Dogs only make more dogs - really?

[LoricaLady]

Pot..meet kettle...

That is one comment you made which I have to agree on. It made me laugh. Oh well, no one is perfect.

 

[46AND2]

That is one comment you made which I have to agree on. It made me laugh. Oh well, no one is perfect.

Thank you for taking it in fun...

 

[Subduction Zone]

My post that you call "too long" was really barely, if any, longer than the one you sent me that I was responding to. A lot of it was simply quoting your own words.

I see you are still arrogantly posing as the great evolutionary teacher who is going to help me over my presumed ignorance. Below are the Qs which you dodged. I will repeat them again. Take one at a time if you wish. Or dodge them again, which I predict will happen, this time with a different excuse.

What evidence do you have that any finch ever was or ever will be anything but a finch? Why should I buy it that changes in their beak sizes, measured in millimeters, have any bearing whatsoever, any evidence to offer whatsoever, to show animals climbed up Darwin's "Tree" to turn into me? You seem to think those tiny changes are important to evolution since you've talked about them a great deal. Darwin surely made a big fuss about them. You say you want to help me, so help me understand how changes in a finch beak shows giraffes and mushrooms came from the same ancestor in the conveniently unobservable and unverifiable past.

With Lucy I asked (1) How do you know she even had any descendants at all (2) that any presumed descendants were significantly different from her in anyway much less (3) turned into you? I know what that pile of bones for a fragmented 3 foot high Australopithecus shows. Give me the data for what happened to her "descendants" without using the Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy.

Oh, and most of all do tell me how I can tell "missing" links from nonexistent links. I don't want to just be...faith...based. I want evidence, again, what real science uses. The evidence says there are no links. The evo. spin says the links are there...somewhere...have faith brothers and sisters....we'll find them some day. Sorry I prefer data to fantasies, so please present data.

But if you can answer my Qs without more logical fallacies, more faith presented as scientific fact and more theories presented as evidence, if you can honestly answer them with data, go for it!

My side hasn't lost. The truth never really loses. Also, since you are so knowledgeable you should know that scientific truths are not determined in courts, particularly with non science trained judges and non science trained juries in a politically correct atmosphere. I like to think for myself and look at all the data, not just use your appeal to authority logical fallacy. Of course scientists from every discipline have come out against evolution. Google Quotes That Reveal The Credulity of Evolutionists where Nobel Prize winners, famous secular scientists, and world famous evolutionists admit there is no evidence for evolution. See about the first 10 minutes of Thomas Kindell's vid Thermodynamic Arguments For Creation to hear more such quotes by evolutionists like "Evolution is unproven and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable." Unproven and unprovable huh? Think about that. Gee should I listen to him, a real live, even well known, evolutionist, or some poster on a forum? I'll listen to the data.

I want to simplify this because of the many mistakes that you are making. Let's start off with the finch. The offspring of finches will always be finches, just as you are still a "fish" by the terminology that you have used. There is no change of kinds in evolution. There is no need to bring evidence into this until you understand the theory that you are trying to argue against.

And please, anyone that brings thermodynamics into the debate understands neither thermodynamics nor evolution. Let's try to keep your errors to a minimum.


And yes, your side lost long ago. As you pointed out, the truth is on my side, not yours.

 

[Hoghead1]

Look, Justatruthseeker, I have a choice. I can choose to believe you or I can choose to believe science. Without even batting an eye, anyone with common sense is going to choose science. But OK, I'll listen to your case. First thing I do is to see what one's credentials are, what degrees, how many publications. Frankly, if I don't see a Ph.D. after their name and a list of scientific publications, they go right in the wastebasket. In your case, you have zilch here and so are already in the wastebasket. Next, I look to see what hard evidence is presented, what the case is. Problem is, I can't see how you have presented any case at all. You use way too much inflammatory rhetoric for someone purporting to be scientific. You seem very awkward at explaining and understanding basic terms in evolution. Most of the time, you simply fuss that you don't understand evolution and try and use that as your rationale for rejecting it. Well, that's your problem. Take a science course. Maybe that would help.

 

[LoricaLady]

I want to simplify this because of the many mistakes that you are making. Let's start off with the finch. The offspring of finches will always be finches, just as you are still a "fish" by the terminology that you have used. There is no change of kinds in evolution. There is no need to bring evidence into this until you understand the theory that you are trying to argue against.

