Human(s) Chromosome 2 resulted from the Fusion of two Ape Chromosomes: Easily seen.

[Cougarbear]

I used YOUR Source and only YOUR excerpt Whack Job!
It DISAGREES with you.
Wow. Haysoos blind.

​

""So describing humans and chimpanzees as 98% to 99% identical is entirely appropriate (Chimpanzee Sequencing 2005).""​

​

`​

What are you talking about? You didn't read the article. Here is the concluding paragraph. You can go back and read the actual report. Doubt you will because what you did is very typical of evolutionary ideologists"

"It is clear that a chasm exists between the human and chimpanzee genomes. The common claim that they are nearly identical is very questionable, based on an analysis of the methodology and data outlined in reported secular research. Reported high DNA sequence similarity estimates are based primarily on pre-selected and pre-screened biological samples and/or data. In addition, data that are too dissimilar to be conveniently aligned are typically omitted, masked and/or not reported. Furthermore, gap data from final alignments is also often discarded, further inflating final similarity estimates. This highly selective process driven by Darwinian assumptions produces the commonly touted 98% similarity figure for human-chimp DNA comparisons. Based on human chimp genome data, a more realistic analysis of the data provided in published secular reports indicates that the similarity may be as low as 70% genome-wide." - https://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Chasm-Between-Human-Chimp-Genomes.pdf

 

[abu afak]

.

What are you talking about? You didn't read the article. Here is the concluding paragraph. You can go back and read the actual report. Doubt you will because what you did is very typical of evolutionary ideologists"

"It is clear that a chasm exists between the human and chimpanzee genomes. The common claim that they are nearly identical is very questionable, based on an analysis of the methodology and data outlined in reported secular research. Reported high DNA sequence similarity estimates are based primarily on pre-selected and pre-screened biological samples and/or data. In addition, data that are too dissimilar to be conveniently aligned are typically omitted, masked and/or not reported. Furthermore, gap data from final alignments is also often discarded, further inflating final similarity estimates. This highly selective process driven by Darwinian assumptions produces the commonly touted 98% similarity figure for human-chimp DNA comparisons. Based on human chimp genome data, a more realistic analysis of the data provided in published secular reports indicates that the similarity may be as low as 70% genome-wide." - https://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Chasm-Between-Human-Chimp-Genomes.pdf

That's not a scientific paper posted on a science website!
That's ICR, InstiSTOOP for Creation Research.
They try/Lie and shoehorn the bible into science.

You might as well quote Genesis or AnswersInGenesis.
It's not science, it's a twisted sermon.

All one needs to do is Google the question and you will get the answer from many/the vast majority of real websites.

Dear Reverend CLOWN that is doctrine, not science.
`

 

[Hollie]

It's your claim that these Phd's are charlatans. What proof do you have of this? Forget about them being religious. The information comes from studies done by evolutionists. It's not their work. It's yours! You are being hanged by your own works. What creationists have uncovered is the sick attempts to hide the truth by ignoring scientific findings that hurt evolution's claims that we are almost chimps.

Many of the charlatans (Ph.D.'s) are charlatans because of their hyper-religionism. Absolutely my claim so let's look at a few, shall we?

Carl Baugh. He's the Paluxy Riverbed charlatan who claims that human footprints appear alongside dinosaur tracks in the Paluxy riverbed in Texas. This clown is a Baptist minister who presents himself as an archeologist with a Ph.D. However, his 'degree' is from the California Graduate School of Theology in Los Angeles. This school is unaccredited by the Western Assocation of Schools and Colleges.

How about Stephen Meyer? This clown is director of the Disco'tute. He has a degree in something called ''philosophy of science'' and like many ''philosophers'' and other charlatans at the Disco'tute, he makes a lot of claims about scientific fields which show him to be completely illiterate.

Then there's Casey Luskin, also from the Disco'tute. He's a lawyer and a spokes-quack for the 'tutes. He published some the really nonsensical “Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover”, and “Alternative Viewpoints about Biological Origins as Taught in Public Schools”.

Let's look at Kelly Segraves. He is the director and co-founder of something called the ''Creation-Science Research Center''. Let me know if you can find any research this charlatan has performed. This quavk lists himself as M.A. and D.Sc. on CSRC letterhead. Segraves claimed his honorary D.Sc. from Christian University, but no such university exists.


Thats a start. Want more?

''What creationists have uncovered is the sick attempts to hide the truth by ignoring scientific findings that hurt evolution's claims that we are almost chimps.''

Actually, no. What creationer charlatans have discovered is that there are hyper-religious types who are gullible enough to be led like sheep to the ritual slaughter into the dark underbelly of creationer conspiracy theories.

