Designed/created to fool science?

I propose this for the human origins section or I suppose it could fit into the ID section...Since we seem to have a large enough crowd of evolution deniers, I would like to see how the creationist crowd addresses the issue of human chromosome #2. For those not aware, Also from Wiki I know a lot of the creation crowd will simply wave this off as god simply recycling genetic materials in his grand design. Question though, how does god recycle materials that he hadn't at that point created, since god spoke the animals into existence, then crafted man from the dirt(not the animals). Additional materials:Chimpanzee genome project - WikipediaFor those adverse to reading, watch...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXdQRvSdLAsPlease discuss.Edited by EighteenDelta, : No reason given.

---

"Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact ” which creationists have mastered. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On the second day of the two-week trial we had our victory party!"
-Stephen Jay Gould

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

What a CROCK! There you evolutionists go again, claiming some proof or substantiation of evolution with so called evidence that proves nothing of the sort.First, you imply and the youtube video you reference specifically states that evolutionists had predicted the concatenation of two chromosomes in the human genome, but neither of you give any reference for this great prediction. The concatenation of the human chromosome 2 was discovered about a year ago and all of a sudden the evolutionists are claiming after the fact that evolution had predicted that (or should have predicted it if they had been paying attention). The is called the Jean Dickson school of rhetoric.But the really egregious bit of nonsense is when the evolutionists extrapolate this finding to the statement that the concat must have occurred after some common ancestor of humans and great apes diverged, somehow proving that there ever actually was such a common ancestor. In reality, this event could have occurred at almost any time in human history. If Noah and his progeny had this joined chromosome then all extant humans would have it. And of course there is great similarity between the two components of the concat and two of the great ape chromosomes, just as there is great similarity between all the other chromosomes due to the similar functions to be performed by the genes located thereon. To try to claim some substantiation of the common ancestry nonsense from this discovery is a slight of hand subterfuge that would make any magician proud (or any con artist). Actually, we don't really have a decoding of the human genome yet. What we have is a partial decoding of the genome of one man, Craig Ventner (plus another partial decoding of a conglomeration of genetic pieces from a few lab workers).More recent work reported in Science, Vol. 318 pp. 420-426 shows just how specious your assertions are. The genomes of two individuals, one African and one European, were compared for gross structure and it was found that there were hundreds of very long - from a few thousand bases to millions of bases - structural variations between the two genomes, where these large pieces differ in placement all over the genome, and that is comparing just two individuals. So, it is hardly surprising that the concatenation you describe would occur sometime in human history. It has nothing to do with "common descent".It is exactly this kind of oft repeated chicanery that leads to the controversy between the theory of evolution and its competitive theories, and explains why it is imperative that this controversy be made evident to young people first being introduced to biology and the questions of origins.

Ad hominun much? Try again, this time actually address the evidence, not me, not the presenter.And the Miller Told His Tale: Ken Miller's Cold (Chromosomal) Fusion (Updated)This is an article where is doing exactly what you claim he did not do in 2005, more than a year ago, predicting this fusion. Its even an ID support site. Wrong in so many details yet showing your lies for lies.http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.htmlA site that has been evolving since 1999 that details a lot of the issues involved here.-xEdited by EighteenDelta, : added link

AiG is yanking your chain, Eighteen.

It doesn't really matter, but we do have enough nut-jobbers present, we don't need any poser-nut-jobbers. Let the genuinely deceived, support their delusions please. If they ignore it for long enough then we can let the devils advocates play their games.-x