And please, anyone that brings thermodynamics into the debate understands neither thermodynamics nor evolution. Let's try to keep your errors to a minimum.


And yes, your side lost long ago. As you pointed out, the truth is on my side, not yours.

Your comments are so insulting and untrue and evasive that this will be my last post to you.

I never brought thermodynamics into the debate, of course. I simply referred to some quotes in the a vid that had that word in the title.

You said, "Let's start off with the finch. The offspring of finches will always be finches, just as you are still a "fish" by the terminology that you have used. There is no change of kinds in evolution." Of course I never used any terminology to say that I am a fish! Of course evolutionists do talk about changes in kinds. Again, a change from a fish to a tetrapod is obviously a change in kind. But you just seem to be making up words to suit your belief system, even though your arguments are not even used in evolution!

You are, as predicted, totally evading my Qs and making comments, which frankly, don't even make sense but just seem bizarre. Another reason this will be my last post to you.

You also said, "There is no need to bring evidence into this...." until, you say, I understand the issues. What a crock. You have given what I predicted: more excuses for not answering hard core data based Qs, more dodges.

"As you pointed out" you claimed, "the truth is on my side not yours." If you really believe I said any such thing, you have my great sympathy. You know the first step in learning how to think clearly is to learn how to think honestly.

This is ridiculous. I can't waste any more time with such games.

Byeeeee! I've prayed for you. Best I can do.

 

[LoricaLady]

Thank you for taking it in fun...

 

[LoricaLady]

Look, Justatruthseeker, I have a choice. I can choose to believe you or I can choose to believe science. Without even batting an eye, anyone with common sense is going to choose science. But OK, I'll listen to your case. First thing I do is to see what one's credentials are, what degrees, how many publications. Frankly, if I don't see a Ph.D. after their name and a list of scientific publications, they go right in the wastebasket. In your case, you have zilch here and so are already in the wastebasket. Next, I look to see what hard evidence is presented, what the case is. Problem is, I can't see how you have presented any case at all. You use way too much inflammatory rhetoric for someone purporting to be scientific. You seem very awkward at explaining and understanding basic terms in evolution. Most of the time, you simply fuss that you don't understand evolution and try and use that as your rationale for rejecting it. Well, that's your problem. Take a science course. Maybe that would help.

Your comments are hard to resist. You ask for scientific credentials and want to only listen to those who have them. Great. Wonderful. Go with that thought. Give up the two icons in evolution. There are Charles Darwin whose degree was in theology and Charles Lyell whose degree was in law!

While you are showing no evidence you know anything about science yourself, you tell someone to take a science course. How about you taking a course in debate? If you do that you will learn some things called logical fallacies. Basically your entire "argument" for evolution is based on the Appeal To Authority logical fallacy. If you tried to get away with that in a debate course you would flunk big time.

Again, you show your faith over and over. But when challenged for facts you just insult and run. Your mind was made for way better things than that.

Why am even I bothering? Rhetorical Q.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your comments are so insulting and untrue and evasive that this will be my last post to you.

So you don't like the cold hard truth. That is too bad. I could have helped you.

I never brought thermodynamics into the debate, of course. I simply referred to some quotes in the a vid that had that word in the title.

That is bringing thermodynamics into the debate. The title should have told you that the video was worthless. So why did you bring it into the discussion?

You said, "Let's start off with the finch. The offspring of finches will always be finches, just as you are still a "fish" by the terminology that you have used. There is no change of kinds in evolution." Of course I never used any terminology to say that I am a fish! Of course evolutionists do talk about changes in kinds. Again, a change from a fish to a tetrapod is obviously a change in kind. But you just seem to be making up words to suit your belief system, even though your arguments are not even used in evolution!

I know that you did not admit to being a fish. I see like most creationists you have rather poor reading comprehension. The simple fact is that by your terminology you are a fish. You need to work on your basic logic skills.

You are, as predicted, totally evading my Qs and making comments, which frankly, don't even make sense but just seem bizarre. Another reason this will be my last post to you.

No, I tried to answer them for you. You are the one that wants to complicate responses when you have no understanding. That is why I said that you need to limit your discussion to one topic at a time. I don't like having to go back and forth between posts interpreting what people are trying to get at. I am sorry that you feel so inferior. You can still learn. Ignorance is not a life sentence.

