ghostofsparta:
Mr. DDS, doesn't your reasoning faculty find it conflicting for you to accept the Scientific/Evolutionary theory that the Homo-Erectus whom you quoted to have lived between 1.3million to 1.8million years ago clearly contradicts the Biblical/Creationist account of the earth creation 6,000 years ago?

Yours is a grand case of INTELLECTUAL HYPOCRISY.

For starters... i do not believe in the homo erectus of homo sapien story. I think that is just bogus nonsense dreamed up to justify the evolution theory. The problem DS and I were pointing to was that for someone who claims to be a firm believer in the scientific alternative to creation, you shld know the difference between homo erectus and homo sapiens. We were taught that in secondary school.

davidylan:

For starters... I do not believe in the homo erectus of homo sapien story. I think that is just bogus nonsense dreamed up to justify the evolution theory.

You call evolution a story! You could as well call the internet a fiction and your TV a mystery, aeroplane a miracle, perhaps you like most confused religionists are free to disregard all the beneficial works and achievements of science and tech as 'objects of blasphemy' i.e. from automobiles to your solar wrist watch to your micro-oven to the microphone and loudspeakers in your church.

davidylan:
The problem DS and I were pointing to was that for someone who claims to be a firm believer in the scientific alternative to creation, you shld know the difference between homo erectus and homo sapiens. We were taught that in secondary school.

WTF!....if what you mean by 'know the difference' is my intentional mistake of typing 'Homo-erectus instead of Homo-sapien...then DeepDaftedSight wouldn't have fallen for my snare i.e. using his own exploits to trap him.

And nobody need know whether you were taught homo-whatever in secondary school or not. It's irrelevant.

ghostofsparta:

Ofcourse I was aware it should be HomoSapien. I could have easily changed it if I wanted to by using the modified button but I needed a religionists to fall for my trap by re-quoting my deliberate mistake because that is what all you religionists resort to here on Nairaland whenever you can't objectively counter an argument. You religionists comb our wordings looking for blunders and holes to throw back as a logical answer.

I wasn't expecting that religionists would be you: Mr. DDS (Deep Dafted Sight). I wasn't even expecting you'll shoot yourself multiple times this time around with the Russian Roulette I sub-consciously keep giving you.

Mr. DDS, doesn't your reasoning faculty find it conflicting for you to accept the Scientific/Evolutionary theory that the Homo-Erectus whom you quoted to have lived between 1.3million to 1.8million years ago clearly contradicts the Biblical/Creationist account of the earth creation 6,000 years ago?

Yours is a grand case of INTELLECTUAL HYPOCRISY.

[size=20pt]SHARRRAAPP THERE YOU CREEPING LIAR, BOVINE RECIDIVIST THAT THOU ART.[/size]

Trap my foot.

davidylan:
The problem DS and I were pointing to was that for someone who claims to be a firm believer in the scientific alternative to creation, you shld know the difference between homo erectus and homo sapiens. We were taught that in secondary school.

@ Ghostofathens - THIS above is THE EXACT ISSUE.

ANYBODY can make a mistake: I have myself, SEVERAL TIMES - corrected notably by Prizm and my eternal nemesis, Enigma - that's not a problem.

The problem is exactly what Davidylan has mentioned above: you set out to mock Theists using evolution as a prop, and you do not even know the first thing about it. As David said, no one needs to be an expert - its freaking JSS level knowledge!

Now how do you expect those theists who are HIGHLY SCHOOLED in science and evolution, to feel, WHEN you spew such nonsense and attempt to ask them to "school up" on evolution? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Its just the way i feel when many Christians who have never read the bible urge me to read the bible! And this happens EVERYDAY!

ghostofsparta:
You call evolution a story! You could as well call the internet a fiction and your TV a mystery, aeroplane a miracle, perhaps you like most confused religionists are free to disregard all the beneficial works and achievements of science and tech as 'objects of blasphemy' i.e. from automobiles to your solar wrist watch to your micro-oven to the microphone and loudspeakers in your church.

you dont have to shout lol. The internet is proven to work... have you ever tested macro-evolution in the lab? Have you EVER seen a unicellular organism morph into a more complex double-celled organism? You're just screaming out of ignorance... i've worked in a lab for 7 yrs (have you ever even seen what a science lab is like?) and have YET to be presented with any evidence to show that evolution is true. For starters... where did the first DNA molecule come from? Higgs Boson?

ghostofsparta:
WTF!....if what you mean by 'know the difference' is my intentional mistake of typing 'Homo-erectus instead of Homo-sapien...then DeepDaftedSight wouldn't have fallen for my snare i.e. using his own exploits to trap him.

