₦airaland Forum

The paper was the product of several teams of well-respected geneticists all of whom were fervent supporters of "ape to human evolution." Nonetheless,they found that : The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome . Humans have at least 78 genes and Chimpanzees have only 37. The Y chromosomes of Chimpanzees and humans are radically different in the arrangement of their genes . Both of these facts make it impossible for apes to have evolved into humans because there are no genetic mechanisms that would account for the vast differences between the ape and human Y chromosomes. Browse google for the maps of the chimp and human Y chromosomes.

Cc: Seun

Scientists in genetics and embryology are learning something new every day. One of the things we now know is Darwinians were lying to us when they insisted that the genetic matter of apes and humans are 98% identical. During the last 12 years, there has been a steady flow of scientific discoveries informing us that Chimpanzee and human chromosomes are so remarkably different that it is inconceivable for the ape genome to evolve into the human genome . For example : In 2010,Nature published a scientific paper entitled "Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content ." (Nature , by the way, is the most respected peer reviewed scientific journal for evolutionary genetics .)

Cc: Seun.

4everGod:
Another assumption and proof of HASTY GENERALIZATION as contained in the OP.

I cooked stew and used only salt and another cooked stew and used maggi, salt and thyme

Someone walks in and sees both and just says oh you both cooked stew without tasting (experiencing it)

Not knowing that stew different from STEW and a taste (experience) would show it.

Seun does not know what "hypothesis" means.

Seun, this is the introductory part of the article you provided. Note the word in red.

"All great apes apart from man have 24 pairs of chromosomes. There is therefore a hypothesis that the common ancestor of all great apes had 24 pairs of chromosomes and that the fusion of two of the ancestor's chromosomes created chromosome 2 in humans. The evidence for this hypothesis is very strong."

Nuff said.

Seun:
The way creationists constantly complain about my evolution comments makes me feel I'm doing something right that they're afraid of.


The explanation is chromosome fusion. The evidence for chromosome fusion is strong; can't imagine how you missed it. Here's it again.


False. We're mammals, so our chromosome fusion is one example. There other examples of fusion in mammals, for example, horses.

I don't understand why you can't accept two chromosomes fusing together in spite of the evidence, yet you can accept a talking snake story.

Why are you lying? There is not one example of "chromosome fusion" in mammals. Do you have an example?

Lennycool:
I don't know where you're getting your facts from but embryology is one of the proofs of evolutions.

Is this all you have to say?

It's a shame. Really.

Seun,

Receive knowledge. Don't even try to pretend as if you know anything about science. Darwinians have no explanation for why humans and apes have a different number of chromosomes. Darwinians claim that "chromosome fusion" of two ape chromosomes into a single chromosome resulted in humans having only 23 pairs of chromosomes while apes have 24 pairs. But there is not one example of "chromosome fusion" in mammals. Darwinians claim that 1 in 1000 human babies have a "fused chromosome" but this is an out and out lie. They are actually referring to Robertsonian Translocations, which are "translocations" and not fused chromosomes and does not result in a change in the chromosome number. Besides, scientifically derived facts refute "chromosome fusion" can occur in apes or humans.

Lennycool:
Disprove what?
What concerns chromosomes and evolution. We aren't talking about human ape copulation.
You're just trying the muddle the argument with irrelevancies. I don't have the time

Ladies and gentlemen, can you see that strawman?

Lennycool, I know you don't know, but there are laws of embryology that directly contradict "ape to human evolution." One reason is that genes work together in teams to form body parts during embryonic development. This makes it impossible to add genes to any genome because there is no way to coordinate any new gene with existing genes. Yet "ape to human evolution" requires apes and humans to be able to add genes - for example, the chimpanzee Y chromosome has 37 genes and the human Y chromosome has at least 78 genes.

Stop embarrassing yourself defending evolution.

Deicide:
Please tell me what the Son of God means in That context.... If it's not angels you are not even ashamed...

You're a disgrace to intellectuality. The sons of GOD there were not angels. Angels don't reproduce, neither do they marry, nor are they given in marriage(Matt. 22:30).

Are you not EyehateGod? I'm not surprised.

Seun:
Really? You believe God had to rest for a day after creating the world in 6 days, despite being all-powerful? That days existed before the sun?

He did not rest because He was tired. The rest was simply a cessation of occupation. GOD simply made us understand that He created all that is in 6 literal days. He is that and even more powerful.

No, it makes me realise that the bible is full of contradictions. The mental gymnastics you must do to avoid this obvious conclusion is amazing!

Next time, before you argue the Bible with me, make sure you have read and it and informed yourself on what it teaches.

Lennycool:
How can you way its lies when it's confirmed by science

What's your theory based on?
Can you provide a credible source supporting your argument

Is it not left for you to disprove the what I have said, that the human and ape chromosomes are remarkably divergent and too different for the "ape to human" evolution to explain? That the human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the chimp Y chromosome?

Disprove it!

Deicide:
I don't know it seams Like you are Ignorant of Your Bible...


Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown.

Why did you assume that the sons of GOD in this text were angels?

Deicide:
So how is it possible for them to Fvck our Women?

Provide the verse please let's examine it.

Lennycool:
This is just sad. Have you ever seen an angel?

There is a logical fallacy which goes like this: "I have not seen it. Therefore it does not exist." I know you don't know.

Because you have not seen an angel does not mean angels do not exist. Angels are spirits, by the way.

Receive sense into your life and stop rehashing lies that have been proven wrong.

Lennycool:
Not to mention human DNA similarity with most living things, we wouldn't share 98% of our DNA with chimps if God made us differently.
you'd have to be either really stupid or really disillusioned to take the bible creation story seriously.

DoctorAlien:
Darwinians have been dead wrong whenever they have claimed that the "genetic matter of ape and humans is 98% identical." The ape and human chromosomes are remarkably divergent and too different for "ape to human evolution" theory to adequately explain. For example, the human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the chimpanzee Y chromosome and the chromosome structures are not at all similar.

Seun:
Is this your way of saying that you don't believe in the straightforward interpretation of the biblical creation story? If so, it's disingenuous to say you believe in the biblical creation story. It's like someone saying he accepts the theory of evolution but his definition of evolution is different.

I believe the literal account of Bible creation.

However, you should think twice because angels possess the physical attributes of man like eyes, mouth, ears, legs, hands, thighs, etc. Even lower animals possess these attributes. Yet, the Bible says that only man was created in the image of GOD.

That should make you realise that the image of GOD in man is not about physical properties.

When you also realise that no man has seen GOD(the Father) at any time(Jn. 1:18), you would realise that you don't even know what He looks like. But we are created in His image.

randomperson:
The sun was created on the fourth day, but light was created on the first day... So if the sun is the source of light, where did the light of the first day come from and how come there was day and night on the first day?

The concept of light in the universe was created on the first day. When the light was yet not created, "darkness was upon the face of the deep."(Gen. 1:2). I admit there are things GOD has not revealed to us, for example, how He was able to make the sun a source of light(finding that out will probably answer many questions). When we get to Heaven, we will know all these, anyway.

It was on that same day that GOD ordained the "day" to be the period when there is light, and the night to be the period when there is darkness.

Seun:
Are you kidding me? You believe that man is made of soil? Women are made of rib bone? That light was created before the sun? Why do we look like shaved chimpanzees if we were created in the image of God? Was the chimpanzee also created in the image of God? Oh my goodness!

I believe that man was created from the dust of the ground.

Why do you assume that the image of GOD in man is all about outward looks? Angels have the external features of man like legs and hands and even hair, but the Bible never said that they were created in GOD's image.

Stop constructing strawman arguments. You don't interpret the Bible to mean what you want, and then attack that interpretation of yours. It's not intellectual.

randomperson:
Sensible are u fvcking kidding me?? The creation story that says light was created before sun. Or which creation story are u talking about because there are two different ones in the bible

Think with your head please?

Is the sun light? The sun is simply a source of light. Just like a torch is not light: it is a source of light.

GOD declared "Let there be light" and there was light. He did not say "let there be light for the earth" on the first day. He simply said "let there be light." You get it? GOD created the concept of light in this Universe. And He ordained it to be that when the light is, there is day, and when the darkness(which is the absence of light) is, there is night.

The sun was created to give light(to be a light-source) to the earth(Gen. 1:15), and it was created for times and seasons(now the earth revolves around the sun, and this revolution brings about seasons).

Seun:
I hope they will answer this. Ambassagod, Anas09, DoctorAlien, can you tell us about your superior alternative to the theory of evolution?

Creation as narrated in the Bible. As a matter of fact, it is the only sensible account for the existence of life.