You also said, "There is no need to bring evidence into this...." until, you say, I understand the issues. What a crock. Like I said, more excuses, more dodges.

But you clearly do not understand the basics of what you are trying to debate against. I made no excuses, I made no dodges. Please don't make false charges against me. That is not a "Christian" thing to do. I am ready to help you to understand the basics. It is not as if I am pointing out the fact that you have no understanding of the basics and abandoning you.

"As you pointed out" you claimed, "the truth is on my side not yours." If you really believe I said any such thing, you have my great sympathy. You know the first step in learning how to think clearly is to learn how to think honestly.

It is a simple fact. If you understood any science at all you would know that what I said is true. Again, I am not the one running away here. That would be you.

This is ridiculous. I can't waste any more time with such games.

Byeeeee! I've prayed for you. Best I can do.

To bad that you do not know that prayer is just a waste of breath. You were the one playing games and I refused to play them. I wanted to go over this point by point but that was too scary for you. I understand. Almost all creationists are afraid to learn. Most of them will not even learn what evidence is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your comments are hard to resist. You ask for scientific credentials and want to only listen to those who have them. Great. Give up the two icons in evolution. There are Charles Darwin whose degree was in theology and Charles Lyell whose degree was in law!

Science has advanced quite a bit since Darwin's day. And Darwin was a scholar throughout his life. He did participate in the equivalent of peer review of his time.

While you are showing no evidence you know anything science yourself, you tell someone to take a science course. How about you taking a course in debate? If you do that you will learn some things called logical fallacies. Basically your entire "argument" for evolution is based on the Appeal To Authority logical fallacy. If you tried to get away with that in a debate course you would flunk big time.

Again, people will not give you evidence since he knows that you do not understand the basics yet and will reject it, using your ignorance to justify that error. We have all seen it too many times.

Why am even I bothering? Rhetorical Q.

Good question. It seems that deep down inside even you know that you are wrong. You can see that there is no fear in the opposition and yet we can see the fear in you.

 

[LoricaLady]

SUBDUCTION ZONE I barely glanced over your post because as I have already stated, excuses, denials, logical fallacies presented as scientific fact, and false statements about what I have said, are so distasteful to even read. I did see, though that you said "Prayer is a waste of breath." How sad for you to think that. The Bible says "A fool says in his heart there is no YHWH" aka God. From my own experience of having been an agnostic I have learned how true that is.

Yes, I will pray for you and whether it will be wasted or not is between you and your Creator. I will pray that you practice honest thinking and speech, and learn critical thinking. I will pray that you quit posing and telling others how helpful you want to be to them when you need help yourself. I will pray that if you never accept the Almighty that you will be kept from leading others away from Him in any way. With the kinds of "reasoning" skills I have seen, I'm not terribly worried about that, though it could happen.

When you come to the end of yourself - if you don't die suddenly before then - cry out to "The Father of Mercies."

 

[Armoured]

SUBDUCTION ZONE I barely glanced over your post because as I have already stated, excuses, denials, logical fallacies presented as scientific fact, and false statements about what I have said, are so distasteful to even read. I did see, though that you said "Prayer is a waste of breath." How sad for you to think that. The Bible says "A fool says in his heart there is no YHWH" aka God. From my own experience of having been an agnostic I have learned how true that is.

Yes, I will pray for you and whether it will be wasted or not is between you and your Creator. I will pray that you practice honest thinking and speech, and learn critical thinking. I will pray that you quit posing and telling others how helpful you want to be to them when you need help yourself. I will pray that if you never accept the Almighty that you will be kept from leading others away from Him in any way. With the kinds of "reasoning" skills I have seen, I'm not terribly worried about that, though it could happen.

When you come to the end of yourself - if you don't die suddenly before then - cry out to "The Father of Mercies."

What "logical fallacies" were presented as "scientific fact"?

 

[Zosimus]

"Prove" is a very poor word choice on your part. It shows that you do not understand the scientific method.

I understand the scientific method very well. I just don't accept it because it's based on a logical fallacy.

It is evidence that supports the claim.

This presupposes the idea that evidence can support claims. Can you demonstrate that evidence can support claims without using evidence to do so (as that would be circular reasoning).

