Jump to content


Photo

Chromosome Fussion


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
26 replies to this topic

Poll: Is Chromosome fussion a myth of demonstrated mechanism in TOE? (6 member(s) have cast votes)

Is Chromosome fussion a myth of demonstrated mechanism in TOE?

  1. 1. It's a myth with no empirical basis. (4 votes [66.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 66.67%

  2. 2. It's a proven evoltutionary mechanism. (1 votes [16.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 16.67%

  3. 3. Other (explain) (1 votes [16.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 16.67%

Vote

#1 Phaedrus

Phaedrus

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts
  • Age: 41
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Indianapolis

Posted 25 August 2005 - 08:04 PM

One of the prevailing assumptions is that small changes accumulate over hundreds or thousands of generations. Most of the evidence is ancedotal and simply projects adaptations being accumulated in a stepwise fashion, evolution does not work this way. Speciation occurs, this is a well established fact but when you are talking about this kind of a major mophological change there is a lot of supposition.

Posted Image

Human and Chimpanzee Chromosomes 1-4


Take a good look at the comparison of Chromosome 2. Notice the one on the left (human) is one chromosome while the other is two (chimpanzee). Supposedly, these two chromosomes fused but where are the specifics as to how this is accomplished. Truly, nature produces a vast array of size, shape, color, texture in a seemingly endless series of changes. What is more, the crossing over of genes can cause an enormous amount of diversity. However, the mechanism that splices two chromosomes into one without devastating consequences is a mystery. Here are a couple of noted effects from changes in genes:
Chromosome 9


"Chromosome 9 harbours four genes that can cause s@x-reversal, all the human interferon type 1 genes (interferon is important in suppressing cancer development and in resisting virus infection), a gene implicated in neurodegenerative disease (CHAC), as well as a gene (abl) that is involved in 90 per cent of chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) cases."

Chromosome 10

"The team decoded 131 million base-pairs of the chromosome 10 sequence and found 1357 genes. Alterations in 85 of these genes are known to predispose to diseases such as a form of epilepsy (LGI1), obesity (GAD2), and cancer."

Getting back to chromosome 2, there is an odd contradictory event in the presumed changes. It has been long believed that the changes just accumulate gradually. This looks good when you have millions of years to work with for putting together statistical probability. There is just one major problem with this, these genes that are supposedly duplicated, inverted, inserted, deleted...etc are subject to long periods of stasis.

"Researchers report today that regions of the human genome have been hotspots for acquiring duplicated DNA sequences – but only at specific time-points during evolution. It appears that long periods of genomic stasis, at least with regard to the accretion of duplicated DNA fragments, are "punctuated" by relatively brief episodes of duplicative activity. This is the first time that such temporal bias has been documented for DNA duplications, and it challenges the evolutionary paradigm that continuous alterations occur during the course of genome evolution...

"The important implication here is that episodic bursts of activity challenge the concept of gradual clock-like changes during the course of genome evolution. Since duplications are important in the birth of new genes and large-scale chromosomal rearrangements, it may follow that these processes may have gone through similar episodes of activity followed by quiescence."

'Punctuated' evolution in the human genome, Maria A. Smit

This is the same problem at every step in the evolutionary chain, that is, crucial points of divergance. It is presumption over demonstrative proof.

#2 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 August 2005 - 10:24 PM

View Post

One of the prevailing assumptions is that small changes accumulate over hundreds or thousands of generations. Most of the evidence is ancedotal and simply projects adaptations being accumulated in a stepwise fashion, evolution does not work this way.

The sweeping statement at the end of that is not justified by the material you linked. Not only was that study limited to duplicated DNA segments (i.e., they were not looking at deletions, point mutations, etc) but you apparently missed an important point which was noted by the authors: "Other regions may show different temporal biases".

Speciation occurs, this is a well established fact but when you are talking about this kind of a major mophological change there is a lot of supposition.

And you have just illustrated the point with a bit of supposition of your own by equating speciation with major morphological change. You may not be familiar with what are termed sibling species, where individuals from separately breeding populations, infertile on crossing, are virtually indistinguishable from one another morphologically (for an example, see Certhia brachydactyla and Certhia familiaris).

