An good test will be a repeatable, verifiable test to show under what condition fusion occur, i.e. via viru injection.I noted one of the tests we can do to determine whether a fusion has occurred. Do you agree that this is a test or not? As for how it happens, we can see chromosome fusions happen all the time in today's organisms.
I just told you: chromosome fusion does happen under normal conditions. It's observed. You don't have to figure out exactly how (although that's no great mystery -- two double-stranded breaks followed by nonhomologous end joining repair) to know that it happens.An good test will be a repeatable, verifiable test to show under what condition fusion occur, i.e. via viru injection.
However for you it will be more difficult, it has to shown how it can happen under natural conditions, because you are trying to make evoluation a fact, and part of that will be shown how this fusion happens under natural conditions.
Can you show me the link? I need to read and see if the experiment is authenticate or just another assumptionI just told you: chromosome fusion does happen under normal conditions. It's observed. You don't have to figure out exactly how (although that's no great mystery -- two double-stranded breaks followed by nonhomologous end joining repair) to know that it happens.
But as Darwin also noted, his theory was not proven, because the fossil record was not, in his day, sufficient to prove the evolution from one species to another; the "missing link" was not there. There were no fish-dogs, hippo-birds, or snake-gazelles.
Modern discoveries have actually proven the exact opposite. The Cambrian layer shows the almost spontaneous existence of most known phyla of life,
in almost the same forms as they exist today.
There have been no findings of substance beyond the Cambrian layer. And we still don't have a missing link.
Just noticed this was lost in all the messages.We observe that it does. Most mutations don't do much of anything. A few are harmful. A very few are useful. Natural selection sorts it out.
No. You have a few dozen "mistakes" in your DNA that were not in either of your parents.
On the other hand, favorable mutations tend to persist. That's how evolution works. There are numerous useful human mutations. Would you like to learn about some of them?
But there are transitionals between cats, dogs and bears. And between frogs and salamanders, and between dinsosaurs and birds and (long list). The massive number of predicted transitionals in the fossil record is strong evidence for evolution. But even stronger is the absence of transitionals were the the theory doesn't predict the. No fish-dogs, no hippo-birds, no snake-gazelles. If there were, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble.
Nope. The Ediacaran biota in Precambrian rocks gives lie to that. And we see Cambrian body plans already in rudimentary form in the Ediacaran deposits.
Nope. In the Cambrian, there are no vertebrates, no trees, no spiders, no flowering plants, no birds, no turtles, no mammals of any kind, no... long list. You really didn't know that?
You've got that wrong, too. It's "missing lynx." And they found it:
Seriously, though. Let's test your belief. Name me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if we have a transitional form.
What have you got?
I agree the above looks reasonable, and we have observed that mutations happen. However are we so sure that all mutations can happen and verified as facts?
Chromosome fusion is easy to observe: it's seen in ~1 / 1000 human births. Just look up "Robertsonian translocation" and you'll find lots of info. The specific kind of chromosome fusion that occurred in the human lineage -- telomere-telomere fusion -- is less common, but can readily seen in the lab, e.g. in this paper.Can you show me the link? I need to read and see if the experiment is authenticate or just another assumption
How about throughout the entirety of chapter fourteen of On the Origin of Species? Ever read it?Where exactly did he note that?
The examples were exaggerated to make a point. We don't have anything in the fossil record showing the transition between species. There are no dogs with the evidence of wings forming. There are no elephants with necks beginning to extend. We have animals that are improved versions of their ancestors, but not animals that clearly evolved from an alleged ancestor.None of those things should ever have existed if Darwin was correct. You really should learn something about evolutionary biology before attacking it.
And this, in evolutionary terms, is the blink of an eye. Prior to the Cambrian explosion, the fossil record is little more than micro-organisms. The existence of complex life in the pre-Cambrian period is speculation, not fact.Sort of close. It shows the first appearance of most animal phyla, over a period of tens of millions of years.
This is nothing more than confirmation bias. The scientists created the "phyla" for organization purposes. I don't care what they say, it can't be proven that this is the ancestor of a human being.Completely wrong. For example, humans are in the phylum Chordata. The earliest chordates looked something like this:
(source: Functional Genomics Thickens the Biological Plot)
Do think humans have almost the same form as that?