Reasonable people will accept an idea with a reasonable amount of evidence. There is far more than merely a reasonable amount of evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

Both claims are dubious.

There is no logical fallacy since I did not say it was ironclad proof.

So you think that observing wet pavements and people carrying umbrellas together do not prove that wet pavements cause people to carry umbrellas, but you do think that it's pretty good evidence and that anyone who refuses to accept this idea is not a reasonable person?

You don't seem to know how logic works either.

Remember that I have a perfect score on the critical reasoning sections of both the GMAT and the LSAT and that I teach these tests for a living. I think it's far more likely that you do not understand critical reasoning.

Science works on the concept that you cannot prove a correct idea to be right, but that you can prove an incorrect idea to be wrong.

If that were all you were saying, then I wouldn't object so much. No, you claim that reasonable people should accept an idea as right even though no amount of data can ever demonstrate that it is true or even probable. Additionally, the claim that incorrect ideas can be proved wrong is not true because of the problem of holistic underdetermination.

And no, this is not an example of the Raven's paradox. Remember that used rather idiotic examples of a blue shirt. If we are related to chimps we should see a similarity of DNA. That is not what the Raven's paradox uses for its broken logic. It uses examples like" Ravens are black, this blue shirt supports that idea". What I gave was more like an example of Ravens are black, these two Ravens are black. Again, that does not prove all Ravens are black but if you see black after black Ravens it is time to admit that Ravens are indeed black. Yes, if someone shows you an orange that would be bad logic. This is not a case of that.

Sure, it's not the Ravens paradox, but it's still a logical fallacy. Look at it this way. If it rains, the ground will be wet. So what do we know if the ground is wet? I will say nothing, but you will say that it means that it has rained or that it has probably rained. But aren't there other possible causes of wet ground? Couldn't the bathtub have overflowed, a dam have burst, or a sewer line backed up? Couldn't John have washed his truck this morning or a water hydrant been hit by a truck?

Your answer to that seems to be "But we have checked and rechecked and the ground is definitely wet, therefore it's very likely that it rained." Sorry, I'm not convinced.

And sorry, but I am not chasing your nonsense any more. You are simply strawmanning the argument.

Good, because arguing with you is about as challenging as watching paint dry. I'm looking for someone who's fun to argue with.

 

[LoricaLady]

What "logical fallacies" were presented as "scientific fact"?

Error post.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So if you put ten real honest-to-goodn... well ... ten real scientists in ten rooms and ask them to describe the scientific method, you'll get ten answers the same?

No, if you put 10 scientists in the same room and ask them any question you will get at the minimum of 12 different answers.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

My argument is simply that you don't know anything about science, the scientific method, evolution, etc., to begin with. I am not your science teacher. These are things you should learned about before you came online.

Let me show you how easy that escape route is. You know nothing of evolution or science at all, not even the basics, and run from every scientific discussion there is, because you lack the science to counter with. See how easy blanket claims are. Everyone can do that.

 

[Armoured]

Error post.

Excuse me?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

How does the Liger fail that? That definition is tad incomplete, if the offspring of a cross of the order of the liger has decreased fertility, they are thought to be different species. Though ligers have mated I don't think there is an example of a third generation arising.

Sigh..... And hence the failing that part - they must be recognizably the same - and is why Ligers are not considered a new species, even if they do not produce fertile offspring. Didn't you read it or did you just not want to understand it as is usual when something doesn't fit your system of beliefs?

First off that was before Ernst Mayer came up with that definition. And once a definition sets in it is hard to change it. For example all wolves are "dogs" or it is better to say that all dogs are "wolves" since they can interbreed without drop in fertility. Also if I remember correctly only some of Darwin's finches have been shown to interbreed. Your poor arguing skills are actually supporting evolution since the first step in speciation is separtion and you have admitted that separation has occurred with Darwin's finches.

You remember wrong. The DNA tests have shown they have all interbred - all 15 species including two that live on the mainland. Quit trying to avoid the truth to perpetuate the lie. We have discussed this in another post so we already know your lying to cover up the truth.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31425720

"They sequenced the genomes of multiple individuals from all 15 species of Darwin's finches, one of which inhabits the rather more distant Cocos Island, along with two related bird species that live on the South American mainland and the West Indies......

The study also revealed a surprisingly large amount of "gene flow" between the branches of the family.

