Can Randomness and Chance cause the Evolution of life?

Audie said:

As Dante put it, Hell is the absence of reason.

Click to expand...

Are you sure Dante said that?

james bond said:

Sure I do. Micro happens like the super weeds, but macro doesn't happen. It's just made up fluff which suckered a lot of people, but more and more people do not believe it since 2011.

There is nothing for me to grip about. While there is plenty for atheists and atheist scientists to grip about. Why do atheists keep talking about religion and atheist science? Atheist science is boring and does not help me to do well with the opposite sex. I don't talk about religion, science and Borlaug in real life unless the subject comes up. Mostly, I discuss here. However, I will discuss the dangers of GMO foods and how it should be labeled .

I would add God's word to the definition of truth.

From Merriam-Webster:

Definition of truth
plural truths play \ˈtrüt͟hz, ˈtrüths\
1 a (1) : the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY
(2) : the state of being the case : FACT
(3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality
b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true

• truths of thermodynamics

c : the body of true statements and propositions
2 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality
b chiefly British : TRUE 2
c : fidelity to an original or to a standard
3 a : sincerity in action, character, and utterance
b archaic : FIDELITY, CONSTANCY
4 capitalized, Christian Science : GOD

It just goes to show that I am right and you are wrong. It even says "capitalized." Thus, it could be that you are referring to god of the Earth, Satan .

Click to expand...

Macro has been observed too. You have even admitted it. The problem is that you do not understand the meaning of the terms that you abuse.

james bond said:

Heh. Aren't you the one being boring as hell just copying and pasting arguments from the Talk Origins archive and not giving any credit while you fawn oh no, not this again? You don't even know what you are talking about. Please explain in your own words instead of some stupid claim and number.

Sure, these are problems for evos. I said most of the living creatures today are found in all the fossil layers. If found, some are considered to be living fossils and the atheist scientists claim they have been extinct for millions of years. Nothing of the kind. These living fossils have nothing to do with chronology. They aren't millions of years old as claimed by atheist scientists. These living fossils will continue to be found. Most aren't rare, but common. If we find some thing like tiktaalik still alive, then it's rare because they were an extinct species. Not rare because they're a missing link or are millions of years old. We find these living fossils all the time, and atheist scientists think they're rare because they are millions or years old or they could be missing links. Less and less people will believe these claims because we'll keep finding these "living fossils."

One of the most stupidest claims made by atheist scientists today is that reptiles do not exist anymore. They've been replaced by dinosaurs.

.

Click to expand...

"Living fossils" are only a problem for ignorant creationists. And what "atheist scientist" ever made that claim about reptiles? How do you know that he was an atheist? Most Christians are not science deniers and accept the theory of evolution today. They learned that one does not need to believe the myths of the Bible to be a Christian.

james bond said:

It's true. You can't even explain what you are referring to or explain your points while I have patiently explained coelacanth and how it isn't a transitional form, but another living creature and fossil found. What Darwin called a living fossil. JLB Smith acted like a loon and was foaming at the mouth in 1938 when he heard one was found in a fish market. There is a documentary on this, but the audio track has been removed. I wonder why. I would guess it's atheist scientists hiding their embarrassment. You can read in the link below to see the controversy.

You didn't know any of this or else you would have explained. All the while bragging you got an 'A' in vertebrae class. How is that related to what I brought up? Don't go away mad. Just go away without an explanation.

"The mingled destinies of coelacanths and men have not brought out the best in the latter. Ambition, jealousy, and opportunistic moralizing have plagued the coelacanth since its 1938 "discovery." First, there was an uneasy tension between JLB Smith and Marjorie Courtenay-Latimer who had spotted the fish on the trawler Nerine in December 1938, and sent Smith the sketch that led to its identification. Courtenay-Latimer had been unable to preserve the internal organs in the summer heat and without these Smith had been hard put to prove the fish's ancient identity to everyone's satisfaction. Smith and Courtenay-Latimer gave slightly different accounts of their first meeting on his arrival in East London to see the specimen, his implied that she was somewhat indifferent to the discovery. "

DINOFISH.com - COELACANTH Controversies

Click to expand...

