The Evolution 'Hoax'

[---]

Quote:@nik

Well as there are entire universities teaching and learning some very shoddy principles. It doesnt stop them from being academic about it. Look at the 20,000 year old earth theory for a second. The imagination doesnt really have to stretch for us to see or understand erosion. However to think that, in times of "yore" before man turned all the magic off. God decided he wanted to be a complete bastard to every poor inocent creature in the world just cuz he felt like it.

The evidence based on that proposal, no matter how detailed and well written will always look, to me, like a crock of shit. The bias is so obvious along a certain ethic. That does play into the debate. you cant get scientific with religion...


Its not based on observation. Its based on a fairy story.

LOL I'm not arguing any of this. The evidence for a hitherto unknown process by which organic matter is rapidly turned to coal seemingly has some strong correlating evidence..imh lay o - To me that sounds important and the story of his research thus far denotes that it warrants some serious investigation irrespective of either the ID or RD camp trying to obfuscate the issue with their own 'truth' agenda... alas, his contention is potentially too hot a potato for many. It's grounded to say science can be resistant to change - this isn't a reflection on the scientific method it's a reflection on people politics and careers that have been built over a lifetime.

And come on, it's nonsensical to deny the 'possibility' that there have been cataclysmic events past on good old Ea.








I don't know if 'God' plays dice but by the looks of it they certainly play Golf, which doesn't do their cred much good tbh

[hilly7]

The way I see it, yes, there have been some bad things done in the name of religion, but they have also been done in the name of non religion. Hitler would be a prime example nearing our time. TPTB also run off that. That doesn't mean that all atheist are bad the same as all religious people are bad. As far as the none religious being persecuted, not as much as religious people these days. IMHO, having a Creator not of this world that does not allow me to bend a knee to any being on this world is far more strengthening than having an opening to one that could be of this world.
 
Jazz, my thoughts of Hovind are that he broke no law of God, nor did he actually break laws of man. The Income Tax is illegal and was never ratified, two times it failed. Again, if Hovind is correct on the law, and he was, he did not commit perjury. So yes, I stand behind him. If he had remained a simple preacher and left the connect with TPTB out of it, he would be a free man right now. That does however make me wonder on where you stand.
Now as for the drawing verse the picture, I like pictures, but the drawing is nice, and yes, they do favor a wolf somewhat. They are still hunting for them and while folk describe what sounds like them, no evidence as to yet supports any are alive.
"Meanwhile you ignorantly and mendaciously claim that Man hasn't improved anyway (since Adam) when of course, mutations and selection (thus evolution) have never stopped. Have you ever asked yourself why racists advocate eugenics when you don't believe any changes could happen anyway?"

It really doesn't matter as to what I think about man evolving, it matters what those in power think, they have the power over what evils are done. In case you haven't noticed, raciest exist on both religious and non religious people, neither side have corner the market on that sadly. I personally don't see anything that even resembles improvement. Man once walked humble and with nature, that isn't anymore. Now we walk prideful and spiteful. We still select our mates like animals. We still murder innocents, Gaza will attest to that, just to mention one. If we have evolved then why is it we destroy all we touch? Is that intelligence? Our bodies are the same as they were and have always been. It is our minds and souls that have changed. Much was known and perhaps not passed down, it is not like we do the best with knowledge. Look at the Sumerian pictographs and Egyptian DNA representations. We could even use dynamite constructively let alone the knowledge they had. In a oceanic cataclysm, it is said that much of what we know would be lost since most of the population lives close to the waters.
rsol, you are right, many have perished from religion and many people have fallen, but stats show that all religion in the world is not responsible for as many deaths as you may have been led to believe. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE5.HTM . I think you will find that religion is nowhere near the number for non religion atrocities.
  Why God destroyed the world was because of the evil that had become. The gene pool had been compromised. There were no innocent creatures left. Now whether it was 2 powers playing DNA splicing and one won over the other or not, I have no idea. I think we've all done things we'd just as soon cut our losses on. I know it is said that the ones from the fallen ones gave knowledge to their creations and their creations began to kill out God's. Their offspring used the intelligence for bad instead of goo. I'd really like to hear the Muslim perspective on this.  

[JazzRoc]

Quote:Jazz, my thoughts of Hovind are that he broke no law of God, nor did he actually break laws of man. The Income Tax is illegal and was never ratified, two times it failed. Again, if Hovind is correct on the law, and he was, he did not commit perjury. So yes, I stand behind him. If he had remained a simple preacher and left the connect with TPTB out of it, he would be a free man right now. That does however make me wonder on where you stand.

He put his hands on the Bible and lied through his teeth. A man making his living off that book. "Render unto Caesar" etc.

I'm an anarchist. However, I live within society, and pay my dues. I DO believe in only paying for the service I receive, and not a penny more; the state serves the individual, and rarely the other way round.

Quote:Man once walked humble and with nature, that isn't anymore.

That's a theory, I think. Thinly-scattered hunter/gatherer tribes (like the Red Indians) all over the world still do. But the Red Indians now don't.

Quote:We still select our mates like animals.

That may be because we ARE animals, Hilly. We are mammals, with tits and balls, just like all the other mammals.

Quote:If we have evolved then why is it we destroy all we touch? Is that intelligence?

