Do the creationist shuffle and twist!

If you think this was bad, click on the Dinosaur Skin Discovery Threatens to Debunk Long-Held Evolutionary Assumptions. More "breathtaking inanity", or creationists' "two-step", etc.

More recently, a number of related studies have proposed an alternative explanation by which chromosomal rearrangements could reduce gene flow and potentially contribute to speciation by the suppression of recombination (Noor et al. 2001; Rieseberg 2001). According to this "suppressed recombination" model, chromosome rearrangements could have a minimal influence on fitness, but would suppress recombination leading to the reduction of gene flow across genomic regions and to the accumulation of incompatibilities.

Werewolf Dongle said: Well, we have from the paper:

More recently, a number of related studies have proposed an alternative explanation by which chromosomal rearrangements could reduce gene flow and potentially contribute to speciation by the suppression of recombination (Noor et al. 2001; Rieseberg 2001). According to this "suppressed recombination" model, chromosome rearrangements could have a minimal influence on fitness, but would suppress recombination leading to the reduction of gene flow across genomic regions and to the accumulation of incompatibilities.

Here's the problem--evolutionism demands that their be no incompatibility between humans and monkeys. If there are, how did monkeys have the first baby human? Evolutionism demands perfect compatibility between people and monkeys with all differences between them being the result of culture. Genetic incompatibilities make evolutionism doubtful.

Werewolf Dongle said: Here's the problem--evolutionism demands that their be no incompatibility between humans and monkeys. If there are, how did monkeys have the first baby human? Evolutionism demands perfect compatibility between people and monkeys with all differences between them being the result of culture. Genetic incompatibilities make evolutionism doubtful.

Here’s the problem–evolutionism demands that their be no incompatibility between humans and monkeys.

Werewolf Dongle said: Well, we have from the paper:

More recently, a number of related studies have proposed an alternative explanation by which chromosomal rearrangements could reduce gene flow and potentially contribute to speciation by the suppression of recombination (Noor et al. 2001; Rieseberg 2001). According to this "suppressed recombination" model, chromosome rearrangements could have a minimal influence on fitness, but would suppress recombination leading to the reduction of gene flow across genomic regions and to the accumulation of incompatibilities.

Here's the problem--evolutionism demands that their be no incompatibility between humans and monkeys. If there are, how did monkeys have the first baby human? Evolutionism demands perfect compatibility between people and monkeys with all differences between them being the result of culture. Genetic incompatibilities make evolutionism doubtful.

Werewolf Dongle said: Well, we have from the paper:

This is the way it always turns out. Creationist makes claim, creationist interpretation is bullshit.

JimboK said:

Werewolf Dongle said: Well, we have from the paper:

This is the way it always turns out. Creationist makes claim, creationist interpretation is bullshit.

Apparently, WD didn't read this part...

The date on the paper should be 2013, not 2012.

This particular post-modern creationist dynamic is very strange.

The use of scam artists (albeit plausibly self-deluded and deeply conflicted scam artists) to pretend to the ignorami that there is some sort of scientific controversy.

They don't just honestly say that they reject science. They desperately want to pretend that they care about and understand science, and that it supports them.

Of course, that's the post-modern way. Deny reality, and then deny that you deny reality.

Here’s the problem–evolutionism demands that their be no incompatibility between humans and monkeys.

Better trolls, please.

harold said: This particular post-modern creationist dynamic is very strange. The use of scam artists (albeit plausibly self-deluded and deeply conflicted scam artists) to pretend to the ignorami that there is some sort of scientific controversy. They don't just honestly say that they reject science. They desperately want to pretend that they care about and understand science, and that it supports them. Of course, that's the post-modern way. Deny reality, and then deny that you deny reality.

SWT said: Better trolls, please.

New trolls, please.

In his couple of brief appearances here, I think Werewolf Dongle has earned permanent BW status. He's almost certainly a poe, and who needs poes on the main threads?

Hey...@PZMyers...just wanted to say thanks for a great explanation PZM. Funny...I just recently finished an intro course with Noor who was cited (awesome!)...but YOUR explanation went a step beyond and NOW recomb v. re-arrange frequency makes a whole lot of sense! Of course the nut jobs twist and spin...but they are clever and posts like yours are continuously needed for non-science majors to understand HOW and WHY the spinning is taking place.

DS said:

Werewolf Dongle said: Well, we have from the paper:

More recently, a number of related studies have proposed an alternative explanation by which chromosomal rearrangements could reduce gene flow and potentially contribute to speciation by the suppression of recombination (Noor et al. 2001; Rieseberg 2001). According to this "suppressed recombination" model, chromosome rearrangements could have a minimal influence on fitness, but would suppress recombination leading to the reduction of gene flow across genomic regions and to the accumulation of incompatibilities.

Here's the problem--evolutionism demands that their be no incompatibility between humans and monkeys. If there are, how did monkeys have the first baby human? Evolutionism demands perfect compatibility between people and monkeys with all differences between them being the result of culture. Genetic incompatibilities make evolutionism doubtful.

Really? So if there were no "genetic incompatibilities" they would be able to interbreed and be classified as the same species. So as long as there are different species, evolution is disproven?

Funny how every real scientist overlooked that.