If you can't be serious why even try to debate? The coelacanth is well understood and there is no requirement that a transitional species die out. That is akin to claiming that Europeans need to die out for Americans to exist.

james bond said:

TBDW (too boring didn't watch). I already watched FG and it was enough. Life is a box of chocolates means that it was designed.

Your argument on the new taxonomy is circular which is a fallacy.

Click to expand...

Since the taxonomic nomenclature mirrors the understanding of the evolutionary relationship in a unidirectional fashion it is quite impossible for the relationship to be circular no matter how hard to strain to pretend that that is the case.

james bond said:

But to explain C #2, creation scientists agree it is there but is a pseudogene, a gene that is of suboptimal design caused by original sin. What explanations do you have?

Click to expand...

Rubbish. Ken Gilmore explains why:

Shared identical pseudogenes

If a university lecturer receives six term papers that not only share the same four paragraphs in the conclusion which are word-for word from Wikipedia, except for identical spelling errors at the same place in the paragraphs that closely resemble Wikipedia, she is unlikely to conclude that purely by chance, all six students independently wrote four concluding paragraphs that happened to resemble Wikipedia word for word, and independently made the same spelling mistakes. Rather, she is entitled to conclude that one student plagiarised Wikipedia, making a few spelling errors in the process, and that the remaining five students copied that original paper.

A similar phenomenon exists in comparative genomics, where identical genetic 'errors' are found in exactly the same place in the genome when we compare genomes from a number of related species. These 'errors' include broken genes, remnants of ancient retroviral infection, mobile genetic parasites, and markers of DNA repair. These are not design features, but evidence of an ancient accident which occurred in an ancestral species, and was subsequently inherited by descendant species. This post will review the evidence from pseudogenes.

Pseudogenes are genetic elements that resemble genes but are not able to produce the product for which that gene normally would code. Three types of pseudogene exist: unitary, duplicated and processed.

• Unitary: result when a normally functioning gene acquires a crippling mutation that prevents it from functioning. One of the better known unitary pseudogenes is the gulonolactone oxidase pseudogene, GULOP. Most organisms are able to make their own vitamin C, but in a number of species, most notably humans, apes, guinea pigs and bats, the gene which codes for L-gulonolactone oxidase, one of the enzymes involved in vitamin C biosynthesis is non-functional.
• Duplicated: occurs when a gene is copied, and one or more of the copies becomes inactivated through mutation. The haemoglobin gene family is one notable example as there are a number of haemoglobin pseudogenes in addition to the functional haemoglobin genes, the former having arisen via duplication and inactivation.
• Processed: these occur if the RNA transcript of a gene, which normally is used by the cell as the ‘recipe’ to create the protein for which it encodes, is copied via reverse transcriptase to a DNA copy and is inserted randomly into the genome. In order to appreciate how readily one can tell the difference between a processed pseudogene and the gene from which it originated, it is useful to know some of the details of genetics. A working gene will have a promoter element (a section of genetic material involved in initiating gene transcription), while the part of the gene that actually codes for the protein will be broken up with genetic elements called introns that are spliced out during transcription. The tail-end of the RNA copy of a gene will contain what is called a poly-A tail, which is important in stabilising the RNA copy. The processed pseudogene lacks introns and a promoter element, but has a poly-A tail added.

Common descent would predict that species descending from a common ancestor not only would have similar genes, but have most of those genes in the same order. Building on from the information above, we would also predict that if an organism was infected by a retrovirus that became fixed in its genome, had one of its genes incapacitated by mutation and converted to a pseudogene, or had a number of retrotransposition events occurring in its genome, then these ‘genetic errors’ would be inherited by species descended from the ancestral species.

Conversely, special creation would have no credible answer other than to claim that purely by chance:

• the same retrovirus inserted into the same location,
• the same gene became incapacitated by exactly the same mutation
• the same RNA transcript of a gene became reverse transcribed and pasted into the same location
• the same retrotransposon copied and inserted itself into the same location in related species.

The odds of this occurring by chance are remote even if we are referring only to a single event. In reality, there are multiple examples of identical shared ‘genetic errors’ in species which according to mainstream biology share a common ancestor, and the pattern of these shared errors agrees remarkably well with the accepted evolutionary family tree. Needless to say, the chances of this occurring by chance are so remote as to be negligible. The most parsimonious interpretation of this is the acquisition of these ‘genetic errors’ in ancient species whose ancestors have inherited these mistakes.