It is presumption over demonstrative proof.

What you have just provided is an example of presumption being subjected to demonstrative proof. The scientific landscape is littered with the carcasses of failed suppositions; it's simply the way science works.

#3 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 August 2005 - 12:41 AM

What you have just provided is an example of presumption being subjected to demonstrative proof. The scientific landscape is littered with the carcasses of failed suppositions; it's simply the way science works.


Well, let's take some evidence that has 3 outcomes.

Out come one would support one view and also support evolution.

Out come two supports another view and also supports evolution.

Out come three support creation view and also supports God.

Now, which gets the trash can? Like you say: it's simply the way science works.

Science is only out to prove the view it currently has about our origins. To do anything other wise, would make them look like fools. I don't think the worlds finest educated minds, like to be called a fool. So number three will always get the trash can because: it's simply the way science works.

So most of the" The scientific landscape is littered with the carcasses of failed suppositions;" is more of creation evidence than any scientific ones.

#4 Phaedrus

Phaedrus

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts
  • Age: 41
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Indianapolis

Posted 26 August 2005 - 04:04 PM

The sweeping statement at the end of that is not justified by the material you linked. Not only was that study limited to duplicated DNA segments (i.e., they were not looking at deletions, point mutations, etc) but you apparently missed an important point which was noted by the authors: "Other regions may show different temporal biases".


I don't think you really grasped the point I was driving at. The gradual accumulation of inherited traits is fine for adaptation to a new environment. However, when you are talking about the fussion of two chromosomes you can't just splice them together. Every chromosome in the human genome has a list of disease and disorder as long as you arm due to changes in the form and function of the genes. What is more the center of the chromosome is the last place you would want random chance making alterations because of possible damage to the spindle.

And you have just illustrated the point with a bit of supposition of your own by equating speciation with major morphological change. You may not be familiar with what are termed sibling species, where individuals from separately breeding populations, infertile on crossing, are virtually indistinguishable from one another morphologically (for an example, see Certhia brachydactyla and Certhia familiaris).


Wrong, this is not equivacation, it makes a distinction between speciation and the macroevolutionary fussion of chromosomes. Now as far as infertility I have an example that has nothing to do with evolutionary changes. My daughter has a male African Grey Parrot that is incapable of procreation simply because he does not life in the wild. Species is generally defined by the ability to interbreed but no one is suggesting that domestic and wild African Grey Parrots are seperate species.

What you have just provided is an example of presumption being subjected to demonstrative proof. The scientific landscape is littered with the carcasses of failed suppositions; it's simply the way science works.


The presumption is that chimpanzees and humans have a common ancestor, actually some kind of ape or protoape that descended from monkeys. The only way this can be qualified genetically is to account for the differences in the genomes. The most viable explanation for the extra chromosome in apes is the fussion of two chromosomes. All you need do to put this to the test is to take directly observed and demonstrated proofs and apply them to the effects of changes on this level. What do you think happens when you try to fuse a Volkswagon and a Honda? It would look more like a head on colision then and improvement in design.

Well, let's take some evidence that has 3 outcomes.

Out come one would support one view and also support evolution.

Out come two supports another view and also supports evolution.

Out come three support creation view and also supports God.

Now, which gets the trash can? Like you say: it's simply the way science works.

Science is only out to prove the view it currently has about our origins. To do anything other wise, would make them look like fools. I don't think the worlds finest educated minds, like to be called a fool. So number three will always get the trash can because: it's simply the way science works.

So most of the" The scientific landscape is littered with the carcasses of failed suppositions;" is more of creation evidence than any scientific ones.


Here is my point. We have two scenerios, one, monkeys evolved into apes who later evolved into humans. Let's consider what would have had to happen at a genetic level and estimate the probablity. Two, monkeys, apes and humans are seperatly created fully formed and developed into the vast array withing those three groups. Lets then look at the evolutionary mechanisms with a ligitamate scientific basis (genetic not forensic) and estimate the probablity. Then you just compare the two.