Exactly how is localized reduced recombination an "incompatibility" when it doesn't affect fitness? Now chromosomal fusion, that's a kind of "incompatibility". Do you think that chromosomal fusion of two ancestral chromosomes in humans disproves evolution?

Your "understanding" doesn't seem to have anything to do with reality.

What these guys need is a direct quote from the paper explaining how the results disprove evolution, not just how they are unexpected or require further study. Until they have that, their opinions have no relevance, since every new discovery disproves evolution according to them. And if all new discoveries did somehow disprove evolution, why aren't creationists making any?

harold said: This particular post-modern creationist dynamic is very strange. The use of scam artists (albeit plausibly self-deluded and deeply conflicted scam artists) to pretend to the ignorami that there is some sort of scientific controversy.

They don't just honestly say that they reject science. They desperately want to pretend that they care about and understand science, and that it supports them. Of course, that's the post-modern way. Deny reality, and then deny that you deny reality.

cwjolley said:

Werewolf Dongle said: Here's the problem--evolutionism demands that their be no incompatibility between humans and monkeys. If there are, how did monkeys have the first baby human? Evolutionism demands perfect compatibility between people and monkeys with all differences between them being the result of culture. Genetic incompatibilities make evolutionism doubtful.

Oh for heaven's sake. By that logic Latin couldn't have evolved into both Italian and French. Do you think some baby is born every once in a while that speaks a completely different language from their parents?

I don't care about studies in genetics. Genetic researchers today are like alchemists of yesterday. instead of mixing minerals to make the impissible exist they mix genes.

my fellow creationist miss the bigger point.
There is no need or desire to find genetic differences between us and apes. We clearly have the ape body. its not a coincedence a creator didn't notice.
We simply, being made in Gods image, can't have a body representing our true image/identity.
So we must be in the spectrum of nature and so we get the best body for fun and profit. There is no bodyform on earth as good as the ape one.
Creationists are wasting their time trying to enlarge the DNA difference between us and primates.
Its a wrong line of reasoning.
A little bit satisfies our creation from adam and Eve.

In fact all gentic connections are just lines of reasoning and unmrelated to scientific genetic investigation if one pays attention.

Wolfy is Joe, I think. The delusions of grandeur about working on a book is pretty diagnostic. So is the "evolution is a religion" idiocy.

Byers, on the other hand, is, well, he's Byers. Someone likened argument with him like punching water.

I'd comment, but my breath was taken away by the inanity.

I wonder if guys like these creationist Dunning-Kruger candidates ever apologize for getting things so wrong. Have they ever come back in the Christian News and admitted that they got things totally wrong?

Hi Werewolf Dongle,
As I assume you would like to see evolution take a fall and creationism win the battle, perhaps I can give you a short word of advice. Know your enemy. You certainly don't have to believe in it, but to be able to have any real chance of scoring against it, you have to understand it, and understand it through and through. With your comments above you show clearly that you don't have a clear grasp of evolutionary theory. That's why you get such a response from the other contributors here. You might be surprised how differently you'll be recieved if you show that you really understand what evolution is all about and then try to point to weaknesses.
All the best,
Jared

I don’t care about studies in genetics. Genetic researchers today are like alchemists of yesterday. instead of mixing minerals to make the impissible exist they mix genes.

I think you'll be ok, as far as I understand, your cushy 7-figure Darwinist job will be protected by the secret government cartel pushing atheism on our children while honest ID scientists who courageously challenge your bankrupt paradigm will continue to be "expelled".

At least, that's what Jesus told me.

Werewolf Dongle said:

DS said:

Werewolf Dongle said: Well, we have from the paper:

More recently, a number of related studies have proposed an alternative explanation by which chromosomal rearrangements could reduce gene flow and potentially contribute to speciation by the suppression of recombination (Noor et al. 2001; Rieseberg 2001). According to this "suppressed recombination" model, chromosome rearrangements could have a minimal influence on fitness, but would suppress recombination leading to the reduction of gene flow across genomic regions and to the accumulation of incompatibilities.

Here's the problem--evolutionism demands that their be no incompatibility between humans and monkeys. If there are, how did monkeys have the first baby human? Evolutionism demands perfect compatibility between people and monkeys with all differences between them being the result of culture. Genetic incompatibilities make evolutionism doubtful.

Really? So if there were no "genetic incompatibilities" they would be able to interbreed and be classified as the same species. So as long as there are different species, evolution is disproven?

Well, Christians believe each kind was created separately. If evolutionists have found different, incompatible species and thinks that is consistent with their religion, then there is no way to distinguish between evolutionism and Christianity.

Funny how every real scientist overlooked that.

This is because they are all idiots who exist in an echo chamber of their fellow evolutionists.

Exactly how is localized reduced recombination an "incompatibility" when it doesn't affect fitness? Now chromosomal fusion, that's a kind of "incompatibility". Do you think that chromosomal fusion of two ancestral chromosomes in humans disproves evolution?

It does say humans and monkeys can't reproduce now. Ergo, it is merely a question-begging assumption based on the religion of evolutionism to suggest they ever could.

Your "understanding" doesn't seem to have anything to do with reality.

So evolutionists have hijacked the word "reality" to refer to the tenets of their religion. I am working on a new book that discusses this issue.