Proof please. Saying it doesn't make it so.There are in fact numerous examples of transitional fossils.
We survive in every climate on the planet, with artificial aid. We are not talking about survival of the most aided by technology. We are talking about survival of the fittest. Without heat (fire), shelter, and other modern aids, human beings will die in most climates from exposure. It's a fact.Since we do in fact survive in every climate on the planet, your claim is clearly wrong.
Sorry, but I call shenanigans on this one. This is as ridiculous as Darwin's argument of animal being born with wings so it can fly, all relative to its environment. As I said before, giraffes didn't grow long necks so they could eat the leaves on tall trees. They eat the leaves on the tall trees because they have long necks. If the island is sinking beneath your feet, you don't develop gills so you can live in the water. You just drown.Quite true. But a blind species is quite capable of producing offspring with extremely rudimentary sight, and a species with extremely rudimentary sight is capable of producing a species with slightly less rudimentary sight, and so on.
My qualifications are that I've read some books on the subject, from both perspectives. These scientists are not infallible gods. They are men and women who look at the evidence, and then draw conclusions from that evidence. In most cases, I find that they are drawing conclusions based on speculation, not fact. Just because they believe that there is a link between this species and that, it doesn't make it so. Just because they speculate that we all descended from a single amoeba, that doesn't make it so.Might I ask what your qualifications are, that you are telling thousands upon thousands of scientists that they have no idea how to do their own jobs? Biologists are under the impression that evolution is the foundational theory for biology, and that it is supported by and explains a vast range of data. You think they're completely wrong. Who do you think knows more about biology, you or the biologists?
lolYou've got that wrong, too. It's "missing lynx." And they found it:
Chromosome fusion is easy to observe: it's seen in ~1 / 1000 human births. Just look up "Robertsonian translocation" and you'll find lots of info. The specific kind of chromosome fusion that occurred in the human lineage -- telomere-telomere fusion -- is less common, but can readily seen in the lab, e.g. in this paper.
Darwin summarizes both arguments for his thesis and arguments against it. His conclusion is, "I have now recapitulated the chief facts and considerations which have thoroughly convinced me that species have changed, and are still slowly changing by the preservation and accumulation of successive slight favourable variations." That is not a statement that he considers his theory to be mere speculation.Darwin spends most of his concluding chapter discussing the glaring arguments that can be made against his theory, admitting in numerous instances that he has no actual proof, only speculation, and doing the best he can to convince his readers to put aside their "ignorance" and embrace an open-minded approach to what to them must seem like a ridiculous conclusion, all things considered.
See here for one example of one species turning into another.The examples were exaggerated to make a point. We don't have anything in the fossil record showing the transition between species.
Why would there be dogs with wings forming? And what does such a dramatic change have to do with the transition between two species? That kind of change spans many, many species.There are no dogs with the evidence of wings forming.
We've got all kinds of transitional species showing that kind of thing: whales with nostrils progressively farther back on their heads, and progressively smaller legs, proto-mammals with progressively smaller jaw bones until they eventually become inner ear bones, and now we even have a transitional giraffe, with its neck partly extended -- exactly the thing you said doesn't exist.There are no elephants with necks beginning to extend.
Do you remember what we're talking about? It was you who wrote, "The Cambrian layer shows the almost spontaneous existence of most known phyla of life, in almost the same forms as they exist today." If you didn't want to talk about phyla, why talk about phyla? More to the point, your claim was that most known phyla appear in the Cambrian in almost the same forms as they exist today. There is nothing remotely like a human, a lizard, a a snake, a tree, a fern, etc, etc, in the Cambrian.This is nothing more than confirmation bias. The scientists created the "phyla" for organization purposes. I don't care what they say, it can't be proven that this is the ancestor of a human being.
Sure, with artificial aid -- that we provide. Our fitness as a species includes our ability to employ technology to survive in a wide range of environments. What exactly you're trying to argue here I really can't figure out.We survive in every climate on the planet, with artificial aid.