And nobody need know whether you were taught homo-whatever in secondary school or not. It's irrelevant.

Again just yelling stupidly. NOW your use of homo erectus was an "intentional mistake"? What was your intent? To look stup[i]id[/i] on purpose?
I wonder why you keep bleating about trapping DS... afterall he was the first to point out your glaring error.

davidylan:

you dont have to shout lol. The internet is proven to work... have you ever tested macro-evolution in the lab? Have you EVER seen a unicellular organism morph into a more complex double-celled organism? You're just screaming out of ignorance... i've worked in a lab for 7 yrs (have you ever even seen what a science lab is like?) and have YET to be presented with any evidence to show that evolution is true. For starters... where did the first DNA molecule come from? Higgs Boson?



Again just yelling stupidly. NOW your use of homo erectus was an "intentional mistake"? What was your intent? To look stup[i]id[/i] on purpose?
I wonder why you keep bleating about trapping DS... afterall he was the first to point out your glaring error.

I really hate when people talk like this!!!

Shows you have NO idea what evolution is!! My friend, GO AND READ!!!

ps: working in a lab doesn't make u a scientist or give u credibility


@ original query

1) Dreams come true: somehow you need to understand the "scientific method". one dream out of a million sounds to me like probability (Not a proof for god)

2) De javu: This has nothing to do with the unexplainable or "supernatural". Our brains are magnificent devices that hiccup sometimes when it thinks it recognizes a certain pattern that has occurred before (not a proof for god)

3) Universal Order: we call what we have "universal order" simply because we have no experience of anything different. ever heard of Multiverses

4) Cause and Effect: This is by far the stupidest! you CANNOT relate our understanding of the world we have in front of us to a period when it didn't exist. (Please think carefully of my statement before any response)

5) Life on Earth: As soon as we find life on other planets (or evidence of it), it throws this argument right out the window. "GOD of the Gaps??"

Area_boy:


I really hate when people talk like this!!!

Shows you have NO idea what evolution is!! My friend, GO AND READ!!!

ps: working in a lab doesn't make u a scientist or give u credibility

So why didnt you just go ahead and explain what you THINK evolution is rather than the miserably dishonest game of yelling "go and read"?

I'm still asking my question... have you EVER observed a unicellular organism develop complex characteristics of multicellular organisms? Its either you have an answer or not. Just "hating" the question does not make your point of view any more valid than mine.

Area_boy:
5) Life on Earth: As soon as we find life on other planets (or evidence of it), it throws this argument right out the window. "GOD of the Gaps??"

So when are we going to find this life? in 1000 yrs?

Two questions posed to me. I'll obviously take the easy one on first.

When are we gona find this life?. Well, we only just discovered that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around less than 400years ago. As science progresses, more answers will come.

Now to the big one about evolution. Since you have refused to go read.

Unicellular organisms doesn't have to jump into a multicellular one over night to prove evolution. A series of minor alterations occur over time as the system acquires new "attributes" and "traits" that eventually leads to a multicellular one. This can be thousands of years or more.

While we battle about this seemingly difficult question to grasp, we might as well go into a much simpler one that certainly proves Modern Human beings having a common ancestor with our ape cousins.


Now, from the fossil records and close examination of bone structure of our ancestors, Science was able to make a link between us and the great apes. However, less than twenty years ago this fact was proven beyond all reasonable doubt by Genetics.


Now we know that the genetic codes of great apes as well as humans have been sampled properly and viewed under different light. So, if we have a common ancestor with these apes, our DNA structure should confirm that by resembling that of the modern apes (chimps, gorilla and orangutan)

Under close examination, the Human Genome differs from these apes with two less chromosomes giving us 46. Instead of the 48 chromosomes other apes have (23 from each parent for humans and 24 for each parent for apes). This goes against everything evolution has suggested and threatens to discount the idea

We cant simply say we lost two as that wont make any sense since all information for us are pre-registered in there. So the explanation of this apparent loss of TWO chromosomes must be in the human genome somewhere.

Observe the picture below. To the left is a sample of what one chromosome looks like (a representation). with the blue markers called telomere (as it is always found at the tail end of the chromosome) and the red markers centromere (cos its always found at the centre of the chromosome).