What these guys need is a direct quote from the paper explaining how the results disprove evolution, not just how they are unexpected or require further study. Until they have that, their opinions have no relevance, since every new discovery disproves evolution according to them. And if all new discoveries did somehow disprove evolution, why aren't creationists making any?

Robert Byers said: I don't care about studies in genetics. Genetic researchers today are like alchemists of yesterday. instead of mixing minerals to make the impissible exist they mix genes. my fellow creationist miss the bigger point. There is no need or desire to find genetic differences between us and apes. We clearly have the ape body. its not a coincedence a creator didn't notice. We simply, being made in Gods image, can't have a body representing our true image/identity. So we must be in the spectrum of nature and so we get the best body for fun and profit. There is no bodyform on earth as good as the ape one. Creationists are wasting their time trying to enlarge the DNA difference between us and primates. Its a wrong line of reasoning. A little bit satisfies our creation from adam and Eve. In fact all gentic connections are just lines of reasoning and unmrelated to scientific genetic investigation if one pays attention. c

Werewolf Dongle said: Well, we have from the paper:

More recently, a number of related studies have proposed an alternative explanation by which chromosomal rearrangements could reduce gene flow and potentially contribute to speciation by the suppression of recombination (Noor et al. 2001; Rieseberg 2001). According to this "suppressed recombination" model, chromosome rearrangements could have a minimal influence on fitness, but would suppress recombination leading to the reduction of gene flow across genomic regions and to the accumulation of incompatibilities.

Here's the problem--evolutionism demands that their be no incompatibility between humans and monkeys. If there are, how did monkeys have the first baby human? Evolutionism demands perfect compatibility between people and monkeys with all differences between them being the result of culture. Genetic incompatibilities make evolutionism doubtful.

Karen S. said:

I don’t care about studies in genetics. Genetic researchers today are like alchemists of yesterday. instead of mixing minerals to make the impissible exist they mix genes.

Make the "impissible" exist? You have kidney stones?

Werewolf Dongle said: Ever heard of international adoption?

Karen S. said:

I don’t care about studies in genetics. Genetic researchers today are like alchemists of yesterday. instead of mixing minerals to make the impissible exist they mix genes.

Make the "impissible" exist? You have kidney stones?

Robert Byers said: There is no bodyform on earth as good as the ape one.

Robert Byers said: I don't care about studies in genetics. Genetic researchers today are like alchemists of yesterday. instead of mixing minerals to make the impissible exist they mix genes. my fellow creationist miss the bigger point. There is no need or desire to find genetic differences between us and apes. We clearly have the ape body. its not a coincedence a creator didn't notice. We simply, being made in Gods image, can't have a body representing our true image/identity. So we must be in the spectrum of nature and so we get the best body for fun and profit. There is no bodyform on earth as good as the ape one. Creationists are wasting their time trying to enlarge the DNA difference between us and primates. Its a wrong line of reasoning. A little bit satisfies our creation from adam and Eve. In fact all gentic connections are just lines of reasoning and unmrelated to scientific genetic investigation if one pays attention.

Just Bob said:

Karen S. said: Make the "impissible" exist? You have kidney stones?

"Impissible". That hurts just to read it!

nobodythatmatters said:

Just Bob said:

Karen S. said: Make the "impissible" exist? You have kidney stones?

"Impissible". That hurts just to read it!

i don't know.... i kinda find the word "impissible" awesome. i haven't decided if it means "incapable of getting drunk" or "unfazed by practical jokes". While Karen's kidney stones definition would work too, i think i prefer to associate it with slang usages for piss.

About the two caricatures of intelligent being appearing here the best thing that can be said is IMHO they hardly can convince anyone to become a creationist.

I don't think I'll ever be able to dislodge "impissible" from my brain, no matter how much I contort, shuffle, twist, or struggle to pee. Thank you so much.

Good job, PZ. We also agreed re: Eric Hedin. Jerry Coyne is giving the creationists another win with his egotism. I pointed out this was a repeat of his "peppered moth" fiasco. He has blocked any further comments from me to his blog. Shades of Dave Scott.

Don't you hate it when you get up in the morning and the first thing you read on the internet is the news that your entire career has been a waste of time, your whole field of study has collapsed, and you're going to have to rethink your entire future? Happens to me all the time.

... (Your) entire career has been a waste of time, your whole field of study has collapsed, and you're going to have to rethink your entire future

What we achieved...a trifecta? Or is getting three creationist trolls in the same thread a "hat trick"?

FL, are you aware that Professor Myers was being sarcastic?

That, and are you stupid enough to think that some no-name, anti-science moron would be able to destroy Evolutionary Biology though blatantly inaccurate, possibly deliberate, misinterpretation of just one paper?

Oh, wait, you are that stupid.

W. H. Heydt said: What we achieved...a trifecta? Or is getting three creationist trolls in the same thread a "hat trick"?

FL said: What happens to you if a day comes in which it all falls down?

Well at least all the trolls discussed the science. You know, they read the paper and admitted that the results were exactly those that were expected under modern evolutionary theory. They all admitted that the creationists were dead wrong. You have to admire that kind of honesty.

What? Oh. Never mind.

Imagine: A lifetime of solid belief, of the certainty of the theory of gravity, not just believed personally but you've taught it to hundreds, maybe thousands, of knowledge-seeking young people. You're sure it's the truth, you're sure it's reality, you're sure it's fact, undefeatable scientific fact. And you've been sure of all that for years, decades even.

What happens to you if a day comes in which it all falls up?

FL said: Imagine: A lifetime of solid belief, of the certainty of the theory of evolution, not just believed personally but you've taught it to hundreds, maybe thousands, of knowledge-seeking young people. You're sure it's the truth, you're sure it's reality, you're sure it's fact, undefeatable scientific fact. And you've been sure of all that for years, decades even. What happens to you if a day comes in which it all falls down? FL

Gary_Hurd said: Jerry Coyne is giving the creationists another win with his egotism. He has blocked any further comments from me to his blog.

Maybe one of the trolls could explain why there is reduced recombination in regions that are rearranged between humans and chimps. How do creationists explain this? What is their explanation? The theory of evolution predicted it and explains it very nicely. Why is this the pattern that is observed? Why is the pattern consistent with all of the other evidence that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor? Maybe this is the real reason why none of the trolls can be bothered to address the actual evidence. They all know that this is just one more kind of evidence that confirms evolution and which creationists have no explanation for, just like all the other evidence. And, if you are foolish enough to claim that your religion and evolution are incompatible, it's just one more kind of evidence that shows that you need a new religion.

(Your) entire career has been a waste of time, your whole field of study has collapsed, and you’re going to have to rethink your entire future What would that feel like? What does a total paradigm collapse feel like?

tomh said:

Gary_Hurd said: Jerry Coyne is giving the creationists another win with his egotism. He has blocked any further comments from me to his blog.

No wonder. I would block you from anywhere for making such an inane statement.

phhht said: Imagine: A lifetime of solid belief, of the certainty of the theory of gravity, not just believed personally but you've taught it to hundreds, maybe thousands, of knowledge-seeking young people. You're sure it's the truth, you're sure it's reality, you're sure it's fact, undefeatable scientific fact. And you've been sure of all that for years, decades even. What happens to you if a day comes in which it all falls up?

harold said:

tomh said:

Gary_Hurd said: Jerry Coyne is giving the creationists another win with his egotism. He has blocked any further comments from me to his blog.

No wonder. I would block you from anywhere for making such an inane statement.

I believe in blocking only people who make threats, use epithets, use excess verbosity, or use vulgarity and profanity to the degree that it distracts from the subject of conversation. I don't believe in elevating any individual to the status of "One Who's Every Statement Must Be Aggressively Defended".

harold said: Why don't I accept ID/creationism? Because I keep asking for evidence, and you guys don't have any.

harold said: I believe in blocking only people who make threats, use epithets, use excess verbosity, or use vulgarity and profanity to the degree that it distracts from the subject of conversation. I don't believe in elevating any individual to the status of "One Who's Every Statement Must Be Aggressively Defended".

FL said:

Don't you hate it when you get up in the morning and the first thing you read on the internet is the news that your entire career has been a waste of time, your whole field of study has collapsed, and you're going to have to rethink your entire future? Happens to me all the time.

Just commenting on this one part. It's important, but people don't talk about it much. Sometimes it's easy to forget what's at stake for many people in this origins debate.

Imagine: A lifetime of solid belief,

of the certainty of the theory of evolution, not just believed personally but you've taught it to hundreds, maybe thousands, of knowledge-seeking young people.

You're sure it's the truth, you're sure it's reality, you're sure it's fact, undefeatable scientific fact.

And you've been sure of all that for years, decades even.

What happens to you if a day comes in which it all falls down?

Well, Myers has described a good introductory part of it. You're starkly and immediately facing:

... (Your) entire career has been a waste of time, your whole field of study has collapsed, and you're going to have to rethink your entire future

What would that feel like? What does a total paradigm collapse feel like?

What would you say to your family? What would you say in the classroom tomorrow?

What would you say to your faculty colleagues when they find out? What of your career? What of you?

And what would you say to the Pandas, the good ole PhD-level Pandas, committed evolutionists who have always considered you a good and loyal Panda? What would be the title of your next PT thread?

These are just some thoughts. Not asking anybody to answer such questions. Nope. It's just that the questions are there, floating about like clouds, to be quietly explored if one dares.

harold said:

(Your) entire career has been a waste of time, your whole field of study has collapsed, and you’re going to have to rethink your entire future What would that feel like? What does a total paradigm collapse feel like?

It wouldn't bother anybody at all FL. When science changes, the same people are still scientists. What did you think they did, fire all the physicists when Einstein's papers came out? I got a new book about lymph node pathology a little while ago. The original edition came out thirty years ago. The same guy still writes the book (he has a co-author now). Lymph node pathology has massively advanced in thirty years. The book is a lot thicker. Because of people who study lymph node pathology. He didn't quit his job when new things were learned. He put together a new edition of his book. Science isn't like some duel between rival cult leaders on some kind of fanatic compound. All that stuff about expelling and censoring and casting out and executing people is just you guys projecting what you do onto everybody else. Why don't I accept ID/creationism? Because I keep asking for evidence, and you guys don't have any. The theory of evolution is a strong theory. But that's only because it's supported by multiple converging independent lines of evidence and explains multiple independent observations. If it wasn't and didn't, everybody would move on.