The literature is replete with examples. The first – and arguably most famous example – is that of the GULO-P pseudogene which in humans, chimpanzees, orangutans and macaques [1] is broken in exactly the same was. (For those interested in the details, the 164 nucleotide sequence of exon X shared a single nucleotide deletion). While guinea pigs also have a non-functional GULO gene, this was inactivated in a completely different way [2] and therefore represents a separate pseudogenisation event. The GULO pseudogene in humans, apes and old world monkeys is broken in exactly the same way, consistent with the incapacitation of GULO in the common ancestor of these primates.

After a gene is rendered non-functional, it becomes selectively neutral, which means that it is free to acquire random mutations. If we look at all the species that have the same pseudogene in common, those that share a recent common ancestor should differ by fewer random mutations. Conversely, those that have a distant common ancestor will have had more time to accumulate random mutations, and therefore will be less similar. By creating a family tree based on this mutation data, we should be able to create a tree roughly consistent with the expected evolutionary tree. This is exactly what we see when we look at the GULO data in primates.

The primate data clusters closely together, with humans and chimpanzees closest of all. Rodents cluster closely together, with guinea pigs clustering closely with the rodents. This is exactly what we’d expect if common descent was true. Special creation simply has no credible answer. Remember, when we look at the primate data, we’re looking at random mutations in a non-functional gene. The creationist either has to assume that this occurred purely by chance; the odds of which are so remote as to be practically impossible or answer:

• Why did God create primates with a broken vitamin C synthesis system, leaving others with the ability to synthesise vitamin C
• Why did God create humans, apes and old world monkeys (which according to evolutionary biology form a clade, or group of organisms sharing a common ancestor) with a GULO pseudogene broken in exactly the same way?
• Why did God then insert random mutations into this broken pseudogene in such a way as to allow one to construct an evolutionary family tree that agrees with the conventional evolutionary tree derived from morphological data?

This is why the biochemist and intelligent design advocate Michael Behe admitted that the GULO data is powerful evidence for common descent:

When two lineages share what appears to be an arbitrary genetic accident, the case for common descent becomes compelling, just as the case for plagiarism becomes overpowering when one writer makes the same unusual misspellings of another, within a copy of the same words. That sort of evidence is seen in the genomes of humans and chimpanzees. For examples, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C As a result, neither humans nor chimps can make their own vitamin C.
[…]
The same mistakes in the same gene in the same positions of both human and chimp DNA. If a common ancestor first sustained the mutational mistakes and subsequently gave rise to these two modern species, that would very readily account for both why both species have them how. It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans.(Emphasis mine) [3]
The enzyme cytochrome P450 C21 is of critical importance in the biosynthesis of steroid hormones. Humans have both a working copy of the CYP21 gene (which has eight exons), as well as a pseudogene, which is damaged in three main ways:

• An eight base pair deletion in exon 3 of the gene
• A one base pair substitution at codon 318 of exon 8
• A single nucleotide insertion in exon 7

Kawaguchi et al analysed the DNA of humans, orangutans, chimpanzees and gorillas to clarify how and when the defects in the CYP21 pseudogene occurred:
The primary purpose of this study has been to determine the evolutionary origins of the three defects characterizing the human CYP21P gene. The study shows that the 8-bp deletion in exon 3 is present in the chimpanzee but not in the gorilla or orangutan genes, whereas the T insertion in exon 7 and the substitution generating the stop codon in exon 8 are restricted to human genes. [4]
In other words, the 8 base pair deletion occurred in a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, while the substitution and insertion occurred after the human-chumpanzee speciation event:
Our results are consistent with this scenario: the 8-bp deletion apparently occurred after the gorilla lineage split off but before the chimpanzee and human lineages separated from each other. We can thus date the occurrence of the 8-bp deletion rather precisely within a relatively short period of some 6 Myr ago. The deletion was followed, in the human lineage, by the two other defective mutations. [5]
Again, recall our analogy of multiple examination papers with the same wrong errors and the same mistakes in the wrong answers, down to the same spelling errors. No one would seriously advance multiple independent errors as a valid explanation. Rather, they'd conclude that copying had occurred. The same applies here. When we have identical errors in the CYP21 pseudogene of chimpanzees and humans, it stretches credibility to assume that:

• Purely by chance, chimpanzees and humans both have a CYP21 pseudogene which arose via a duplication event
• Purely by chance, they both acquired the same eight base pair deletion
• Common descent, with the duplication event occurring in a species ancestral to human and chimpanzee which was then passed down to chimpanzee and human lineages is the only credible explanation.