You seem to have sketched the evolution of some other species on some other planet. It bears very little resemblance to hypotheses about human evolution. What species is this bigfoot supposed to represent? When did our ancestors live in subzero temperatures before mastering fire? In short, what on earth are you talking about?But to put my original point into a more appropriate context, what I was essentially saying is this. Our evolutionary plan has us going from being bigfoot (assuming for the fun of the argument that they exist), who can survive in sub-zero temperatures without fire or shelter, see in the dark, who are strong enough to break trees with their bare hands, and who can kill animals without weapons or tools of any kind ... and then one day there was this tiny, hairless, weak, defenseless, BUT SMART, baby bigfoot. And it survived, despite all odds, in the mountains, in freezing temperatures, with a mother who couldn't make fire. Then one day, it grew up to be a smart bigfoot who figured out how to make fire and shelter for itself, so that its offspring would be able to survive.
That's more or less true, and seems to have nothing to do with what I wrote.A qualifying mutation has to be inconsequential, but helpful. And it will always be a minor change, and that minor change will give the animal an edge over others of the same species, until the change becomes a dominant trait. No species is going to be miraculously born with wings, eyes, or anything else, that it does not already possess in some form. You can't prove otherwise.
It's worth noting that there the number of accredited biologists who do not agree with evolution is really, really tiny, compared to the number who do -- and that includes believing scientists.It is also worth noting that there are plenty of accredited scientists who do not agree with evolution. There are too many questions that just can't be answered.
General suggestion: when you read anything by Dr. Tomkins about genetics, ignore what it says. All of it. In his papers that I've looked at in detail, he's been completely wrong every time. On this subject, you might want to read some of the criticism, here, here, andSo I did more research, and found that actually there are new research back in 2013 that showed the location of the fusion is at a very unlikely place by Dr. Thompins. (New Research Debunks Human Chromosome Fusion | The Institute for Creation Research)
If I could have rated this as Agree, Like, and Funny all at the same time I would have! Do not be discouraged, it's the same song and dance in these debates with our more skeptical brothers and sisters that take a very liberal view of the Bible. Note how the discussion always goes down into deep technical scientific discourse rather than discussing what the word of God actually says. It is very self-revealing that some here place more weight on what Darwin and Dawkins has to say than what the Creator Himself has to say. The Bible is clear: 6 days of creating and resting on the 7th. Day 6 man was created and was fully human on that day. God bless -How about throughout the entirety of chapter fourteen of On the Origin of Species? Ever read it?
Here are a few choice quotes that relate directly to what I said of Darwin:
"That many and grave objections may be advanced against the theory of descent with modification through natural selection, I do not deny."
"On this doctrine of the extermination of an infinitude of connecting links, between the living and extinct inhabitants of the world, and at each successive period between the extinct and still older species, why is not every geological formation charged with such links? Why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life? We meet with no such evidence, and this is the most obvious and forcible of the many objections which may be urged against my theory. ... I can answer these questions and grave objections only on the supposition that the geological record is far more imperfect than most geologists believe."
"As natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favourable variations, it can produce no great or sudden modification; it can act only by very short and slow steps. Hence the canon of `Natura non facit saltum,' which every fresh addition to our knowledge tends to make more strictly correct, is on this theory simply intelligible."
Darwin spends most of his concluding chapter discussing the glaring arguments that can be made against his theory, admitting in numerous instances that he has no actual proof, only speculation, and doing the best he can to convince his readers to put aside their "ignorance" and embrace an open-minded approach to what to them must seem like a ridiculous conclusion, all things considered.
The examples were exaggerated to make a point. We don't have anything in the fossil record showing the transition between species. There are no dogs with the evidence of wings forming. There are no elephants with necks beginning to extend. We have animals that are improved versions of their ancestors, but not animals that clearly evolved from an alleged ancestor.
And this, in evolutionary terms, is the blink of an eye. Prior to the Cambrian explosion, the fossil record is little more than micro-organisms. The existence of complex life in the pre-Cambrian period is speculation, not fact.
This is nothing more than confirmation bias. The scientists created the "phyla" for organization purposes. I don't care what they say, it can't be proven that this is the ancestor of a human being.
Proof please. Saying it doesn't make it so.
We survive in every climate on the planet, with artificial aid. We are not talking about survival of the most aided by technology. We are talking about survival of the fittest. Without heat (fire), shelter, and other modern aids, human beings will die in most climates from exposure. It's a fact.