TomS said:

Robert Byers said: There is no bodyform on earth as good as the ape one.

For the best vision, I'd vote for the mantis shrimp For survivability under extreme conditions, for an animal, there's the waterbears But what is the best body form? By the criterion of success, I'd have to vote for Pelagibacter ubique

At least Byers' dog (if he has one) probably thinks he makes sense.

Glen Davidson

Robert Byers said:

TomS said:

Robert Byers said: There is no bodyform on earth as good as the ape one.

For the best vision, I'd vote for the mantis shrimp For survivability under extreme conditions, for an animal, there's the waterbears But what is the best body form? By the criterion of success, I'd have to vote for Pelagibacter ubique

Cheetahs run faster too but it would interfere in driving cars. The ape body is the best body for a being made in Gods image. Smarts and desires to do stuff. It could only be that we have a ape body! What would be better as long as we must be in the spectrum of the commonness of physical forms? Anyways scoring genes is still just a line of reasoning that like genes equals like origins. Even if true it would still be a line of reasoning. Theres no evidence for any lineage conclusions from genes. like reactions from like needs to react can explain any genetic results.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

FL said:

Don't you hate it when you get up in the morning and the first thing you read on the internet is the news that your entire career has been a waste of time, your whole field of study has collapsed, and you're going to have to rethink your entire future? Happens to me all the time.

Just commenting on this one part. It's important, but people don't talk about it much. Sometimes it's easy to forget what's at stake for many people in this origins debate.

Actually, it's pretty clear what's at stake for you, an entire worldview that has been held against the evidence for many years.

Imagine: A lifetime of solid belief,

Imagine, a lifetime of holding that science is tentative. Oh, what would we do if Newton's laws turned out not to be absolute? Oh yeah...

of the certainty of the theory of evolution, not just believed personally but you've taught it to hundreds, maybe thousands, of knowledge-seeking young people.

Oh my, I'd be so disturbed if instead of what I had believed, say, geosyncline uplift, it turned out that plate tectonics was a fact. I mean, I'd finally be explaining what was so difficult before, I don't think I could take it.

You're sure it's the truth, you're sure it's reality, you're sure it's fact, undefeatable scientific fact.

No, you're back to projecting your faulty certainties onto people who have varying success with treating "truth" as tentative. If science as such were proven to be completely unable to provide answers, that would be a problem (science certainly can be a "worldview"), but science can change, with many only too happy to jump on the new, better idea.

And you've been sure of all that for years, decades even.

It's not a faith. If it fails, it's supposed not to matter, even though it's likely to matter to some. There were anti-tectonics people who simply published stuff no one cared about and then died, but a lot of geologists welcomed it.

What happens to you if a day comes in which it all falls down?

You welcome the idea, or maybe just grudgingly accept it. Your fallacies are sacred to you, our truths (small t) are not sacred to us (not always the case, but likely the dominant position, in fact).

Well, Myers has described a good introductory part of it. You're starkly and immediately facing:

... (Your) entire career has been a waste of time, your whole field of study has collapsed, and you're going to have to rethink your entire future

What would that feel like? What does a total paradigm collapse feel like?

I don't know, how does it feel to flail about meaninglessly, as you always do?

What would you say to your family? What would you say in the classroom tomorrow?

You say, here's some great new stuff that I didn't know. You're privileged to know it from near the beginning of your education.

What would you say to your faculty colleagues when they find out? What of your career? What of you?

You move on. Something you haven't mastered.

And what would you say to the Pandas, the good ole PhD-level Pandas, committed evolutionists who have always considered you a good and loyal Panda? What would be the title of your next PT thread?

Here's Something Really Cool

These are just some thoughts. Not asking anybody to answer such questions. Nope. It's just that the questions are there, floating about like clouds, to be quietly explored if one dares.

Try to dare. Imagine you being able to question your "verities." Glen Davidson

Robert Byers said:

TomS said:

Robert Byers said: There is no bodyform on earth as good as the ape one.

For the best vision, I'd vote for the mantis shrimp For survivability under extreme conditions, for an animal, there's the waterbears But what is the best body form? By the criterion of success, I'd have to vote for Pelagibacter ubique

Cheetahs run faster too but it would interfere in driving cars. The ape body is the best body for a being made in Gods image. Smarts and desires to do stuff. It could only be that we have a ape body! What would be better as long as we must be in the spectrum of the commonness of physical forms? Anyways scoring genes is still just a line of reasoning that like genes equals like origins. Even if true it would still be a line of reasoning. Theres no evidence for any lineage conclusions from genes. like reactions from like needs to react can explain any genetic results.

FL said:

Don't you hate it when you get up in the morning and the first thing you read on the internet is the news that your entire career has been a waste of time, your whole field of study has collapsed, and you're going to have to rethink your entire future? Happens to me all the time.

