[_ Old Earth _] The Complete Evolution Refutation Part 1

[protos]

Alleged chimp similarity:

98% Similarity? I think not!

Are we really that similar?

Dinosaurs:

A number of evolutionists including Richard Dawkins have stated that a human and dinosaur coexisting will shatter the theory of evolution (from its already ever-increasing decrepit state)

Dino bones, just how old are they? - Bones do not have to be “turned into stone†to be fossils, and usually most of the original bone is still present in a dinosaur fossil.

T-rex blood cells

Sad attempt of discredit by evolutionists - Their only basis that these weren't red blood cells was because they HAD to be millions of years old.

A living dinosaur

Are dinosaurs alive today?

Australian Aborigines and Dinosaurs - Australian Aborigines have stories of encounters with huge, sometimes frightening monsters which range from what sound like dinosaurs to giant marsupials, also believed to have long become extinct.

Messages on Stone

Archaeopteryx:

Not a hoax, but not a missing link either

Fallacy of Bird evolution

More anatomical examinations of the impossiblities of bird evolution

Radiometric dating:

Carbon 14 - It does work, but not for millions of years.

A Dating Conflict - Alleged 20 million year old wood? How can that be when Carbon 14 detects at most 100,000 years. (No this doesn't mean that the Earth is at least 100,000 years old reznwerks)

Alleged Millions of years - Carbon Dating disproves 225 million years.

Again, alleged millions of years - A magma deposited crust from 1975 is dated by "reliable" dating methods as hundreds of thousands of years old.

How radiometric dating methods work

Dating Flaws of Old Age Earth

Unconstant radiometric decay

Young Earth Creationism a Heresy? - An inspired person took up a crusade on an all-scale attack on Young Earth Creationism (YEC). In short, his claims are that radiometric decay is absolutely constant, and that there is an 'abundance' of 'left overs' as opposed to a lack of usage of Potassium-40 which has an alleged half-life of 1.4 billion years.

RATE - True measuring of the age of the Earth.

Radiometric acceleration demonstrated

Radiometric Decay

Nuclear Decay: Evidence for a Young World

Helium Diffusion Rates - They support accelerated nuclear decay rate

Starlight:

The Star mystery

How can starlight be billions of lightyears away? - It's quite theoretical, but it's theoretically sound. As a former big banger, the evidence I used to support the big bang can quite comfortable, and maybe even more precisely fit the new creationist cosmology.

Continental Drift:

Millions of years?

For the more skeptical minded, perhaps a blow to dinosaurs being millions of years old with photos:

800B.C.-200A.D. Mexican Dinosaur Figurines - Yes, you read that.

Ancient Peruvian Dinosaur Art

Dino Art by Native Americans again!

Just when you thought the above three links were a south/central american conspiracy, the prize winner with solid proof for the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs in ancient times:

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-cambodia.htm

I mean, I haven't jumped out of my seat like that since I read in Job and Isaiah about the earth being round. Anyone who still thinks there is some hope for evolution, and that somehow someway that dinosaur was made after the 1830's, the discovery of dinosaurs, and placed in the Cambodian temple, then how about from a friend of their midst!:

Antony Flew, renown atheistic evolutionist, denounces atheism and takes theism as, quote: "had to go where the evidence leads.â€Â

www.biola.edu/antonyflew/flew-interview.pdf+Antony+Flew&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4]Dawkins is next I tell you![/url]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any further rejection of the above affirms that your upholding of evolution is dogma, not science, and as such it is a religion.

Those advocating the theory of evolution on behalf of scientific truth should confront these findings and question the presumptions they have so far held. Refusal to do this would mean openly accepting that their adherence to the theory of evolution is dogmatic rather than scientific...

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Discover's Cover article for this month is pretty cool (Schweitzer's Dangerous

Discovery).

More soft tissue has been found in dinosaur bones found in Montana.

Yet more evidence coming in for a young earth.


Here's a dated report from a year ago:


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/


There's obviously been alot more confirming evidence in the past year.


Nice compilation above Protos.

If you don't mind, I may copy and save it for future reference.