Darwinians have been dead wrong whenever they have claimed that the "genetic matter of ape and humans is 98% identical." The ape and human chromosomes are remarkably divergent and too different for "ape to human evolution" theory to adequately explain. For example, the human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the chimpanzee Y chromosome and the chromosome structures are not at all similar.

benzics,

Receive sense and knowledge in your life. The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the chimpanzee Y chromosome and the chromosome structures are not at all similar.

I'm not gonna give you a link on that. Simply search to see whether it's true or not.

“Every paleontologist knows that most species don’t change. That’s bothersome….brings terrible distress. ….They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that’s not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don’t change, its not evolution so you don’t talk about it.” -Stephen J. Gould





I'm waiting for Nairaland atheists to come and say that Stephen J Gould is not a real scientist.

benzics:
They should even ask themselves, since god has always been, that means the earth to has always been, because according to their folklore, he created the earth on the first day.

And they should ask themselves why this same god created, Jupiter Mars, Venus and other non-habitable planets, and why he created billions of stars in our galaxy.

They also claim that the three wise men saw a star that led them to Christ, when basically all Stars we see are dead stars, so a star died billions of years ago only to tell you that Jesus will be born in a billion year time? Ya right, sounds like Christianity to me, dumb as always!

Hei!

Is it that once a person becomes an "atheist", he or she is cursed with a level of ignorance that is astonishing?

This alone makes this guy worthy of no consideration from any serious and informed individual.

Will you go and read the Bible, please, and stop embarrassing yourself?

randomperson:
There is evidence, not proof of evolution. Gimme one evidence of creation.

Now, disprove the OP with that "evidence."

We are waiting.

randomperson:
Evolution still remains what it is, a theory. Many atheists don't even necessarily believe in evolution. But it holds greater appeal to reason than the creation story.
And I don't know why u suddenly have the idea that disproving evolution makes creationism more credible

Yes. It certainly holds greater appeal to reason that lightning struck a soup of chemicals(that came from nowhere) and suddenly amoeba appeared and then became a worm and suddenly dinosaurs are everywhere.

That's very very reasonable.

randomperson:
Exposed?? The claims of the bible are neither evidence or proof. The idea that man was created by god is as credible as the idea of the earth bring created by oduduwa... I don't need to prove the non- existence of a fact by bringing positive arguments or evidence. I only need to show that the claims of the bible have not been confirmed and are not sufficient proof of creation...
That's how it works in a court of law BTW

Okay.

Bye.

Eastactivist:
Really?? And so ends your arguments??

So how will you explain to a boy who then ask you.
Sire or daddy, you said that people are born from people, who then born the first people? Will your answer to his question be what you put up there??

I really Can't wait to see the look on the face of the innocent lad.
Pure case of delusion of grandeur

Guess what I do for fun/when I'm less busy? Scaring these "atheists" with real logic/poking holes in their "intellectual" arguments. I was actually amused when he replied me "I don't know for sure." He is no longer sure. But he sounded sure when he said "every human is as a result of reproduction."

randomperson:
The onus is on u to prove the claims of the bible... It's just like me asking u to prove that batman is not real... Can you prove it??

Then go and sit down. Most of you when exposed begin to appeal to ignorance. That was how the other was stating emphatically that every human is as a result of reproduction. When asked about the first human, he began to appeal to ignorance.

Prove that man was not created by GOD as the Bible says or you hold your peace.

randomperson:
Nature is not evidence of god... If anything, it's evidence that there is no god... There are plants that kill people, there is a worm whose lifespan is only to eat the eyes of human beings, there are NATURAL disasters... People die from winter's frostbite and summer's heatstroke...
U cannot ascribe the beauty of nature to god whilst ignoring it's ugliness

So, according to your logic:

1. Plants kill people. Therefore there is no GOD.

2. Worms eat the eyes of human beings. Therefore there is no GOD.

3. Natural disaster exists. Therefore there is no GOD.

4. People die from winter's frostbite and stroke. Therefore there is no GOD.

Very logical arguments. Conclusive proofs that there is no GOD. Wow!

randomperson:
The onus of proof is on you... Even in the courts of law, u are not required to prove the negative. That's why the onus is on he who asserts

Calm down. I'm not asking you to prove the d(F(x))/dx = 2xyIn3xsin2. The Bible says that the first man was created by GOD. Prove that the Bible is wrong.

Stop running away from the proof. It is not mathematical induction.