My Human Chromosome 2 Challenge

[Greg1234]

Cut the rhetoric.

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

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.

Fused a human is a human. Unfused a human is a human. This has nothing to do with Darwinism.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Fused a human is a human. Unfused a human is a human. This has nothing to do with Darwinism.

You still have not answered. How does creationism explain human chromosome #2?

Many posters have thoroughly explained C#2 according to ToE.

We're asking you to explain C#2 according to creationism.

If you can't, just say so.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your Nobel prize awaits.

Ah, yes -- the Nobel prize.

They give a Nobel prize for starting something, then they give a Nobel prize for pwning it.

 

[Cabal]

Ah, yes -- the Nobel prize.

They give a Nobel prize for starting something, then they give a Nobel prize for pwning it.

Yeah, because the former model explains a given amount of observed data allowing progress to be made, and then the later model explains that data and then more data the previous model failed to explain, allowing progress to be made.

I'm sure this concept of amending your knowledge when presented with a logical reason to is a little new to you, so I'll give it time to sink in.

 

[Chalnoth]

Fused a human is a human. Unfused a human is a human. This has nothing to do with Darwinism.

Again, this isn't about the features like hair coverage and whatnot that separate humans from the other apes. This is about a paternity test. And the paternity test says that we have the same ancestor as the other apes. That's it.

How can you explain this paternity test result without humans having a real ancestor in common with the other apes?

 

[AV1611VET]

How can you explain this paternity test result without humans having a real ancestor in common with the other apes?

That you're connecting dots that weren't meant to be connected.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

That you're connecting dots that shouldn't be connected.

Fine then. How does creationism explain C#2?

 

[Chalnoth]

That you're connecting dots that weren't meant to be connected.

So, you're saying that we should just put our fingers in our ears and say, "La la la," instead of pay attention to the evidence?

 

[AV1611VET]

Fine then. How does creationism explain C#2?

From Wikipedia:

Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 there are remnants of a second centromere.

Don't even think I'm going to embrace evolution based on such word choices as "remnants" and "vestigial".

I don't share you guys' zeal to explain evolution in terms of woulda, coulda, shoulda.

Science articles with, 'we think', 'remnants', 'strong evidence', 'might have', etc. just isn't good enough to say 'evolution did it -- case closed'.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, you're saying that we should just put our fingers in our ears and say, "La la la," instead of pay attention to the evidence?

In my opinion, you're seeing shadows and connecting dots that were not meant to be connected.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

In my opinion, you're seeing shadows and connecting dots that were not meant to be connected.

All we're asking you to do is explain C#2 in terms of creationism.

We're not interested in what you don't think it means.

If you don't have an answer, just say so.

 

[AV1611VET]

Here's another excerpt from Wikipedia that shows my point:

Human chromosome 2 is widely accepted to be a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.

Notice what that sentence doesn't say?

Human chromosome 2 is the result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.

Again, I'm not buying your enthusiasm & zeal for evolution; especially when you consistently stop short of say "it's so".

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Here's another excerpt from Wikipedia that shows my point:

Notice what that sentence doesn't say?

Again, I'm not buying your enthusiasm & zeal for evolution; especially when you consistently stop short of say "it's so".

You don't have an answer, do you.

Now you're beginning to understand why most of us laugh at creationism.

 

[AV1611VET]

All we're asking you to do is explain C#2 in terms of creationism.

We're not interested in what you don't think it means.

If you don't have an answer, just say so.

Show me C#2 in Adam & Eve, or go impress TEs with it.

I'm not buying that uniformitarian explanation for human life.

Wikipedia isn't [completely] buying it -- why should we?

We believe the gene pool was made perfect the day it was made; and that each kind has its own gene pool.

If those perfect gene pools looked similar, then so be it.

This 'mix-and-match-snap-on-parts' mentality that evolution runs on is disgusting.

 

[AV1611VET]

You don't have an answer, do you.

No, I don't.

It's your philosophy -- not mine.

Now you're beginning to understand why most of us laugh at creationism.

Laugh away -- the joke's on you.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Show me C#2 in Adam & Eve, or go impress TEs with it.

I'm not buying that uniformitarian explanation for human life.

Wikipedia isn't [completely] buying it -- why should we?

We believe the gene pool was made perfect the day it was made; and that each kind has its own gene pool.

If those perfect gene pools looked similar, then so be it.

This 'mix-and-match-snap-on-parts' mentality that evolution runs on is disgusting.

First you show us A&E, then we'll show you C#2.

You still haven't answered C#2 in terms of creation...

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

No, I don't.

It's your philosophy -- not mine.

Laugh away -- the joke's on you.

C#2 is a fact, not a philosphy.

 

[AV1611VET]

First you show us A&E, then we'll show you C#2.

I'd say that's fair.

In other words, just like you think A&E can take a hike, I think C#2 can take a hike.

You still haven't answered C#2 in terms of creation...

Please don't bring your philosophies to us and ask us to explain it in terms of creation.

If you guys don't buy the earth before the sun in Genesis 1, don't expect us to buy 'widely accepted * chromosomes that are remnants of second centromeres'.

* Don't you mean, "wildly accepted"?

 

[Greg1234]

You still have not answered. How does creationism explain human chromosome #2?

Many posters have thoroughly explained C#2 according to ToE.

We're asking you to explain C#2 according to creationism.

If you can't, just say so.

Youre in denial again. Darwinism explains the fused chromosome as the result of a fusiion event which occurred when bacteria was becoming men. In Creationsim it is a fusion event which occurred when man was created as man. A fusion has no bearing on whether a human is a human or not therefore whether it happens after a man was created or whether it happened when bacteria became men is determined by whether or not the evidence shows that random mutation can turn bacteria into men. This speaks for itself.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I'd say that's fair.

In other words, just like you think A&E can take a hike, I think C#2 can take a hike.

Please don't bring your philosophies to us and ask us to explain it in terms of creation.

If you guys don't buy the earth before the sun in Genesis 1, don't expect us to buy 'widely accept chromosomes that are remnants of second centromeres'.

Difference being, one can be produced, the other can't.

You're avoiding the fact that you don't have an answer for C#2 in terms of creationism.