Peace

 

[sheseala]

Eh there's so much posted here (and has been here before) I'll just take a stab at it with what I know off the top of my head. I think the regulars will help me find the sources.

The guy makes reference to chromosome number comparison and doesn't believe that the human chromosome fused. The problem I have is that we know that chromosome fused, not only by the types of genes on it, but by the fact that there's telomeres in the middle of it. If it didn't fuse, why are there end markers in the middle?

Dinosaurs being alive today isn't a problem for evolution, it'd be really cool though. Granted, for something as large as those and all the expeditions out to find new species, why haven't they been found?

About the soft tissues and fossilization, statistically, of what do you find dino fossils to be made? Of what do you find "newer" animal remains to be made?

The thing is though, if humans and classic prehistoric dinosaurs from the same time period and coexisting, you need to find things humans in dinos in the same layers, same pollen on the remains, human tissue in dino corporlites, dino tissue in human corporlite, human tool marks on dino bones etc...

The thing with Archaeopteryx, they claim it was a perching bird, but it lacked an opposable toe and couldn't perch. It had a saurian tail and saurian feet. It didn't quite fly like today's birds, but it probably flew around a lot better than those then.

The wood thing should be published and studied. The geologists could have assumed it was part of a formation of which it really wasn't a part. Proving them wrong is fun.

I won't go into nuclear decay much as it brings back memories of diff eq, statistics, and chemistry, and the fact i just don't know anything about starting conditions. The decay rate being constant is quite well established, however.

I also don't know much about astronomy, only that if the speed of light is changing, it affects everything, interactions of atoms, electrical conductivity, everything.

That's all I got.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

I love how he calls it a refutation when all it is is a bunch of links to answers in genesis articles.

1: Your refutation should be based in indisputable facts, answers in genesis is biased to say the least, I would even venture that they are a poor source for information in general, except perhaps for that page of arguments creationists should not use.
2: Your refutation should show that biology is not well explained by evolution, which by nearly all accounts of biologists it is. And all those biologists who disagree do so for religious reasons.

 

[ArtGuy]

I also don't know much about astronomy, only that if the speed of light is changing, it affects everything, interactions of atoms, electrical conductivity, everything.

That's fine, I know enough to tackle the cosmological article I could be bothered to read.

To start:

This might sound like common sense, as indeed it is, but all modern secular ("big bang") cosmologies deny this. That is, they make arbitrary assumption (without any scientific necessity) that the universe has no boundaries -- no edge and no center. In this assumed universe, every galaxy would be surrounded by galaxies spread evenly in all directions (on a large enough scale), and so, therefore, all the net gravitational forces cancel out.

That's not exactly an "arbitrary assumption" - it was an originally educated guess that's been backed up by analysis of cosmic background radiation. The recent WMAP data showed that the most likely shape for the universe is either a Poincare dodecahedral space, or hyperbolic. Either way, though, it's not a bounded sphere, as this model requires. You won't run into a big wall if you keep heading in one direction. So, strike one.

As matter passed out of this event horizon, the horizon itself had to shrink -- eventually to nothing. Therefore, at one point this earth (relative to a point far away from it) would have been virtually frozen in time. An observer on earth would not in any way "feel different." "Billions of years" would be available (in the frame of reference within which it is travelling in deep space) for light to reach the earth, for stars to age, etc. -- while less than one ordinary day is passing on earth. This massive gravitational time dilation would seem to be a scientific inevitability if a bounded universe expanded significantly.

How is this more Biblically sound than the oft-used claim that "six days" need not be literal, 24 hour days? You're still establishing a 13.5 billion year old universe, but getting around it by playing semantic games with the word "day". If you're going to go this route, why not just go with the most likely model based on secular evidence - namely, a 5 billion year old Earth. It's almost like Creationists are willing to play fast and loose with the terminology, so long as those nasty old-earthers don't get to say they're right. Not necessarily a strike against the theory, but it seems to contradict official YEC doctrine.