By the way, it is undiluted bunk that given enough time something like chromosome fussion becomes more of a possiblity. Changes to the form and function of the chromosomes will have devastating consequences no matter how long they take to develop the vast majority of the time.

Grace and peace,
Mark

#5 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 August 2005 - 10:51 PM

However, when you are talking about the fussion of two chromosomes you can't just splice them together. Every chromosome in the human genome has a list of disease and disorder as long as you arm due to changes in the form and function of the genes. What is more the center of the chromosome is the last place you would want random chance making alterations because of possible damage to the spindle.

View Post

I find several things wrong with this (and your paragraph on chimpanzees and humans). You seem to be confusing form with content, the chromosomes being the 'form', and the genes the 'content'. A lengthy novel may be published in multiple volumes, but regardless of the number of volumes, it's still the same story. The chromosomes are analogous to the volumes rather than to the story itself. There are a number of genetic disorders (thousands actually) that are caused by chromosomal abnormalities -- Down's syndrome being a well-known example -- but these are mostly analogous to 'volumes' being improperly distributed. The fact that individuals are able even to survive at all with these abnormalities suggests that there is more freedom for error than you appear to realize (Down's syndrome females have, though rarely, even been able to produce children).

And I'm not sure why you feel (if I correctly assess that as your implication) that such a splicing would necessarily take place at the centromere, or why it is 'damage to the spindle' that would be of primary concern; it seems to me that the spindle is much more likely to damage the chromosomes (that is, to botch their distribution) than to be damaged by them.

And random chance (by definition) couldn't possibly care a fig about what 'you want' anyway; if it doesn't work, it simply gets selected out.

And (sorry, but this is really bugging me) it's: fusion.

Species is generally defined by the ability to interbreed but no one is suggesting that domestic and wild African Grey Parrots are seperate species.

Well, I wouldn't -- but you might be surprised at how liberally some taxonomists have been willing to apply the species distinction. Using infertility as the sole criterion is the most conservative apporoach. For many biologists, any barrier to interbreeding may suffice, such as a behavioral or geological barrier. For them, it doesn't matter so much why two groups aren't interbreeding as long as it is clear that they aren't interbreeding (neither fertility nor infertility can always be regarded with confidence as all-or-nothing propositions anyway). It's a judgement call.

#6 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 August 2005 - 04:32 AM

By the way, it is undiluted bunk that given enough time something like chromosome fussion becomes more of a possibility. Changes to the form and function of the chromosomes will have devastating consequences no matter how long they take to develop the vast majority of the time.

Grace and peace,
Mark


I would agree. Because each failed attempt would mean that said species died, or was killed. Given enough failed attempts at change, and you wipe out that whole species into extinction. So giving more time, also gives more chance for extinction. So either it happened right pretty quick, ot it happened not at all.

#7 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 August 2005 - 12:21 PM

Because each failed attempt would mean that said species died, or was killed. Given enough failed attempts at change, and you wipe out that whole species into extinction. So giving more time, also gives more chance for extinction.

View Post

How do you figure?

Are you thinking that a chromosomal rearrangement in an individual organism would somehow be magically transferred to all the other members of a population?

#8 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 August 2005 - 01:29 PM

How do you figure?

Are you thinking that a chromosomal rearrangement in an individual organism would somehow be magically transferred to all the other members of a population?

View Post


It does eventually, correct? Because if not, then we would have transitional forms all around us, but we don't.

#9 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 August 2005 - 01:59 PM

It does eventually, correct?

View Post

Beneficial (or neutral) changes are passed on to offspring. Like any other genetic changes, chromosomal rearrangements which are detrimental to an organism tend to prevent it from reproducing, and therefore are unlikely to be transferred at all. Chromosomal abberations in general are fairly common, and are indeed often harmful or even fatal. But when they are fatal, they are fatal to an individual only -- in most cases, it is an individual embryo that suffers. A surprisingly high number of embryos do fail during early stages of development, but the consequences for the mother are scarcely more than a somewhat heavy mensus; a human female is born with a supply of (potential) eggs in excess of the number of offspring she could actually produce and raise by a factor of perhaps twenty thousand -- and humans are not particularly fecund creatures, relatively speaking. I can't imagine how you could suppose that a species could be considered to suffer from a single failed embryo.

