Dr Collins, top geneticist, and CHRISTIAN....

[Youwerecreated]

So how similar do you think those three chromosomes are? Ones human, two are chimp, and the sequences of genes line up exactly.

I guess Human Chromosome 2 is not an exact copy of Chimp chromosomes 2p and 2q...

Considering them not having the same amount of Chromosomes and the inversions not near close enough. If you don't believe me get a picture of a chimp and human and look at them very closely.

If there is three billion base pairs of DNA in a human,and there is a 5% difference between human and chimp, using percentages hides an important fact. If 5% of the DNA is different, this amounts to 150,000,000 DNA base pairs that are different between them. Hello!

 

[cbirch2]

Did anyone say they aren't alike?

And how exactly does that prove that evolution is responsible for speciation?

Oh yeah, it doesn't.

Proof definition:

1. conclusive evidence: evidence or an argument that serves to establish a fact or the truth of something
2. test of something: a test or trial of something to establish whether it is true
3. state of having been proved: the quality or condition of having been proved

Proved as in someone has seen a speciation event happen? Thats debatable. Also irrelevant in our 5000 year time frame

The only way theres no evidence for evolution is if you decide to throw out all fossils, which im pretty sure your willing to do.

 

[AllieBaba]

THAT'S NOT CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE, IT'S NOT PROOF.

Oh. My. God.

 

[Youwerecreated]

sci·en·tif·ic method (s

n-t

f

k)
n. The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.

So please explain to me what experimentation has demonstrated the truth of speciation by evolution?

Retards.

How many times do you have to ask that question Allie before they respond with something other then wiki.

 

[cbirch2]

Did anyone say they aren't alike?

And how exactly does that prove that evolution is responsible for speciation?

Oh yeah, it doesn't.

Proof definition:

1. conclusive evidence: evidence or an argument that serves to establish a fact or the truth of something
2. test of something: a test or trial of something to establish whether it is true
3. state of having been proved: the quality or condition of having been proved

Proved as in someone has seen a speciation event happen? Thats debatable. Also irrelevant in our 5000 year time frame

The only way theres no evidence for evolution is if you decide to throw out all fossils, which im pretty sure your willing to do.

So how similar do you think those three chromosomes are? Ones human, two are chimp, and the sequences of genes line up exactly.

I guess Human Chromosome 2 is not an exact copy of Chimp chromosomes 2p and 2q...

Considering them not having the same amount of Chromosomes and the inversions not near close enough. If you don't believe me get a picture of a chimp and human and look at them very closely.

If there is three billion base pairs of DNA in a human,and there is a 5% difference between human and chimp, using percentages hides an important fact. If 5% of the DNA is different, this amounts to 150,000,000 DNA base pairs that are different between them. Hello!

Humans and chimps both have 2.9 billion base pairs in their genome. They dont have the same amount of chromosomes because two chimp chromosomes fused into one. My entire point. wow.

just because two chromosomes became two doesnt mean the number of base pairs changed.

 

[AllieBaba]

Fresh doubts emerge on evolution theory
An ANCESTOR of modern humans may have became extinct earlier than was previously thought, throwing doubt on a key theory of human evolution.


Fresh doubts emerge on evolution theory - Scotsman.com News

"
Over 500 doctoral scientists have now signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution.
The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

The list of 514 signatories includes member scientists from the prestigious US and Russian National Academy of Sciences. Signers include 154 biologists, the largest single scientific discipline represented on the list, as well as 76 chemists and 63 physicists. Signers hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines. Many are professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as MIT, The Smithsonian, Cambridge University, UCLA, UC Berkeley, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, the Ohio State University, the University of Georgia, and the University of Washington.
Discovery Institute first published its Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list in 2001 to challenge false statements about Darwinian evolution made in promoting PBS's "Evolution" series. At the time it was claimed that "virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true."
"Darwinists continue to claim that no serious scientists doubt the theory and yet here are 500 scientists who are willing to make public their skepticism about the theory," said Dr. John G. West, associate director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture. "Darwinist efforts to use the courts, the media and academic tenure committees to suppress dissent and stifle discussion are in fact fueling even more dissent and inspiring more scientists to ask to be added to the list."

"
Other prominent signatories include U.S. National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell; American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellow Lyle Jensen; evolutionary biologist and textbook author Stanley Salthe; Smithsonian Institution evolutionary biologist and a researcher at the National Institutes of Health's National Center for Biotechnology Information Richard von Sternberg; Editor of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum --the oldest still published biology journal in the world-- Giuseppe Sermonti; and Russian Academy of Natural Sciences embryologist Lev Beloussov. "
Over 500 Scientists Proclaim Their Doubts About Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Evolution News & Views

 

[cbirch2]

THAT'S NOT CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE, IT'S NOT PROOF.

Oh. My. God.

Thats exactly what i trying to get at. Observation of speciation isnt very likely in 5000 years. So saying you've never seen observation means nothing.

How are fossils of animals that appear to be a mixtures of two not evidence of common descent?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Did anyone say they aren't alike?

And how exactly does that prove that evolution is responsible for speciation?

Oh yeah, it doesn't.

Proof definition:

1. conclusive evidence: evidence or an argument that serves to establish a fact or the truth of something
2. test of something: a test or trial of something to establish whether it is true
3. state of having been proved: the quality or condition of having been proved

Proved as in someone has seen a speciation event happen? Thats debatable. Also irrelevant in our 5000 year time frame

The only way theres no evidence for evolution is if you decide to throw out all fossils, which im pretty sure your willing to do.

A true evolutionist of the macro type, would steer clear of the fossil record as evidence as i said yesterday.

 

[AllieBaba]

sci·en·tif·ic method (s

n-t

f

k)
n. The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.

So please explain to me what experimentation has demonstrated the truth of speciation by evolution?

Retards.

How many times do you have to ask that question Allie before they respond with something other then wiki.

I don't know but you'd think they'd look around here before too long and notice that they are only 3 of about...I don't know how many....people on this site who make these ridiculous claims.

You don't see any of the educated USMB members supporting them, even though there are MANY who believe evolution leads to speciation. And they aren't supporting them because they recognize how utterly ridiculous their claims are.

There is no evidence that supports it. It's fine to surmise and suppose that evolution probably leads to speciation...but when you say it has been proven you're LYING. It has never been proven. The scientific community is divided...and NONE of them say it has been proven.

 

[cbirch2]

Fresh doubts emerge on evolution theory
An ANCESTOR of modern humans may have became extinct earlier than was previously thought, throwing doubt on a key theory of human evolution.


Fresh doubts emerge on evolution theory - Scotsman.com News

"
Over 500 doctoral scientists have now signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution.
The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

The list of 514 signatories includes member scientists from the prestigious US and Russian National Academy of Sciences. Signers include 154 biologists, the largest single scientific discipline represented on the list, as well as 76 chemists and 63 physicists. Signers hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines. Many are professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as MIT, The Smithsonian, Cambridge University, UCLA, UC Berkeley, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, the Ohio State University, the University of Georgia, and the University of Washington.
Discovery Institute first published its Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list in 2001 to challenge false statements about Darwinian evolution made in promoting PBS's "Evolution" series. At the time it was claimed that "virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true."
"Darwinists continue to claim that no serious scientists doubt the theory and yet here are 500 scientists who are willing to make public their skepticism about the theory," said Dr. John G. West, associate director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture. "Darwinist efforts to use the courts, the media and academic tenure committees to suppress dissent and stifle discussion are in fact fueling even more dissent and inspiring more scientists to ask to be added to the list."

Over 500 Scientists Proclaim Their Doubts About Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Evolution News & Views

500 PH. Ds worldwide is the best you can do?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Did anyone say they aren't alike?

And how exactly does that prove that evolution is responsible for speciation?

Oh yeah, it doesn't.

Proof definition:

1. conclusive evidence: evidence or an argument that serves to establish a fact or the truth of something
2. test of something: a test or trial of something to establish whether it is true
3. state of having been proved: the quality or condition of having been proved

Proved as in someone has seen a speciation event happen? Thats debatable. Also irrelevant in our 5000 year time frame

The only way theres no evidence for evolution is if you decide to throw out all fossils, which im pretty sure your willing to do.

So how similar do you think those three chromosomes are? Ones human, two are chimp, and the sequences of genes line up exactly.

I guess Human Chromosome 2 is not an exact copy of Chimp chromosomes 2p and 2q...

Considering them not having the same amount of Chromosomes and the inversions not near close enough. If you don't believe me get a picture of a chimp and human and look at them very closely.

If there is three billion base pairs of DNA in a human,and there is a 5% difference between human and chimp, using percentages hides an important fact. If 5% of the DNA is different, this amounts to 150,000,000 DNA base pairs that are different between them. Hello!

Humans and chimps both have 2.9 billion base pairs in their genome. They dont have the same amount of chromosomes because two chimp chromosomes fused into one. My entire point. wow.

just because two chromosomes became two doesnt mean the number of base pairs changed.

That is what i said before you said it.

I told you i was way ahead of you what are you doing reading it as we go ?

But you're gonna ignore the math ,i thought you liked math.

 

[cbirch2]

Did anyone say they aren't alike?

And how exactly does that prove that evolution is responsible for speciation?

Oh yeah, it doesn't.

Proof definition:

1. conclusive evidence: evidence or an argument that serves to establish a fact or the truth of something
2. test of something: a test or trial of something to establish whether it is true
3. state of having been proved: the quality or condition of having been proved

Proved as in someone has seen a speciation event happen? Thats debatable. Also irrelevant in our 5000 year time frame

The only way theres no evidence for evolution is if you decide to throw out all fossils, which im pretty sure your willing to do.