Well, yes it is. It is the expression of fear of what we don't understand. The cure is through knowledge and understanding, and the reduction of fear.

Quote:Our bodies are the same as they were and have always been.

That isn't true if you delve into the research more deeply.

Quote:It is our minds and souls that have changed. Much was known and perhaps not passed down, it is not like we do the best with knowledge.

Yes - it's so much worse now (not). (My mother's grandmother was a completely ignorant (but bilingual!) peasant who knew only how to garden and cook.)

We're discussing and quoting things over a medium which is a mere fifteen years old. How was it done before?

Quote:There were no innocent creatures left.

Every child is completely innocent, Hilly. The Bible is a very sick book.

Quote:I think we've all done things we'd just as soon cut our losses on.

Can't disagree with you there...

[hilly7]

"He put his hands on the Bible and lied through his teeth. A man making his living off that book. "Render unto Caesar" etc."


He may very well have not took from the government, thus he owes nothing. Have you ever heard of frame up?
Now your taking a selective text without the whole, one of the things I see "religious" people do. There were more passages to that part than the famous 1 liner.


"Yes - it's so much worse now (not). (My mother's grandmother was a completely ignorant (but bilingual!) peasant who knew only how to garden and cook.)

We're discussing and quoting things over a medium which is a mere fifteen years old. How was it done before?"



Much differently, that is why we were to respect our elders by gaining knowledge of their wisdom. The oldest person I had the honor of learning from was my great grandmother (born 1894). As to the remark of your grandmother, I'd say the woman was opposite of what you classify her, she was smart. She wasn't dependant and she could speak 2 languages. That is quite a lot of smarts there.


"That's a theory, I think. Thinly-scattered hunter/gatherer tribes (like the Red Indians) all over the world still do. But the Red Indians now don't.'

I am part what you call Red Indians and no we weren't. Far more civilized than what we called civilation today. You have read too many fake books and/or TV. You haven't the foggiest idea what the culture was and even is like today, especially in "Red Indians". I would suppose from your disrespect to your grandmother, you knew it all back then too.


Every child is completely innocent, It was the genetic code or blood that was off.


All in all Jazz, if it works for you, go for it. It certainly has gotten you this far, hasn't it.

[hilly7]

Well I've wasted enough time on this, much research and prep to do with too little time left. I do have 1 question though.

Just how old are you?

"We're discussing and quoting things over a medium which is a mere fifteen years old. How was it done before?"

[hilly7]

"That's a theory, I think. Thinly-scattered hunter/gatherer tribes (like the Red Indians) all over the world still do. But the Red Indians now don't."

Jazz, history lesson so you will have a clue what you are talking about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dkP_vWEXHo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dc7fZonjD1M...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qsn6reR1r0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np-TYoZE5NM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsTkrmgyV5g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvYIjFtPQEk Just in case you think Red is Savage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7Ww3zt3ZOk
Lastly, I definately don't expect you to appreaciate this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VqoxOcEqpk

[JazzRoc]

Quote:He may very well have not took from the government, thus he owes nothing. Have you ever heard of frame up?

Have you ever heard of "lying, cheating crook"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCGz9dMd1Y8...&playnext=1

Quote:Now your taking a selective text without the whole, one of the things I see "religious" people do. There were more passages to that part than the famous 1 liner.

I did say "etc." and expected you to know the rest. From memory and without picking up a Bible (oh, yes, I have one) I believe it goes "render to God that which is God's" and means essentially "respect the society within which you live", which evidently Kent Hovind was unable to do.

Quote:I'd say the woman was opposite of what you classify her, she was smart. She wasn't dependant and she could speak 2 languages. That is quite a lot of smarts there.

I didn't say she wasn't smart. She was. I said she was ignorant. Now you should empathize with that. There is nothing essentially wrong about being ignorant. The evil creeps in when smart yet ignorant people jump to wrong conclusions about things - because they are IGNORANT - they DO NOT KNOW something.

Quote:I am part what you call Red Indians and no we weren't. Far more civilized than what we called civilation today. You have read too many fake books and/or TV. You haven't the foggiest idea what the culture was and even is like today, especially in "Red Indians". I would suppose from your disrespect to your grandmother, you knew it all back then too.

You have misunderstood me yet again. Try rereading what I wrote. I cannot understand why you are continually attempting to insult me.

Quote:Every child is completely innocent, It was the genetic code or blood that was off.

I didn't know you had a knowledge of genetic coding and blood. Do explain how.

[mastermg]

Quote:That may be because we ARE animals, Hilly. We are mammals, with tits and balls, just like all the other mammals.

Im sorry but thats not true, a human is a human. Maybe under your darwin classification system we are animals, but we have things that animals dont possess, that is rational and the ability to reason. We are special.

[hilly7]

Jazz, You seem to be most misunderstood shill around. I've better things to do that to let you waste my time. I don't have to insult you, you do quite well at that yourself.

[JazzRoc]

Quote:I'm sorry but thats not true, a human is a human. Maybe under your darwin classification system we are animals, but we have things that animals don't possess, that is rational(ity) and the ability to reason. We are special.

If you cannot acknowledge what you are, you're in deep shit.

Not only that, you are bound to screw up the "lesser"* animals around you, the plants, and your general environment. Get real. You are part of the problem.

You ARE an animal, which is "rational" and has "the ability to reason", so be so and do so.