Because if not, then we would have transitional forms all around us, but we don't.

I don't see what transitional forms has to do with this, but if we were discussing that issue, I would point out that 'transitional form' status is really not a special distinction except to a paleontologist; every form is potentially a transitional form.

#10 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 28 August 2005 - 09:07 AM

Here's a test-

Can people with down's syndrome reproduce?
Can people with sickle-celled anemia reproduce?

The point being that detrimental variations can get passed along also. That is beside the point that "beneficial" is a relative word.

As for chromosome fusion- perhaps it was the other way around- chrosome separation and chimps devolved from a once very good population of humans.

IOW chimps are the result of an accumulation of non-fatal yet detrimental variations artificially removed from the parent population of humans. Neanderthals were another such branch of artificial selection removing non-fatal and deemed detrimental variations.

Just a thought...

#11 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 28 August 2005 - 09:19 AM

Is Chromosome fussion a myth of demonstrated mechanism in TOE?

I voted other because I think such an event is possible, however said event would be evidence for a change in allele frequency and not "goo-to-you-via-the-zoo" evolution.

Chromosome separation is also viable.

What else explains the difference in chromosome number in very morphologically similar organisms? Just look at Equus (Family Equidae ).

Renditions of Noah would have us understand that the diversity in Equus arose post-Flood. The chromosome number in that diversity is itself diverse- ie the chromosome number varies.

#12 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 August 2005 - 09:36 AM

The point being that detrimental variations can get passed along also.

True, just not as often. Might not matter as much when resources are plentiful, but watch what happens when times get tough (and sooner or later, they always do).


That is beside the point that "beneficial" is a relative word.

In this context, "beneficial" ultimately means "reproductively beneficial", considered relative to the reproductive rates of others.


As for chromosome fusion- perhaps it was the other way around- chrosome separation

That has been considered, but there are good reasons for favoring the fusion hypothesis over the fission hypothesis in human chromosome 2; for example:

--------------------------
IJdo JW, Baldini A, Ward DC, Reeders ST, Wells RA, Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1991 Oct 15;88(20):9051-5

Abstract:
We have identified two allelic genomic cosmids from human chromosome 2, c8.1 and c29B, each containing two inverted arrays of the vertebrate telomeric repeat in a head-to-head arrangement, 5'(TTAGGG)n-(CCCTAA)m3'. Sequences flanking this telomeric repeat are characteristic of present-day human pretelomeres. BAL-31 nuclease experiments with yeast artificial chromosome clones of human telomeres and fluorescence in situ hybridization reveal that sequences flanking these inverted repeats hybridize both to band 2q13 and to different, but overlapping, subsets of human chromosome ends. We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2.

PMID: 1924367, UI: 92020989
--------------------------

and chimps devolved from a once very good population of humans.

You repeat the mistake made by Phaedrus above: confusing genetic content (the genes that produce the differences between chimps and humans) with the 'packaging' (the chromosomes).

#13 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 28 August 2005 - 10:13 AM

According to the studies we do have natural selection accounts for at most 16% of the "evolution" within a population. There is no way to predict what variation will be selected over another. And the way you use "beneficial" makes it ultimtely useless in a discussion. Why because we would have to follow all lineages until the end, if there was one, in order to determine what was beneficial or not.

The evidence shows our molecular clocks have "ticked" 13 times since the allged split, whereas chimps have "ticked" 34. Wouldn't that indicate that our common ancester was more human-like than chimp-like?

QUOTE
and chimps devolved from a once very good population of humans.

Cal:
You repeat the mistake made by Phaedrus above: confusing genetic content (the genes that produce the differences between chimps and humans) with the 'packaging' (the chromosomes).


Thank you but I know the difference. I also doubt that genes make the difference between chimps and humans. I am 100% sure that is nothing but wishful thinking.

Also it should be clear by my post on Equus that I don't think the 'packaging' plays much if any significance. Duh- why do you think I voted for "other"?

Please read & think before you post.

