Evolution Denies - Please Refute this

[loktai]

There was no motive in my post. I saw the video, found it very informative and logical, and posted a challenge to people who do no accept evolution to refute it. Nobody has done so as of yet.

I even posted a disclaimer as to say I don't want to 'shut up pesky creationists' that was just the title someone else chose.

The points raised in this lecture stand to be refuted. Please take your best shot. AV has so far failed miserably, by doing exactly what the chap in the video said is the usual response which has no substance.

This is in NO way athiestic, it is for evolition DENIERS. People like verysincere, are theistic yet accept evolution as a theory. (Please correct me if that is not your view!)

This is aimed at people who do not accept evolution, to come up with a credible reason to explain this observation, which is predicted by the theory of evolution.

 

[ikester7579]

There was no motive in my post. I saw the video, found it very informative and logical, and posted a challenge to people who do no accept evolution to refute it. Nobody has done so as of yet.

I even posted a disclaimer as to say I don't want to 'shut up pesky creationists' that was just the title someone else chose.

The points raised in this lecture stand to be refuted. Please take your best shot. AV has so far failed miserably, by doing exactly what the chap in the video said is the usual response which has no substance.

This is in NO way athiestic, it is for evolition DENIERS. People like verysincere, are theistic yet accept evolution as a theory. (Please correct me if that is not your view!)

This is aimed at people who do not accept evolution, to come up with a credible reason to explain this observation, which is predicted by the theory of evolution.

You need substance? I'll make this a 2 part post then.

Part 1:
The idea of the fused Chromosome is based solely on evolution being an absolute fact. How?

1. If evolution were absolutely true and was a law instead of a theory. Then the fused Chromosome would be evidence of that.
2. But because evolution is not an absolute biological law, the supposed evidence is only an opinion. This is because to prove it further than a opinion one would have to first prove the the fusion was apart. Evolutionists are assuming it was because they want evolution to be true.
3. To make it even more true one could unfuse this and the human would revert back to chimp. If that does not happen then the claim is not valid.

So all we have on this are claims and words based on if evolution were already an absolute.

Part 2:

1. When a believer uses a video to weaken ones faith in God's word there is always a motive.
2. Evolution is the direct opposite of God's creation on every count. Making the creation a myth is just a polite way of calling God a liar.

 

[ikester7579]

I have no idea what happened---nor do I particular care. But why not exhibit your maturity and willingness to discuss the Biblical evidence and the scientific evidence concerning origins and move forward with something constructive. All I know about you so far is that instead of discussing the video, you accused the OP poster of some sort of sinister agenda. (Whether or not he has an agenda really doesn't matter, does it? Aren't your own ideas powerful enough to deal with them?)

I'm regularly amazed that so many of my Christian brethren on these threads are so angry and so unwilling to discuss facts, logic, and evidence (including the evidence from the Biblical text and from God's creation itself.)

I have debated atheists for years. This video is used quite often on forums and blogs to weaken the believer's faith. For someone of the faith to post it to weaken ones faith means they have an agenda.

 

[verysincere]

The idea of the fused Chromosome is based solely on evolution being an absolute fact. How?

No. It was actually, first, a PREDICTION based upon the Theory of Evolution that was published around seven years PRIOR to the mapping of the human genome. It was a PRIME EXAMPLE of the reliability of a well-attested scientific theory to predict future discoveries.

I don't expect you to know or understand the evidence that speaks so loudly from human chromosome #2. (And I assume you would ignore a tutorial if I posted one.) But readers here will not be fooled by the bluster of denial.

 

[ikester7579]

No. It was actually, first, a PREDICTION based upon the Theory of Evolution that was published around seven years PRIOR to the mapping of the human genome. It was a PRIME EXAMPLE of the reliability of a well-attested scientific theory to predict future discoveries.

I don't expect you to know or understand the evidence that speaks so loudly from human chromosome #2. (And I assume you would ignore a tutorial if I posted one.) But readers here will not be fooled by the bluster of denial.

Can you tell me with absolute certainty that this fusion is what caused chimps to turn human? Yes or no. And predictions prove evolution? LOL.

And I expect you are to bias and uneducated to know how to look outside of your evolution box of fantasies. Believe by blind faith if you must.

 

[verysincere]

Can you tell me with absolute certainty that this fusion is what caused chimps to turn human? Yes or no.

Face-palm.