Other examples of shared pseudogenes include:

1. The GBA gene, which codes for the enzyme glucocerebrosidase has a pseudogene present not only in humans, but in chimpanzees and gorillas. Human, chimpanzees and gorillas share the same 55 base pair deletion. [6]

2. The RT6 gene normally codes for a protein which is found on the surface membrane of T lymphocytes (a class of white blood cell). In both humans and chimpanzees it is a pseudogene, which means this protein is not expressed. Haag et al have examined the human and chimpanzee RT6 pseudogene:
We have now cloned and sequenced the homologues of the RT6 genes from humans of distinct ethnic backgrounds and of the chimpanzee. Surprisingly, in each case, three premature in-frame stop codons preclude expression of the single copy RT6 gene as a cell surface protein. Otherwise, the RT6 genes of human and chimpanzee exhibit high structural conservation to their rodent counterparts. RNA expression analyses indicate that the RT6 gene is not transcriptionally active in human T cells or any other human tissue analyzed so far. To our knowledge, RT6 represents the first mammalian membrane protein identified that has been lost universally in the human and chimpanzee species due to gene inactivation. [7]
Again, here is an example of humans and chimpanzees having the same pseudogene with the same crippling mutation, which makes sense if humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor in which this mutation took place and from whom the two lines inherited the pseudogene. From a special creationist point of view, this is inexplicable.

3. Humans and apes are unable to synthesise the enzyme urate oxidase, as the gene which normally would code for it is a pseudogene. In humans, chimpanzees, this is due to the same mutation. In gibbons, which are also unable to synthesise urate oxidase, this is due to a separate mutation event:
Two nonsense mutations at codon positions 33 and 187 and an aberrant splice site were found in the human gene. These three deleterious mutations were also identified in the chimpanzee. The nonsense mutation at codon 33 was observed in the orangutan urate oxidase gene. None of the three mutations was present in the gibbon; in contrast, a 13-bp deletion was identified that disrupted the gibbon urate oxidase reading frame. These results suggest that the loss of urate oxidase during the evolution of hominoids could be caused by two independent events after the divergence of the gibbon lineage; the nonsense mutation at codon position 33 resulted in the loss of urate oxidase activity in the human, chimpanzee, and orangutan, whereas the 13-bp deletion was responsible for the urate oxidase deficiency in the gibbon. [8]
4. Humans have thirteen genes which code for the oxygen-carrying molecule haemoglobin. Four of them in adults are functional, while five are active only in the foetal stage and are inactivated around birth. The remaining four are pseudogenes. The genes occur in two clusters, the alpha cluster (three pseudogenes and four genes) and the beta cluster (one pseudogene and five genes).

The single pseudogene in the beta cluster - the ψβ pseudogene - is considerably degraded, with around 30% of the gene sequence mutated when compared with the functional β haemoglobin gene. Given the known rate of mutation, this means the ψβ pseudogene must have been disabled a long time ago. Therefore, common descent would predict we'd see it not only in humans and the great apes, but in more distantly related primates, and that is exactly what we see. The ψβ pseudogene is seen in humans, apes, baboons and new world monkeys. Furthermore, when we examine the ψβ pseudogene in humans, chimpanzees and gorillas, we see the same crippling mutations:
These three pseudogenes each share the same substitutions in the initiator codon (ATG → GTA), a substitution in codon 15 which generates a termination signal TGG → TGA, nucleotide deletion in codon 20 and the resulting frame shift which yields many termination signals in exons 2 and 3. [9]
One of the pseudogenes in the alpha cluster, the ψζ pseudogene is almost identical with the working ζ foetal haemoglobin gene. It is another example of a duplicated pseudogene, one which was inactivated only a relatively short time ago [10]. When we look at the genome of the chimpanzee, regarded as the closest living relative of humans, we see two ζ haemoglobin genes, confirming that the conversion of the duplicated ζ gene to a pseudogene took place after the human-chimp speciation event, relatively recently:



Beta haemoglobin gene cluster. Pseudogenes are black
Source: Fairbanks D.J. "Relics of Eden: The Powerful Evidence of Evolution in Human DNA" (2007, Prometheus Books)

This consonance between morphological and molecular phylogenetic trees is exactly what common descent would predict, and utterly impossible to honestly reconcile with common design, unless God was deliberately creating life with errors in order to fake common descent.