Since we only have 23 pairs of chromosome, then an explanation must be in there somewhere why we seemingly "lost" a pair or even why the apes "gained" a pair. Given that the three apes all have 48 each and only us have 46 it is wise to start the search in us (the odd one out)



You know what? the second picture on the right basically is the smoking gun!!! Human chromosome number 2 clearly shows telomere and centromere where they do not belong! correctly suggesting a FUSION of two chromosomes into one. This is UNIQUE to our lineage. hence giving us one less pair and making us significantly different from our cousins.

Happily concluding the fact that is EVOLUTION. We evolved from something that used to look like apes and took a different path and here we are today.



If you don't understand the maths, check here

p1....p2 ( p1,p2 is simply Parent 1 and parent 2)
24....24 ( take two each )
2....2 ( what have we got left?)
22....22 (is all we got left)

the 4 (2, 2) we have above will now fuse their neigbour to become 2 (1, 1)
1....1 (after fusion)
22....22 ( add back the 22)

23....23 ( modern Human)


Im not even a biologist or a genetic scientist and I understand this its so simple and flawless it almost wants to make me say the "work of god" LOL




If you still have doubts about evolution, this time TRY and read "Ring Species". Simple display of evolution in todays world

davidylan:

So why didnt you just go ahead and explain what you THINK evolution is rather than the miserably dishonest game of yelling "go and read"?

I'm still asking my question... have you EVER observed a unicellular organism develop complex characteristics of multicellular organisms? Its either you have an answer or not. Just "hating" the question does not make your point of view any more valid than mine.

Are you still asking these same questions that have been addressed several times already? You and I have had these conversations before but you just keep coming back repeating questions that have been answered.
Are you asking these questions to learn or are you trying to score cheap points in your mind?

Nice nice nice! Finally one atheist who has an idea what he is talking about. And it just had to be an area boy.

Area_boy: Two questions posed to me. I'll obviously take the easy one on first.

When are we gona find this life?. Well, we only just discovered that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around less than 400years ago. As science progresses, more answers will come.

Seriously... conditions that support human life are only feasibly present on earth and perhaps planet mars. If we havent found anything on mars yet, chances we will find anything on jupiter is close to nil. That we still rant about this "life on other planets" bull is mostly out of our desperation to prove the biblical claims wrong and less about genuine scientific discovery.

Area_boy:

Now to the big one about evolution. Since you have refused to go read.

Dont worry... i took genetics in class, i dont have to be ordered around to read by the ignorant.

Area_boy:
Unicellular organisms doesn't have to jump into a multicellular one over night to prove evolution. A series of minor alterations occur over time as the system acquires new "attributes" and "traits" that eventually leads to a multicellular one. This can be thousands of years or more.

What you initially described is what is generally known as micro evolution (just call it what it is - mutation) which is very well established to occur either spontaneously or by biologically engineered processes. Nothing new here to see.

Now the idea that somehow this tiny mutations... 99% of which are deleterious to the host... is responsible for the complex multicellular organisms we have today is just nonsense. If this were to be the case, why do we still have the exact same unicellular organisms like amoeba today?

Area_boy:
While we battle about this seemingly difficult question to grasp, we might as well go into a much simpler one that certainly proves Modern Human beings having a common ancestor to with our ape cousins.


Now, from the fossil records and close examination of bone structure of our ancestors, Science was able to make a link between us and the great apes. However, less than twenty years ago this fact was proven beyond all reasonable doubt by Genetics.


Now we know that the genetic codes of great apes as well as humans have been sampled properly and viewed under different light. So, if we have a common ancestor with these apes, our DNA structure should confirm that by resembling that of the modern apes (chimps, gorilla and orangutan)

Under close examination, the Human Genome differs from these apes with two less chromosomes giving us 46. Instead of the 48 chromosomes other apes have (23 from each parent for humans and 24 for each parent for apes). This goes against everything evolution has suggested and threatens to discount the idea

We cant simply say we lost two as that wont make any sense since all information for us are pre-registered in there. So the explanation of this apparent loss of TWO chromosomes must be in the human genome somewhere.

Observe the picture below. To the left is a sample of what one chromosome looks like (a representation). with the blue markers called telomere (as it is always found at the tail end of the chromosome) and the red markers centromere (cos its always found at the centre of the chromosome).