Just commenting on this one part. It's important, but people don't talk about it much. Sometimes it's easy to forget what's at stake for many people in this origins debate. Imagine: A lifetime of solid belief, of the certainty of the theory of evolution, not just believed personally but you've taught it to hundreds, maybe thousands, of knowledge-seeking young people. You're sure it's the truth, you're sure it's reality, you're sure it's fact, undefeatable scientific fact. And you've been sure of all that for years, decades even. What happens to you if a day comes in which it all falls down? Well, Myers has described a good introductory part of it. You're starkly and immediately facing:

... (Your) entire career has been a waste of time, your whole field of study has collapsed, and you're going to have to rethink your entire future

What would that feel like? What does a total paradigm collapse feel like? What would you say to your family? What would you say in the classroom tomorrow? What would you say to your faculty colleagues when they find out? What of your career? What of you? And what would you say to the Pandas, the good ole PhD-level Pandas, committed evolutionists who have always considered you a good and loyal Panda? What would be the title of your next PT thread? These are just some thoughts. Not asking anybody to answer such questions. Nope. It's just that the questions are there, floating about like clouds, to be quietly explored if one dares. FL

Off topic, but I need a little help on the Amazon comments to Stevie Meyer's new propaganda piece, "Darwin's Doubt" - thanks.

FL said: Imagine: A lifetime of solid belief, of the certainty of the theory of evolution, not just believed personally but you've taught it to hundreds, maybe thousands, of knowledge-seeking young people. You're sure it's the truth, you're sure it's reality, you're sure it's fact, undefeatable scientific fact. And you've been sure of all that for years, decades even.

THE AGE OF THE EARTH

The reason why SOME PEOPLE DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE is because of unreconciled age of the Earth. The theologians say, it is only about six thousand years old. The geophysicists, the geochemists and the archaeologists conclude with scientific facts that the Earth is about 4.5 plus/minus 0.05% billion years old.

There are some indicators in the Bible that could lead us to believe that the earth is not just thousands of years of age but even billions of years as the geophysicists believe. Prayerfully, consider the following:

Ezekiel 28:13 “You were in Eden, the garden of God, every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz and diamonds, beryl, onyx and jasper, sapphire, carbuncle; and crafted in gold were your setting and your engravings on the day you were created they were prepared.” V14 “You were anointed guardian cherub. I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God, …” (The guardian cherub mentioned was Lucifer, Isa14:12, that became Satan.)

Take note: The first Eden, the garden of God was covered with stones while the garden of Eden during Adam and Eve was covered with trees, plants and vegetations.

As claimed by the scientists, we could believe that there was such a period called STONE AGE about 3.4 million years ago. Archaeologists have discovered thousands of fossils, evidences that there was life during this period. In their ancient groups of fossils were listed the dinosaurs, trilobites and fossils of humanoids dating about one to six million years of age. Some of these fossils can be found in the Smithsonian Institute.

There were even hundreds of fossils of dinosaurs found in the act of mortal combat; two were found somewhat (frozen) on the act of biting each other before they suddenly died.
The fighting of animals can be pointed to Satan. Ezekiel 28:16 says “In the abundance of your trade you were filled with VIOLENCE in your midst…” The violence created by Satan could have prompted God to cleanse the earth.

Apostle Peter had a revelation, that the earth had undergone cleansings; thru ice, water and will undergo cleansing by fire. Read 2 Peter 3:1-7 and pray for its revelation.

Genesis 1:2 “The earth was without form and void; and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the FACE OF THE WATER.” It means that the land was fully covered with (solid) WATER. This was the condition of the earth before it was formed again. The earth was covered with ice- hence science claimed there was an ice age.

2Peter 3:5b “…and the earth was formed out of water and through water by word of God.” How?

Genesis1:3 “And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.” The light was restored! When light is generated it compasses HEAT. The heat melts the ice.

Genesis1:6 “..and let it separate the waters from the waters.” The liquid water because of heat melted away from the solid water. Genesis1:10 “And God said, ‘Let the water under the heaven be gathered together into one place, and let the DRY LAND APPEAR.” “And it was so.”

I believe as others do that there is a big gap between Genesis1:1 and Genesis1:2. In Genesis 1:1, God created the universe, the galaxies, the stars, planets, and then placed life on earth during the STONE AGE. The first cleansing of the earth resulted to ICE AGE . Then, Genesis1:2 happened- the formation of earth and the creation of a new life on earth for human and animals and trees to live again. In Genesis 1:28 God said to Adam and Eve “Be fruitful and multiply, and REPLENISH the earth…” The word replenish means to fill up again. This means that there was life before (that’s the stone age) and another life will fill the earth again (the present age).

Science claims that humans and the neanderthals have about 98% identical DNA. Please also note that the SERPENT that deceived Eve was an erect mammal before he was cursed by God to be like snake that crawl on its belly. If you read closely, the serpent crawled only after the curse Gen. 3:14. What was the act of deception- not eating literal fruit but sexual intercourse with Eve that produced Cain and Abel became his twin after Adam had sex also with Eve. Note in the scriptures the word eat in Prov. 30:20 refers to adultery. In 1John3:12, it says "CAIN is of the evil one," because he was sired by the Satan possessed SERPENT. It is clearly stated in Genesis3:15 that the serpent has an offspring. The Serpent is the missing link. The intermingling of Cain's and Seth's descendants after seven generations produced a fleshly natured people as the Spirit of God ceased to abide in man.