In one sense, if observers on earth at that particular time could have looked out and "seen" the speed with which light was moving toward them out in space, it would have appeared as if it were traveling many times faster than c. (Galaxies would also appear to be rotating faster.) However, if an observer in deep space was out there measuring the speed of light, to him it would still only be travelling at c.

Nope, sorry. This is a serious violation of special relativity. It's impossible to ever directly measure the speed of any massive object as greater than c. Any theory that requires such an observation can pretty much be thrown out. Strike two.

At any rate, this theory would be extremely easy to test. If there's gravitational variation throughout the universe, with the earth at the center (and who was accusing who of making arbitrary assumptions?), then signals sent back to us from travelling space probes would be gravitationally red-shifted by a likely measureable amount. I'll give the theory the benefit of the doubt by assuming the effect would be too small for scientists to just happen to notice them, but proponents of this theory should try to run a few tests.

Of course, running tests is anathema to their methodolody, since tests lead to refutation.

 

[protos]

This might sound like common sense, as indeed it is, but all modern secular ("big bang") cosmologies deny this. That is, they make arbitrary assumption (without any scientific necessity) that the universe has no boundaries -- no edge and no center. In this assumed universe, every galaxy would be surrounded by galaxies spread evenly in all directions (on a large enough scale), and so, therefore, all the net gravitational forces cancel out.

[quote:12b3c]
That's not exactly an "arbitrary assumption" - it was an originally educated guess that's been backed up by analysis of cosmic background radiation. The recent WMAP data showed that the most likely shape for the universe is either a Poincare dodecahedral space, or hyperbolic. Either way, though, it's not a bounded sphere, as this model requires. You won't run into a big wall if you keep heading in one direction. So, strike one.

Obviously you don't understand what the cosmic background radiation is. It's light so greatly red-shifted, that it must have come from the beginning of time. Again, you're saying that it's a completely educated decision to say that the whole universe has evenly spread out matter, yet when a scientist (forgot her name) tried to show that the Big Bang spread out matter evenly throughout the universe on the grand scale, she saw exactly the opposite, with more holes and more unevenness. Big Bang cosmologists have assumed that the universe is filled with matter all the way around, whereas this is just a postulate.

As matter passed out of this event horizon, the horizon itself had to shrink -- eventually to nothing. Therefore, at one point this earth (relative to a point far away from it) would have been virtually frozen in time. An observer on earth would not in any way "feel different." "Billions of years" would be available (in the frame of reference within which it is travelling in deep space) for light to reach the earth, for stars to age, etc. -- while less than one ordinary day is passing on earth. This massive gravitational time dilation would seem to be a scientific inevitability if a bounded universe expanded significantly.

[quote:12b3c]
How is this more Biblically sound than the oft-used claim that "six days" need not be literal, 24 hour days? You're still establishing a 13.5 billion year old universe, but getting around it by playing semantic games with the word "day". If you're going to go this route, why not just go with the most likely model based on secular evidence - namely, a 5 billion year old Earth. It's almost like Creationists are willing to play fast and loose with the terminology, so long as those nasty old-earthers don't get to say they're right. Not necessarily a strike against the theory, but it seems to contradict official YEC doctrine.

[/quote:12b3c]

Since for the center of a gravitational field time runs slower than the remaining places, and since the speed of light in a vacuum is constant, the center, which is where we are near would indicate about 20 billion light year coming from the creation of time (cosmic background radiation).

In one sense, if observers on earth at that particular time could have looked out and "seen" the speed with which light was moving toward them out in space, it would have appeared as if it were traveling many times faster than c. (Galaxies would also appear to be rotating faster.) However, if an observer in deep space was out there measuring the speed of light, to him it would still only be travelling at c.[quote:12b3c]

Nope, sorry. This is a serious violation of special relativity. It's impossible to ever directly measure the speed of any massive object as greater than c. Any theory that requires such an observation can pretty much be thrown out. Strike two.

[/quote:12b3c]

I guess you didn't read the entire thing, because they aren't observing 'c' itself, they're observing the expansion of the universe, and given its rate, then it would seem as if light were traveling faster than 'c'.