#14 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 August 2005 - 10:47 AM

And the way you use "beneficial" makes it ultimtely useless in a discussion. Why because we would have to follow all lineages until the end, if there was one, in order to determine what was beneficial or not.

We can directly observe that organisms reproduce at different rates. It seems reasonable to infer that these different rates are a result at least in part of different qualities they possess, even though we may not know what the qualities are that are making the differences. As I have noted before, generalizing this idea to all observed differences is a top-down approach, and should be applied with considerable caution.


Also it should be clear by my post on Equus that I don't think the 'packaging' plays much if any significance.

Perhaps my confusion originated with the way you linked these two statements with the conjunctive "IOW":

---------------------------------
"As for chromosome fusion- perhaps it was the other way around- chrosome separation and chimps devolved from a once very good population of humans."

"IOW chimps are the result of an accumulation of non-fatal yet detrimental variations artificially removed from the parent population of humans."
---------------------------------

I agree that the consequences of differences in packaging will tend to be either neutral or detrimental; but before you post, read what Admin3 said above about chromosomal rearrangements leading to extinction of a species, and think about whether you are the only participant in this discussion to whom I might possibly be directing my remarks.

#15 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 29 August 2005 - 05:42 AM

QUOTE(John Paul @ Aug 28 2005, 10:13 AM)
And the way you use "beneficial" makes it ultimtely useless in a discussion. Why because we would have to follow all lineages until the end, if there was one, in order to determine what was beneficial or not.

Cal:
We can directly observe that organisms reproduce at different rates.


But that doesn't mean it is due to any variation.

Cal:
It seems reasonable to infer that these different rates are a result at least in part of different qualities they possess, even though we may not know what the qualities are that are making the differences. As I have noted before, generalizing this idea to all observed differences is a top-down approach, and should be applied with considerable caution.


But we already know, via scientific research, that 84% of the variation in the population arises from sometyhing other than natural selection. IOW the "qualities they possess" may be luck or some other non-inheritable feature.



QUOTE
Also it should be clear by my post on Equus that I don't think the 'packaging' plays much if any significance.

Cal:
Perhaps my confusion originated with the way you linked these two statements with the conjunctive "IOW":


---------------------------------
"As for chromosome fusion- perhaps it was the other way around- chrosome separation and chimps devolved from a once very good population of humans."

"IOW chimps are the result of an accumulation of non-fatal yet detrimental variations artificially removed from the parent population of humans."

---------------------------------

Could be but there isn't anything in those sentences that "implies" the differences between the species is linked to the chromosome action (separation or fusion). Also it means that you ignored an entire post before making your entry.

#16 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 August 2005 - 08:06 AM

But we already know, via scientific research, that 84% of the variation in the population arises from sometyhing other than natural selection.

Woody Allen once said: "94.5% of statistics are made up", and I can't imagine a better example. It's you who are locked in on this 84% thing, not we. Your infatuation with that number started with your swallowing -- hook, line, and sinker -- of a very biased and very flawed interpretation of the results of a single study, one with a very specific and very limited scope; as we discussed here.

I was going to say "as we discussed at length", but we really didn't; you essentially declined my challenge to justify your broad use of that percentage figure, and offered nothing to indicate that you did so much as to even review the original source material (which I provided a link for) that served as the basis for the Discovery Institute link you posted. Not that it would have done you much good anyway, as I've also never seen anything to indicate that your grasp of statistics would render the results of such a statistical study (a statistical study on statistical studies, actually) particularly meaningful for you.

If you're going to continue to attempt to broadly apply that percentage figure, as you've just done here, you can expect me (at least) to continue to challenge you to justify it. If you'd like to attempt to do that, I would suggest doing so in an appropriate thread. Maybe you could even try to hold back a little on statements like:
"Reality says you are a liar."
and:
"The evidence demonstrates you are the stupid one."

Just show us your actual arguments, please.

#17 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 29 August 2005 - 09:06 AM

Let's get a few things straight-

I am not locked into any number.

I do not have an infatuation for any number. However it is obvious you have an infatuation with me.

Discussion- please show how the original or ANY paper supports the premise that NS plays anything but a minor role in "evolution".