For further clarity about this revelation, please go to You Tube and look for the “Original Sin” by Richard Gan from Singapore.

You just have uncovered two of the mysteries in the bible and hope that this solidifies the stand that the bible is true scientifically.

Well, I suppose that at least it isn't exactly a YEC rant. At least the YECs appeal to what they regard as evidence. This is a whole 'nother raft of crazy.

Dave Luckett said: Well, I suppose that at least it isn't exactly a YEC rant. At least the YECs appeal to what they regard as evidence. This is a whole 'nother raft of crazy.

Ah, but you missed the key to Angelino's plea: you have to PRAYERFULLY consider the following. Impissible, you guys just don't know good science even when it hits you in the face.

I dunno about Bible Colleges, Mike. Like 'em or loathe 'em, Li'l Angel is loopy on another axis altogether. Eve screwed the serpent? Cain and Able were twins? Two separate creations of living things? Two Gardens, one covered with stones? Only the start of a list of extra-Biblical shenanigans the length of your arm.

Oh, but I missed the justification: second last paragraph. This is all a revelation. Which means that this bloke, or Richard Gan from Singapore, whoever he is, has set up as a prophet. God talks to him. Tells him stuff. He speaks by divine authority, then.

Like, oh, Jim Jones. David Khoresh. Charlie Manson. Shoko Asahara. Those guys.

Robert Byers said:

TomS said:

Robert Byers said: There is no bodyform on earth as good as the ape one.

For the best vision, I'd vote for the mantis shrimp For survivability under extreme conditions, for an animal, there's the waterbears But what is the best body form? By the criterion of success, I'd have to vote for Pelagibacter ubique

Cheetahs run faster too but it would interfere in driving cars. The ape body is the best body for a being made in Gods image. Smarts and desires to do stuff. It could only be that we have a ape body! What would be better as long as we must be in the spectrum of the commonness of physical forms? Anyways scoring genes is still just a line of reasoning that like genes equals like origins. Even if true it would still be a line of reasoning. Theres no evidence for any lineage conclusions from genes. like reactions from like needs to react can explain any genetic results.

Dave Luckett said: Well, I suppose that at least it isn't exactly a YEC rant. At least the YECs appeal to what they regard as evidence. This is a whole 'nother raft of crazy.

FL said: What happens to you if a day comes in which it all falls down? FL

harold said: 2) It raises the obvious point, if the Bible can be interpreted as having a basic message that is not at odds with science, why not interpret it in a way that is completely compatible with science? This is the paradox that plagues creationists. The Bible has to be interpreted, because it's internally inconsistent. Either Noah took two of every animal on the ark, or he took seven of some, or the whole story is symbolic. Period. You have to interpret. So once you start interpreting, why favor an interpretation that denies scientific reality? The correct answer is that they have a religion-justified, but not necessarily religion-inspired, overall ideology. The Bible must be made to justify the overall religious/political/social ideology, and because that ideology strongly includes denial of inconvenient science, the Bible must be interpreted in a way that denies science. They have to claim that "every word is literally true", even though they

DS said: Maybe one of the trolls could explain why there is reduced recombination in regions that are rearranged between humans and chimps. How do creationists explain this? What is their explanation? The theory of evolution predicted it and explains it very nicely. Why is this the pattern that is observed? Why is the pattern consistent with all of the other evidence that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor? Maybe this is the real reason why none of the trolls can be bothered to address the actual evidence. They all know that this is just one more kind of evidence that confirms evolution and which creationists have no explanation for, just like all the other evidence. And, if you are foolish enough to claim that your religion and evolution are incompatible, it's just one more kind of evidence that shows that you need a new religion.