At any rate, this theory would be extremely easy to test. If there's gravitational variation throughout the universe, with the earth at the center (and who was accusing who of making arbitrary assumptions?), then signals sent back to us from travelling space probes would be gravitationally red-shifted by a likely measureable amount. I'll give the theory the benefit of the doubt by assuming the effect would be too small for scientists to just happen to notice them, but proponents of this theory should try to run a few tests.
[quote:12b3c]
Of course, running tests is anathema to their methodolody, since tests lead to refutation.

[/quote:12b3c][/quote:12b3c]

Yes, I'm sure your good word is enough

 

[protos]

I love how he calls it a refutation when all it is is a bunch of links to answers in genesis articles.

1: Your refutation should be based in indisputable facts, answers in genesis is biased to say the least, I would even venture that they are a poor source for information in general, except perhaps for that page of arguments creationists should not use.

You know what I love? How people try to pass things off as laughable, instead of reading them. Perhaps it's a page of arguments you should read first, critically analyze for all to see, because after all, we can't read minds. Maybe your dog/cat will evolve the properties of a real psychic and send us e-mail. That'll really top me off.

2: Your refutation should show that biology is not well explained by evolution, which by nearly all accounts of biologists it is. And all those biologists who disagree do so for religious reasons.

Yes, again the good words of the fellow evolutionists. Actually, most biologists are theistic evolutionists, or that is believe in both God and evolution. Only 13-15% of the USA is atheist, whereas about 30 is creationist. Again, I posted this in a previous topic, there are two views by macroevolution held today:

1) The popular view: The steady upgrade

This view is the view you and most probably the rest of the evolutionists here (maybe not all) hold. Richard Dawkins himself explains that a steady upgrade, where things magically "upgrade" into higher evolved forms is a misconception, devoid of a genetic explanation. This was the view of evolution I held until 15 and a half, and was the only reason I believed in evolution. This view is the early Darwinist view, since when Darwin published "The Origin of Species" in 1859, genetics was not there yet. They just thought that offspring attained the properties of some mixtures of humors with a bunch of fluids.

2) The evolution real scientist are hopelessly trying to prove:

This is the evolution that has the genetics. This just proposes the random creation of information. Such an occurance has never been observed, and cannot be shown by empirical science. The evolutionist magic wand is time, yet time can only weaken their case because any possibility of the creation of information over drawn out periods of time will be HEAVILY outweighed by the genomic degeneration.

Let's do a little math experiment. I like math. Math is your friend:

1) The human genome has 3 billion base pair sequences. - Fact: Accepted by both creationists and evolutionists

2) Genetic mutations in humans occur for 1 out of every 10,000 or so base pairs. However, a correction mechanism goes down and fixes ALMOST all, but there's 1 out of 1 billion that's left.

So genetic mutations in DNA replication are 1 per 1 billion. - Fact: Accepted by both creationists and evolutionists

3) Since 3 billion divided by 1 billion is 3, there are 3 genetic mutations per each DNA replication (applies for all DNA). - Fact: Accepted by mathematicians.

4) In a person's lifetime, their body's DNA replicates about 50 times, and then stops and the person literally decays in his/her own body. - Fact, accepted by both creationists and evolutionists

5) However, at about the 33rd or so replication is when a person is most likely to have a kid and pass those DNA mistakes to him/her.

6) This accumulates to 100 genetic mistakes per generation.

7) The alleged evolution of man took an alleged of 4 million years.

8) 4 million years is 200,000 generations (alleged ancestors reproduced at about age 10 as normal gorillas do today) plus 120,000 generations - roughly age 15.

9) This leads to 320,000 * 100 = 32 million base pair "screw ups" or unscramblings of the alleged common ancestor.

10) Human DNA is 12% larger than chimp DNA so 1.12x=3billion makes chimp DNA approximately 2.68 billion base pairs, so the common ancestor should be about what? I don't know 2.8?