 

[Cougarbear]

.

That's not a scientific paper posted on a science website!
That's ICR, InstiSTOOP for Creation Research.
They try/Lie and shoehorn the bible into science.

You might as well quote Genesis or AnswersInGenesis.
It's not science, it's a twisted sermon.

All one needs to do is Google the question and you will get the answer from many/the vast majority of real websites.

Dear Reverend CLOWN that is doctrine, not science.
`

So, you admit you lied. Thank you. Doesn't surprise me because that's what atheists do all the time. They have no consequences for their actions because they are their own gods. I led you to the actual article you claimed was proving you right when it did not. Yet, you still are trying to use the same garbage answer you all do.

 

[Cougarbear]

Many of the charlatans (Ph.D.'s) are charlatans because of their hyper-religionism. Absolutely my claim so let's look at a few, shall we?

Carl Baugh. He's the Paluxy Riverbed charlatan who claims that human footprints appear alongside dinosaur tracks in the Paluxy riverbed in Texas. This clown is a Baptist minister who presents himself as an archeologist with a Ph.D. However, his 'degree' is from the California Graduate School of Theology in Los Angeles. This school is unaccredited by the Western Assocation of Schools and Colleges.

How about Stephen Meyer? This clown is director of the Disco'tute. He has a degree in something called ''philosophy of science'' and like many ''philosophers'' and other charlatans at the Disco'tute, he makes a lot of claims about scientific fields which show him to be completely illiterate.

Then there's Casey Luskin, also from the Disco'tute. He's a lawyer and a spokes-quack for the 'tutes. He published some the really nonsensical “Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover”, and “Alternative Viewpoints about Biological Origins as Taught in Public Schools”.

Let's look at Kelly Segraves. He is the director and co-founder of something called the ''Creation-Science Research Center''. Let me know if you can find any research this charlatan has performed. This quavk lists himself as M.A. and D.Sc. on CSRC letterhead. Segraves claimed his honorary D.Sc. from Christian University, but no such university exists.


Thats a start. Want more?

''What creationists have uncovered is the sick attempts to hide the truth by ignoring scientific findings that hurt evolution's claims that we are almost chimps.''

Actually, no. What creationer charlatans have discovered is that there are hyper-religious types who are gullible enough to be led like sheep to the ritual slaughter into the dark underbelly of creationer conspiracy theories.

I can claim the same thing that your experts are charlatans because they are hyper-evolutionists who manipulate the science interpretations by selectively tossing out the proof against their claims to prove their claims. What the creationist scientists did was put those proofs back into the science and come up with truth that we are most likely less than 70% related by DNA to Chimps. Which, by the way, coincides with most evolutionists now that humans are not related to chimps. The reason is that the evolutionists now claim that humans and chimps have a common ancestor that lived 6.5 to 13 million years ago. Hominids and Apes broke off into different branches and so are not related at all. Why do you not know this? Why do creationists know this? How does ignorance really feel?

 

[Hollie]

I can claim the same thing that your experts are charlatans because they are hyper-evolutionists who manipulate the science interpretations by selectively tossing out the proof against their claims to prove their claims. What the creationist scientists did was put those proofs back into the science and come up with truth that we are most likely less than 70% related by DNA to Chimps. Which, by the way, coincides with most evolutionists now that humans are not related to chimps. The reason is that the evolutionists now claim that humans and chimps have a common ancestor that lived 6.5 to 13 million years ago. Hominids and Apes broke off into different branches and so are not related at all. Why do you not know this? Why do creationists know this? How does ignorance really feel?

Oddly, you didn't address my specific response to your specific challenge, which was, “…. What proof do you have of this?”

Well, I gave you specific examples.

Your rant is now, “…. they are hyper-evolutionists who manipulate the science interpretations by selectively tossing out the proof against their claims to prove their claims.”

Wow. We’re getting a little hyper-hysterical and hyper-sensitive regarding our hyper-religionism.

So, tell us more about those evilutionist atheist scientists who “manipulate the science interpretations by selectively tossing out the proof against their claims to prove their claims.”

What is “the proof against their claims to prove their claims.”

Any examples? Religionism must have some examples, right?

 

[james bond]

You need to stop bragging about Ashkenazi (and orthodox or Islamist) intelligence.
Holy book literalists are a plague on the planet.
The vast majority of Jewish Nobel winners were not orthodox they were just about all Ashkenazi/Euro-mixes though.
They did not have a peyos.