Nobody claims that any single mutation "caused chimps to turn human". Your question clearly reveals that you have no idea how evolution operates and you actually think that the theory of evolution implies that chimps "turned into humans". Sheesh. I know that evolution-denial always depends upon straw-man arguments but this one is pathetic.

You've gone so far off the rails that I seriously doubt that you will ever find your way back to the tracks.

Next!


.

 

[loktai]

Evolution is accepted as fact because of all the predictions that it has made that have been found true, and due to all of the tess that it has been put through trying to disprove it. This is a common tactic that people use, when they are unable to refute a statement - they instead try to discredit it.

The information in the video is explained well enough, and gives a detailed explanation as to why we have one less chromosome than chimps and the other great apes.

Please show something as a credible, testible alternative to this position, or shoe some proof that this position is incorrect.

I have yet to see anything of substance other than the usual hand waving and undermining attempts, which have failed miserably.

 

[JustMeSee]

Evolution =/= non-Christian

That is, "does not equal". Many Christians trust the evidence for the theory of Evolution.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Can you tell me with absolute certainty that this fusion is what caused chimps to turn human?

This loaded question proves you don't know what the ToE actaully says. Your opinions on the subject are worthless.

 

[verysincere]

This loaded question proves you don't know what the ToE actaully says. Your opinions on the subject are worthless.

Yes, his question was very revealing of his knowledge-level.

But many young earth creationist leaders teach their followers that strawman caricatures are far easier to refute that the real thing. Unfortunately, once the choir goes into the real world and deals with people who actually know something about the science and the meaning of the words, the choir's lack of basic information discredits them immediately.

 

[46AND2]

Yes, his question was very revealing of his knowledge-level.

One would think after *years* of debating atheists, he wouldn't still be making this same mistake.

 

[USincognito]

I have debated atheists for years. This video is used quite often on forums and blogs to weaken the believer's faith. For someone of the faith to post it to weaken ones faith means they have an agenda.

What a bizarre comment because, unless I'm mistaken, that's Kenneth Miller in the video.

 

[driewerf]

Part 2

1. Evolution is the direct opposite of God's creation on every count. Making the creation a myth is just a polite way of calling God a liar.

No. As an atheist I don't believe there is an god. Telling people that Genesis is a myth can't turn a non-existing god into a liar. It can turn the people who promote Genesis as literal truth into liars, but no god.

Now, if you think that a lie and a myth are the same thing, then you are wery mistaken on the nature of both.

 

[driewerf]

And I expect you are to bias and uneducated to know how to look outside of your evolution box of fantasies.

the irony.

 

[dad]

Please ignore the title of the video, it's innapropriate, however the content of the video is very good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK3O6KYPmEw

Looking at a creation site, apparently they are not so overwhelmed as you.

"This molecular model involves the hypothetical fusion of two small acrocentric chimpanzee-like chromosomes (2A and 2B) at some ancient point in the human evolutionary lineage. Our analysis of the available genomic data shows that the sequence features encompassing the purported chromosome 2 fusion site are too ambiguous to accurately infer a fusion event. The data actually suggest that the core ~800 bp region containing the fusion site is not a unique cryptic and degenerate head-to-head fusion of telomeres, but a distinct motif that is represented throughout the human genome with no orthologous counterpart in the chimpanzee genome on either chromosome 2A or 2B. The DNA sequence evidence for a purported inactivated cryptic centromere site on chromosome 2, supposedly composed of centromeric alphoid repeats, is even more ambiguous and untenable than the case for a fusion site. The alphoid sequences in this region are quite variable and do not cluster with known functional human centromeric sequences. In addition, no ortholog for a cryptic centromere homologous to the alphoid sequence at human chromosome 2 exists on chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B."
"
Our DNA sequence analysis confirmed conclusions reached by Fan et al. The putative fusion site is ‘highly degenerate’ and a vague shadow of what should be present given the model proposed.15 One of the major problems with the fusion model is that, within the 20- to 30-kb window of DNA sequence surrounding the hypothetical fusion site, there is a glaring paucity of telomeric repeats, and those that are present are mostly independent monomers, not tandem repeats. In fact, many of the motifs in the 30-kb region surrounding the putative 2qfus site are not only isolated monomers, but are separated by up to several thousand bases of DNA.
Even while completely disregarding a consensus 6-base reading frame when iterating through the repeats, for the left (plus strand) side of the fusion site, there are only 34 intact TTAGGG motifs (table 1). This analysis uses a generous allowance of 92,690 bases to the left of the fusion site where the first TTAGGG repeat is found on BAC RP11-395L14, well beyond the size of any normal human telomere. Based on the predicted model, thousands of intact TTAGGG motifs in tandem should exist. This is true even if allowing for an extremely high rate of degeneracy, which is an unreasonable expectation because meiotic recombination is suppressed in pericentric DNA due to its close proximity to the centromere. Recombination, the most likely theoretical source of sequence shuffling leading to the fusion site degeneration would therefore be less of consideration. Also, based on the predicted model, little, if any TTAGGG motifs should exist on the plus strand to the right of the fusion site. However, 18 intact TTAGGG motifs are found on the right of the fusion site; 35% of the total number of TTAGGG motifs located within a generous 156,911 base window surrounding the fusion site."