You aren't that special.

If we winked out tomorrow, the Earth would breathe a sigh of relief, and a million years from now another simian would start saying "We are special".

* Personally I would accord equal rights to every other type of life, right down to any bacterium. Mankind deserves extinction while it still believes itself not to be a naturally-evolved lifeform from a "Hadean" Earth bacterium.

[hilly7]

Pretty much confirms what Evolution is all about now doesn't it. You just once again contradicted yourself JR and indeed shows why the general public should believe that there are no chemtrails. Especially since you claimed to work on them.

[---]

Ask a Geneticist
by Monica Rodriguez, Stanford University

You stated in an earlier answer that human chromosome 2 is made up of two fused chromosomes from the common human-chimp ancestor. This fused chromosome then spread throughout the human population. Could common design be an alternative explanation? What specifically RULES out common design for the fused chromosome?

-A curious adult from New Jersey

May 08, 2008


Chimpanzee and human chromosomes
are very similar.



Common design is the idea that humans and apes (and all species) were created separately but were designed with similar features. And this designer would not reinvent the wheel for every one of its designs. Once the designer found an idea that worked, this idea would be used in many different situations.

For example, an architect doesn’t redesign how a light switch works for every building he or she draws up. Instead each building uses light switches to turn on lights. Some may dim and every plate won’t look the same but basically they all use the same principles.

Fusing two chromosomes to make one does not fit with this idea very well. Having 46 chromosomes (23 pairs) is not better than having 48 (24 pairs).

What this means is that there is no obvious reason why a designer would fuse these two chromosomes in humans and leave them unfused in other great apes. The only possible advantage would be if the fusion event created some new gene or activity at the junction point.

And let’s say that the fusion did give some advantage. The advantage would come from some new gene being created. Or by genes being turned up or down to different levels.

There are lots of easier ways to do this than by fusing two chromosomes! Particularly for a designer who could incorporate the millions of DNA differences we see between human and ape genomes. What we’d need to say is that the designer designed millions of DNA differences but then for no obvious reason stuck two chromosomes together to make human chromosome 2.

This would certainly not be the most elegant way to design in the changes needed to make a human (see below). And as I said in my previous article, there is no evidence of any advantage in the fusion anyway.

All of this discussion hinges on the evidence that human chromosome 2 resulted from a fusion of two ancestral chromosomes. What evidence do we have that two chromosomes fused to create human chromosome 2?

The very strong evidence to back up the fusion comes from the weird architecture of chromosome 2. Chromosomes usually have a centromere in the middle and a telomere at each end. But human chromosome 2 has telomeres both in the middle and the ends. And it has two centromeres too. The easiest (and possibly only) explanation is that this happened because of the fusion of two chromosomes.

As I said before, chromosomes have a centromere and two telomeres. The centromere is a DNA sequence that is found near the middle of the chromosome. It is used to separate chromosomes during mitosis (replication). Telomeres are DNA sequences that are found at the ends of chromosomes. They protect the chromosomes from losing sequence during DNA replication.

Now let’s predict what would happen to our chromosomes if there was a fusion event. We would expect to find telomeres (end sequences) where they don’t belong (in the middle of a chromosome). We would also expect to find two centromeres in a single chromosome.

And that is exactly what we find in human chromosome 2. As I said before, this chromosome has two centromeres and telomeres where they don’t belong.

Now let’s go a little deeper into the evidence. Remember that telomeres are DNA sequences found at the ends of chromosomes. They are made up of many small DNA repeats that run toward the end of the chromosome. There is also a unique pattern of DNA sequence called the pre-telomeric region. This lies just before the telomere. And every chromosome has these sequences.

At the proposed fusion point we find both telomeric and pre-telomeric sequences. In fact, we first see pre-telomeric sequence, then telomeric sequence. Then we see the telomeres inverted and the pretelomeres too (see the figure below). This is exactly what we would predict for a chromosome fusion.

But these sequences don’t look exactly like the telomere sequences we see at the ends of the chromosomes. These fusion telomere sequences have collected many DNA changes over time. Biologists can still recognize these sequences at the fusion as old telomeres because even though they aren’t exactly the same, they are still pretty similar. At some places they are about 80-90% similar!

And the fact that the fusion telomere sequences have changed over time is even more evidence in support of common ancestry. Evolution predicts that DNA collects random mutations over time. Sometimes these mutations lead to changes we can see. And sometimes these changes don’t seem to do anything. Common design predicts that DNA mutations have a purpose. But these fusion sequences don’t seem to give humans any advantage.

Biologists also find a second centromere in chromosome 2. This centromere is in the exact location we would expect. It is also no longer functional--it has been inactivated over time.

Now it is possible that the designer fused two chromosomes together and inactivated the extra centromere in order to create a human. But this just isn’t likely because there is no design advantage in having 46 instead of 48 chromosomes.

And as we’ve talked about, there are much simpler ways to get the effects you want without a chromosome fusion. Particularly for a designer who can design in so many differences.

Again, this fusion is not the only difference between people and apes. There are millions of other changes sprinkled throughout all of the chromosomes. It is difficult to see why a designer would make all of those changes and fuse two chromosomes together too.


The DNA sequence of the fusion point on human chromosome 2.

