Why Human Chromosome 2 isn't evidence for Evolution

[Belk]

The biologist who believed in evolution made this statement in the intro material.

I would disagree with this statement from the perspective that God arranges things so that anyone who wants to believe a lie is encouraged to do so.

If you do not think this is so explain why Jesus taught in parables which can cause people to get the wrong message. When He was questioned why He did this He said.
If you look for God you will find Him.
If you are looking for something else you will find that too.

If God made all evidence point in His direction no one would choose to go hell but no one would have made a free will choice. God is not interested in forcing someone into heaven who really wants nothing to do with Him.

So the chromosome design is constructed in a way to allow you to choose to think in one direction and to give you enough evidence to continue your journey. If you choose another direction there is enough evidence for that also.

The chromosomes of apes and humans are not perfectly matched and they are not completely random with respect to each other either. The fossil record shows variation of the species but at the same time the crossover species are missing.

There was a statement which suggested that creationists have never proposed anything that predicted something scientific and correct. The Bible record states that each kind was separate and did not come from another species.

The fossil record also suggests this. Do you know why we call the missing link, "the missing link"?

Because its missing!

Duordi

Please explain to me how having evidence for something somehow subverts free will. Does having evidence that smoking causes cancer subvert my free will so that I will no longer smoke? Free will /= informed decision.

 

[duordi]

Let suppose you demand that God proves himself and He decides to accommodate you.

God appears next to you with two very powerful angles and an elevator.
The angles take you into the elevator.
They only use force if you resist.
After a long trip downward the elevator doors open and you are taken
down a long corridor to a large balcony.
You can hear waves of lava crashing on the rocks below.
Suddenly you realize the sound of waves crashing on the shore are really
a combined affect of thousands and thousand of cries of agony from the dammed.
As each wave passes a variation in agony caused the agonized screams to increase
and diminish.

At this point God turns to you and says, “Ok you have your proof its all real, do you submit or do I have the angles toss you over the edge?”

Are you making a free will choice?

This is an extreme example of course.
God would never force anyone but takes you to a place were there is a balance allowing our feeble will to be the deciding factor.

As you decide to believe in God you are given more proof of and more understanding of Him, and as you decide against Him you are given less prof and less understanding of Him.

Jesus put it this way.

Matthew 13:12
For whoever has, to him will more be given and he will be furnished richly so that he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away.

Duordi

 

[Loudmouth]

Let suppose you demand that God proves himself and He decides to accommodate you.

God appears next to you with two very powerful angles and an elevator.
The angles take you into the elevator.
They only use force if you resist.
After a long trip downward the elevator doors open and you are taken
down a long corridor to a large balcony.
You can hear waves of lava crashing on the rocks below.
Suddenly you realize the sound of waves crashing on the shore are really
a combined affect of thousands and thousand of cries of agony from the dammed.
As each wave passes a variation in agony caused the agonized screams to increase
and diminish.

At this point God turns to you and says, “Ok you have your proof its all real, do you submit or do I have the angles toss you over the edge?”

Are you making a free will choice?

Yes, you are making a free will choice. It is the same type of free will that we practice everyday. Do we lack free will because we know that will be thrown in jail for stealing? Have our parents taken our free will away by making their existence known and laying out rules that we are to follow?

As you decide to believe in God you are given more proof of and more understanding of Him, and as you decide against Him you are given less prof and less understanding of Him.

Isn't this how all cults work? If you really, really believe that the snake oil works then you will see it working?

 

[duordi]

So you think God should show himself with miracles and signs.
Isn't that what the crowds said to Jesus while he was on the cross?

Matthew 27
Then two robbers were crucified with Him, one on the right and another on the left.
39 And those who passed by blasphemed Him, wagging their heads 40 and saying, “You who destroy the temple and build it in three days, save Yourself! If You are the Son of God, come down from the cross.”
41 Likewise the chief priests also, mocking with the scribes and elders, said, 42 “He saved others; Himself He cannot save. If He is the King of Israel, let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe Him.43 He trusted in God; let Him deliver Him now if He will have Him; for He said, ‘I am the Son of God.’”
44 Even the robbers who were crucified with Him reviled Him with the same thing.

But salvation is on Gods terms not ours.