Chromosome 2 Fusion 2


Perhaps you could start by defining 'fusion' in your own words...like what causes it....etc?

 

[OllieFranz]

You need substance?

1. If evolution were absolutely true and was a law instead of a theory. Then the fused Chromosome would be evidence of that.
2. But because evolution is not an absolute biological law, the supposed evidence is only an opinion. This is because to prove it further than a opinion one would have to first prove the the fusion was apart. Evolutionists are assuming it was because they want evolution to be true.
3. To make it even more true one could unfuse this and the human would revert back to chimp. If that does not happen then the claim is not valid.

1. When the general public takes over the use of a term that has a specific meaning in the jargon of a discipline, whether it is "unatural" (παρα φυσις) in Classical Greek philosophy or "black hole" in astronomy, or even when translating popular words from one language to another such as "teacher" (rabbi in Hebrew or sensei in Japanese) it often broadens in meaning, narrows in meaning or changes meaning altogether. Whe scientists speak of a "Theory" they are talking about what is popularly called a law. What is popularly called the Law of Gravity is more properly called the Theory of Gravity. What is popularly called a theory is more properly called a thesis, an hypothesis, or a proposition. So the statement "If evolution were ... a law and not just a theory" becomes "If evolution were a theory and not just an hypothesis. And guess what? It is a theory -- a "law."
2. No, evolution is not presented as an "absolute" law, But guess what. There are no scientific laws (theories) that are presented as absolute. Laws (theories) are derived inductively, and as such can always be refined or even falsified. Every single scientific law. Even the ones that are taken for granted in the Bible. A law (theory) can have a high degree of certainty, to the point that it is essentially absolute, but it is never considered absolute.
3. Presumably it can be split again. I don't know. Certainly there is no reason I know of why it couldn't. But then, I don't know the energy required to do that splitting, nor do I know of any way we can target the seam where the two parts of the doubled telemere in the middle of the Chromosome join. But even if we could, it would not turn the child born with the re-split chromosomes into a chimpanzee. Because, first, we did not evolve from chimps. Both chimps and we evolved, in separate lines, from a common, less specialized ancestor. And second during that period of separate, independent evolution we each underwent many other mutations away from the common ancestor.

 

[OllieFranz]

Aside from the fact that he is overlooking ontological reductionism, ....

The clip is taken from a longer tape of a two hour talk that Miller gave. He addressed the accusation of ontological materialism earlier in the talk. He also addresses some of you other points.

Ken Miller on the Dover trial and the fight for Ohio

 

[verysincere]

And I expect you are to bias and uneducated to know how to look outside of your evolution box of fantasies. Believe by blind faith if you must.

Absolutely incredible.

 

[ikester7579]

No. As an atheist I don't believe there is an god. Telling people that Genesis is a myth can't turn a non-existing god into a liar. It can turn the people who promote Genesis as literal truth into liars, but no god.

Now, if you think that a lie and a myth are the same thing, then you are wery mistaken on the nature of both.

If you truly believed there was no God then why do you waste you time debating a being that does not exist? You cannot debate zero evidence there is no logic in it. Being that there is something to debate means what you claim and real reality does not agree. Or would you care to explain it?

 

[ikester7579]

What a bizarre comment because, unless I'm mistaken, that's Kenneth Miller in the video.

People can claim all they want to be some type of creationist. But a true believer does not deny God being the absolute Creator of His creation. Man does not determine what makes a follower, God does. And God is the Alpha and the Omega. So one cannot deny His Alpha (creation) and expect to be part of His Omega (what happens in revelation for the believers).

Because if God lets one creation denier into Heaven, to be fair he has to let them all in which includes all atheists. That's not going to happen.