ATeamDelta writes:
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.
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):
1. ^ Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium (2005). "Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome". Nature 437: 69-87. (September 1) Entrez PubMed 16136131; Cheng Z, Ventura M et al. (2005). "A genome-wide comparison of recent chimpanzee and human segmental duplications". Nature 437: 88-93. (September 1) Entrez PubMed
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:
by Casey Luskin (originally written in Oct. of 2005, some updates and changes added later.)
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:
For those adverse to reading, watch...
. 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):
According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..."
The above is quoted from Public Beliefs About Evolution And Creation at ReligiousTolerance.org. which in turn referenced Newsweek magazine, 1987-JUN-29, Page 23 as the source for this data.
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?