Conclusion:

If anyone has ever solved a puzzle, he/she would know that there needs to be a careful, and intelligent piecing, as opposed to random placing. Genetic mutations do not create information, they are just unscrambling of the already existing "puzzle" of information. There are needed an extra 320 million base pairs to be INCLUDED in the chimp genome, much less to piece some sort of information, yet 320,000 generations can give only 32 million genetic mutations WITHIN the existing genome. Since 90% of genetic mutations are detrimental, 90% of 32 million is 28.8 million base pairs in genes down the drain. 10% are neutral. 32 million base pairs within genes. Each gene is roughly about 10,000 base pairs.

28.8 million/10,000 is 2880 genes down the drain. Unscrambled. This would leave the "common ancestor" greatly degenerated. Evolution is a blind gunman, not a blind watchmaker. Genomic degeneration will greatly outpace any possible information creation, which is indeed impossible.

 

[protos]

The guy makes reference to chromosome number comparison and doesn't believe that the human chromosome fused.

This would require the fusion of the chromosomes of at least 4 members (2 male and 2 female) of the species. Possibly 6 (3 male and 3 female), not to mention the random characteristics that have to arise with respect to all 4 or 6 members at the same time, in the same place!

The problem I have is that we know that chromosome fused, not only by the types of genes on it, but by the fact that there's telomeres in the middle of it. If it didn't fuse, why are there end markers in the middle?

So what you're saying is the information was snapped in half, and yet retained its properties, and not only that but gained properties by matching one half with a different one? Please...common sense... Furthermore, you seem to be confusing the evolutionist concept of evolving from apes with the common misconception by the majority of the evolutionist mass that we evolved from chimps. You claim that two chromosomes in the haploid cells of 2 members of the opposite sex fused, yet according to evolutionists (the ones with the valid concept) this is unfeasible because we did not evolve (according to them) from the chimps themselves, but from apes (common ancestor). The number of chromosomes of that common ancestor would not be 48. It would be 50 or 44 or whatever they make up.

Statisical probabilities:

One word will pretty much some it up, but you won't believe me so:

1) Note, not only one member of the species, but 2, male and female have to have their chromosomes fused in the exact same place in order for it to work.

2) Not only 1 couple, but at least 2, if not 3 couples have to have this EXACT genetic mutation in order for your beloved, precious, dearer than life making it devoid without evolution needs.

3) Even if such a statistical anomly somehow happened (More than once I might add, ignoring the even greater miracle of abiogenesis), Haldane's dilemma eliminates everything evolution has to offer.

If you don't know, Haldane was an atheist who wanted evolution to work. This was the one problem he couldn't go over. His problem was that the cost of substitution (3 couples over the other hundreds), will render evolution impossible, even with the statistical anomalies presented above.

Dinosaurs being alive today isn't a problem for evolution, it'd be really cool though. Granted, for something as large as those and all the expeditions out to find new species, why haven't they been found?

If dinosaurs haven't evolved for millions of years, much like turtles, why should we have? Then the whole postulate of millions of years will have to be questioned. You have to understand that if dinosaurs are found today, then all the strata in the geological evolutionist record will be useless. A mammal was found as late as the 1980's in thick jungles. Much of the Russian Taiga forest is unexplored.

About the soft tissues and fossilization, statistically, of what do you find dino fossils to be made? Of what do you find "newer" animal remains to be made?

DNA can only survive for a few thousand years. It is a very unstable compound as DNA replication can show. If there is soft dinosaur tissue found with blood in it and DNA, then it can't be more than a few thousands years old.

The thing is though, if humans and classic prehistoric dinosaurs from the same time period and coexisting, you need to find things humans in dinos in the same layers, same pollen on the remains, human tissue in dino corporlites, dino tissue in human corporlite, human tool marks on dino bones etc...

You expect every type of thing that people have ever made to coexist with dino fossils? Please, that's highly unlikely. I guess all those photos of dinosaur figurines and even a stegosaurus on an ancient temple won't convince you? Dino blood unfossilized doesn't convince you? What will it take? Now it's gotten to the point where if a Velociraptor jumped on your desk, you'll say, "Oh how cute, yet this doesn't disprove evolution." Well it does, as stated by Richard Hawkins himself.