This barely touches the surface of the vast array of pseudogene evidence demonstrating human-ape common ancestry. As molecular biologist Daniel Fairbanks notes:
With a few notable exceptions, chimpanzees and humans have the same pseudogenes in the same places, and they are, on average, about 98 percent similar. [11]
Cell biologist and cancer researcher Graeme Finlay in a 2003 paper summarising the genomic evidence for common descent likewise echoes Fairbanks' comments:
Our genome contains 6,000 to 10,000 derelict genes or gene fragments (pseudogenes) that no longer produce functional proteins (Figure 2). Some are disabled versions of genes which remain functional in other species. Others are inactive copies or duplicated fragments of functional genes. Each pseudogene is unique. It is the product of a random, unrepeatable originating event (or series of events) that occurred during the history from which humanity arose. Pseudogenes therefore provide unambiguous evidence for the animal ancestry of humans. [12]

Needless to say, the odds of these species purely by chance having the same genes convert to pseudogenes with exactly the same genetic mutation causing the pseudogenisation of these genes is so remote as to be impossible. Common design fails to explain this evidence:

• It fails to explain why, if a creator did not intend for humans and apes to have these genes in the first place, were they created with broken versions of genes that in other animals are functional.
• It fails to explain why these broken genes were created in closely related animals with the same crippling mutation.
• It fails to explain why these broken genes were also created with random mutations places in exactly the right way to allow scientists to construct evolutionary family trees that are consonant with the standard evolutionary family trees. Such consonance is exactly what one would expect if common descent was true. Special creation is simply unable to honestly account for this evidence.

The evidence for common descent just from pseudogenes is clear, and unarguable.

References

1. Ohta Y, Nishikimi M "Random nucleotide substitutions in primate nonfunctional gene for L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase, the missing enzyme in L-ascorbic acid biosynthesis.” Biochim Biophys Acta. (1999) 18;1472(1-2):408-11.
2. Nishikimi M, Kawai T, Yagi K. "Guinea pigs possess a highly mutated gene for L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase, the key enzyme for L-ascorbic acid biosynthesis missing in this species." J Biol Chem. (1992) 267(30):21967-72.
3. Behe M “The Edge of Evolution. The Search for the Limits of Darwinism” (2007, Free Press) pp 71-72
4. Karaguchi H, O'hUign C, Klein J "Evolutionary Origin of Mutations in the Primate Cytochrome P450c2l Gene" Am. J. Hum. Genet. (1992) 50:766-780
5. ibid, p 777.
6. Wafaei J.R., and Choi F.Y., "Glucocerebrosidase Recombinant Allele: Molecular Evolution of the Glucocerebrosidase Gene and Pseudogene in Primates" Blood Cells, Molecules, and Diseases (2005) 35: 277-85.
7. Haag F, Koch-Nolte F, Kiihl M, et al. Premature stop codons inactivate the RT6 genes of the human and chimpanzee species. J Mol Biol (1994) 243:537-546
8. Xiangwei Wu, Donna M. Muzny, Cheng Chi Lee, C. Thomas Caskey "Two independent mutational events in the loss of urate oxidase during hominoid evolution" Journal of Molecular Evolution (1992) 34:78-84
9. L.Y.Edward Chang, Jerry L. Slightom "Isolation and nucleotide sequence analysis of the β-type globin pseudogene from human, gorilla and chimpanzee" Journal of Molecular Biology(1984) 180:767:783
10. W. C. Wong et al., "Comparison of Human and Chimpanzee Zeta 1 Globin Genes" Journal of Molecular Evolution (1985) 22: 309-15
11. Fairbanks D.J. "Relics of Eden: The Powerful Evidence of Evolution in Human DNA" (2007, Prometheus Books) p 54
12. Finlay G "Homo divinus: The Ape that Bears God's Image.” Science and Christian Belief(2003) 15:17–40.

