Customer Discussions > Science forum

Genome sequencing leaves Creationists unable to respond


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 170 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Oct 14, 2012 9:44:27 AM PDT
Sceptic says:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXdQRvSdLAs&feature=related

Evolution argues that we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees and gorillas. And indeed, one of our chromosomes is the result of a fusion of two primate chromosomes. Our chromosome #2 was formed by the fusion of two primate chromosomes, and scientists can prove this.

When presented with the evidence, Creationists are simply unable to respond.

This video proves our common ancestry.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 14, 2012 10:04:49 AM PDT
ErikR says:
You forget that they can rely on the absolute capriciousness of an omnipotent God, which, to their mind, can and does explain anything and everything with no more reasoning than, "well, that's the way God wanted it."

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 14, 2012 11:07:06 AM PDT
Sceptic says:
The flying spaghetti monster made it all look ,just the way it is, last Tuesday?

Posted on Oct 14, 2012 11:09:48 AM PDT
Sceptic says:
Which God did it ?
That theory which explains absolutely everything about everything in one sentence, all post hoc, actually explains nothing ; it has no value;it is a dead parrot pining for the fjords.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 14, 2012 11:18:24 AM PDT
Rock Fan says:
Very good video, to believe that evolution is not true is to believe in a deceptive designer, like he said.
(Now let the hate be directed at the messengers, instead of facing reality.)

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 14, 2012 1:58:15 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 14, 2012 1:58:53 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 14, 2012 2:21:42 PM PDT
ErikR says:
Heretical Tuesdayist!!! All true holders of the sacred knowledge know that it was Wednesday, repent now and accept the truth lest ye be slowly simmered for eternity in the marinara of despair.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 14, 2012 8:28:36 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Oct 16, 2012 7:55:56 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 14, 2012 10:43:16 PM PDT
Sceptic says:
But why do you say that?

Where is it erroneous?

How do you know?

What logical fallacies?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 14, 2012 10:48:54 PM PDT
Sceptic says:
Show why it is wrong. Your bald assertions are just contradiction. You just become a monty python sketch
M: Ah. I'd like to have an argument, please.
R: Certainly sir. Have you been here before?
M: No, I haven't, this is my first time.
R: I see. Well, do you want to have just one argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?
M: Well, what is the cost?
R: Well, It's one pound for a five minute argument, but only eight pounds for a course of ten.
M: Well, I think it would be best if I perhaps started off with just the one and then see how it goes.
R: Fine. Well, I'll see who's free at the moment.
Pause
R: Mr. DeBakey's free, but he's a little bit conciliatory.
Ahh yes, Try Mr. Barnard; room 12.
M: Thank you............................................
(Walk down the corridor)
M: (Knock)
A: Come in.
M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A: I told you once.
M: No you haven't.
A: Yes I have.
M: When?
A: Just now.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't
A: I did!
M: You didn't!
A: I'm telling you I did!
M: You did not!!
A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
M: Oh, just the five minutes.
A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not.
A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
M: No you did not.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't.
A: Did.
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!

A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't.
M: It is.
A: Not at all.

Posted on Oct 14, 2012 10:55:03 PM PDT
Sceptic says:
There is abundant genetic evidence for the relatedness between humans and other apes:
Humans have twenty-three chromosome pairs; apes have twenty-four. Twenty-two of the pairs are similar between humans and apes. The remaining two ape chromosomes appear to have joined; they are similar to each half of the remaining human chromosome (chromosome 2; Yunis and Prakash 1982).
The ends of chromosomes have repetitious telomeric sequences and a distinctive pretelomeric region. Such sequences are found in the middle of human chromosome 2, just as one would expect if two chromosomes joined (IJdo et al. 1991).
A centromere-like region of human chromosome 2 corresponds with the centromere of the ape chromosome (Avarello et al. 1992).
Humans and chimpanzees have innumerable sequence similarities, including shared pseudogenes such as genetic material from ERVs (endogenous retroviruses; Taylor 2003; Max 2003).

Avarello, R., A. Pedicini, A. Caiulo, O. Zuffardi, M. Fraccaro, 1992. Evidence for an ancestral alphoid domain on the long arm of human chromosome 2. Hum Genet 89(2): 247-249.
IJdo, J. W., A. Baldini, D. C. Ward, S. T. Reeders and R. A. Wells, 1991. Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 88(20): 9051-9055. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/88/20/9051.pdf
Max, Edward E., 2003. Plagiarized errors and molecular genetics. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/
Taylor, D. M. 2003. Alignment of Chimp_rp43-42n4 against human chromosome 15. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lilyth/erv/ See also Taylor, D. M. 2003 (Jun 3). Re: Evolutionary Misconceptions on Evolution. http://www.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=75200cbc.0306031846.50b2bda5%40posting.google.com
Yunis, J. J. and O. Prakash, 1982. The origin of man: a chromosomal pictorial legacy. Science 215: 1525-1530.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 14, 2012 10:56:51 PM PDT
Sceptic says:
Sorry! Must have had the wrong day revealed to me. I recant!!

Posted on Oct 15, 2012 7:15:08 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
Remember that Horsie uses 'logical fallacy' as shorthand for "something I insist absolutely CANNOT be true, even though I can't explain why or how because I'm too smart to give reasons."

As indicated, the creationists WILL respond to this finding. They won't respond with anything resembling logic or evidence, but they -will- respond.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 15, 2012 8:17:00 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 15, 2012 8:18:10 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 15, 2012 9:18:55 AM PDT
Sceptic says:
But the onus is on you to demonstrate where logical fallacies are being used and why;not just claim they are, and walking away!
The burden of proof is on YOU!

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 15, 2012 9:19:38 AM PDT
Sceptic says:
Show us where,what and why,otherwise pipe down.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 15, 2012 9:31:42 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 15, 2012 9:32:30 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 15, 2012 9:33:41 AM PDT
John McClain says:
"i have no obligation to you to do anything

i point out that your krapp is krapp and uses fallacious logic

it is your problem to fix your alleged proof
or keep looking like a fool

everyone who knows logic can see you are wrong"

In other words, you have no idea what you are talking about.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 15, 2012 9:36:43 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 15, 2012 9:37:37 AM PDT
John McClain says:
You do not know what you are talking about. You are using fallacious logic.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 15, 2012 9:40:41 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 15, 2012 9:41:40 AM PDT
John McClain says:
You are using fallacious logic. It is your problem to fix your proof.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 15, 2012 9:52:09 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Oct 15, 2012 12:18:37 PM PDT]
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  27
Total posts:  170
Initial post:  Oct 14, 2012
Latest post:  Jan 3, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions