Evolution Busted by Definition - Information, Intelligence and Language / Videos and Evidence

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


"Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads." - Revelations 12:3

Ahh, Paul's drakon! It occurs 9 times within the same book, all referencing an incorpreal entity (Satan). We can conclude that this is figurative language...

"Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron. His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth. (Job 41:19-21

Leviathan, the dragon of the primordial seas. T-rex? I think more aptly it could be called something like a plasiesaur or an itchyosaur (SP). In ancient literature the Leviathan is described as one of God's first creations. Writers like Isiah and a couple of the psalmists really like to paint the Leviathan in opposition to God. It is possible that, to enhance the tension, Leviathan was attributed some equalizing powers.

Look at these descriptions:

Leviathan is a “reptile [a] that is in the sea.” (Isaiah 27:1)

Behemoth is a great beast.

It “eats grass like an ox.”
It “moves his tail like a cedar.” (In Hebrew, this literally reads, “he lets hang his tail like a cedar.”)
Its “bones are like beams of bronze,
His ribs like bars of iron.”
“He is the first of the ways of God.”
“He lies under the lotus trees,
In a covert of reeds and marsh.”

- Job 40:15-24



. A key phrase is “He is the first of the ways of God.” This phrase in the original Hebrew implied that behemoth was the biggest animal created. Although an elephant or a hippopotamus are big, they are less than one-tenth the size of a Brachiosaurus, the largest (complete) dinosaur ever discovered.[1] A Brachiosaurus could therefore easily be described as “the first of the ways of God.”
edit on 23-3-2012 by CaptainNemo because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 12:54 AM
link   
Religion has holy texts and faith as evidence. Atheism has scientific knowledge as evidence. If we are totally honest with ourselves, neither has the ability to explain the actual origins of the universe or what, if anything, happens after death. It is that simple. Everybody has the right to hold a belief in their heart, but only once we are dead will we perhaps know the answer. The only common feature in this endless debate is ego. Strip from the debate this ego, and perhaps we can all accept that the universe is a wonderful and mysterious place, and fighting over a truth that cannot be discovered simply keeps great minds from banding together.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman


Therefore, if that's true, then the first human wouldn't have been able to mate and went extinct. Its fused chromosome mutation would have prevented it from doing so.

 


Well no. This would imply that there was only one human that had the mutation. But if you notice, more than one person gets cancer every year... (Another mutation)

You might want to rework that post, as that one fault in your argument makes just about everything you said not make sense.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by tinfoilman


Therefore, if that's true, then the first human wouldn't have been able to mate and went extinct. Its fused chromosome mutation would have prevented it from doing so.

 


Well no. This would imply that there was only one human that had the mutation. But if you notice, more than one person gets cancer every year... (Another mutation)

You might want to rework that post, as that one fault in your argument makes just about everything you said not make sense.


That's a very bad example you're trying to make. Even if you win that argument it will still make no sense.

The problem though is that while people get cancer every year, people do not get a fused chromosome every year. It's very very rare. Rare to the point that we don't even know for sure if it ever actually happened like that. The likelihood that two Adam and Eve primates lived at the same time that had the exact same fusion to make them mating compatible isn't likely.

And sure it's possible, but even if that's what did happen, it's a bad argument to make because all it does is bring you back to your original argument that all you need to make a monkey a human is a fused chromosome, get two and you have Adam and Eve! Any biologists will tell you that's just not the case, that's not what happened, and evolution just doesn't work that way.

The idea from the video is that when the chromosomes fused the DNA of the primate was still the same and so they didn't change their function right away. Even after the fusion the chromosomes still pretty much worked exactly like they did before so it didn't prevent mating.

Then long after the fusion more changes came along until you eventually got us. No biologist will ever tell you that simply fusing the chromosomes is how you get a human. So, if that's where you're going I'm sorry, but that is not the case the video is trying to make.

The video is only pointing one small change in the long line of changes. They're pointing it out because they're pretty sure they can track where that particular change came from, not because it is the ONLY change that happened along the way. I hope you understand that.
edit on 23-3-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-3-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-3-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainNemo


I asked if you believed that the purported exact point of fusion is known, and if you did, please provide evidence.

Could you please quote or paraphrase the study? You seem to know more about this than I. I don't want to miss the answer.


 




Cosmid Mapping to Chromosome 2. Probe pSC4 detects
five different size fragments on a Pst I digest of total human
DNA representing the different chromosomal loci. Of these,
a 2.5-kb Pst I fragment was assigned to chromosome 2 by
means of hybridization ofpSC4 to 34 somatic cell hybrid lines
(obtained, in part, from BIOS, New Haven, CT). We identified two cosmids, c8.1 and c29B, containing both
(TTAGGG), and the same 2.5-kb fragment detected by pSC4
that maps consistently to chromosome 2 only and, therefore,
these two cosmids must originate from chromosome 2



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 



Originally posted by tinfoilman
You see the theory has some missing evidence to confirm it 100%.


And you wanted me to respond to your entire post... Ok..

If something is proven 100% then it becomes a fact. There is no Fact of Evolution.


You ever heard people say, if humans evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys? Well we know evolution doesn't work that way. When one species evolves into another species, both species continue to live on obviously. So, where the heck is the species we evolved from? It's missing.


"...Obviously" - how is this obviously? Where have you ever seen evidence that two distinct evolutionary life forms have evolved in the exact same place at the same time from a common ancestor? It defeats the idea of evolution.There is something external that causes the changes to occur.

There is no common ancestor today because they became the myriad of current relatives we have now. The earth has changed a lot.


See, the debate is actually the opposite of that argument. The other species we evolved from could have continued to live on right? So, if humans evolved from primates with fused chromosomes, then where are the primates with the fused chromosomes?


Insane... I summed this up in the first line of my original post, I wont repeat it... suffice to say it is clear that you don't know how evolution is supposed to work.


At some point there must have been other non-human primates that ALSO had the same fused chromosomes. If they didn't exist, then how did we evolve from them and get their fused chromosome? But they're not there! All other primates have all their chromosomes. So, what is going on?


You are wrong, that is what is going on.


Okay, so, maybe we evolved to humans FIRST and THEN our chromosomes fused right? Okay, but there's a problem with that also. If that's the case then that means there MUST have been humans with ALL their chromosomes. But they're missing too! Where's the missing link between the two? Where's the primate with missing chromosomes or the human with extra chromosomes? One of the two had to exist at some point.


THE CRUX OF IT ALL, and well, already done... Sorry if it upset you however.


There's also the problem that even if that theory is true, it still doesn't prove we evolved from primates. All it proves is that once upon a time we had all our chromosomes, but now we don't. But even THAT causes problems. It's about near impossible with animals with non-matching chromosomes to mate. So, who was the first fused chromosome human supposed to mate with? How did they manage to live on if everyone else had their chromosomes? But maybe a fused chromosome wasn't enough to prevent mating. Don't know.





Yep, evolution doesn't make a species pop out of thin air, until you get half way down the post, then.... ahh..

You can see why I didn't reply to your entire post originally now, I suppose..



But, see it leaves the door open. There is still the possibility that primates have a similar number of chromosomes and similar DNA simply because that's what it took to make a primate. If there was a creator or God or alien species if you will, they probably just used similar DNA to create similar animals and humans were always humans.

Just like a computer programmer will use code over and over for every program he writes. Maybe they all read data from a file for example. So, they might have the same file processing code or networking code with only slight changes.

If the creator built one primate and wanted to make another type of primate, would an intelligent creator start completely over, or would he work with what he had already accomplished like programmers do today? That's the idea. If there is some DNA code that's needed to make legs grow, for example, then you would expect to see something similar in most every animal with legs regardless of if they had evolved or been "programmed" by a creator.

Now of course, what's the most logical answer? That the species we evolved from simply went extinct right? Or maybe big foot is the missing link and we just haven't caught one right? lol. Sure, that's why I don't mean to debunk the video.


I think the video is on point, I'm just pointing out the debate isn't completely over. There are still questions to be answered. Which is good, because if not, I would never have a reason to log in.