Einstein's letter to Gutkind - 1954 (auctioned at Christies)

‘The word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses,’ Einstein wrote to Gutkind, ‘the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this.’​

​

Despite Einstein’s open identification with Judaism, his feelings on it were the same:​

‘For me the unadulterated Jewish religion is, like all other religions, an incarnation of primitive superstition. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong, and in whose mentality I feel profoundly anchored, still for me does not have any different kind of dignity from all other peoples. As far as my experience goes, they are in fact no better than other human groups, even if they are protected from the worst excesses by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot perceive anything “chosen” about them.’​

YOU believe, alas, in the "unadulterated Jewish religion"/"primitive superstitious" orthodox world.

`

Einstein didn't know science can't have a proof nor disproof of God/gods (Feynman) and that science backs up the Bible. If science didn't do that, then there is no creation science.



I think you're trying to have science back up atheism, but there is no science for that. That's why you are fight so hard for it and why you get emo.

You also fail with a logic error of appealing to authority.

 

[Cougarbear]

Oddly, you didn't address my specific response to your specific challenge, which was, “…. What proof do you have of this?”

Well, I gave you specific examples.

Your rant is now, “…. they are hyper-evolutionists who manipulate the science interpretations by selectively tossing out the proof against their claims to prove their claims.”

Wow. We’re getting a little hyper-hysterical and hyper-sensitive regarding our hyper-religionism.

So, tell us more about those evilutionist atheist scientists who “manipulate the science interpretations by selectively tossing out the proof against their claims to prove their claims.”

What is “the proof against their claims to prove their claims.”

Any examples? Religionism must have some examples, right?

I gave you the proof. But, your religious ideology to Chimps being your god of evolution refuse to acknowledge the truth that evolution science hides those things that disprove their claims. And, I shared with you the science behind this. You have the percentages now. I just didn't agree with the deception in what you put out there.

 

[Hollie]

I gave you the proof. But, your religious ideology to Chimps being your god of evolution refuse to acknowledge the truth that evolution science hides those things that disprove their claims. And, I shared with you the science behind this. You have the percentages now. I just didn't agree with the deception in what you put out there.

That reads like a lot of conspiracy theory rambling.

You're rambling again about some conspiracy theory that "evolution refuse to acknowledge the truth that evolution science hides those things that disprove their claim."

What evidence is being hidden by evilutionist atheist scientists? Be specific and provide relevant examples. I'm afraid you're simply copying and pasting your same post that reiterates some conspiracy theory you're enamored with.

What deception have I put out there? This is another, rather frantic claim you can't seem to provide any elaboration for.

 

[Cougarbear]

That reads like a lot of conspiracy theory rambling.

You're rambling again about some conspiracy theory that "evolution refuse to acknowledge the truth that evolution science hides those things that disprove their claim."

What evidence is being hidden by evilutionist atheist scientists? Be specific and provide relevant examples. I'm afraid you're simply copying and pasting your same post that reiterates some conspiracy theory you're enamored with.

What deception have I put out there? This is another, rather frantic claim you can't seem to provide any elaboration for.

No it doesn't. It may to you because you are not teachable anymore. You've been brainwashed by others to not be objective and listen to what others have to say. for instance, the articles I've provided explain what is being hidden and tossed aside so that information isn't hurting their objective to trick people into believing we are Chimps. Okay Alvin, you are a human...

 

[Hollie]

No it doesn't. It may to you because you are not teachable anymore. You've been brainwashed by others to not be objective and listen to what others have to say. for instance, the articles I've provided explain what is being hidden and tossed aside so that information isn't hurting their objective to trick people into believing we are Chimps. Okay Alvin, you are a human...

You're angry and emotive but that still doesn't address your conspiracy theories.

How have I been "brainwashed" and by who? I'm fine with being objective but when you copy and paste from charlatans at the ICR ministry, it is you who has abandoned objectivity. As you know, the charlatans at creationer ministries adhere to a "statement of faith" that pre-determines all their positions. You can hide under a burqa of denial but it is a fact that the creationers are not objective and in fact they agree to a "statement of faith" that explicitly rejects objectivity.

Any articles you cut and paste from the ICR are presumed to be inherently biased toward your brand of religionism because that is announced by the creationer ministry.

Why would you expect me to be an accomplice to your biases?

 

[Cougarbear]

You're angry and emotive but that still doesn't address your conspiracy theories.

How have I been "brainwashed" and by who? I'm fine with being objective but when you copy and paste from charlatans at the ICR ministry, it is you who has abandoned objectivity. As you know, the charlatans at creationer ministries adhere to a "statement of faith" that pre-determines all their positions. You can hide under a burqa of denial but it is a fact that the creationers are not objective and in fact they agree to a "statement of faith" that explicitly rejects objectivity.