Makes a bit more sense that some imaginary "original sin" eh?

Sapiens said:

Since the taxonomic nomenclature mirrors the understanding of the evolutionary relationship in a unidirectional fashion it is quite impossible for the relationship to be circular no matter how hard to strain to pretend that that is the case.

Rubbish. Ken Gilmore explains why:

...

Click to expand...

The unidirection as you state didn't happen though. OSU and Florida State think it could have been the other way around from birds to dinosaurs as one as the feathered dino glided down to the ground like a flying squirrel. Birds did not have dinosaurs as a common ancestor because of their "position of the thigh bone and muscles in birds is critical to their ability to have adequate lung capacity for sustained long-distance flight, a fundamental aspect of bird biology. Theropod dinosaurs did not share this feature." They did not find any evidence of ground to air flying capability.

Study challenges bird-from-dinosaur theory of evolution - was it the other way around?

Original sin is clear and unarguable. As for pseudogenes and chromosome 2, I already gave you the creation scientists version while you did another copy and paste job. As for the conclusion, it isn't clear and unarguable. Again, it really depends on how one interprets the evidence. Jerry Bergman and Jeffrey Tomkins provides a formal rebuttal at creation.com based on telomeres structure.

They state, "As we will document, these popular claims of resounding evidence for a telomere fusion producing human chromosome 2 are, for the most part, unsupported by the scientific literature and actual DNA sequence information (see companion paper). However, we will first briefly clarify the structure and nature of telomeres as to what would be expected if such a fusion event occurred. In so doing, we will take into account the accepted evolutionary presuppositions and timelines related to such an event."

Chromosome 2 Fusion 1 - creation.com

Chromosome 2 Fusion 2 - creation.com

Thus, your claim is still up in the air unlike the dino-bird. Many people don't believe it. "A minority of Americans fully accept the scientific explanation for the origins of human life."

5 facts about evolution and religion

james bond said:

I provide the hard evidence as a dictionary and you can't accept it. That's stupid. We can all use God's word is true. OECd believe God created evolution.

And then you bring up genetics does not lie. What does that mean? We do know that evos lie such as Lucy, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, etc.

You provide no evidence that macro is a lot of micro while I discussed tiktaalik and it was a fish. Before tik, evos thought it was coel and coel turned out to be a fish and still living. Why hasn't coel grown legs and feet due to evo? Thus, the evidence backs up fish are fish and amphibians are amphibians.

Click to expand...

I accept than 3% of the worlds population )ametivsn christians) and an American, christian biassed dictionary says that make believe, without evidence can be truth. In actual fact what they describe is judgement (guess), as they stated in their list of definitions, they also state often capitalised, i have also seen the word in quots (or both), and seen it written as 'universal truth'. This actually identifies the word as the new american bastardisation of truth so not to be taken literally, rather like your oxymoron creation science fiasco.

"often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality
b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true

Lucy is genuine, no lies involved so stop lying. Nebraska man was a geniune error made almost 100 years ago when knowledge was scant, the error was corrected by science. Piltdown man was a hoax by an amateur, and; dentified as such by science. Both piltdown or nebraska man were before genetic sampling so are seen as your typically deliberate straw men.

As for evidence, google is your friend. Forget he comfortable creationist sites thatnahree with every word you say, try academic, museum or genuine scintific sites.

If you want to go down the why hasnt x evolved, first answer this, if jews became christians why are there still jews?

Audie said:

As Dante put it, Hell is the absence of reason.

Click to expand...

It was the writing of Dante and the art of Bosch that gave Christianity their vision of hell. Until then it was just a feiry furnace where you could gnash your teeth

james bond said:

The unidirection as you state didn't happen though. OSU and Florida State think it could have been the other way around from birds to dinosaurs as one as the feathered dino glided down to the ground like a flying squirrel. Birds did not have dinosaurs as a common ancestor because of their "position of the thigh bone and muscles in birds is critical to their ability to have adequate lung capacity for sustained long-distance flight, a fundamental aspect of bird biology. Theropod dinosaurs did not share this feature." They did not find any evidence of ground to air flying capability.

Study challenges bird-from-dinosaur theory of evolution - was it the other way around?