Compare the telomere sequence found at the ends of the chromosome (dark yellow) to the fused telomere sequence (light yellow). Notice how the letters change after the fusion. This is actually even stronger evidence for the fusion. Remember that DNA has 2 strands but we are only showing one. The match for TTTAGG on the other strand would be CCTAAA the way we have written it.


http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=264

[---]

Human Chromosome II
By: Jeffrey D. Mason, C.Ht., M.A., and M.H.
Human chromosome II, has been sited by evolutionary theorists
as proof positive, undeniable evidence of common ancestry between
great apes (orangutan, gorilla, and chimpanzee), and human beings,
due to the striking similarities of both number of markers on the
chromosome and the overall appearance of the chromosome across
the four different species. However, it cannot be over emphasized,
there are significant differences as well.
Evolutionists will state most of the chromosomal differences
among the four species involve inversions- or localities on the
chromosomes that have been inverted, or swapped end to end. It
should be noted; this is a relatively common occurrence among all
species. In other words, some how, for evolutionists this is a big deal,
and to them represents evidences of evolution because the
chromosome patterns are merely inverted from one species to
another.
This is exactly the point from the creationist standpoint, the fact
that there are inversions, and these inversions make all the difference
in the world between great apes and humans. Evolutionists claim
because they are the same, but just arranged reversed or differently it
shows evolution, but it is precisely this different arrangement that
distinguishes the differences from one species to another.
In addition we must not forget, inversions between differing
animal genomes is a very common occurrence and therefore does
not necessitate any sort of evidence for common ancestry. Just as
the DNA information is due to coding of four specific proteins, which
are the same proteins regardless of the species, their arrangements
are different, in each species genetic make-up and here in is the
difference from one species and that of another.
Though indels are also beginning to demonstrate a significant
role upon the influences and differences between great apes and
humans. It is not merely DNA alone. If we compare the genetic
makeup between a banana and a human being, depending on what
we are comparing, we can get estimations of as much a 60%
similarity between our genetics and that of the banana! When it
comes to human chromosome II, evolutionists believe it is strong
evidence of a fusion event, and therefore also strong evidence for
common ancestry. They claim it is hard to explain by any other
mechanism.
The principle indications for this fusion event from great ape
genes 2a and 2b are as follows:
1. These two great ape chromosomes can be shown, when laid
end to end, to create a nearly identical banding structure to that
of human chromosome II. Yet, note, this does not equate to an
absolutely solid exact match. They are extremely similar, but
they are not exactly identical, and this is an important point.
2. They claim remains can be seen of the sequence of the
telomere at the ends of the chromosome and are also found in
the middle of the human chromosome II, where according to
their supposition the ancestral chromosomes 2a and 2b fused.
Again it is merely speculated that this fusion even occurred at
all. As there is such a thing as pseudo-transposition; or
chromosomes possessing the appearance of a fusion, but in
which no such event has occurred. Admittedly these are
extremely rare. Thus the evidence, unless shown otherwise
should be interpreted as a fusion event.
3. All the sequences in the pre-telomeric, telomeric, reverse
telomeric sequencing are exactly what they would expect if a
fusion occurred. In other words based on evolutionary
prediction, this would be the physical evidence that evolution
predicted would occur. However, it is important to note, the pretelomeric,
telomeric and reverse telomeric sequences of
Human Chromosome II, though very similar with the large ape
chromosomes are again not exactly matched in their
sequencing arrangements: there are areas of significant
difference as well.
Interestingly the prediction of such findings came after the
findings, not before. And to my way of thinking that’s a bit like
predicting an event after the event was observed, and taking
credit for predicting it.
In addition all human telomeres are vastly shorter than any of
the great ape species, and this also includes the telomeres on
human chromosome II; there are also differences in repetitive
DNA elements on these telomeres.
According to Dr. Varki and Gagneux, both evolutionary
geneticists, who compared the differences between large apes
and humans, the differences between great apes and humans
include, but are not entirely limited to, differences in both types
and numbers of repetitive genomic DNA, transposable
retroelements, distribution and numbers of endogenous
retroviruses, the presence and extent of allelic polymorphisms,
the rates and types of specific gene inactivation events, and
even on the telomeres found on Human Chromosome 2 we see
major gene sequence and expression differences, differences
in gene duplications, differences in single nucleotide
polymorphisms, as well as several differences in messenger
RNA splicing variations.
4. According to evolutionists this telomeric region, and their after
the fact prediction, occur in the middle of human chromosome II
at the center referred to as the centromere.
5. And again, after the observed fact, they claim at the place on
Human chromosome II we find remnants of the chimp 2a
centromere. Since Human Chromosome 2 is in possession of
two centromeres, one of which is deactivated. However, this
extra, inactive centromere reveals nothing and there is no proof
at present that it is the result of a remnant chimpanzee
centromere. Evolutionists then may ask why human
chromosome 2 would even have an additional inactive
centromere? The answer is very simply, in rare cases in
humans, it has been noted that “neocentromeres” can form at
new sites on the chromosome. When this coupling occurs, the
inactivation of the previous centromere will take place, Dicentric