This indicates that the species have continued to interbreed or hybridise, after diversifying when they first arrived on the islands."

Quit avoiding the truth to attempt to defend your incorrect classifications that can't be defended.

No, again, some of them have been shown to be the same species by the species definition. I don't think that you can show that all of them can interbreed.

See above, you just dig your hole deeper every time.

But you got the definition wrong. Here is the definition listed rather tersely:

"species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups."

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/biological_species_concept.asp

By that definition Darwin's finches are still different species since they almost never interbreed. But some have pushed it a bit more. They have included the ability to breed when put together in unnatural situations. When that is done the theory is usually modified to have offspring that are fertile. That does not merely mean that they are able to have offspring. Those offspring need to be able to produce fertile offspring and that is where the Liger fails. There are numerous definitions for "species" in biology and that is because due to the fact that life evolved what is and what is not a species is very fuzzy. If creationism was true we would see hard lines that are not crossed. We do not see that.

Except they were never reproductively isolated as the DNA tests revealed.

If you really believe that then why are you not arguing the American Indian is a separate species since they were reproductively isolated from the rest of the human species for 10's of thousands of years? Ahhh, suddenly you will no longer accept your own definition will you. Will now argue against the very thing you just argued for. Hypocrite is the word I would use.

 

[LoricaLady]

What "logical fallacies" were presented as "scientific fact"?

See my post #516 3rd paragraph, a comment in purple, where I very briefly mentioned some, not all of them.

All of evolutionary theory is based on logical fallacies, theories presented as evidence, faith presented as fact, sophistry and sometimes outright lies both verbal and visual.

Below is my favorite example of how logical fallacies are used to support evolution. We are told that because there is a reported fusion with chromosome 2, this gives a superficial match with the number of 48 chromosomes a chimp has. Therefore we are supposed to....imagine....some...invisible and evidenceless....common ancestor we both had. But science that is based on logical fallacies ain't science, only pseudo science.

It should be noted that there is not total agreement in scientific circles that a fusion actually exists. But let's give the benefit of the doubt and proceed as if it does, as claimed.

#1 Correlation Does Not Imply Causation. [Some get indignant and say this is really the Affirming The Consequent logical fallacy. My research indicates either fallacy is appropriate to name here. Whatever. It's still a logical fallacy.] This is the fave logical fallacy, of many, used in evolution. We are told that because chimps have a superficial number match with the number of chromosomes human have, counting a reported fusion, this proves, hands down, that we have "lesser primate" ancestry. Guess what?

Chimps and tobacco have 48 chromsomes. Bats, birds and bees fly. Bats and whales have sonar. Snakes and worms slither on the ground. People and cockatoos dance to music. So what? Correlation Does Not Imply Causation is a logical fall-a-cy. [Ditto Affirming The Consequent.]

#2 Incomplete Comparison. The reported human fusion is human in every way and contains no chimp, or other primate, chromosome. Primate chromsomes, for ex., are of a larger size and of a different frequency. Number isn't the most important factor here, but the content of the chromosomes - which is fully human and no way "lesser ape". Again, tobacco has 48 chromosomes. So what?

#3 Cherry Picking. Many animals in nature have fused chromosomes. However, you don't see evolutionists saying this means they evolved from such and such other animals with more chromosomes. Fusions are an oddity in nature. They do not prove evolution. And guess where I saw this logical fallacy being pointed out for chrom. 2? In an article by an evolutionist. Evolutionists never agree with one another on anything, not even on whether or not evolution is a fact.

#4 Presuming Omniscience. How did the reported fusion get there? Is there any ev-i-dence for how it came about, any data to support its origins? None whatsoever. Any theories on that are a shot in the dark. Yet we are being told as absolute gawd's truth scientific fact that it came from some evidenceless primate "ancestor" in the conveniently unverifiable distant past

#5. Fallacy Of The Single Cause. Basically this boils down to, "We see a similarity! Only evolution can explain it!" while the dissimilarities, as mentioned above, are ignored. If you Google you will find, in evolutionary literature, a medical report of a man with 44 chromosomes. As far as anyone can tell, he is doing just fine. Sooooo...if a human can be a human and get by like everyone else with only 44 chromosomes, why would we need to borrow chromosomes from apes? Further, medical studies show about 1 in 1,000 folk, who function just like the rest of us, have an additional fused chromosome. Now what animal does that show they evolved from? No evolutionist is touching that topic, but if that additional fusion didn't come from apes et al, why should we just assume that chromosome 2 did? Rhetorical Q. But the answer is...accept it on faith! How pitiful are the "proofs" for evolution!