Since we only have 23 pairs of chromosome, then an explanation must be in there somewhere why we seemingly "lost" a pair or even why the apes "gained" a pair. Given that the three apes all have 48 each and only us have 46 it is wise to start the search in us (the odd one out)



You know what? the second picture on the right basically is the smoking gun!!! Human chromosome number 2 clearly shows telomere and centromere where they do not belong! correctly suggesting a FUSION of two chromosomes into one. This is UNIQUE to our lineage. hence giving us one less pair and making us significantly different from our cousins.

Happily concluding the fact that is EVOLUTION. We evolved from something that used to look like apes and took a different path and here we are today.



If you don't understand the maths, check here

p1....p2 ( p1,p2 is simply Parent 1 and parent 2)
24....24 ( take two each )
2....2 ( what have we got left?)
22....22 (is all we got left)

the 4 (2, 2) we have above will now fuse their neigbour to become 2 (1, 1)
1....1 (after fusion)
22....22 ( add back the 22)

23....23 ( modern Human)


Im not even a biologist or a genetic scientist and I understand this [size=18pt]its so simple and flawless[/size] it almost wants to make me say the "work of god" LOL

that's probably because you are just too thick to think.

Now lets examine your theory here:

1. The idea here is that human chromosome 2 is actually a fusion of ape chromosomes 2A and 2B. Now on the surface, the presence of 2 centromeres and a middle telomere on human chromosome 2 might make this a very plausible idea and hence a reason why humans have only 23 and not 24 pairs of chromosomes...

2. BUT how did this fusion occur in the first place?

a. It is virtually impossible for chromosomes to fuse telomere to telomere (well if it were possible then we would just have one long chromosome no?) so we can rule this out pretty quick.

b. It is not possible that both chromosomes 2A and 2B split into sticky ends and then fused as that will NOT justify the presence of the telomere at the center of human chromosome 2.

c. the only possibility is that one of chromosomes 2A or 2B split into sticky ends and then fused to the telomere of the other... makes sense from a theoretical point of view but then

- We would have to imagine the HIGHLY IMPROBABLE scenario that this exact same fusion was taking place in both the male and female at the exact same time! Why?

- Because if this occurred in only the sperm cell... that would mean 46 chromosomes from the male gamete and 48 from the female - this would mean only 3 outcomes:

1. An unviable zygote
2. A severely diseased offspring that would not be evolutionarily sustainable and thus quickly weeded out by the law of natural selection
3. A perfectly normal offspring that is infertile.

Area_boy:
If you still have doubts about evolution, this time TRY and read "Ring Species". Simple display of evolution in todays world

We dont need to read, you can state your points here clearly. We dont ask you to go read when you come here bleating for proof no?

thehomer:

Are you still asking these same questions that have been addressed several times already? You and I have had these conversations before but you just keep coming back repeating questions that have been answered.
Are you asking these questions to learn or are you trying to score cheap points in your mind?

just state your case and stop the empty chest beating.

davidylan:

just state your case and stop the empty chest beating.

Empty chest beating? Reading what you just said above and claiming that you studied genetics makes me wonder.

Before I proceed to show you where you're wrong in your response to Area_boy, I'll like to know for the sake of clarity why you think the theory of evolution is wrong and how you wish to explain the diversity of life on earth.

thehomer:

Empty chest beating? Reading what you just said above and claiming that you studied genetics makes me wonder.

Before I proceed to show you where you're wrong in your response to Area_boy, I'll like to know for the sake of clarity why you think the theory of evolution is wrong and how you wish to explain the diversity of life on earth.

Lets start with that first. You confused folks love running about in circles. Focus on one point.

davidylan:

Lets start with that first. You confused folks love running about in circles. Focus on one point.

I'll do that once I know why you think the theory of evolution is wrong and how you wish to explain the diversity of life on earth. The point here is to compare the two approaches rather than one person (you) just sitting back and thinking that his genius is worth several Nobel prizes in some field of science.

thehomer:

Empty chest beating? Reading what you just said above and claiming that you studied genetics makes me wonder.

Before I proceed to show you where you're wrong in your response to Area_boy, I'll like to know for the sake of clarity why you think the theory of evolution is wrong and how you wish to explain the diversity of life on earth.

why is it taking so long? Searching for your websites to plagiarize as usual even though you seem to insinuate that you actually understand the genetics at play here? smh

thehomer:

I'll do that once I know why you think the theory of evolution is wrong and how you wish to explain the diversity of life on earth. The point here is to compare the two approaches rather than one person (you) just sitting back and thinking that his genius is worth several Nobel prizes in some field of science.

Again the miserable musical chairs that these fools love to play. Lets focus on one thing first. Area boy used chromosome 2 as "evidence" for evolution, i just gave my own opinion on why that cannot be right... you countered that i was flatly wrong... well where is your evidence for why my point is not valid?

It seems to me that you dont understand this issue (without consulting google), but merely hanging your hat on the oft over-used "several nobel prize winners endorse my view" myth.

davidylan:

Again the miserable musical chairs that these fools love to play. Lets focus on one thing first. Area boy used chromosome 2 as "evidence" for evolution, i just gave my own opinion on why that cannot be right... you countered that i was flatly wrong... well where is your evidence for why my point is not valid?

It seems to me that you dont understand this issue (without consulting google), but merely hanging your hat on the oft over-used "several nobel prize winners endorse my view" myth.

Why are you panicking? I said I'll do that and gave you the reason why I want to actually hear what you think but you're just dancing around. We've had such discussions before so don't be afraid that I won't deliver I just want to know why you're thinking the way you do. Is that too much to ask in a conversation between two people?

thehomer:

Why are you panicking? I said I'll do that and gave you the reason why I want to actually hear what you think but you're just dancing around. We've had such discussions before so don't be afraid that I won't deliver I just want to know why you're thinking the way you do. Is that too much to ask in a conversation between two people?

Drop the condescending nonsense. Panicking over what? the puerile nonsense that ignorant cowards like you love to spew?

You just challenged my viewpoint a while back, why dont you coward spit out exactly why you think it is wrong rather than hiding behind your finger with irrelevancies?

Of course i absolutely expect you to "deliver"... once you are through searching google. Its obviously why you're employing shameless delay tactics. Responding to my clearly stated riposte to area boy should not take you over an hour m[i]o[/i]ron. I notice area boy too lurking around... i guess he too is busy searching google for a response since he doesnt really know either.

davidylan:

Drop the condescending nonsense. Panicking over what? the puerile nonsense that ignorant cowards like you love to spew?

You just challenged my viewpoint a while back, why dont you coward spit out exactly why you think it is wrong rather than hiding behind your finger with irrelevancies?

What condescending nonsense? It doesn't take long for you to start shouting and crying when you're backed into actually revealing what you really think. Are you so afraid and insecure that you just revert to calling people names? You should have grown up by now to be able to have such discussions like an adult.

Now, why don't you actually say why you think what you think? Or are you afraid it will be found ridiculous? We won't be able to have a serious discussion if you're not able to clearly say how you arrived at the conclusion that evolution is wrong and whatever you think is the better explanation for the diversity we see.

Once you provide that, I'll show you precisely the several places where you're wrong in your thinking.

davidylan:

Drop the condescending nonsense. Panicking over what? the puerile nonsense that ignorant cowards like you love to spew?

You just challenged my viewpoint a while back, why dont you coward spit out exactly why you think it is wrong rather than hiding behind your finger with irrelevancies?

Of course i absolutely expect you to "deliver"... once you are through searching google. Its obviously why you're employing shameless delay tactics. Responding to my clearly stated riposte to area boy should not take you over an hour m[i]o[/i]ron. I notice area boy too lurking around... i guess he too is busy searching google for a response since he doesnt really know either.

Even if I had to search google, it would mean that I knew exactly what to look for wouldn't it?
If you had answered the question immediately, then I wouldn't have been able to apply these "delaying tactics" now would I? So just quickly answer the question so I can stop searching google.

thehomer:

What condescending nonsense? It doesn't take long for you to start shouting and crying when you're backed into actually revealing what you really think. Are you so afraid and insecure that you just revert to calling people names? You should have grown up by now to be able to have such discussions like an adult.

Now, why don't you actually say why you think what you think? Or are you afraid it will be found ridiculous? We won't be able to have a serious discussion if you're not able to clearly say how you arrived at the conclusion that evolution is wrong and whatever you think is the better explanation for the diversity we see.

Once you provide that, I'll showy you precisely the several places where you're wrong in your thinking.

daft, seriously false... dishonest and stup[i]id[/i]. I already gave a lengthy response to area boy on my specific beliefs with regard to why chromosome 2 is NOT a credible proof for evolution. All you have done is play musical chairs.