Any articles you cut and paste from the ICR are presumed to be inherently biased toward your brand of religionism because that is announced by the creationer ministry.

Why would you expect me to be an accomplice to your biases?

Okay Alvin, not I'm not angry at all. I'm quite happy and laughing at your insistence on believing the charlatan evolutionists. You've been reading, listening and hanging around evolutionists for hours every day all your life. Of course you've been brainwashed. From grade school to college you have been bamboozled by atheist educators and a system that produced brainless parrots who have engrained into their brains that evolution is true.

 

[Hollie]

Okay Alvin, not I'm not angry at all. I'm quite happy and laughing at your insistence on believing the charlatan evolutionists. You've been reading, listening and hanging around evolutionists for hours every day all your life. Of course you've been brainwashed. From grade school to college you have been bamboozled by atheist educators and a system that produced brainless parrots who have engrained into their brains that evolution is true.

What charlatan evolutionists are you referring to? This is just another of your frantic claims because your feelings are hurt.

Actually, I've been hanging around people who don't believe the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth. You revile knowledge and learning. Your only counter to the success of science is to retreat to silly conspiracy theories. It's difficult to understand how you function in your day to day existence with such an odd worldview. The beliefs of the hyper-religious leaves them poorly equipped to survive in a society / culture that evolves (<----purposeful term) away from how life existed 2,000 years ago. One of the profound difficulties religious extremists have with reality in general (and science in particular) is that they are more complex than whipping out your gods as a way to assuage your fears and superstition. Human existence does not consist strictly of ideals and opposites, but instead, of continua along multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes, it is one of the rude awakenings to the hyper-religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.

 

[Cougarbear]

What charlatan evolutionists are you referring to? This is just another of your frantic claims because your feelings are hurt.

Actually, I've been hanging around people who don't believe the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth. You revile knowledge and learning. Your only counter to the success of science is to retreat to silly conspiracy theories. It's difficult to understand how you function in your day to day existence with such an odd worldview. The beliefs of the hyper-religious leaves them poorly equipped to survive in a society / culture that evolves (<----purposeful term) away from how life existed 2,000 years ago. One of the profound difficulties religious extremists have with reality in general (and science in particular) is that they are more complex than whipping out your gods as a way to assuage your fears and superstition. Human existence does not consist strictly of ideals and opposites, but instead, of continua along multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes, it is one of the rude awakenings to the hyper-religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.

You are who you hang around. You become what you are based upon what you think about. You get information from educators who are Darwinians so you parrot out what they say and are unable to logically reason out truth. You are a Darwinian extremist and have difficulty with reality (God lives) so that you can ignore God's commandments and do those unseemly things. It's called a reprobate mind.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, you admit you lied. Thank you. Doesn't surprise me because that's what atheists do all the time. They have no consequences for their actions because they are their own gods. I led you to the actual article you claimed was proving you right when it did not. Yet, you still are trying to use the same garbage answer you all do.

Look dude.

You can whine like a little B and lie all day and all night.

You are still embarrassing yourself and trying to engage in a debate you lost 150 years ago.

 

[Hollie]

You are who you hang around. You become what you are based upon what you think about. You get information from educators who are Darwinians so you parrot out what they say and are unable to logically reason out truth. You are a Darwinian extremist and have difficulty with reality (God lives) so that you can ignore God's commandments and do those unseemly things. It's called a reprobate mind.

It's odd, don't you think?

You claim I have difficulty with reality while at the same time you claim ''God lives'.

I suppose we should examine our realities. I claim that existence is natural, that accepting the facts of biological evolution is a rational position. There is every reason to accept a naturalistic explanation to the physical world as opposed to any claimed supernatural causation and that is because we have no evidence of any supernatural gods causing supernatural events. There are no supernatural rabbits bring pulled out of supernatural hats.

But you claim that contingent reality can't be trusted, that there are supernatural realms inhabited by supernatural gods, (the gods you were given due to the familial, geographic location of your birth), and you claim to know that at least a few of these Gods live. Well, no.
The existence of the universe does nothing to support the contention of your gods. You can make all the pompous, bellicose claims you wish that your gods are real and extent, but such claims are meaningless.

 

[Cougarbear]

It's odd, don't you think?

You claim I have difficulty with reality while at the same time you claim ''God lives'.

I suppose we should examine our realities. I claim that existence is natural, that accepting the facts of biological evolution is a rational position. There is every reason to accept a naturalistic explanation to the physical world as opposed to any claimed supernatural causation and that is because we have no evidence of any supernatural gods causing supernatural events. There are no supernatural rabbits bring pulled out of supernatural hats.