The thing with Archaeopteryx, they claim it was a perching bird, but it lacked an opposable toe and couldn't perch. It had a saurian tail and saurian feet. It didn't quite fly like today's birds, but it probably flew around a lot better than those then.

http://images.google.com/images?q=archaeopteryx&hl=en

Look at the fourth, ninth, tenth and other pictures of the fossils as opposed to some evolutionist's wishful "counter-evidence."

The wood thing should be published and studied. The geologists could have assumed it was part of a formation of which it really wasn't a part. Proving them wrong is fun.

The article is a review of an already published record. It has been studied, that's how the AiG site got the conclusions. The geologists WERE proven wrong. Instead of millions of years it was narrowed down to thousands by Carbon dating. Unless of course you think that whenever contradictory evidence with respect to evolution is found, it's by creationists? Well, in that case most of the scientists are creationists, yet they aren't.

I won't go into nuclear decay much as it brings back memories of diff eq, statistics, and chemistry, and the fact i just don't know anything about starting conditions. The decay rate being constant is quite well established, however.

Really? It's constant? So how does that explain why Potassium-Argon 40 dating showed 45 million years and Carbon 14 dating showed 45,000 years of the 50 year old magma deposits? You can't just claim the opposite because the conclusions agree with creationsim. You can claim it if you have evidence, but nobody is going to believe you out of your good word. I know I won't.

I also don't know much about astronomy, only that if the speed of light is changing, it affects everything, interactions of atoms, electrical conductivity, everything.

You are correct here, but that's not what the new creationist cosmology proposes.

The biggest difficulty, however, is with certain physical consequences of the theory. If c has declined the way Setterfield proposed, these consequences should still be discernible in the light from distant galaxies but they are apparently not. In short, none of the theory's defenders have been able to answer all the questions raised.

The fallacious theory you are talking about, the 'cdk' theory ('c' decay) postulated that in the past the speed of light was faster, and thus has slowed down was disproven, because that would show gaps in the red-shift observed from faraway galaxies. The other theory...

...used in the past was rather complex, involving light travelling along Riemannian surfaces (an abstract mathematical form of space). Apart from being hard to understand, it appears that such an explanation is not valid, since it would mean that we should see duplicates of everything.

That's all I got.

That's all the evidence for evolution and counter-evidence against creationism that a lot of people have. Yet they are 100% sure that they are right. Something science does not allow. As a former evolutionist, I know that I came to creationist sites senselessly arguing everything without even thinking about it. Now, evolution is just as the bible.ca sites depicts it to be: the grown up version of the princess and the frog. The magic wand of time, the magic upgrades with no backing in genetics, they've got it all.

 

[peace4all]

Furthermore, you seem to be confusing the evolutionist concept of evolving from apes with the common misconception by the majority of the evolutionist mass that we evolved from chimps.

AHH!!! STOP SAYING THINGS THAT ARENT TRUE!

 

[ArtGuy]

Obviously you don't understand what the cosmic background radiation is. It's light so greatly red-shifted, that it must have come from the beginning of time. Again, you're saying that it's a completely educated decision to say that the whole universe has evenly spread out matter, yet when a scientist (forgot her name) tried to show that the Big Bang spread out matter evenly throughout the universe on the grand scale, she saw exactly the opposite, with more holes and more unevenness. Big Bang cosmologists have assumed that the universe is filled with matter all the way around, whereas this is just a postulate.

The universe is almost completely homogeneous on a large scale. It does, of course, have "holes" and "unevenness" on a small scale, because otherwise there would be no stars and such. Find me this woman's name, and I'll see what she has to say, but I have yet to read anything regarding how the distribution of matter refutes the Big Bang.

Since for the center of a gravitational field time runs slower than the remaining places, and since the speed of light in a vacuum is constant, the center, which is where we are near would indicate about 20 billion light year coming from the creation of time (cosmic background radiation).

Yeah, and? This would make a six day creation for earth, and a 13.5 billion year creation for the rest of the universe. You haven't established how this is any better, scripturally speaking.

