|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9691 Posts |
 Posted - 02/24/2012 : 14:08:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Please note. The test was conducted in a lab and in a controlled environment. It was the results that baffled the scientist. |
I'm skeptical to your claim that scientists were baffled by difference in human & chimp performance. Where is your evidence of that?
| I have mentioned it in several post.....monkey believers are lowering human self-esteem. |
Yes you mentioned that before. We questioned your evidence before, your repeating that claim doesn't make it more true. Provide evidence which clearly shows that your claim is correct, or I'm calling your assertion bullshit.
| Evolutionist even look at our differences (chromosome count Chimp=48 pairs, humans 46 pairs)as proof of common descent. |
Because it is. The evidence is irrefutable. The answer to the question why there are different chromosome numbers between humans and chimps (indeed, all great apes) lies in human chromosome #2. Even christian scientist Miller thinks it's irrefutable evidence of common descent.
jamalrapper, you're becoming seriously boring.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2012 : 14:41:08 [Permalink]
|
jamalrapper:
Surprisingly there are a few evolutionists who believe chimpanzees and apes evolved from humans and not the other way around. |
Oh here we go again. The answer to that is no they don't. This comes from a misinterpretation of what we have learned looking at Ardipithecus ramidus, the earliest known hominid, at 4.5 million years ago, leading to humans. What it suggests is that modern apes evolved at least as much, if not more than we did from our common ancestors. In other words, we can't look at a chimp and surmise what our ape like ancestors looked like, because they didn’t look like chimps. Ardi had features that are found in humans but not in modern apes. (That is not to say that she didn't have features we would expect to find in an ape like creature.)
Ardi lived more recently than the most recent common ancestor of chimps and humans, but still provides some evidence for what that ancestor was like. Specifically, the skeleton suggests the common ancestor was not as chimp-like as some had supposed,[2] but rather was "probably a plantigrade quadrupedal arboreal climber/clamberer that lacked specializations for suspension, vertical climbing, or knuckle-walking"[13] (i.e. the common ancestor lacked certain important specializations of chimps).
The canine teeth of A. ramidus are smaller, and equal in size between males and females. This suggests reduced male-to-male conflict, pair-bonding, and increased parental investment.[4]
Researchers infer from the form of Ardi's pelvis and limbs and the presence of her opposable big toe that she was a facultative biped: bipedal when moving on the ground, but quadrupedal when moving about in tree branches.[6][13][14] Ardi had a more primitive walking ability than later hominids, and could not walk or run for long distances.[11] The teeth suggest omnivory, and are more generalized than those of modern apes.[13] |
In other words, our common ancestors, like us, had more generalized features than several of the great apes more specialized features. This in no way infers that Ardi was human or that Ardi or the ancestors to apes were human. Only that our common ancestors had human like features that are not found in the apes living today.
jamalrapper:
Humans are actually better at climbing trees which puts them closer to the monkeys than chimpanzees. |
No it doesn't. That was a joke, right? Let's see a human live like a monkey.
And given that chimps do most of their eating and sleeping in trees, your videos still mean nothing. A race to the top of the tree has nothing to do with suitability to a forest habitat. Chimps also spend about half their time on the ground.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2012 : 15:04:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
| jama;rapper wrote"Evolutionist even look at our differences (chromosome count Chimp=48 pairs, humans 46 pairs)as proof of common descent. |
Because it is. The evidence is irrefutable. The answer to the question why there are different chromosome numbers between humans and chimps (indeed, all great apes) lies in human chromosome #2. Even christian scientist Miller thinks it's irrefutable evidence of common descent.
jamalrapper, you're becoming seriously boring.
|
Before you jump to the conclusion Chromosome 2 has been explained away.
Can you answer how you arrived at your conclusion. All Miller says is it is a fused chromosome which can be proven from its telomere and centromere locations...
1. Was natural selection involved?
2. Was mutation involved?
3. What kind of mutation? (because only certain mutations are favorable to the organism.
4. Our common ancestor then had to pass this to humans.
5. They would have also had to pass it on to chimps, gorillas, orangutans (the mutated fused pair)
6. Since it takes 1 chromosome from each parent to make up a pair in the offspring. How can you explain where the fusion took place in each parent or in the offspring which then passed on the fused pair to its progeny. Would that not have required two parents to have the same fused chromosome to mate to continue this new arrangement.
I think it requires a more complete answer than what Miller gave. That they predicted the missing pair was there somewhere and they found it as a fused pair. Skipping all the known processes in genetics, mutation and the implausibility of such a thing happening.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence....Carl Sagan. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2012 : 15:48:47 [Permalink]
|
Thanks Kil. Hit a road block with the first link.
| There are two potential naturalistic explanations for the difference in chromosome numbers - either a fusion of two separate chromosomes occurred in the human line, or a fission of a chromosome occurred among the apes. |
So they don't really know which it is(fusion or fission). 