chromosomes, that is, chromosomes with two functional
centromere will result in chromosome breakage during mitosis
faze. In some unusual cases these neocentromeres have
actually been observed to form spontaneously on fragmented
chromosomes. Some of these new positions were euchromatic,
lacking alpha satellite DNA altogether. So this little fact about
chromosomes in general could easily explain the presents of a
second, inactive centromere in human chromosome 2 without
the extra, extrapolated need to assume that it is the result of a
great ape remnant centromere from the chimpanzee.
6. Evolutionists insist this is proof of evolution from a common
ancestor. However, The differences I’ve mentioned aside, the
areas of similarity can just as easily serve as evidence of a
common Designer, using common building materials. Evolutionists
always seem to fall into this problem, stressing similarities while
ignoring vast differences. A carpenter builds two different houses,
using brick, stone, wood and similar materials in both houses, and
both houses have different, yet similar blueprints and floor plans.
The evolutionist notes the similarities, such as identical brick and
stone, ECT, and determines it is the same house. Whereas,
creationists see the similarities, but also note the vast differences
as well, and conclude they are two different, houses, with a
common builder, using common building materials.
Chromosomes are actually a type of carrying case harboring the
far more important genes. Each gene is responsible for a single
manifested trait of any particular individual within a species. The
outward appearance of a chromosome is far less important to
differentiation, than are the genes that chromosome incases.
Therefore, outward similarities tell us very little, since two
chromosomes of two entirely different and unrelated species can look
very similar or even identical outwardly, yet the inward genes and
how those genes express themselves may be completely different.
Therefore, though human chromosome II is very similar outwardly
to the two smaller chromosomes of the great apes, specifically 2a
and 2b, this is in no way proof of a common ancestor, and is just as
likely to be seen with a common designer who uses the same general
building materials throughout his creation.
I submit this is indeed, the fact of the case. Evidence we have to
support this conclusion is the fact that fragmented remnants, which
can be seen to also match identically with human chromosome II
have also been found genetically in many species of cats and rats,
not just great apes. This fact alone has forced evolutionists to have to
make the assumed extrapolated claim that cats and rats are also our
relations from an even more distant ancestor than the great apes.
However, the mere fact we find these remnants with identical
chromosome markers with human chromosome II, is supportive of
the idea of a common designer, using common building materials,
and does not require speculation of more distant ancestry between
cats, rats and humans.
Though seemingly unrelated, Human Y chromosome, which is
vastly different from those of the great apes, including in size and so
on, have also been found by evolutionary geneticists to possess
fragmental remnants of the marsupials. This again, shows clearly,
what evolutionists are actually observing in both Y chromosome and
human chromosome 2 is simply representative of common building
materials, and NOT a common ancestor. I mean, it must be asked of
the evolutionist, which is it? Are we related to the great apes, or rats
and cats, or marsupials? In addition, if these markers do show distant
ancestry with marsupials, then how would evolution ever adequately
explain the this fact, since according to their own “theory” humans
evolved in Africa and marsupials in Australia completely independent
of one another. This is no small contradiction!
We need to also keep in mind the vast majority of cases where
translocations have been seen; in humans it has been extremely
detrimental to the gene pool. The carriers of such a chromosome may
themselves be phenotypically normal. However, there is a
significantly increased risk of unbalanced gametes, leading to
miscarriages or abnormal offspring. Several forms of cancer, and
most notably various forms of leukemia, infertility, Down’s syndrome
and similar chromosomal diseases have been undeniably linked to
various forms of translocations of chromosomes.
This is not to say that such a chromosomal fusion did not take
place. Evidence for a chromosome fusion in Human Chromosome II
is present and overwhelming. However, it is only assumed by
evolutionists this fusion is due to an end-to-end translocation of
smaller large ape chromosomes. It is in their wordage, and I quote
from one of their own evolutionary sites.
“Not only is this strong evidence for a fusion event, but it is also
strong evidence for common ancestry; in fact, it is hard to explain by any
other mechanism.”
But as another Creation apologist has pointed out, this is
merely extrapolation beyond the evidence. He explains:
“The main basis for saying this appears to be the statement: "At the
place where we would expect it on the human chromosome we find the
remnants of the chimp 2a centromere". -- there is no label on it saying
"I'm a chimp 2a centromere". What we find is the remnants of a
centromere that is in the same place, relative to certain sequences, as the
2a centromere is in chimps. All this shows is that the ancestor
chromosomes (i.e. before the fusion event) of current human
chromosomes were closely analogous to chromosomes of apes, including
chimps.
So the author claims we can rule out other accounts of human
origins, but is unjustified in doing so. The reason for this logical mistake
is that he/she has intertwined the evidence and the evolutionary
explanation so tightly, and seen that they fit so well, that the author cannot
imagine another explanation would fit. In reality, the evidence fits a
creationist explanation equally well--there is nothing contrived or tricky
about what I have presented, and if evolutionary theory did not exist, there
is nothing in this evidence that would make creationists think of common
descent. The idea that humans originally had a complete set of
chromosomes that correspond to ape chromosomes, rather than only 23