I ask for the 100th time, when are you actually going to address what you claimed was wrong in my response to area boy? It shouldnt really take 200 yrs and countless meaningless posts.

thehomer:

Even if I had to search google, it would mean that I knew exactly what to look for wouldn't it?
If you had answered the question immediately, then I wouldn't have been able to apply these "delaying tactics" now would I? So just quickly answer the question so I can stop searching google.

this is laughably idiotic.

I dont need to be an expert on the Higgs Boson to search for it on google no? Afterall why do you think wikipedia exists? nauseating lack of honesty.

davidylan:

daft, seriously false... dishonest and stup[i]id[/i]. I already gave a lengthy response to area boy on my specific beliefs with regard to why chromosome 2 is NOT a credible proof for evolution. All you have done is play musical chairs.

And I've told you (edit: your response) is wrong.

davidylan:
I ask for the 100th time, when are you actually going to address what you claimed was wrong in my response to area boy? It shouldnt really take 200 yrs and countless meaningless posts.

And I've answered for the 101^st time that I'll do that once you actually tell me why you think the entire theory of evolution is wrong and your hidden idea is the best explanation for what the theory explains.
It is not hard. Answer it so I can stop searching google.
Seriously though, shouting abuses here won't save you. It simply shows your insecurity and immaturity.

davidylan:

this is laughably idiotic.

I dont need to be an expert on the Higgs Boson to search for it on google no? Afterall why do you think wikipedia exists? nauseating lack of honesty.

Boo hoo.

Answer the two questions I asked. Searching google won't really help you defend what you read there but I assure you, I'll be able to defend what I show you so, simply tell me why you think the entire theory of evolution is wrong and what your hidden theory is.

thehomer:

And I've told you it is wrong.



And I've answered for the 101^st time that I'll do that once you actually tell me why you think the entire theory of evolution is wrong and your hidden idea is the best explanation for what the theory explains.
It is not hard. Answer it so I can stop searching google.
Seriously though, shouting abuses here won't save you. It simply shows your insecurity and immaturity.

Firstly, i'm not abusing you at all... merely stating the issues as they are. I will call out dishonesty and lies when i see them.

Secondly... if you think my points were wrong, it should not take you forever to state why? I understand the game...

1. Always claim your opponent is wrong but NEVER say why... just laugh at them, label them ignorant and then refuse to state why

2. If they press you for an answer, claim you will give it when they have answered your own new and irrelevant question (the trick being to sidetrack you into defending a totally new position so you completely forget they have failed to provide an answer earlier).

3. In the event they answer your trick question (which is mostly vague and one you have asked and been responded to 1000 times before), ask another... anything to avoid having to defend your own claim.

4. If all else fails... ask them to "go and read".

Note the EXACT SAME tactic and questions already asked here adnauseam... https://www.nairaland.com/981858/boring-boring-higgs-boson/5#11351137

davidylan:

Firstly, i'm not abusing you at all... merely stating the issues as they are. I will call out dishonesty and lies when i see them.

Really? Should I repost some of what you've said already?

davidylan:
Secondly... if you think my points were wrong, it should not take you forever to state why? I understand the game...

And I've given you a condition for my answer. The sooner you meet those simply conditions, the sooner I'll show you why your answers were wrong.

davidylan:
1. Always claim your opponent is wrong but NEVER say why... just laugh at them, label them ignorant and then refuse to state why

I'll tell you why you were wrong just as I always do when we have these discussions. You should know that by now.

davidylan:
2. If they press you for an answer, claim you will give it when they have answered your own new and irrelevant question (the trick being to sidetrack you into defending a totally new position so you completely forget they have failed to provide an answer earlier).

My question is not irrelevant and I've actually given you the reasons why I would like to see your response. If you think the question is irrelevant, you're welcome to demonstrate this.

davidylan:
3. In the event they answer your trick question (which is mostly vague and one you have asked and been responded to 1000 times before), ask another... anything to avoid having to defend your own claim.

No, Like I said before, I actually will answer your question. Just as I've always done in the past. You can read through our previous discussions and show me where I ever refrained from showing you why I thought your answer was wrong and I'll rectify it.

davidylan:
4. If all else fails... ask them to "go and read".

I'm yet to do that so don't be too hasty.
I simply want us to fully appreciate where we're both coming from with regards to the theory of evolution.

on your first point. Put enough "micro" together and you will get "macro". . how many "micro" do you need to have a "macro"?

hundreds?
Thousands?
Millions?