Ya see Cal I challenge you to support the claims made by evolutionists. By your absence in the evidence thread I am sure you cannot

I would ask you to show your actual arguments but you don't have one- except to criticize anyone who you disagree with. That is evidenced in this thread when you posted a response ignoring very relevant information. But even then you messed up your inference anyway and still tried to pass the blame.

#18 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 August 2005 - 10:49 AM

I am not locked into any number.
I do not have an infatuation for any number.

You have mentioned the 84% thing quite a number of times, and always in such a way as to imply that it is a matter of well-established and widely accepted fact. (It isn't).


However it is obvious you have an infatuation with me.

I am infatuated by factual details; not by authorship. You, on the other hand, appear to have little genuine interest in the details, as is so clearly demonstrated by your evasiveness both here and in the other thread. If you are reluctant to pursue the matter further, that's fine with me, and you may notice that I have hardly followed you around harassing you about it. But I would be inclined to challenge anyone who repeatedly made such assertions to back them up -- whenever and wherever they did so.

I am not only interested in the subjects under scrutiny here, but also in the outcome of the experiment in honest, civil dialogue which this forum represents. In making the choice to discuss these matters in this forum, we implicitly agree to make our best effort to maintain a certain standard of conduct while doing so. I do not see you as having made your best effort to honor that agreement, and I cannot in all honesty deny that it has occasionally become a source of mild frustration. Along with some others here, I have made repeated attempts to encourage you to try harder, but have met with such resistance on your part that I see little hope of ever having a meaningful discussion with you on any topic. I have had more interesting dialogues with chatbots. Your contributions have become little more than noise in the channel, with a quite entropic effect on the quality of dialogue that takes place here. At this point, nothing would please me more than to be able to engage (as politely as possible) in discussions with others who have different viewpoints than mine on such interesting topics as chromosomal fusion -- free of your constant attempts to draw attention to yourself through your vague generalizations, vacuous assertions, and juvenile mudslinging.

Really, what exactly is it that you hope to get out of all of this?

#19 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 29 August 2005 - 11:45 AM

Cal:
You have mentioned the 84% thing quite a number of times, and always in such a way as to imply that it is a matter of well-established and widely accepted fact. (It isn't).


It is what the scientific research to date shows. Again if you have evidence that contradicts the number, now would be a good time to present it.

BTW I am VERY interested in details. That is why I am no longer an evolutionist. Both the theory and its proponents are absolutely void of them.


Cal:
Really, what exactly is it that you hope to get out of all of this?


You have asked this question more than once already. Each time I answered the same way. Nothing has changed.


Join the evidence thread. Then we will see if you are an evolutionist based on atheism/ faith or if there is real evidence to support the claims of evolutionists.

As I said before the absence of evolutionists from that thread is very telling.

#20 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 August 2005 - 02:05 PM

It is what the scientific research to date shows. Again if you have evidence that contradicts the number, now would be a good time to present it.

But not the place.

This is the place.

Join the evidence thread. Then we will see if you are an evolutionist based on atheism/ faith or if there is real evidence to support the claims of evolutionists.

As I said before the absence of evolutionists from that thread is very telling

I'm aware of the thread. I chose to ignore it not only because I found its scope too broad, but because it was so transparently a diversionary tactic; a distraction from the questions I asked in the thread we already had going on the topic, questions which you went to such lengths to avoid. If you don't want to talk about it, then fine. But don't hassle me, man.

I'm also aware of Admin3's thread, "abortionists...". You haven't complained about my choice to sit that one out, but I will explain anyway. I chose to avoid that one not only because I found its scope too broad (we can talk about Haeckel, we can talk about Hitler, we can talk about Piltdown man, but trying to talk about all three at once seems unproductive), but also because of its inflammatory potential. I have every right to make these choices about what to respond to and what not to, don't you agree? The forum management does. Before you mention it again, have a look at this guideline they so thoughfully provided:

--------------------------------
The following is disallowed:

Nagging or complaints that an opponent is not responding -- We are all busy, and there is no requirement to respond.

--------------------------------


You wanna talk about chromosomes, or what?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users