But to put my original point into a more appropriate context, what I was essentially saying is this. Our evolutionary plan has us going from being bigfoot (assuming for the fun of the argument that they exist), who can survive in sub-zero temperatures without fire or shelter, see in the dark, who are strong enough to break trees with their bare hands, and who can kill animals without weapons or tools of any kind ... and then one day there was this tiny, hairless, weak, defenseless, BUT SMART, baby bigfoot. And it survived, despite all odds, in the mountains, in freezing temperatures, with a mother who couldn't make fire. Then one day, it grew up to be a smart bigfoot who figured out how to make fire and shelter for itself, so that its offspring would be able to survive.
That's the ridiculousness of the evolutionary argument. The REAL evolution would have been a nine-foot tall, hairy, strong, healthy bigfoot who was smart enough to figure out how to make fire. All "slight" modifications to our ancestors that would allegedly lead to what we are today would make each successive generation weaker, not stronger. It's contrary to the whole argument of natural selection.
Sorry, but I call shenanigans on this one. This is as ridiculous as Darwin's argument of animal being born with wings so it can fly, all relative to its environment. As I said before, giraffes didn't grow long necks so they could eat the leaves on tall trees. They eat the leaves on the tall trees because they have long necks. If the island is sinking beneath your feet, you don't develop gills so you can live in the water. You just drown.
A qualifying mutation has to be inconsequential, but helpful. And it will always be a minor change, and that minor change will give the animal an edge over others of the same species, until the change becomes a dominant trait. No species is going to be miraculously born with wings, eyes, or anything else, that it does not already possess in some form. You can't prove otherwise. Like everything else with evolution, it's all speculation.
My qualifications are that I've read some books on the subject, from both perspectives. These scientists are not infallible gods. They are men and women who look at the evidence, and then draw conclusions from that evidence. In most cases, I find that they are drawing conclusions based on speculation, not fact. Just because they believe that there is a link between this species and that, it doesn't make it so. Just because they speculate that we all descended from a single amoeba, that doesn't make it so.
It is also worth noting that there are plenty of accredited scientists who do not agree with evolution. There are too many questions that just can't be answered.
But in any case, I gave my two cents. You responded and asked questions. I answered the best I could. I have some other things to do, so I don't really care to continue this back and forth debate. It think your cup might be a little too full for my taste.
Well, my link is to Dr Tomkins' research on chromosome#2, and all your links seems to doing on some of his other works, or against some of his observations on statistics, but none really refuted his main point which is the fusion point on chromosome2 is not a normal one. Which if you read from other (different person) reviews I posted, that even thought they are against his idea of creationism, none refuted his main discovery.General suggestion: when you read anything by Dr. Tomkins about genetics, ignore what it says. All of it. In his papers that I've looked at in detail, he's been completely wrong every time. On this subject, you might want to read some of the criticism, here, here, and
here. In any case, I don't want to get side-tracked into a long discussion of chromosome 2, since I don't even think it's good evidence for evolution: it's good evidence that humans used to have one more chromosome, but that could be true regardless of whether we're related to the great apes or not.
So when one considers the fact that human beings will die from exposure in virtually any climate on earth without artificial aid, the idea that we evolved to a lesser version of a survivable species contradicts the very foundation of natural selection. We have become less survivable. Our changes from the alleged previous forms of our species have not made us more survivable. They have made us more fragile.
We evolved also in mind, some might say. Well, if the first smart human with less hair, a weaker constitution, and weaker muscles was born to a less intelligent, hairy mother who could knock down trees ... but who didn't use fire ... we wouldn't have survived to pass on our more intelligent, less hairy, weaker selves to a new line of offspring. We would have simply died, being ill-equipped to survive, lacking the necessary traits common to our alleged ancestors.
Since we do in fact survive in every climate on the planet, your claim is clearly wrong.
We survive in every climate on the planet, with artificial aid. We are not talking about survival of the most aided by technology. We are talking about survival of the fittest. Without heat (fire), shelter, and other modern aids, human beings will die in most climates from exposure. It's a fact.
Sure, with artificial aid -- that we provide. Our fitness as a species includes our ability to employ technology to survive in a wide range of environments. What exactly you're trying to argue here I really can't figure out.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?