Is that science to you?
|
| Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/24/2012 17:31:53 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2012 : 15:57:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Thank Kil. Hit a road block with the first link.
| There are two potential naturalistic explanations for the difference in chromosome numbers - either a fusion of two separate chromosomes occurred in the human line, or a fission of a chromosome occurred among the apes. |
So they don't really know which it is(fusion or fission).
Is that science to you?
|
Yeah. That's science for you. And one of them is far more likely than the other. "The evidence favors fusion." See, Fusion fits the predictions. You're quote mining again. (Come on. Admit it. You were just looking for a quote to mine, weren't you? Did you read past the the quote you mined?) But hey, that's only one of the links. I suggest you read them all. Especially the pdf file.
You do know that nothing in science is absolutely certain. Right? Close to certain is as good as it gets. I thought we had been though that.  |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2012 : 17:04:03 [Permalink]
|
Kil wrote:
You do know that nothing in science is absolutely certain. Right? Close to certain is as good as it gets. I thought we had been though that. |
I think Bill Scott said it best.
Bill Scott wrote:
Could being the key word here. I think could, might and maybe are the most used words in the Darwinian evolutionist's vocabulary.
"It could help reveal the guiding principles"
"It might have happened this way"
"Or maybe it could have happened this way"
And yet they will still be so darned dogmatic when defending their could's, might's and maybe's??? |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2012 : 17:08:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
But try explaining this. Humans are actually better at climbing trees which puts them closer to the monkeys than chimpanzees. |
No, it doesn't. Both chimps and humans have had the same several million years of evolution since their last common ancestor. Individual traits aren't at all good indicators of who is related to whom. Cladistics is much more complex than that.| Surprisingly there are a few evolutionists who believe chimpanzees and apes evolved from humans and not the other way around. |
Name one, justintime. And don't just name the racist Indian blogger again. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2012 : 17:20:52 [Permalink]
|
Why do you keep requesting links when you can't even read or understand what has already been provided earlier. They are not as confusing as computer code....but then again you cannot even mention the programming language you use. And who/where is justintime?
BTW Jamal is quite a common name among African Americans and Rapper should have been pretty obvious. Even here you just cannot get it right.
What other obvious clue can I give you without getting offensive. |
| Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/24/2012 17:38:38 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2012 : 18:20:21 [Permalink]
|
| Oh. I guess 16 degrees isn't so bad. So what part of LA is that? |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2012 : 18:29:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by jamalrapper
But try explaining this. Humans are actually better at climbing trees which puts them closer to the monkeys than chimpanzees.
|
Individual traits aren't at all good indicators of who is related to whom.
|
So why are scientist using Chromosome 2 which is a fused pair of chromosomes unique to humans as an indicator of who is related to whom. That is an individual trait (only humans have it).
Orangutans branched from the common ancestor primate about 15 million years ago. Gorillas, chimps and humans branched out from the common ancestor about 4-6 million years ago.
Yet only the apes (gorillas, orangutans, chimps have 48 pairs and humans 46 pairs.
But they found Orangutans are more closely related to humans than chimps.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090618084304.htm and yet they are separated by about 9 million years.
So evolution is again contradicting itself especially now that we have our gene sequencing to work with. |
| Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/24/2012 18:31:40 |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2012 : 18:42:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Oh. I guess 16 degrees isn't so bad. So what part of LA is that?
|
Torrance, CA |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2012 : 19:48:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
So why are scientist using Chromosome 2 which is a fused pair of chromosomes unique to humans as an indicator of who is related to whom. That is an individual trait (only humans have it). |
It's one piece of evidence among many that show the common ancestry of apes and humans. What you're trying to do is point to a single trait and go, "Aha! Evilutionists are wrong!" But one trait cannot contradict the millions of other pieces of info that we have collected.Orangutans branched from the common ancestor primate about 15 million years ago. Gorillas, chimps and humans branched out from the common ancestor about 4-6 million years ago.
Yet only the apes (gorillas, orangutans, chimps have 48 pairs and humans 46 pairs.
But they found Orangutans are more closely related to humans than chimps.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090618084304.htm |
And that article has received peer criticism (your gold standard). Who is correct?| So evolution is again contradicting itself especially now that we have our gene sequencing to work with. |
Evolution is the reality against which these hypotheses must be measured (after all, if you deny evolution and common descent, the question of which animal evolved from which becomes nonsensical). As such, it can't possibly contradict itself. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
The Missing Universe Museum