Click to expand...

You did not even understand the article that you linked. It does not say that dinosaurs evolved from birds, it says that some dinosaurs may have evolved from birds. That is typical errant creationist all or nothing thinking. One of the problems with creationists is that they think if one part of their book of myths is wrong it is all wrong (and though most of the Bible is wrong it is not because of that).

Original sin is clear and unarguable. As for pseudogenes and chromosome 2, I already gave you the creation scientists version while you did another copy and paste job. As for the conclusion, it isn't clear and unarguable. Again, it really depends on how one interprets the evidence. Jerry Bergman and Jeffrey Tomkins provides a formal rebuttal at creation.com based on telomeres structure.

They state, "As we will document, these popular claims of resounding evidence for a telomere fusion producing human chromosome 2 are, for the most part, unsupported by the scientific literature and actual DNA sequence information (see companion paper). However, we will first briefly clarify the structure and nature of telomeres as to what would be expected if such a fusion event occurred. In so doing, we will take into account the accepted evolutionary presuppositions and timelines related to such an event."

Chromosome 2 Fusion 1 - creation.com

Chromosome 2 Fusion 2 - creation.com

Click to expand...

Please, when you refer to liars and use a nonsensical term you only hurt your own poor arguments. And if this was "clear and unarguable" they would be able to publish their work in a well respected peer reviewed journal. You really need to quit listening to idiots and liars and see what actual experts that can support their claims say about the subject. Creation.com is one of the sites that requires their workers to swear not to use the scientific method. That means that they are swearing not to use science. By classifying people that swear not to use science as "creation scientists" you are simply saying that all of your creation believers are not scientists. And in that you may be right.

Thus, your claim is still up in the air unlike the dino-bird. Many people don't believe it. "A minority of Americans fully accept the scientific explanation for the origins of human life."

5 facts about evolution and religion

Click to expand...

Yes, there are still quite a few ignorant Americans. How does that support your claim? And please note that the number of full blown creationists keeps shrinking as time goes by. In a generation or two your "kind" will be gone. Yes there will still be a few holdouts, but those deniers of science will be taken no more seriously than Flat Earth believers.

ChristineM said:

It was the writing of Dante and the art of Bosch that gave Christianity their vision of hell. Until then it was just a feiry furnace where you could gnash your teeth

Click to expand...

(and weep)

Subduction Zone said:

but those deniers of science will be taken no more seriously than Flat Earth

Click to expand...

Those flat earth believers have devotees all around he globe.

ChristineM said:

Those flat earth believers have devotees all around he globe.

Click to expand...

Yep, but they are known to be a joke. Humor appears to be one of the best tools against those people and it is a rather useful tool against creationists as well.

Subduction Zone said:

Yep, but they are known to be a joke. Humor appears to be one of the best tools against those people and it is a rather useful tool against creationists as well.

Click to expand...

I dunno. The only humour I seem to see in (from) creationists is their
misplaced attempts at sarcasm.

Subduction Zone said:

Yep, but they are known to be a joke. Humor appears to be one of the best tools against those people and it is a rather useful tool against creationists as well.

Click to expand...

Reread my post, it was a joke.

As my hero Brain Cox said

“The problem with today’s world is that everyone believes they have the right to express their opinion AND have others listen to it.

The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!”

james bond said:

Are you sure Dante said that?

Click to expand...

That of course, is your question rather than, "How might that apply to the weird n wacky nonsense I make up about evolution?"

ChristineM said:

Reread my post, it was a joke.

As my hero Brain Cox said

“The problem with today’s world is that everyone believes they have the right to express their opinion AND have others listen to it.

The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!”

Click to expand...

I saw that you were being humorous. But sadly I live in a country that is right now run by creationists. So my own laughter is a bit toned down at times.

Subduction Zone said:

I saw that you were being humorous. But sadly I live in a country that is right now run by creationists. So my own laughter is a bit toned down at times.

Click to expand...

I feel for you, it must be difficult. By home country is in a similar state. Thank goodness i now live in a more enlightened country

Hard to find a creationist in China. It is seen
as a simple minded superstition.

Audie said:

Hard to find a creationist in China. It is seen
as a simple minded superstition.

Click to expand...

I think many Americans think the same.