How long has the earth been here? billions of years?
is that enough time for plenty "Micro"??

insert answer here .................

That's the simplest way I can explain evolution to you

davidylan: Nice nice nice! Finally one atheist who has an idea what he is talking about. And it just had to be an area boy.



Seriously... conditions that support human life are only feasibly present on earth and perhaps planet mars. If we havent found anything on mars yet, chances we will find anything on jupiter is close to nil. That we still rant about this "life on other planets" bull is mostly out of our desperation to prove the biblical claims wrong and less about genuine scientific discovery.



Dont worry... i took genetics in class, i dont have to be ordered around to read by the ignorant.



What you initially described is what is generally known as micro evolution (just call it what it is - mutation) which is very well established to occur either spontaneously or by biologically engineered processes. Nothing new here to see.

Now the idea that somehow this tiny mutations... 99% of which are deleterious to the host... is responsible for the complex multicellular organisms we have today is just nonsense. If this were to be the case, why do we still have the exact same unicellular organisms like amoeba today?



that's probably because you are just too thick to think.

Now lets examine your theory here:

1. The idea here is that human chromosome 2 is actually a fusion of ape chromosomes 2A and 2B. Now on the surface, the presence of 2 centromeres and a middle telomere on human chromosome 2 might make this a very plausible idea and hence a reason why humans have only 23 and not 24 pairs of chromosomes...

2. BUT how did this fusion occur in the first place?

a. It is virtually impossible for chromosomes to fuse telomere to telomere (well if it were possible then we would just have one long chromosome no?) so we can rule this out pretty quick.

b. It is not possible that both chromosomes 2A and 2B split into sticky ends and then fused as that will NOT justify the presence of the telomere at the center of human chromosome 2.

c. the only possibility is that one of chromosomes 2A or 2B split into sticky ends and then fused to the telomere of the other... makes sense from a theoretical point of view but then

- We would have to imagine the HIGHLY IMPROBABLE scenario that this exact same fusion was taking place in both the male and female at the exact same time! Why?

- Because if this occurred in only the sperm cell... that would mean 46 chromosomes from the male gamete and 48 from the female - this would mean only 3 outcomes:

1. An unviable zygote
2. A severely diseased offspring that would not be evolutionarily sustainable and thus quickly weeded out by the law of natural selection
3. A perfectly normal offspring that is infertile.



We dont need to read, you can state your points here clearly. We dont ask you to go read when you come here bleating for proof no?

It is really important you check your claims before you make them. I didn't fabricate that picture I put up. it has been observed clearly as evidence of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion! that pretty much throws out your other claims.


Again, you might have discovered this yourself. If so, you might think of publishing it and make a fortune for yourself if you can prove any of your suggestions.

With that you still have the balls to call me too thick to think?? This is "your" field and I have taken my time to study it in my quest to find out the truth about a "god" if there is one!. In drilling engineering I can defend my field of expertise pretty sound.

I only ask you to go read because if you did we wouldnt be having this pointless argument/conversation now. We'll prolly be having a beer somewhere.


Look at the contrary : A "God" made all this.

and yet i'm "too thick" to think. pui!!

@davidlyan

I have never heard of any scientific princple that science is done only in the Lab. Also evolution proponents don't claim the changes are instanteous especially in complex biology.

Lenski's experiments do show radical changes in micororganisms over a thousand generations. And do you explain resistant shown by disease causing microbes?!

davidylan:
. . . .
Note the EXACT SAME tactic and questions already asked here adnauseam... https://www.nairaland.com/981858/boring-boring-higgs-boson/5#11351137

Once again, you're demonstrating a double standard.
On that thread, I posted three lines of evidence I was ready to defend. You simply chose to post links that you didn't want to defend.

Why don't we stick to this thread? Just give me answers to the questions I asked and we can go on from there.

thehomer:
And I've given you a condition for my answer. The sooner you meet those simply conditions, the sooner I'll show you why your answers were wrong.

Save your "answer" dude. Not so important. Pls give space for more responsible folks who know what they are talking about to respond.

thehomer:

Once again, you're demonstrating a double standard.
On that thread, I posted three lines of evidence [size=18pt]I was ready to defend[/size]. You simply chose to post links that you didn't want to defend.

Why don't we stick to this thread? Just give me answers to the questions I asked and we can go on from there.

You forgot you were only "ready to defend" on condition i answer your question as you just did here too and as has been your MO on most threads you're involved in? Save your answers dude.