out of 24, does not shake creationist ideas one little bit. We already knew
there was a vast amount of similarity between humans and primates both
in terms of physical characteristics and genetic material and structure. It
is a mistake of the evolutionary mindset to assume that observing
similarities necessarily brings you to the conclusion of common descent.
Taxonomy based on physical characteristics was already a very well
established science when the idea of common descent came on the scene,
and people from both the intelligent design and the creationists camps
have no problem in understanding physical and genetic similarities that
are not rooted in common descent -- that is, it is easy to think of perfectly
adequate reasons why a designer (either an unknown intelligence in the
case of ID, or God in the case of creationism) might have reused designs.”
The author above stated also pointed out that to make the
statement:
“Not only is this strong evidence for a fusion event, but it is also
strong evidence for common ancestry; in fact, it is hard to explain by any
other mechanism”
presupposes evolution is a fact and this fusion is the result of the
union of the chimpanzee chromosomes. However, if the Evolutionists
would have stated their findings along these lines:
“The evidence that human chromosome 2 is the fusion of two
chromosomes is overwhelming. The two chromosomes it appears to derive
from are directly analogous to chromosomes that are found in apes.”
He goes on to state:
“Once you make this change, an explanation that agrees with
creationist accounts of human ancestry just falls out. It would go
something like this: Humans were created in a separate creative event
from the other primates, but with 24 chromosome pairs just like them. At
some point early in human history, fusion of the chromosomes occurred to
give us the 23 pairs we have now. All living humans are descended from
those in which the fusion occurred.”
Indeed his argument is sound here, and agrees with all the
observable science behind chromosome 2. It may be argued that the
carrier of such a chromosome would not be able to reproduce as is
often known to be the case with similar events that have been
witnessed. However, this is not always the case, in rare situations
reproduction and procreation is known to be able to continue even
after such a fusion event. And in rare instances these translocations
can take place without causing any discernable detrimental effects.
The Evolutionist will also be forced to agree on this point. Otherwise,
they will not only trespass against observed science, but would be
hard pressed to explain how, exactly in their model, such a fusion
could have been passed on to form homo-sapiens.
I think, what disturbs me the most regarding the articles I
studied from evolutionary sites and papers, on human chromosome
II, is that though far from scientifically being proved, all of them teach
human chromosome II is a fusion of the two smaller great ape
chromosomes, 2a and 2b, and state such as though it is a proven
fact. In reality this is simply not the case.
In conclusion, Human chromosome II is no more evidence for
human, Great ape common ancestry, as is a walking stick insect’s
identical appearance to a branch twig suggestive that the bug and the
tree have a common ancestor. We cannot simply look at the
similarities between different species, and say this proves this or that.
We must also consider the many differences between them. And it is
indeed, the differences, which literally make all the difference in the
world between one kind of created thing and that of an entirely
different kind.
Man and the great ape did not have a common ancestor, but
we did have a common creator who used common building materials,
and so we should expect to see similar and at times identical areas of
matching. But, we should also see areas of vast differences, and
when we look, that is exactly what we actually see.
All living things are made of the same basic materials, but
within the scope of this is wide variety and vast differences from
these same identical basic materials. Everything has been made with
these common materials, and is related not by a common ancestor,
but by a common creator of all things.
In spite of evolutionist’s stating that the common designer who
uses common building materials will not work to explain human
chromosome 2, given the fact that the supposed remnant markers of
this same chromosome are also seen to match cats and rats, and the
fact that genetic markers in human Y chromosome are also
supposedly in kangaroos, opossums and other marsupials, I would
have to say the creationist argument of common design with common
building materials only increases in validity. And since duel
centromeres have been known to occur with one always deactivated
as a result in humans, this finding does not in any way require that
additional great ape genomic materials be lent in order to be present.
God has firmly declared that each kind would produce after its own
kind. We have never witnessed, in fossil record or living world one
kind of animal transforming into an entirely different animal. All that
can actually be observed both presently and forensically testify to the
truth of God’s word.
It is only when men wish to run from God they will seek
whatever, proofs they can, and justify themselves through
assumption, speculation and extrapolate meanings and claims far
beyond what the data by itself actually permits.
There are many things with similar appearances in nature, both
on the macro and micro levels. To understand the true meaning
behind what we witness in science or through observation, we must
not merely embrace the similarities, but also take account of the
notable differences. It is only then, that science will gain a truly
balanced view, and men who claim there is no evidence for God, may
perhaps through the voice of their own investigations come to hear a
still small voice, that says here I am, do you see me yet…I am HE…I
am the maker of the things you observe, I am God. Or these men will
harden their heart, and deny the evidences that would give them the
proof of God they claim they wish to see; and in so doing, fail to
consider those evidences and forever be learning, yet, never be able
to come into the knowledge of the truth!