Duordi

 

[Belk]

Let suppose you demand that God proves himself and He decides to accommodate you.

God appears next to you with two very powerful angles and an elevator.
The angles take you into the elevator.
They only use force if you resist.
After a long trip downward the elevator doors open and you are taken
down a long corridor to a large balcony.
You can hear waves of lava crashing on the rocks below.
Suddenly you realize the sound of waves crashing on the shore are really
a combined affect of thousands and thousand of cries of agony from the dammed.
As each wave passes a variation in agony caused the agonized screams to increase
and diminish.

At this point God turns to you and says, “Ok you have your proof its all real, do you submit or do I have the angles toss you over the edge?”

Are you making a free will choice?

This is an extreme example of course.
God would never force anyone but takes you to a place were there is a balance allowing our feeble will to be the deciding factor.

As you decide to believe in God you are given more proof of and more understanding of Him, and as you decide against Him you are given less prof and less understanding of Him.

Jesus put it this way.

Duordi

Well, as long as they are not over 90 degrees I don't care what the angles do.

All kidding aside, yes, it is still free will. In fact, it is more free now then when I believe him to be a myth because I have actual information with which to make my choice. Before all i had was the rather unreliable testimony of his fan club who club who seem rather unreliable at getting a coherent message across.

 

[Belk]

So you think God should show himself with miracles and signs.
Isn't that what the crowds said to Jesus while he was on the cross?

But salvation is on Gods terms not ours.

Duordi

Isn't that what God did throughout the old testament and what Jesus used to proclaim his divinity the whole time leading up to his crucifixion? Why should doubting Thomas be satisfied by reliable physical evidence but the rest of us get what amounts to "tough noogies, you just need to believe because we say you should"?

 

[duordi]

So you are saying that if, say, someone raised from the dead who you knew to give you proof you would believe.

Duordi

 

[duordi]

You are not grasping how this works.

The more proof you have the greater the temptation and opportunity to do something really bad.

There will always be a balance between your proof and your responsibilities.

To whom much is given much is expected.

There is no proof which can not be doubted.

Was Judas who betrayed Jesus better off because he had proof? He preformed miracles with the rest of the disciples but when he was tempted to do something hideous he chose poorly.

Notice in the passage below according to Jesus more or less proof makes no difference because the decision of what you really want to be comes from inside you not from outside.

Luke 16
19 There was a certain rich man who [habitually] clothed himself in purple and fine linen and reveled and feasted and made merry in splendor every day.
20 And at his gate there was [carelessly] dropped down and left a certain utterly destitute man named Lazarus, [reduced to begging alms and] covered with [ulcerated] sores.
21 He [eagerly] desired to be satisfied with what fell from the rich man’s table; moreover, the dogs even came and licked his sores.
22 And it occurred that the man [reduced to] begging died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried.
23 And in Hades (the realm of the dead), being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far away, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried out and said, Father Abraham, have pity and mercy on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Child, remember that you in your lifetime fully received [what is due you in] comforts and delights, and Lazarus in like manner the discomforts and distresses; but now he is comforted here and you are in anguish.
26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who want to pass from this [place] to you may not be able, and no one may pass from there to us.
27 And [the man] said, Then, father, I beseech you to send him to my father’s house—
28 For I have five brothers—so that he may give [solemn] testimony and warn them, lest they too come into this place of torment.
29 But Abraham said, They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear and listen to them.
30 But he answered, No, father Abraham, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent (change their minds for the better and heartily amend their ways, with abhorrence of their past sins).
31 He said to him, If they do not hear and listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded and convinced and believe [even] if someone should rise from the dead.

God is unselfish.

Do you want to be completely unselfish?
Or do you want to remain selfish?

There is room in heaven for an unlimited number of unselfish people but even one selfish person would abuse what we are to be given.

You do not have to be able to change yourself but you must want it.

So why do you frequent these forums?
What are you looking for?

Duordi

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Its been suggested that the ancient Denisovans spilt from the ancestors of the modern human between 170,000 and 700,000 years ago. There is a claim that Denisovans have 23 pairs of Chromosomes.