And in this I have absolutely no desire to comment, but feel I should leave it in as otherwise you might thank me for ignoring it... god is a programmer... far out. lol

PS, the theory of evolution will remain a theory until someone invents a time machine... so, yeah, it probably won't ever be completely over.




posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by mainidh
 


Um..... I never said new animals just pop out of nowhere. That's what I'm trying to tell you DOESN'T HAPPEN!

here let me restate my argument since you can't READ! My argument is this. If we evolved from a primate with fused chromosomes, then at some point in the past a primate with fused chromosomes MUST HAVE EXISTED.

Take note that if you argue against this theory, your argument is that we evolved from an animal that never existed. Isn't it obvious that we had to have evolved from an animal that existed? lol.
edit on 23-3-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman


Then long after the fusion more changes came along until you eventually got us. No biologist will ever tell you that simply fusing the chromosomes is how you get a human. So, if that's where you're going I'm sorry, but that is not the case the video is trying to make.


 


You are being a little obtuse. I'm not making a case that the fusion of the chromosome was the only change in evolution, but yes, as it fused it was the very definition of evolution.




Okay, so, maybe we evolved to humans FIRST and THEN our chromosomes fused right? Okay, but there's a problem with that also. If that's the case then that means there MUST have been humans with ALL their chromosomes. But they're missing too! Where's the missing link between the two? Where's the primate with missing chromosomes or the human with extra chromosomes? One of the two had to exist at some point.


As far as I know the likelihood of us finding out exactly what the other homo sub classes had for chromosome count is rare, as the only records we have are fossils and in some cases just a couple. I do not believe there has been a sufficient amount of preserved DNA to ever be conclusive on the matter.

You are asking where your ape/humans are and I think they are right in front of us.

Ape or Human?



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


When the chromosomes fused, I never said it wasn't evolution. It's just not evolution into humans, not yet anyway. If that's what happened then it would have been evolution. Or if you're a creationist you would call it adaptation depending on the circumstance. But if you believe in evolution then yes, it's evolution.
edit on 23-3-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-3-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman


The problem though is that while people get cancer every year, people do not get a fused chromosome every year. It's very very rare. Rare to the point that we don't even know for sure if it ever actually happened like that.

 


Telomeres, chromosome instability and cancer




Cells that lose the ability to senesce because of mutations in p53 protein continue to divide, eventually entering ‘crisis’ where extensive telomere shortening results in chromosomal fusion and cell death.

...telomere loss in human tumor cell lines often results in sister chromatid fusion followed by B/F/B cycles ...


Source

I think you misinterpreted something, chromosome fusion happens all the time, but chromosome fusion in a species that is passed on and stable is rare. Yes.

edit on 23-3-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by boncho
 


When the chromosomes fused, I never said it wasn't evolution. It's not just not evolution into humans, not yet anyway. If that's what happened then it would have been evolution. Or if you're a creationist you would call it adaptation depending on the circumstance. But if you believe in evolution then yes, it's evolution.
edit on 23-3-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)


Name one creationism theory that is not tied to religious text? Religious texts do not fit in with historical data. If you believe in evolution, or at this point it's pretty much, believe in genetics.... You are not really "believing" so much as you are looking at thousands and thousands of collective points made by science that tends to paint a picture at how living things develop.

If you believe in dragons, 5000 year old Neanderthals and everything else in the Bible, you may as well be believing in Santa Clause.

Or perhaps, you are just believing in power of the banana.




posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Well the problem is getting two animals with the exact same fusion at the exact same time in the exact same place so they were compatible to mate with each other.

Take note, I never said it wasn't possible. Maybe that is what happened. I just think it's the more likely scenario that the fusion simply didn't prevent mating in the first place until after the fusion had propagated across the population and become stable. Then mutated more. Simply going with what's more likely here, that's all. Because if that's the way it went down there would be no problem or paradox. It's just some guy with a fused chromosome. No biggy, can still get a girl and mate. Not a problem.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


That banana he's holding was intelligently designed. It just wasn't done by a creator. It was done by man. Go Google a wild banana. A wild banana doesn't look anything like it.

Humans cultivated modern day bananas until they got what they wanted.

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 23-3-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


Starred your post. Shocking isn't it, the irony of it all is that man created the banana, selective breeding, cloning and genetic manipulation.