But you claim that contingent reality can't be trusted, that there are supernatural realms inhabited by supernatural gods, (the gods you were given due to the familial, geographic location of your birth), and you claim to know that at least a few of these Gods live. Well, no.
The existence of the universe does nothing to support the contention of your gods. You can make all the pompous, bellicose claims you wish that your gods are real and extent, but such claims are meaningless.

God is natural. Evolution has no position of being rational. There is no truth to any of it. No evidence. None.

 

[Hollie]

God is natural. Evolution has no position of being rational. There is no truth to any of it. No evidence. None.

I'm not at all surprised that you resort to the ''... because I say so'', admonition.

Why would you think anyone would take that seriously?

To state there is no evidence of evolution is a complete abandonment of any rational, ethical standard. There's certainly reason to question the moral compass and ethical foundation of people who worship tales and fables of gods who, per the fables, drowns the world, sends plagues, brings down civilizations, they allow maniacal generals to slay thousands upon their command. They will allow vials of death and disease and chaos and mayhem to reign supreme, and they will let you go to hell for all time for not "choosing correctly''.

It seems you have a problem with others living their lives without the burden of fears and superstitions that consume your daily existence.

I have to note that evolution is always, always attacked by extremist Christians. We see it in so many threads in the science forum. There are obvious reasons: changes in populations of species over vast time spans is in direct contradiction to christian theology. Evolution is at variance with so much of the Christian religion. It invalidates the idea of ''Original Sin'', completely undermines the idea that we are all totally depraved sinners thus, eliminates the need for Jesus and salvation. The extremist christian religionrs see science and knowledge as completely obviating the foundations of their religion. Another objection actually described by extremist christians for rejecting evolution is because they think it would make them less ''special''. "Special'' creation of supernatural gods is a core component of christianity. Aren't you holding contradictory positions? As a christian you are totally depraved and carry original sin , but hey, you're so special.

A special kind of self-hater.

 

[Turtlesoup]

Any creature (especially mammals) in the zygote stage of their life, growth and development are what they are (as members each of their own species.) "Zygote" is a stage of development. A "zygote" is not one creature that only later morphs into another.

Science.

Learn it. Embrace it.

With reference to the OP. . . What (if not conception) was the moment that the first HUMAN genetic sequence was actually, scientifically, biologically, first created and set into motion?

They aren't a life--zygotes actually function more like a immature parasite--unable to live on its own.

 

[Cougarbear]

I'm not at all surprised that you resort to the ''... because I say so'', admonition.

Why would you think anyone would take that seriously?

To state there is no evidence of evolution is a complete abandonment of any rational, ethical standard. There's certainly reason to question the moral compass and ethical foundation of people who worship tales and fables of gods who, per the fables, drowns the world, sends plagues, brings down civilizations, they allow maniacal generals to slay thousands upon their command. They will allow vials of death and disease and chaos and mayhem to reign supreme, and they will let you go to hell for all time for not "choosing correctly''.

It seems you have a problem with others living their lives without the burden of fears and superstitions that consume your daily existence.

I have to note that evolution is always, always attacked by extremist Christians. We see it in so many threads in the science forum. There are obvious reasons: changes in populations of species over vast time spans is in direct contradiction to christian theology. Evolution is at variance with so much of the Christian religion. It invalidates the idea of ''Original Sin'', completely undermines the idea that we are all totally depraved sinners thus, eliminates the need for Jesus and salvation. The extremist christian religionrs see science and knowledge as completely obviating the foundations of their religion. Another objection actually described by extremist christians for rejecting evolution is because they think it would make them less ''special''. "Special'' creation of supernatural gods is a core component of christianity. Aren't you holding contradictory positions? As a christian you are totally depraved and carry original sin , but hey, you're so special.

A special kind of self-hater.

Why would anyone take your thought that questioning evolution isn't atheist extremism? It is. Again, there is no evidence that a lower life level has ever changed into a new species of higher level of life. Like, an Amoeba has become a human. The time length of mutation for that to happen, even if it could, would be trillions of year. When we sit and watch science programs on science stations they always use fuzzy words while trying to make evolution sound credible. It's like, "scientists have found that life MAY HAVE begun this way or that way." You never hear, "Scientists have found the missing link connection from an Euglena changing into a jelly fish." No, you never do. It's always, Euglena's could have been heated up by vents in the oceans and possibly caused them to mutate together into a multi-cell creature. You can tell me I'm wrong but you won't be able to show me that I'm wrong. You'll just go on another rant against Christianity.