I guess you didn't read the entire thing, because they aren't observing 'c' itself, they're observing the expansion of the universe, and given its rate, then it would seem as if light were traveling faster than 'c'.

I did read the entire thing. And since we're now being snippy, I guess you have no idea how special relativity works. It is impossible for any measurement of any speed to ever exceed c. This includes us being fooled into thinking light is traveling faster than c. The entire point of special relativity is that all measurements from all inertial reference frames are equally valid. If we see light traveling faster than c, then it is.

 

[sheseala]

This would require the fusion of the chromosomes of at least 4 members (2 male and 2 female) of the species. Possibly 6 (3 male and 3 female), not to mention the random characteristics that have to arise with respect to all 4 or 6 members at the same time, in the same place!

So what you're saying is the information was snapped in half, and yet retained its properties, and not only that but gained properties by matching one half with a different one? Please...common sense... Furthermore, you seem to be confusing the evolutionist concept of evolving from apes with the common misconception by the majority of the evolutionist mass that we evolved from chimps. You claim that two chromosomes in the haploid cells of 2 members of the opposite sex fused, yet according to evolutionists (the ones with the valid concept) this is unfeasible because we did not evolve (according to them) from the chimps themselves, but from apes (common ancestor). The number of chromosomes of that common ancestor would not be 48. It would be 50 or 44 or whatever they make up.

1) Note, not only one member of the species, but 2, male and female have to have their chromosomes fused in the exact same place in order for it to work.

2) Not only 1 couple, but at least 2, if not 3 couples have to have this EXACT genetic mutation in order for your beloved, precious, dearer than life making it devoid without evolution needs.

3) Even if such a statistical anomly somehow happened (More than once I might add, ignoring the even greater miracle of abiogenesis), Haldane's dilemma eliminates everything evolution has to offer.

The chromosome didn't just "break in half", it stuck to a chromosome of similar shape.

You obviously have not heard of a Robertsonian translocation. A Robertsonian translocation occurs when two chromosomes that have there centromeres close to the end (acrocentric) fuse together. If it's balanced (unbalnced, or partial fusions cause problems), no information is lost. First off there are people walking around with 45 chomosomes with no difficulty because nothing was lost in the fusion. If meiosis occurs properly, and it does because these people do have normal children, the normaly children either have the regular count, or have the fused chromosome and have one less. After several generations of the fused chomosome appearing, a 45 could hook up with a 45 and produce a person 44 ( just one of the outcomes), meaning they got both copies of the fused chromosome. 1 in 900 or so births has this translocation. Kinda common, especially in a population so large.

I'm confused with the chimp thing. Did I say anything like that? I'm not really following what you are saying. I just mentioned that the one chromosome had telomeres in the middle. Again, if it didn't fuse, why are there telomeres in the middle?

What you can infer from that is that humans once had 48 chromosomes instead of 46, and chimps have 48, and have the same genes located on those chromosomes, that an ancestor, prior to both humans and chimps, had 48 chromosomes.

It's not just chromosome count mind you, it's the locations of the genes on those chromosomes.

Googling up various animal chromosome counts show that even within a species, chromosome counts can be different.

 

[jwu]

What you can infer from that is that humans once had 48 chromosomes instead of 46, and chimps have 48, and have the same genes located on those chromosomes, that an ancestor, prior to both humans and chimps, had 48 chromosomes.

I dont mean to stab your back, but personally i find this particular argument to be unconvincing. Any "common designer" argument works there, as the chromosome fusion doesn't necessarily have to relate to the speciation event in question.

 

[sheseala]

The thing with Archaeopteryx, they claim it was a perching bird, but it lacked an opposable toe and couldn't perch. It had a saurian tail and saurian feet. It didn't quite fly like today's birds, but it probably flew around a lot better than those then.

http://images.google.com/images?q=archaeopteryx&hl=en

Look at the fourth, ninth, tenth and other pictures of the fossils as opposed to some evolutionist's wishful "counter-evidence."