I think the best argument for evolution, is the fact that there would be no change without it. Forget ape to man for a moment, but just think about all the differences between people and plants, we are not all the same.

Supposedly god made us in his.her.its image, so was god a shape shifter? If there was an grand architect though, it still doesn't lend weight to religious texts, so it's one of those things where people are fighting over nothing, or for no purpose. This thread is a giant case mental masturbation.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


Starred your post. Shocking isn't it, the irony of it all is that man created the banana, selective breeding, cloning and genetic manipulation.

I think the best argument for evolution, is the fact that there would be no change without it. Forget ape to man for a moment, but just think about all the differences between people and plants, we are not all the same.

Supposedly god made us in his.her.its image, so was god a shape shifter? If there was an grand architect though, it still doesn't lend weight to religious texts, so it's one of those things where people are fighting over nothing, or for no purpose.


Well I don't really know if there's a God or not, but if so I thought it was generally accepted that he could shape shift. I wouldn't really know though.



This thread is a giant case mental masturbation.


I don't really see the problem there. That's usually my favorite kind of thread!
edit on 23-3-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   
The thing that bothers me the most about these anti-evolution believers is,

None of them seem to address the fact that their bible says we ALL descended from Adam and Eve,
Yet, there are so many different races, How could that NOT be evolution?


I'll let y'all chew on that for a while.

Peace



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by mainidh
 


Um..... I never said new animals just pop out of nowhere. That's what I'm trying to tell you DOESN'T HAPPEN!

here let me restate my argument since you can't READ!


Read your post once, replied. You had a hissy, so tried again but this time addressing all of your points. What I replied to in your post, is to what you said. You said at first, and I agree, Evolution is not something that happens instantly. (no sudden emergence of a new species). Then, at this point in which you reply, I responded to where you allude to humans not being able to procreate given that hey they're a new species.

So... what one is it. Or are you arguing for the sake of it, and not realising it?

How do you account for the fact you believe a Human cannot engage in procreation, since suddenly they are alone ( new species) if you also accept evolution as a slow process that has absolutely no impact on this scenario?

Hard to understand= from a logical viewpoint.



My argument is this. If we evolved from a primate with fused chromosomes, then at some point in the past a primate with fused chromosomes MUST HAVE EXISTED.

Take note that if you argue against this theory, your argument is that we evolved from an animal that never existed. Isn't it obvious that we had to have evolved from an animal that existed? lol.


No, it's just that YOU do not understand how the theory of evolution works.

sigh.

No one said we evolved from anything that had fused chromosomes.

I give up, you need to A: learn what a theory is, and B: learn how evolution is alleged to work.

No point until then.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


This is my point.

You argue FOR evolution, but with the caveat that there MUST still be the originator.

I disagree. Not when it comes to natural evolution. All it takes is external influence. The human species is abundant with traits that reflect the regions they evolved in.

A friggen banana being grown a certain way over a millennia, defines this.

So, in the crop where you get your banana, where is the original one? Why can't I buy a banana that was like it was 2000 years ago? Why are they all the genetically same crop that was introduced when we first started cultivating them?

There is no banana missing link... It's somewhere else porbably so insignificant due to it's insignificant role in evolution (accompanied with mankind) that it looks like a damn nut!

You're asking where is the evolutionary ancestor to prove the claim of evolution.

Where is this master banana, then?



edit on 23-3-2012 by mainidh because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Evolution:

1 + 1 = 2

NOT

1+ 1 = 2 with a 1 on the side.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by mainidh
 




No one said we evolved from anything that had fused chromosomes.


I never said we did. If you read my original post you'll see I said that it had to be either THAT, or the OTHER option. That we were already well on our way to human, or basically human before the chromosomes fused. It has to be one or the other. Either we inherited the fused chromosomes from our common ancestor, or the chromosomes fused after we were basically human. It has to be one or the other because we know they fused! lol.

And I pointed out problems with BOTH OPTIONS. Perhaps that's what's tripping you up? You're confused about which argument I'm making? The reason you're confused is because I was addressing BOTH arguments in the same post. My point was, it doesn't matter which way you approach it. There are still questions to be answered.

Unless you have a third option?





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join