A true evolutionist of the macro type, would steer clear of the fossil record as evidence as i said yesterday.

Lol so the fact that a skeleton that looks half man half ape existed just before man is not evidence of common descent? Really!?

 

[Youwerecreated]

THAT'S NOT CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE, IT'S NOT PROOF.

Oh. My. God.

Thats exactly what i trying to get at. Observation of speciation isnt very likely in 5000 years. So saying you've never seen observation means nothing.

How are fossils of animals that appear to be a mixtures of two not evidence of common descent?

So let's make the earth 4.6 billion years old so maybe our theory will fit nope still does not fit.

 

[cbirch2]

Proved as in someone has seen a speciation event happen? Thats debatable. Also irrelevant in our 5000 year time frame

The only way theres no evidence for evolution is if you decide to throw out all fossils, which im pretty sure your willing to do.

Considering them not having the same amount of Chromosomes and the inversions not near close enough. If you don't believe me get a picture of a chimp and human and look at them very closely.

If there is three billion base pairs of DNA in a human,and there is a 5% difference between human and chimp, using percentages hides an important fact. If 5% of the DNA is different, this amounts to 150,000,000 DNA base pairs that are different between them. Hello!

Humans and chimps both have 2.9 billion base pairs in their genome. They dont have the same amount of chromosomes because two chimp chromosomes fused into one. My entire point. wow.

just because two chromosomes became two doesnt mean the number of base pairs changed.

That is what i said before you said it.

I told you i was way ahead of you what are you doing reading it as we go ?

But you're gonna ignore the math ,i thought you liked math.

What math? i dont think you get what i said. I might have had a typo as well. There is no difference in information between the human and chimpanzee genome. Theres minor differences, but in terms of total information they are almost exactly the same. Your 5% figure is pulled from your ass, they both have 2.9 billion base pairs in their DNA. Just because two of those segments of base pairs joined together doesnt mean there is actually less information, it means the same amount of information is contained within a smaller number of chromosomes.

At least allie knows what hes talking about now. Your still confused.

My post should have said this. "Humans and chimps both have 2.9 billion base pairs in their genome. They dont have a different amount of information just because two chimp chromosomes fused into one. My entire point. wow."

 

[AllieBaba]

I can hear wiki groaning as he scrambles find exactly the entry to support his pseudo-science, while madly typing to insert the pseudo-science into wiki....

 

[AllieBaba]

Humans and chimps both have 2.9 billion base pairs in their genome. They dont have the same amount of chromosomes because two chimp chromosomes fused into one. My entire point. wow.

just because two chromosomes became two doesnt mean the number of base pairs changed.

That is what i said before you said it.

I told you i was way ahead of you what are you doing reading it as we go ?

But you're gonna ignore the math ,i thought you liked math.

What math? i dont think you get what i said. I might have had a typo as well. There is no difference in information between the human and chimpanzee genome. Theres minor differences, but in terms of total information they are almost exactly the same. Your 5% figure is pulled from your ass, they both have 2.9 billion base pairs in their DNA. Just because two of those segments of base pairs joined together doesnt mean there is actually less information, it means the same amount of information is contained within a smaller number of chromosomes.

At least allie knows what hes talking about now. Your still confused.

WHICH IS IT? There is NO difference, or there is SOME difference???

You see, when you can't make a coherent statement even at this level, you've got a problem.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Proved as in someone has seen a speciation event happen? Thats debatable. Also irrelevant in our 5000 year time frame

The only way theres no evidence for evolution is if you decide to throw out all fossils, which im pretty sure your willing to do.

A true evolutionist of the macro type, would steer clear of the fossil record as evidence as i said yesterday.

Lol so the fact that a skeleton that looks half man half ape existed just before man is not evidence of common descent? Really!?

Wrong ,prove it. They only have fossils with the characteristics that are 100% human or 100% ape like creature.Nothing that can be identified as both.

 

[AllieBaba]

And Allie almost always knows what she's talking about, or she doesn't talk.

 

[Youwerecreated]

THAT'S NOT CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE, IT'S NOT PROOF.

Oh. My. God.

Thats exactly what i trying to get at. Observation of speciation isnt very likely in 5000 years. So saying you've never seen observation means nothing.

How are fossils of animals that appear to be a mixtures of two not evidence of common descent?

So it's once again based on speculation

 

[Dr.Drock]

Allie what is proof? Observable proof isn't proof, fossils backed by scientific hypothesis aren't proof, what is?


And you provide a link of evolution denying and you STILL claim you aren't an evolution denier?

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

Here's 30 examples of proof of macroevolution with literally hundreds of references.

Feel free to deny all 30.

After that, I'll ask again, PLEASE provide me the biologists who say T-Rex was a herbivore.