Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[KWCrazy]

The universe exists. It is in a constant state of degradation to what will eventually be a huge pool of useless energy. That means it had an origination. The Bible explains the origination in detail. No theory in science can explain origination. For the believer, God's word is all the evidence we need. For the non-believer, no evidence will ever be enough.

 

[pitabread]

However, the probability that this mutation would occur simultaneously in multiple individuals is so staggeringly low that we can assume its impossibility.

Not true. Google "Robertsonian translocations": Robertsonian translocation - Wikipedia

These are cases where chromosome fusions can occur leading to 45 chromosomes. From there, you'd need two such individuals to reproduce leading to an offspring with only 44 chromosomes (22 pairs). AFAIK, there are at least a couple documented instances of such occurrences.

Also, if you're going to blatantly copy-paste responses from other sites, you should at least cite your source: Of Apes and Men: Chromosome 2 in Humans and the Chimpanzee Especially when it's obvious you're not the author.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are just in denial and have argued current population trends better support the Noah account of three breeding couples 4500 yrs ago with two groups.

The data supports a universe that is only a few days old. Current estimates has 5x10^30 bacteria on all of Earth which would mean that we would need about 70 doublings to hit that number from a single bacterium. With a generation time of just 20 minutes, this would mean that the world is only 23 hours old.

So data supports the world being created less than 24 hours ago.

 

[Loudmouth]

The Bible explains the origination in detail.

Then please, give us the details.

 

[Loudmouth]

Does not prove anything since you are guessing.

We are not guessing that there was a fusion between two chromosomes currently found in the human genome.

To be fair there was no common ancestor in the first place.

Evidence says otherwise:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Did this event occur in a single individual or simultaneously in an entire population?

A single individual.

How then was it propagated from one individual to his or her offspring and eventually to every human?

The same way that all traits are passed on, through biological reproduction.

When mutations of this magnitude occur, they pose serious problems for an organism when the process of gamete production occurs.

There is a man with 22 pairs of chromosomes, 1 pair fewer than the standard for humans. He is doing just fine.

Domesticated horses also have 1 pair fewer than their wild horse counterparts, and domestic horses are able to produce offspring with other domesticated horses AND with their wild horse counterparts who have 1 more pair than they do.

A third problem with the hypothesis of a chromosomal fusion in human ancestry lies in the complete absence of humans with 48 chromosomes. If it were true that a chromosomal split occurred in human evolution, then two distinct human groups would have been generated: one containing 48 chromosomes which were not altered by any genetic change, and a second containing 46 chromosomes including the fusion of chromosome 2

Why is it impossible for one arrangement to replace another?

 

[Loudmouth]

as prof dawkins said:

"Biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."

Yes, the APPEARANCE of design, just as a cloud can appear to be a bunny rabbit but not really be a bunny rabbit.

 

[sfs]

Yes, the APPEARANCE of design, just as a cloud can appear to be a bunny rabbit but not really be a bunny rabbit.

But do you KNOW it isn't a bunny rabbit? Were you there?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, the APPEARANCE of design, just as a cloud can appear to be a bunny rabbit but not really be a bunny rabbit.

Don't underestimate them though.

1 Kings 18:44 And it came to pass at the seventh time, that he said, Behold, there ariseth a little cloud out of the sea, like a man's hand. And he said, Go up, say unto Ahab, Prepare thy chariot, and get thee down, that the rain stop thee not.
1 Kings 18:45 And it came to pass in the mean while, that the heaven was black with clouds and wind, and there was a great rain. And Ahab rode, and went to Jezreel.

 

[Loudmouth]

But do you KNOW it isn't a bunny rabbit? Were you there?

Obviously, random interactions of atmospheric gases could not produce a bunny shaped cloud with the appearance of design. Therefore, "Leprechauns did it" is the better explanation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Obviously, random interactions of atmospheric gases could not produce a bunny shaped cloud with the appearance of design. Therefore, "Leprechauns did it" is the better explanation.

And Thalidomide is an example of intelligent design?

 

[sfs]

And Thalidomide is an example of intelligent design?

Thalidomide can take a hike.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thalidomide can take a hike.

That is merely AV admitting that he is wrong again.

 

[Loudmouth]

And Thalidomide is an example of intelligent design?

Are you being myopic because you accept the scientific evidence demonstrating that Thalidomide causes birth defects? Shouldn't you believe that thalidomide really is a wonder drug for pregnant mothers in order to cure that myopia?

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you being myopic because you accept the scientific evidence demonstrating that Thalidomide causes birth defects?

No.

Shouldn't you believe that thalidomide really is a wonder drug for pregnant mothers in order to cure that myopia?

No.

 

[Loudmouth]

No.
No.

Then we aren't being myopic when we follow the scientific evidence to the conclusion that life evolved, the Earth is billions of years old, and that there was no recent global flood.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then we aren't being myopic when we follow the scientific evidence to the conclusion that life evolved, the Earth is billions of years old, and that there was no recent global flood.

I'll just pretend you are then.

 

[HitchSlap]

I'll just pretend ... then.

It's what you do best.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's what you do best.

I have to applaud you for that.

That's a good comeback!

 

[dmmesdale]

Also, if you're going to blatantly copy-paste responses from other sites, you should at least cite your source: Of Apes and Men: Chromosome 2 in Humans and the Chimpanzee Especially when it's obvious you're not the author.

Never said i was the author and the source was cited earlier and repeated on the same page. #192. If i reference an article, {From the previous link.} i am not always going to keep posting the same link over and over. Esp when the link is available on the same page. It is not my problem you guys cannot make a case for your faith. You don't know how.

Debunking the Debunkers | Answers in Genesis

In 2013, it was shown that the alleged interstitial telomeric repeat site of the human chromosome 2 fusion corresponding to chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B of a hypothetical common ancestor was actually a second promoter in the DDX11L2 long noncoding RNA gene. Additional ENCODE related data are provided in this report that not only debunk evolutionary criticism and obfuscation in response to this discovery, but solidify the original finding. New data come from epigenetic-modifications, transcription factor binding, and transcription start site information. It is also shown that the alleged cryptic centromere site, which is very short in length compared to a normal centromere, is completely situated inside the actively expressed protein coding gene ANKRD30BL—encoding both exon and intron regions. Other factors refuting this region as a cryptic centromere are also discussed. Taken together, genomic data for both the alleged fusion and cryptic centromere sites refute the concept of fusion in a human-chimpanzee common ancestor.

---------------------------------------------------------

 

[pitabread]

Never said i was the author and the source was cited earlier and repeated on the same page. #192. If i referencing an article, i am not always going to keep posting the same link over and over.

You didn't 'reference' it. You blatantly copy-pasted it. If you can take the time to copy-paste, you can take the time to cite the source. It's just basic forum etiquette.