swordandshield.biz/Human-Chromosome-II-A.pdf

[---]

Chromosome Fusion: Chance or Design?


Dr. Barry Starr by Dr. Barry Starr • May 12th, 2008
37.332, -121.903

Human and chimpanzee chromosomes are very similar.
Note that human chromosome 2 is very similar to a
fusion of two chimpanzee chromosomes.

For the last few weeks I have been corresponding with someone about intelligent design (ID). More specifically, we have been chatting about why humans have 46 chromosomes and most of the great apes have 48.

To me, this is great evidence for evolution. Why? Because if you look at the chromosomes closely, you can see that human chromosome 2 is really just a fusion of two great ape chromosomes.

The idea is that a few million years ago, a common human-chimpanzee ancestor of ours had two of his or her chromosomes fused together. This sort of thing happens all the time even today. Around 1 in 1000 live births has one of these kinds of fusions.

Then, probably through chance,this ancestor with the fused chromosomes went on to found the human race. Now people have 46 chromosomes and chimpanzees have 48.

An alternative explanation is that the designers fused the two chromosomes together when they created humans. The idea would be that the designer wouldn't create every plant, animal, bacteria, and virus from scratch–why reinvent the wheel every time? Instead the designers would mix and match parts that worked.

So as part of the process of designing a human, the designer fused two ape chromosomes together. This would presumably be simpler than creating a human chromosome 2 the way the other chromosomes were made.

The difficulty with this idea is that there is no obvious advantage to having 46 chromosomes instead of 48. What matters is our DNA, not how it happens to be packaged.

It is possible that there was some advantage to fusing the chromosomes together. For example, maybe a new gene was created at the fusion point. Or maybe genes that were shut off before were now turned on in the new fused chromosomes.

There isn't any evidence of these kinds of things. And even if there were, a designer who can easily put in the 60 million or so differences between humans and chimpanzees should be able to accomplish whatever results a chromosome fusion gives more elegantly than sticking two ape chromosomes together.

Also, when you look at the fusion point, you can see that the DNA isn't exactly what you would expect if a fusion happened in the last 10,000 or even 100,000 years. The results look more like an event that happened millions of years ago.

The ends of a chromosome have a defined sequence of DNA repeats called a telomere. The DNA at the fusion point looks very similar to a string of telomeres (as we would expect from a fusion) but it isn't perfect. This is just what you would expect if the fusion happened millions of years ago. Because our DNA gets changed a little all of the time.

The environment or even our own cells can cause the wrong letter to end up in our DNA. Our cells are pretty good at fixing these mistakes but they don't catch them all. What this means is that our DNA builds up mutations over time.

When an unfixed change happens in a sperm or egg, then it is passed down to the next generation. If the changes that aren't fixed happen somewhere important, then they are selected for or against. But if they're neutral, then they just build up over time. Scientists can even use these sorts of errors to predict how long ago something happened. Or to trace human migration patterns.

These DNA changes at the fusion point do not fit with ID if they don't serve a purpose. Otherwise, why put them there? It will be interesting to see the results of experiments that might show if these sequences matter or not.

Dr. Barry Starr is a Geneticist-in-Residence at The Tech Museum of Innovation in San Jose, CA.


http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2008/05/12/...ance-or-design/

Quote:
These DNA changes at the fusion point do not fit with ID if they don't serve a purpose. Otherwise, why put them there? It will be interesting to see the results of experiments that might show if these sequences matter or not.

for sure

[---]

And the Miller Told His Tale: Ken Miller's Cold (Chromosomal) Fusion (Updated)
by Casey Luskin (originally written in Oct. of 2005, some updates and changes added later.)

A Chromosomal Fusion Event Does Not Tell Anything About Whether Humans Share a Common Ancestor with Modern Apes.Dr. Kenneth Miller was the leadoff hitter for plaintiffs last week in the trial over ID in Dover. Amidst other things, Miller's testimony was aimed at making a case that the Neo-Darwinian hypothesis is as well-supported as gravitational theory. It was my understanding that this trial was about whether or not Dover had violated the First Amendment by mentioning to students that some book in the library advocated intelligent design. So I was a little confused as to why it was relevant for Miller to give us all a lesson in evolutionary biology. Nonetheless, this article will respond to Dr. Miller's arguments that evidence for fusion in human chromosome #2 demonstrates that humans share a common ancestor with living apes.

According to Neo-Darwinism, humans and extant apes supposedly share a common ancestor. During Dr. Miller's testimony supporting the theory of evolution, he discussed how human chromosome #2 has two centromeres, which are the central - attachment points used for pulling a chromosome to one end of a cell during mitosis. Chromosomes normally only have one centromere, but human chromosome # 2 looks like two chromosomes were fused together within its interior because it has two centromeres (or at least, it has one normal centromere, and another region that looks a lot like a centromere elsewhere within the chromosome). Miller further noted that human chromosome #2 has a section where there are two telomeres, structures normally at the tips of chromosomes, which are found in the middle of chromosome #2. Essentially, these two telomeres are oriented in a way that it looks, genetically speaking, like the ends of two chromosomes were fused together.

I am more than willing to acknowledge and affirm that Miller provided good direct empirical evidence for a chromosomal fusion event which created human chromosome #2. He claims this evidence strongly supports his view that humans and chimps share a common ancestor, because humans have two fewer chromosomes than chimp, and Darwinian evolution predicts this fusion evidence. But his argument raises two crucial questions:

(1) Is his chromosome fusion story good evidence for Neo-Darwinian common ancestry between humans and apes?
(2) Does Dr. Miller's hypothesis perhaps pose problems for a Neo-Darwinian account of human genetic history?

As will be discussed below, the answer to Question (1) is "No" and the answer to Question (2) is "Yes."

Evidence for Fusion in a Human Chromosome Tells you LITTLE TO NOTHING about whether Humans Share a Common Ancestor with Living Apes
Usually Darwinists argue for human-ape common ancestry based upon alleged "shared errors" in human DNA and ape DNA. But the chromosomal fusion evidence is not a “shared error” argument for human / ape common ancestry, because apes do not have a fused chromosome. The human chromosomal fusion argument focuses on a fusion event that is specific to the human line, and therefore provides a highly limited form of evidence for human / ape common ancestry.

