Evolution Denies - Please Refute this

[ikester7579]

I guess I can't change your faulty, biased memory.

Ironic I was thinking the same thing.

 

[MrsLurking]

God warned us about evolution!

De 32:18 Of the "Rock that begat" thee thou art unmindful, and "hast forgotten God that formed thee".
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Absolute truth = God's word.

Is your signature section some kind of joke making of Christians who find arbitrary scriptures which supposedly make whatever statement the writer wants to make? I'm baffled by the "God warned us about evolution!" followed by the "Rock that begat". Obviously, The Theory of Evolution says absolutely nothing about rocks and Deut 32:18 has nothing to do with evolution. So what are you saying?

(For that matter, why do we care that your post count must be 10 or greater to view links? What are you trying to tell us?)

 

[ikester7579]

In the course of my research on "creation science" and young earth creationism, I've collected a number of biology textbooks from the public schools of the 1950's and 1960's (where The Theory of Evolution was usually dodged entirely) as well as those used by home schoolers and Christian private schools. The ONLY textbooks which claimed that evolution theory speaks of chimps turning into humans were the CHRISTIAN HOME-SCHOOLING TEXTBOOKS. So perhaps Ikester was home-schooled or attended a Christian private school.

You can claim what you like about me even though you don;t even know me which means you are making assumptions. But I had zero homeschooling and zero Christian schooling. My dad was an agnostic who late in his life turned to God. So nice try in painting that picture of me.

Nothing like a good stereotype when you really have nothing else better.

 

[ikester7579]

Originally Posted by ikester7579
I was taught that in science class when I went to school and you can ask anyone who went in my generation and you will find they were taught the same thing (humans evolved from chimps).



Ikester doesn't identify "my generation" so it is difficult to assess his claim---although I've not been able to find any such "humans evolved from chimps" nonsense in my collection of 20th century biology textbooks. I attended U.S. public schools in the 1940's and 1950's and NEVER read about humans-from-chimps. My wife attended similar schools in the 1960's and 1970's and asserts likewise. My daughter recalls nothing of the sort from her public school textbooks. So I would like to know what "generation" he's talking about!

I think Ikester has manufactured yet another straw-man.

Already provided evidence, not my problem that you are so bias that you are also blind.

 

[standingtall]

I have debated atheists for years.

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

Flapping your mouth without having a clue what you are talking about does not equal debate.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

It's an example of how science had it wrong

No it isn't.

If you wanted to substantiate this assertion, you would have to meet the conditions of my challenge, which you're about to utterly fail at,

Easy: Life Science Log :: Newly discovered gene could help to explain human evolution, says scientists
New brain gene gives us edge over apes, study suggests
New Gene Discovered That Explains How Humans Are Distinct From Apes
Gene could help explain how humans evolved from chimpanzees : Evolution & Natural Selection • Rational Skepticism Forum
Gene in human brains may have brought language and tool use - UPI.com

1) Not a single one of these is a primary scientific source,
2) Not a single one of these says 'chimps turned into humans', and even if they did, it wouldn't demonstrate this is a position that is held or ever was held by the scientific community, only that the author has phrased it that way.

You failed to meet my challenge. Here it is again:

Cite a single primary scientific source that claims 'chimps turned into humans'.

You should really do your research

You don't even know what the ToE is. You don't get to tell other people 'do your research'.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Evolution.

In other words, make sure it's filed under EVOLUTION, so as to make it look like evolution makes predictions that can be tested.

Now, now -- don't be bitter just because your failures have been exposed... again.

 

[Split Rock]

Easy: Life Science Log :: Newly discovered gene could help to explain human evolution, says scientists
New brain gene gives us edge over apes, study suggests
New Gene Discovered That Explains How Humans Are Distinct From Apes
Gene could help explain how humans evolved from chimpanzees : Evolution & Natural Selection • Rational Skepticism Forum
Gene in human brains may have brought language and tool use - UPI.com

You should really do your research before you set yourself up to fail like that.

You showed that news stories on the internet get the information wrong sometimes. No kidding! In some cases, it was just the title, while the body of the text correctly talked about human-chimp divergences. I thought we were talking about you learning humans evolved from chimps in school. Do you have an example from a textbook?

Even worse, you claimed that "evolutionists" used to think we evolved from chimps and changed their tune because it sounded funny. Do you have any evidence of this? As vs already asked, do you have any primary scientific literature from the time period that made such a claim?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Do you have an example from a textbook?

A textbook wouldn't meet the challenge, either. There are 'textbooks' that propagate the same bilge as any creationist website.

 

[USincognito]

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.

This non-sequitorial response is confusing. Do you know who Kenneth Miller is or not?

 

[Subduction Zone]

This non-sequitorial response is confusing. Do you know who Kenneth Miller is or not?

Isn't he Michael Behe's best friend

 

[USincognito]

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

What are you talking about? There is no "idea of the fused chromosome". It was predicted based on the difference in chromosomes in chimps (our closest cousins) and other Hominidae and ourselves. When the vestigial telomeres and a centromere were discovered, along with matching of genes in chimp 2a and 2b, it moved from a prediction to an observation.

If evolution were absolutely true and was a law instead of a theory. Then the fused Chromosome would be evidence of that.