The molar from a Denisovan, an archaic humans closely related to Neandertals and modern humans. Fossil evidence of the Denisovans is scanty; the existence of this group only came to light in 2010 when DNA from a piece of a finger bone and two molars were excavated in Siberia. (Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology)

Read more: Genome of mysterious extinct human completed, scientists say | Fox News​

Very interesting!



.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

So you are saying that if, say, someone raised from the dead who you knew to give you proof you would believe.

Duordi

Good point.....

Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary

LUKE 16:
29 "Abraham said to him, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.' "
30 "And he said, 'No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.'
31 But he said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.' "

Yeshua uses the last two verses of this parable as an amazing prophecy of his pending resurrection from the dead. The rich man says that although his brothers may not accept the scriptural evidence for the identity of the Messiah, they will accept the evidence of one who is raised from the dead.
But Abraham answers and plainly tells him that anyone who rejects the Bible's teaching about the Messiah will also refuse to acknowledge the evidence of a miraculous resurrection. This last verse is a sad prophecy about the Jews who, despite God's resurrection of His son from the power of the grave, have failed to recognize Yeshua as the prophesied Messiah.




.

 

[lifepsyop]

Quote:


Example 1 (modern claim about Chromosome 2):

Quote:
4:55 -

"...The implications are clear:
if according to various other lines of evidence human beings do in fact share a common ancestor with nonhuman primates, evolutionary theory simply must account for the missing pair of chromosomes.

There can be little doubt that if it were the case that such a large amount of
genetic material were deleted in such a short span of time, it would most certainly prove lethal, in effect preventing the afflicted gamete from developing into a healthy individual. Because of this evolutionary biologists where in essence forced to make a bold prediction:

That prediction stated that at some point following the divergence of human and nonhuman primate lineages, two chromosomes must have fused, and of course we should expect to find clear evidence of a chromosomal merging somewhere in the human careotype.
Soon after the prediction was made the prediction was confirmed.
Striking evidence of a chromosomal fusion is observed in human chromosome 2"


Example 2: (Original Claim at trial about Chromosome 2):


Quote:
"...and therefore you could say when modern genetics came into being
everything in Darwin's theory was at risk, could have been overturned,
if it turned out the genetics contradicted the essential elements of evolutionary theory: - but it didn't contradict them. It confirmed them in great detail."

And as Miller would testify, a genetics paper published less than a year before the trial had confirmed what has long been the most inflammatory part of Darwin's theory:
the common ancestry of humans and apes.
That paper exported curious discrepancy in our chromosomes. The cells
of all great apes like chimpanzees gorillas and orangutans, contain twenty four pairs of chromosomes. If humans share a common ancestor with apes, you'd expect us to have the same number. But surprisingly human cells contain only twenty three pairs.

"The question is, if evolution is right about this common ancestry idea, where did the chromosome go? Well: Evolution makes a testable prediction:
And that is that somewhere in the human genome, we ought to be able to find a piece of the "scotch tape" holding two chromosomes together
so that of twenty four pairs, two of them were pasted together to form just twenty three. And if we can't find that, then the hypothesis of common ancestry is wrong and evolution is mistaken ."


Its quite clear that Evolutionist Biologists are not merely claiming that the discovery of evidence for a fused pair of chromosomes was consistent or corroborative of Evolutionary Theory, but that it was critical to it,
and that a lack of such evidence would be FATAL to Evolutionary Theory, the portion that asserts the common descent of man and apes from a shared ancestor (proto-ape).

But if this were the case, then prior to this evidence, namely for at least 25 years between the 1970s and the 1990s, when genetics and the problem of the chromosome count was well known and understood, evolutionary biologists should have been coming forward as scientists, and saying plainly and loudly that the Descent of Man from Apes was actually unlikely and fraught with difficulties, unless a possible mechanism to explain the discrepancy in the chromosome count was found.

Of course there is no such history of intellectual honesty
and scientific integrity in Evolutionary biology.

Now all of a sudden, evolutionary biologists are heralding the "discovery" of a possible chromosome fusion as PROOF of human descent from apes. But since they haven't been acting as impartial scientists from the beginning, or ever, why should they be treated as such now, and believed?

In fact, we plainly have another problem. In order to demonstrate that two chromosomes have indeed been fused, they must also show what the mechanism was, and how this genetic mutation came to completely invade every single human being.