All Miller has done is documented direct empirical evidence of a chromosomal fusion event in the human line. But evidence for a chromosomal fusion event is not evidence for when that event took place, nor is it evidence for the ancestry prior to that event.

To be more specific, the fusion-evidence implies that some of our ancestors likely had 48 chromosomes. But Miller has not provided any evidence that the individual with 48 chromosomes was historically related to modern apes. (I grant that our chromosome #2 has banding patterns similar to two ape chromosomes, but given that our chromosome structure is generally similar to that of apes anyways, it is not a stretch to assume that any 48 chromosome ancestor of modern humans might have also had a chromosomal scheme similar to that of apes, regardless of whether or not that individual was related to apes. Claiming that banding pattern similarities is evidence of common ancestry with apes simply invokes the “similarity = common ancestry” argument, and thus begs the question.) It is entirely possible that our genus Homo underwent a chromosomal fusion event within its own separate history.

Under Neo-Darwinism, the common ancestor of humans and apes is thought to have lived about six million years ago. But under Miller's account, it is entirely possible that this chromosomal fusion event happened in a human population only 10,000 years ago, in a population that has no relation to living apes. In such a case, this chromosomal fusion event thus needs not have anything to do with making us human-like as opposed to ape-like. Clearly this chromosomal fusion event could be extremely far removed from any alleged ancestry with apes.

In essence, we don't know that this chromosomal fusion event happened on a line which leads back to some alleged common ancestor of apes and humans. All we know is that this fusion event happened in the line that led to you and me. Whether that line has common ancestry with apes is a separate question which cannot be answered by this fusion evidence.

All that evolutionists have claimed is that this fusion event occurred after the split that led to humans, so it occurs only in the human lineage. Evidence of a chromosomal fusion event is not evidence that our line leads all the way back to apes.

Given that we had a 48-chromosome ancestor, we don't know if our 48-chromosome ancestor was an ape or not. For all we know, our 48-chromosome ancestor was a part of a separately designed species, as fully human as any person you might meet on the street today. There is no good reason to think that going from a 46-chromosome individual to a 48-chromosome individual would make our species more ape-like.

This is explained in figure 1 below:

A Chromosomal Fusion Event Does Not Tell Anything About Whether Humans Share a Common Ancestor with Modern Apes.

Figure 1. This animated gif shows how even if the empirical genetic evidence mandates a chromosomal fusion event, this doesn't tell you anything about whether or not humans share ancestry with apes. The "Separate Ancestry" slide shows that the chromosomal fusion event may have simply taken place in a separately-designed basic type which, initially, had 48 chromosomes. The "Common Ancestry" slide shows how the chromosomal fusion event may have also taken place in a line which led back to a hypothetical common ancestor of humans and modern apes. The point is that all we have is evidence for a fusion event, but that fusion event is equally compatible with either separate ancestry from apes, or common ancestry with apes. The fusion event itself does not provide any independent evidence for common ancestry with apes. To argue that it is evidence for common ancestry requires special pleading.



Miller's "prediction" of Neo-Darwinian evolution is not a hard prediction of his theory: if common ancestry is true, Miller predicts that there must have been a fusion event. But the converse is not true. The presence of this fusion event in no way requires that common ancestry is true.

It only gets worse for Neo-Darwinism
Under Neo-Darwinism, genetic mutation events (including chromosomal aberrations) are generally assumed to be random and unguided. Miller's Cold-Fusion tale becomes more suspicious when one starts to ask harder questions like "how could a fusion event get fixed into a population via random and unguided processes, or how could it result in viable offspring?" Miller's account must overcome two potential obstacles:

(1) In most of our experience, individuals with randomly-fused chromosomes or extra chromosomes can be normal, but it is very likely that their offspring will ultimately have a genetic disease. A classic example of such is a cause of Down syndrome, where an individual has an extra chromosome #21.

(2) One way around the problem in (1) is to find a mate that also had an identical chromosomal fusion event or chromosomal splitting event. But this would require a rare mutant finding a mate with identical traits. Valentine and Erwin explain that the odds of rare-mutants finding mates with identical traits are highly unlikely:
"[T]he chance of two identical rare mutant individuals arising in sufficient propinquity to produce offspring seems too small to consider as a significant evolutionary event."

(Erwin, D..H., and Valentine, J.W. "'Hopeful monsters,' transposons, and the Metazoan radiation", Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci USA, 81:5482-5483, Sept 1984)
In other words, Miller has to explain why a random chromosomal fusion event which, in our experience ultimately results in offspring with genetic diseases, didn’t result in a genetic disease and was thus advantageous enough to get fixed into the entire population of our ancestors. Given the lack of empirical evidence that random chromosomal fusion events are not disadvantageous, perhaps the presence of a chromosomal fusion event is not good evidence for a Neo-Darwinian history for humans.

Miller may have found good empirical evidence for a chromosomal fusion event. But our experience with mammalian genetics tells us that such a chromosomal aberration could have created a non-viable mutant, or a normal individual who could not produce viable offspring. Thus, Neo-Darwinism has a hard time explaining why such a random fusion event was somehow advantageous.

If it were to turn out that the fusion of two chromosomes can only result in a viable individual if the fusion event takes place in a highly unlikely and highly specified manner, then we may actually be looking at a case for a non-Darwinian intelligent design event in the history of the human genus.


http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sho...hp/id/1392