There are probably other logical fallacies being used here. Just don't have the time to get further into it. In fact my time is currently short and I would like to now exit this string.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

See my post #516 3rd paragraph, a comment in purple, where I very briefly mentioned some, not all of them.

All of evolutionary theory is based on logical fallacies, theories presented as evidence, faith presented as fact, sophistry and sometimes outright lies both verbal and visual.

Below is my favorite example of how logical fallacies are used to support evolution. We are told that because there is a reported fusion with chromosome 2, this gives a superficial match with the number of 48 chromosomes a chimp has. Therefore we are supposed to....imagine....some...invisible and evidenceless....common ancestor we both had. But science that is based on logical fallacies ain't science, only pseudo science.

#1 Correlation Does Not Imply Causation. [Some get indignant and say this is really the Affirming The Consequent logical fallacy. My research indicates either fallacy is appropriate to name here. Whatever. It's still a logical fallacy.] This is the fave logical fallacy, of many, used in evolution. We are told that because chimps have a superficial number match with the number of chromosomes human have, counting a reported fusion, this proves, hands down, that we have "lesser primate" ancestry. Guess what?

Chimps and tobacco have 48 chromsomes. Bats, birds and bees fly. Bats and whales have sonar. Snakes and worms slither on the ground. People and cockatoos dance to music. So what? Correlation Does Not Imply Causation is a logical fall-a-cy. [Ditto Affirming The Consequent.]

#2 Incomplete Comparison. The reported human fusion is human in every way and contains no chimp, or other primate, chromosome. Primate chromsomes, for ex., are of a larger size and of a different frequency. Number isn't the most important factor here, but the content of the chromosomes - which is fully human and no way "lesser ape". Again, tobacco has 48 chromosomes. So what?

#3 Cherry Picking. Many animals in nature have fused chromosomes. However, you don't see evolutionists saying this means they evolved from such and such other animals with more chromosomes. Fusions are an oddity in nature. They do not prove evolution. And guess where I saw this logical fallacy being pointed out for chrom. 2? In an article by an evolutionist. Evolutionists never agree with one another on anything, not even on whether or not evolution is a fact.

#4 Presuming Omniscience. How did the reported fusion get there? Is there any ev-i-dence for how it came about, any data to support its origins? None whatsoever. Any theories on that are a shot in the dark. Yet we are being told as absolute gawd's truth scientific fact that it came from some evidenceless primate "ancestor" in the conveniently unverifiable distant past

#5. Fallacy Of The Single Cause. Basically this boils down to, "We see a similarity! Only evolution can explain it!" while the dissimilaries, as mentioned above, are ignored. If you Google you will find, in evolutionary literature, a medical report of a man with 44 chromosomes. As far as anyone can tell, he is doing just fine. Sooooo...if a human can be a human and get by like everyone else with only 44 chromosomes, why would we need to borrow chromosomes from apes? Further, medical studies show about 1 in 1,000 folk, who function just like the rest of us, have an additional fused chromosome. Now what animal does that show they evolved from? No evolutionist is touching that topic, but if that additional fusion didn't come from apes et al, why should we just assume that chromosome 2 did? Rhetorical Q. But the answer is...accept it on faith! How pitiful are the "proofs" for evolution!

There are probably other logical fallacies being used here. Just don't have the time to get further into it. In fact my time is currently short and I would like to now exit this string.

https://answersingenesis.org/answer...analysis-of-chimpanzee-and-human-chromosomes/

http://creation.com/chromosome-2-fusion-1

http://creation.com/chromosome-2-fusion-2

 

[LoricaLady]

https://answersingenesis.org/answer...analysis-of-chimpanzee-and-human-chromosomes/

http://creation.com/chromosome-2-fusion-1

http://creation.com/chromosome-2-fusion-2

Those are good links. In the past I have also seen scientific arguments against there even being any fusion. That's why I kept saying "reported fusion" in my post above. Anyway, your post made me decide to add a little disclaimer right above #1.