Finally, since by their own calculations, humans split off from this "ape ancestor" some 14 - 7 million years ago, but this genetic feature has the appearance of having taken place only 5 million years ago, this has nothing at all to do with "evolution" from a proto-ape at all, but is simply an incidental genetic 'tag' of pure humans, happening millions of years AFTER the supposed evolution of man from a proto-ape.

Its as "important" as a hairless behind, or male pattern baldness. It may uniquely identify "humans", but it has nothing to do with speciation, since if this mutation had caused any kind of speciation at all, it would not have survived as a genetic trait. The first human with this mutation HAD TO be able to multiply with other humans.

Its not an "evolutionary" trait at all, but a mere inherited birth defect.

Nonetheless, its total dominance in humans millions of years AFTER "evolution",
must be accounted for by a catastrophic event!

This particular genetic example provides better evidence for a universal flood
than it does for descent from Apes.

This was an excellent post. (though I can't be bothered to read through the rest of the thread, I'm guessing the evolutionist response here is one long deflection away from the points raised.)

The way you expose the retroactive "prediction" C2 reminds me of the catastrophic failure in Evolution's predictions of the fossil record. In retrospect, reading from such paleontologists as Gould, and Eldridge, and Simpson, etc. we are informed that throughout the 20th century, paleontologists were quite aware that the fossil evidence for the proposed gradualistic darwinian evolution was not turning up. They were not discovering any pattern of true, unambiguous body plan transitions that were predicted in the decades prior. However this fact was kept veiled from the public. It was not until new reactionary theories of "Punctuated Equilibrium" began to emerge in the 1970's and 80's that evolutionists began to come clean about the overwhelming pattern of gaps between the same general morphological groupings. Then evolutionists began to portray the fossil record as if it is exactly what they predicted, whitewashing history. All they really did was to change their theory to accommodate contradictory data. That's all evolution is really, one constant accommodation.

The same thing happened in geology and neo-catastrophism which emerged around the same time as Punc.Eq. Old-earth geologists kept up the charade that the history of earth was well explained by uniformitarian processes.. then suddenly to be replaced with the acknowledgement that much of the strata recorded widespread catastrophes, with no trace of the vast amounts of time between them. Of course all of this data was carefully molded to fit within an old-earth evolutionary framework. And they played the game with the public, posturing as if they had predicted everything and all the data fit like clockwork into their theories from the beginning.

Today you will hear over and over again that "evolution has passed every test" and "confirmed every prediction"... Truly bizarre. Usually the people tossing these claims out have absolutely no idea about the actual history of their theories. Or they're just flat-out lying.

But this is what you get when you're dealing with a psuedo-scientific ideology. You get all this political-style posturing and neurotic attempts at covering up the slightest hints of weakness even though evolution theory itself is one big failure.

Meanwhile evolutionists are still trying to convince you that culled genetic accidents can turn a fish into a human... what a joke.

 

[driewerf]

Please explain to me how having evidence for something somehow subverts free will. Does having evidence that smoking causes cancer subvert my free will so that I will no longer smoke? Free will /= informed decision.

I sincerely believe that the better you are informed, the more you can make use of that free will.

 

[driewerf]

Let suppose you demand that God proves himself and He decides to accommodate you.

God appears next to you with two very powerful angles and an elevator.
The angles take you into the elevator.
They only use force if you resist.
After a long trip downward the elevator doors open and you are taken
down a long corridor to a large balcony.
You can hear waves of lava crashing on the rocks below.
Suddenly you realize the sound of waves crashing on the shore are really
a combined affect of thousands and thousand of cries of agony from the dammed.
As each wave passes a variation in agony caused the agonized screams to increase
and diminish.

At this point God turns to you and says, “Ok you have your proof its all real, do you submit or do I have the angles toss you over the edge?”

Are you making a free will choice?

Yes. The more informed you are the better your decissions.

This is an extreme example of course.
God would never force anyone but takes you to a place were there is a balance allowing our feeble will to be the deciding factor.

No, acoording to the christians here, god prefers to let the people in doubt, but punish you nonetheless if you make the wrong decission. Speaking of justice...

As you decide to believe in God you are given more proof of and more understanding of Him, and as you decide against Him you are given less prof and less understanding of Him.

i prefer to understand before I decide.