Shall we look at this a little more closely? If you actually read the Wiki article you cite in Post #1 you will see the reference on which the article is based near the end and will notice the date of publication of that article (and also a similar reference in citation #5): I. e., the date of publication for both articles is September 1, 2005.Now lets look at the date of your Luskin reference in your Post #4 which you say shows Luskin predicting the chromosome fusion: For most people, a prediction is supposed to come before the event! Also, you are so focused on (and confused by) the date issue that you fail to notice that Luskin is making the exact same point that I make, and does so quite clearly and eloquently.I particularly like your lead in to the youtube video: . A little condescending for someone who is evidently calendar adverse. But your second reference in Post #4 brings even more hilarity. If you actually read some of what this gentleman writes you will come upon this gem (look for the bit about only 0.15% of biologists being creationists): In other words, this factoid is stated in a June, 1987 Newsweek article referencing a report by some organization that bases their contention on a reference from that same June, 1987 Newsweek article. My friend, you keep very disingenuous company.But, let's stop this ad humbug nonsense and get down to some real science. Evolutionists contend, based on genomic evidence, that at some time several million years ago all great ape genomes had 24 chromosome pairs. A population of this taxon then began to diverge (genetically and probably geographically) from the other great ape groups, which taxon eventually evolved into the Homo sapien species. Then, a funny thing happened on the way to the forum. Some individual in that divergent group was born with a genomic anomaly. Two of its chromosomes were fused into one, what we now call human chromosome #2. This obviously did not pose a significant disadvantage since we now have 6.7 billion H. sapiens with this anomaly. It might have even afforded some advantage, or more likely was just neutral. The question is now, how did this anomaly become suffused through the whole extant human race? Did another individual of the opposite sex who just happened to be in the same group at the same place and the same time just happen to suffer (or enjoy) the exact same anomaly and did these two individuals just happen to meet up and screw their little 300 gram brains out producing a whole covey of anomalous (and incestuous) offspring? How did the anomaly get into [b][i]both[/b] #2 chromosomes?Their is actually one theoretical possibility that simply explains the whole process. If a male, for example, comes into being by some process and he has that fused chromosome anomaly, and a female is cloned off of that male, from his rib for example, then she will also have the same fused chromosome as will all of their descendants. Do you have a competing explanation?

AiG is not really a 'devil's advocate', 18. More like just a devil. It's a good show. It still comforts me to think that, 300 years from now, throngs of barefoot virgins bedecked with flowers will fill the streets, ringing tambourines and chanting Brad McFall posts...I appreciate the science behind your OP. This took you some time to put together. I profited very much from reading it in terms of my own science knowledge. It deserves a real creo response.In the meantime we may as well get comfortable in our porch swings. I expect we'll be listening to some crickets while we wait for that.__________Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

Ironicly a large portion of this was mentioned in tonights episode of Nova on Kitzmiller -v- Dover. I expect it will be duly ignored by the creo crowd.-x

So this thread will be ignored, like the Otzi thread, like the sand thread, like the La Brea tar pits, like all the threads with concrete evidence. I guess it comes as no real surprise.

quote:

---

Chromosome 2 is widely accepted to be a result of a fusion of two ancestral chromosomes. [2] The evidence for this includes

---

Its not widely accepted [outside of evolutionists], and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the conclusion derived from it by evolutionists. That chimps possess similar DNA = similar skeletal and other body formations - nothing more. To prove the evolutionist conclusion, it has to be made manifest in the absence of what creationism posits as the reason for repro, and which is limited to a specified category of life forms, namely given as 'kinds':1. "the seed factor of the host parentage, which follows its own kind." Does ToE subsist w/o the seed factor? Here we find evolution as a superflous factor, because the seed contains all the data required for transmission, including the dna traits.2. If the process of Chr 2 is a continuous and constant on-going process, the million year factor becomes irrelevent, and we would see this process in action at all times, even as we speak:ANALOGY. If red marbles turn blue, every 10 days, on an on-going basis, the time factor becomes irrelevent. The process never ceases, even if each individual process takes 10 million years to come to fruition: because the next process action would be occuring alongside, seconds apart, thus at all times this process would be observable. Unless of course - this process was never the cause of speciation, or worse. We see no chimps speciating in our midst - not even reported ever thoughout mankind's existence.

quote:

---

I know a lot of the creation crowd will simply wave this off as god simply recycling genetic materials in his grand design.

---

Your are contradicting yourself, if implying there is no 'design' in evolution! Every science equation represents a design. Science is not in contradiction with genesis; it comes from there. The first scientific equation is 'A SEED FOLLOWS ITS OWN KIND'; the first recording of the universe being finite is in Genesis' opening preamble, namely there was a *BEGINNING* - I suggest you first state your preamble whenever talking about the universe origins: finite or infinite?The first introduction of evolution, and the chronological listing of life forms, comes from genesis: Veg, fish, [virus ], birds, mammals & animals, speech endowed humans.

quote:

---

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

---

'Dust' is an appropriate scientific term for this generation, and represents all the elements of the earth [particles, minerals, gases, water]. Considering the text must be understood by all generations of man, how better would you term it?