Between the loaded language, misunderstanding of what "law" and theory" mean and faulty logic, I'm having trouble making sense of this.

As I and others have noted:
- If humans share common ancestry with chimpanzees, there should be a reason for the difference in number of chromosomes.
- One reason for the difference would be a chromosomal fusion.
- We observe matching gene loci and vestigial telomeres and a centromere.
- Thus the observation confirms the prediction and supports common ancestry.

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.

What ever are you going on about?

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.

Wow. Just wow.

- Humans and chimps share a common ancestor. We did not evolve from them nor are we chimps that just develop differently. What you're suggesting demonstrates a monumental misunderstanding of evolution on your part.
- The genes that make a chimp a chimp would remain the same if we fused 2a and 2b. The genes that make a human a human would remain the same if we split 2. Where ever did you get the notion that the chromosome fusion was the one thing that made humans human?

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

Based on what you've written, I'd suggest you're the only person here to conclude that.

When a believer uses a video to weaken ones faith in God's word there is always a motive.

You need to stop arguing against these phantasmal atheists and actually argue against the science. Kenneth Miller is a science educator is only interested in teaching people science.

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.

You're welcome to your opinion on the matter. Millions of theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, IDers who don't oppose evolution and non-believers who are more interested in the science discussion rather than the religious one disagree with you.

 

[AV1611VET]

This non-sequitorial response is confusing. Do you know who Kenneth Miller is or not?

I think he's on vacation right now.

 

[MrsLurking]

Originally Posted by ikester7579
If evolution were absolutely true and was a law instead of a theory. Then the fused Chromosome would be evidence of that.

Between the loaded language, misunderstanding of what "law" and theory" mean and faulty logic, I'm having trouble making sense of this.
.

No surprise that Ikester7579 repeats the old myth about "scientific theories graduate to become laws". How can one have a rational dialogue with someone who can't even use the terms properly? And no surprise that he has no idea what The Theory of Evolution states.

Time to move on.

 

[loktai]

Easy: Life Science Log :: Newly discovered gene could help to explain human evolution, says scientists

From your first link it says this "The results, published in Nature Communications, show that it emerged after humans evolved from apes, between six and one million years ago."

That says apes, and not chimps, which is what the ToE says.

Your second link also mentions NOTHING about humans from chimps.
Thirs link says "This new gene is the first known gene to be found in humans and not in apes." again nothing about humans from chimps as you were asked to provide.

I thought you said this was easy?
Did you actually read these posts before you linked them?

 

[loktai]

P.S back to the OP - the challenge still stands wating to be refuted.

 

[TLK Valentine]

P.S back to the OP - the challenge still stands wating to be refuted.

And it will continue to stand from now until doomsday.

Evolution deniers talk a big bluff and bluster, but when it comes time to put up or shut up, they scatter.

 

[USincognito]

All I see here are cop put explanations with no real scientific substance. They can fuse one of the chromosomes in a chimp to see if he turns into a human. But because that would be absolute evidence of their claim, if it failed it would do a whole lot of damage. So it's better to make an assumption then sell it as so type of absolute proof of what can never be proven.

Since your ostensible objection to the evidence of common ancestry presented by 2a/2b viz. 2 is that chromosome fusion is the only thing that makes a human human it's pretty obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about in this particular case.

 

[USincognito]

Could you make this list of formal challenges to disproving evolution?

If one has any knowledge of what evolutionary theory actually says, one can literally think of millions of potential falsifications.

- A mammal found in Cambrian strata.
- A dinosaur in Cambrain strata.
- Pollen in Silurian strata.
- Whales and plesiosaurs in Devonian strata.
- Extant or extinct birds with arms and wings.
- Extant or extinct fish with fur.
- Extant or extinct lizards with mammary glands.
- Extant or extinct arthropods with backbones.
- Roses with melanocytes.
- Primates with exoskeletons.
- Whales with gills.
- Fungi with chloroplasts.
Etc. etc. etc.

Any one of these findings would falsify evolutionary theory, but they aren't found. Creationists claims that's because evolutionary theory is unfalsifiable, but that's simply a lie as my list above shows. They try to conflate unfalsified with unfalsifiable.

 

[USincognito]

Really? Then why make the comparisons?

Let's see:
1) Chimps and humans have a thumb.
2) Chimps and humans have one number different in chromosomes.
3) The reason humans have one less chromosome than chimps is because ours fused.
4) Chimps are 98% human.

All of these are true so I don't know what point you trying to make.

I was taught that in science class when I went to school and you can ask anyone who went in my generation and you will find they were taught the same thing (humans evolved from chimps).

You were? I took Biology in Alabama in the mid 80s and wasn't taught that. Where did you go to school?

The reason it's been totally switched to common ancestor is because the idea we came from chimps turned a lot of people off and jokes were made which reflected badly on evolution. So to stop that all evolutionist have to go into denial mode. But nice try you cannot change what I was taught by denial.

This is a nice fantasy that exists only in your mind. It has never been claimed that humans evolved from chimps, it's always been claimed that we shared a common ancestor. Even Linneaus recognized that humans and chimps (and our fellow Hominidae) were related taxonimically.