don't have to learn it.

 

[Greg1234]

Just because you don't understand evolution doesn't mean children don't have to learn it.

Just because you don't realize that random mutations cannot build a man doesnt mean that children have to entertain it.

 

[Cabal]

Just because you don't realize that random mutations cannot build a man doesnt mean that children have to entertain it.

Just because you don't understand that's not what evolution says doesn't mean you have any point at all here.

Run along now.

 

[Chalnoth]

Every single experimentation supports creationism. The "go find a peer review article" is merely a deflection, as minus the speculation, every article is on par with creation. Including those that go against Darwinism. We don't teach children that random mutation can build a man because you have no alternative. The alternative to chance was always design. Just because you cannot handle the implications, dosen't mean that children cannot learn intelligent design.

You still haven't produced a coherent response to the subject of this thread, the existence of human chromosome 2. Evolution explains why we have this sort of thing in our genome. Creationism does not. Ergo you're wrong.

Unless, of course, you can demonstrate how creationism can possibly explain why we would have within our genome one chromosome that is a fusion of two ape chromosomes.

 

[Greg1234]

Just because you don't understand that's not what evolution says doesn't mean you have any point at all here.

Run along now.

Just because you try to hide the fact that it is chance that is the builder and not natural selection and that all you are saying is that random mutations can build a man doesnt mean that it will remain hidden.

 

[Greg1234]

You still haven't produced a coherent response to the subject of this thread, the existence of human chromosome 2. Evolution explains why we have this sort of thing in our genome. Creationism does not. Ergo you're wrong.

Unless, of course, you can demonstrate how creationism can possibly explain why we would have within our genome one chromosome that is a fusion of two ape chromosomes.

Humans don't need to be beasts for two chromosomes to fuse. Unfused, a human is still a human. Fused a human is still a human. A fused chromosome therefore has nothing to do with Darwinism. Also bacteria remains bacteria, and random mutation cannot take bacteria to men with fused chromosomes, so this is irrelevant to say the least.

 

[Cabal]

Just because you try to hide the fact that it is chance that is the builder and not natural selection and that all you are saying is that random mutations can build a man doesnt mean that it will remain hidden.

Yeah, you're still not getting it.

We're done here.

 

[Chalnoth]

Humans don't need to be beasts for two chromosomes to fuse. Unfused, a human is still a human. Fused a human is still a human. A fused chromosome therefore has nothing to do with Darwinism. Also bacteria remains bacteria, and random mutation cannot take bacteria to men with fused chromosomes, so this is irrelevant to say the least.

Yeah, you're really not getting it. At all. This isn't about the making of a human, as I explained earlier. It's about evidence that we, humans, share great-great-great-many more great-grandparents with chimpanzees. This is, in other words, a paternity test. It's just a few more generations removed.

As I explained earlier, the fusion of two chromosomes makes essentially no difference whatsoever to the organism. Chromosomes are just groups of genes, after all, and grouping the genes a little differently doesn't have much of any impact on how those genes behave.

This is just a paternity test.

So why does this paternity test say that our many times great-grandparents are the same as chimpanzees' many times great-grandparents?

 

[Greg1234]

Yeah, you're really not getting it. At all. This isn't about the making of a human, as I explained earlier. It's about evidence that we, humans, share great-great-great-many more great-grandparents with chimpanzees. This is, in other words, a paternity test. It's just a few more generations removed.

No it doesn't This is the fusion of two human chromosomes. And yes, these manbeast inferences are based on the idea that random mutation can take bacteria to a man with two fused chromosomes.

 

[Tomatoman]

No it doesn't This is the fusion of two human chromosomes. And yes, these manbeast inferences are based on the idea that random mutation can take bacteria to a man with two fused chromosomes.

You're not well are you.

 

[Chalnoth]

No it doesn't This is the fusion of two human chromosomes.

But why are they fused? Why not just leave them alone?

Evolution explains why. Can creationism?

And yes, these manbeast inferences are based on the idea that random mutation can take bacteria to a man with two fused chromosomes.

What you have written here is pure insanity that has no connection whatsoever to evolution or reality.

 

[Greg1234]

But why are they fused?

Definitely not because random mutations can build a man. We know that much.

Evolution explains why. Can creationism?

Bacteria remaining bacteria cannot explain a lion much less for a human with fused chromosomes. In creationism it means that two human chromosomes have fused because chromosomes have the ability to fuse and we continue investigation including the randomness of said feature or whether it serves a beneficial purpose, its detriments, etc. No Darwinism required.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Definitely not because random mutations can build a man. We know that much.
Bacteria remaining bacteria cannot explain a lion much less for a human with fused chromosomes. In creationism it means that two human chromosomes have fused because chromosomes have the ability to fuse and we continue investigation including the randomness of said feature or whether it serves a beneficial purpose, its detriments, etc. No Darwinism required.

Cut the rhetoric.

Can you or can you not explain human chromosome #2 in terms of creationism?