Um, I see no perching toes that are not artist interpretations. Plus:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10283203/

Really? It's constant? So how does that explain why Potassium-Argon 40 dating showed 45 million years and Carbon 14 dating showed 45,000 years of the 50 year old magma deposits? You can't just claim the opposite because the conclusions agree with creationsim. You can claim it if you have evidence, but nobody is going to believe you out of your good word. I know I won't.

Why is there carbon 14 in the magma deposit? Also, you really, really, misunderstood something there. Constant not consistant. As in the the decay of uranium is constant. As in the decay of carbon 14 is constant. Not that uranium decays at the same rate as carbon 14. As in the uranium in the lab isn't going to decide to be completely lead tomorrow.

 

[sheseala]

What you can infer from that is that humans once had 48 chromosomes instead of 46, and chimps have 48, and have the same genes located on those chromosomes, that an ancestor, prior to both humans and chimps, had 48 chromosomes.

I dont mean to stab your back, but personally i find this particular argument to be unconvincing. Any "common designer" argument works there, as the chromosome fusion doesn't necessarily have to relate to the speciation event in question.

You're right, chromosome fusion doesn't equal speciation. I dunno, since he connected the two in his attack, I connected it in my response, and probably shouldn't have.

 

[jwu]

It still does quite conclusively demonstrate that chromosome fusions can happen though. Just the step from that demonstration to this being evidence for common descent is shaky.

 

[sheseala]

Yeah, a better thing would be ERV's, but they were not brought up.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Here's a debate me and jwu were beginning, and then a pretty interesting

debate occured in another forum which distracted both of us for a bit.

If ya'll would like, we can continue from were we left off.

charlie:

...Some Evolutionists hypothesize ERV's are just old viral infections that

have lost their ability to leave the host cell and infect other cells, at the

sametime in which the overall organism has evolved to require the evolved

virus.

...This an example of coevolution, which hypothesizes two distinct organisms

evolving at the same time, in a way that is mutually dependent...


Now, you talk about faith...buying that this could actually occur naturally and

randomly requires much more faith than just buying into the Creation as

presented in Genesis 1.

Of course neither can be believed through purely

scientific deduction. Neither can be observed. Also, there is no

repeatability.

jwu:


We can pretty much see viruses infecting cells today, retroviruses are even used to inject gene strands by geneticists in their experiments, if i recall correctly. And new ERV sequences are being discovered, so it is repeatable.

Charlie:

The evolutionary link between viruses and "ERV's" is still

a guess.

I would be satisfied with a peer reviewed paper that documents actual

observations of viruses injecting the host's genome with coding, and then

the host retaining this coding in it's genome, and then passing it down at

least a couple of generations. That' would be a minimal requirement for

observability. Then repeatability would be established by observing this

same process over a sufficent number of species to be certain.


The injecting of code into a genome using RT by scientists in a controlled

enviroment is equivalent to an intelligent force encoding "ETV's" into the

genome originally. Viruses and ETV's have similar functions of supressing

the host immunity response to enable the "parasite" to live and propagate

within the host. Doesn't necessarily mean one came from another.

Peace 8-)

 

[jwu]

And that was my reply:

The evolutionary link between viruses and "ERV's" is highly speculative at best, so to use that as an observational evidence is not valid.
Are you aware of a peer reviewed paper that documents actual observations
of viruses injecting the host's genome with coding, and then the host
retaining this coding in it's genome, and then passing it along to it's
offspring. That' would be a minimal requirement for observability. Then
repeatability would be established by observing this same process over a
wide spectrum of species.

The found sequences show a very high degree of homology to today's viruses - among the typical genes which i mentioned earlier there is 75-99% homology. No other mechanism that produces such sequences is known.
Do you seriously suggest that nothing can go wrong when a retrovirus infects a gamete?

The injecting of code into a genome using RT by scientists in a controlled
enviroment is equivalent to an intelligent force encoding "ETV's" into the
genome originally.

No, it's equivalent to an intelligent force injecting the sequences by means of retroviruses, which doesn't change its status as evidence for common descent.

The whole discussion took place in this thread:
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... c337586eaf

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

That's what I was thinking, should we just pick it back up over there?

 

[jwu]

Sure, let's continue there.