Angelino Acosta said: THE AGE OF THE EARTH The reason why SOME PEOPLE DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE is because of unreconciled age of the Earth. The theologians say, it is only about six thousand years old. The geophysicists, the geochemists and the archaeologists conclude with scientific facts that the Earth is about 4.5 plus/minus 0.05% billion years old. There are some indicators in the Bible that could lead us to believe that the earth is not just thousands of years of age but even billions of years as the geophysicists believe. Prayerfully, consider the following: Ezekiel 28:13 “You were in Eden, the garden of God, every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz and diamonds, beryl, onyx and jasper, sapphire, carbuncle; and crafted in gold were your setting and your engravings on the day you were created they were prepared.” V14 “You were anointed guardian cherub. I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God, …” (The guardian cherub mentioned was Lucifer, Isa14:12, that became Satan.) Take note: The first Eden, the garden of God was covered with stones while the garden of Eden during Adam and Eve was covered with trees, plants and vegetations. As claimed by the scientists, we could believe that there was such a period called STONE AGE about 3.4 million years ago. Archaeologists have discovered thousands of fossils, evidences that there was life during this period. In their ancient groups of fossils were listed the dinosaurs, trilobites and fossils of humanoids dating about one to six million years of age. Some of these fossils can be found in the Smithsonian Institute. There were even hundreds of fossils of dinosaurs found in the act of mortal combat; two were found somewhat (frozen) on the act of biting each other before they suddenly died. The fighting of animals can be pointed to Satan. Ezekiel 28:16 says “In the abundance of your trade you were filled with VIOLENCE in your midst…” The violence created by Satan could have prompted God to cleanse the earth. Apostle Peter had a revelation, that the earth had undergone cleansings; thru ice, water and will undergo cleansing by fire. Read 2 Peter 3:1-7 and pray for its revelation. Genesis 1:2 “The earth was without form and void; and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the FACE OF THE WATER.” It means that the land was fully covered with (solid) WATER. This was the condition of the earth before it was formed again. The earth was covered with ice- hence science claimed there was an ice age. 2Peter 3:5b “…and the earth was formed out of water and through water by word of God.” How? Genesis1:3 “And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.” The light was restored! When light is generated it compasses HEAT. The heat melts the ice. Genesis1:6 “..and let it separate the waters from the waters.” The liquid water because of heat melted away from the solid water. Genesis1:10 “And God said, ‘Let the water under the heaven be gathered together into one place, and let the DRY LAND APPEAR.” “And it was so.” I believe as others do that there is a big gap between Genesis1:1 and Genesis1:2. In Genesis 1:1, God created the universe, the galaxies, the stars, planets, and then placed life on earth during the STONE AGE. The first cleansing of the earth resulted to ICE AGE . Then, Genesis1:2 happened- the formation of earth and the creation of a new life on earth for human and animals and trees to live again. In Genesis 1:28 God said to Adam and Eve “Be fruitful and multiply, and REPLENISH the earth…” The word replenish means to fill up again. This means that there was life before (that’s the stone age) and another life will fill the earth again (the present age). Science claims that humans and the neanderthals have about 98% identical DNA. Please also note that the SERPENT that deceived Eve was an erect mammal before he was cursed by God to be like snake that crawl on its belly. If you read closely, the serpent crawled only after the curse Gen. 3:14. What was the act of deception- not eating literal fruit but sexual intercourse with Eve that produced Cain and Abel became his twin after Adam had sex also with Eve. Note in the scriptures the word eat in Prov. 30:20 refers to adultery. In 1John3:12, it says "CAIN is of the evil one," because he was sired by the Satan possessed SERPENT. It is clearly stated in Genesis3:15 that the serpent has an offspring. The Serpent is the missing link. The intermingling of Cain's and Seth's descendants after seven generations produced a fleshly natured people as the Spirit of God ceased to abide in man. For further clarity about this revelation, please go to You Tube and look for the “Original Sin” by Richard Gan from Singapore. You just have uncovered two of the mysteries in the bible and hope that this solidifies the stand that the bible is true scientifically.

RWard said:

FL said: What happens to you if a day comes in which it all falls down? FL

Actually there is a real possiblity that evolutionary theory will be disproven. Genetic similarity values may be shown to be a glitch in Joe Felsenstein's algorhythms leaving us to conclude that all organisms are equally unrelated. A fossil man may be found in an undeniably Cambrian context. Myriad possibilities that would disprove evolutionary theory, as it is formulated now, exist. If so, modern evolutionary theory will be replaced with a new scientific theory that explains all of the available data. That new theory still won't include magic. Genesis will remain a myth passed down to us from ancient tribesmen.

Angelino Acosta said: THE AGE OF THE EARTH The reason why SOME PEOPLE DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE is because of unreconciled age of the Earth. The theologians say, it is only about six thousand years old. The geophysicists, the geochemists and the archaeologists conclude with scientific facts that the Earth is about 4.5 plus/minus 0.05% billion years old.

Angelino Acosta said: Please also note that the SERPENT that deceived Eve was an erect mammal before he was cursed by God to be like snake that crawl on its belly. If you read closely, the serpent crawled only after the curse Gen. 3:14. You just have uncovered two of the mysteries in the bible and hope that this solidifies the stand that the bible is true scientifically.

Keelyn said:

Angelino Acosta said: Please also note that the SERPENT that deceived Eve was an erect mammal before he was cursed by God to be like snake that crawl on its belly. If you read closely, the serpent crawled only after the curse Gen. 3:14. You just have uncovered two of the mysteries in the bible and hope that this solidifies the stand that the bible is true scientifically.

Wow. So, now we know the true origin of reptiles, yes? Weirdo, yes!

apokryltaros said:

Keelyn said:

Angelino Acosta said: Please also note that the SERPENT that deceived Eve was an erect mammal before he was cursed by God to be like snake that crawl on its belly. If you read closely, the serpent crawled only after the curse Gen. 3:14. You just have uncovered two of the mysteries in the bible and hope that this solidifies the stand that the bible is true scientifically.

Wow. So, now we know the true origin of reptiles, yes? Weirdo, yes!

That snakes evolved from a cursed mammal blighted to become a legless lizard?

Robert Byers said:

TomS said:

Robert Byers said: There is no bodyform on earth as good as the ape one.

For the best vision, I'd vote for the mantis shrimp For survivability under extreme conditions, for an animal, there's the waterbears But what is the best body form? By the criterion of success, I'd have to vote for Pelagibacter ubique

Cheetahs run faster too but it would interfere in driving cars. The ape body is the best body for a being made in Gods image. Smarts and desires to do stuff. It could only be that we have a ape body! What would be better as long as we must be in the spectrum of the commonness of physical forms? Anyways scoring genes is still just a line of reasoning that like genes equals like origins. Even if true it would still be a line of reasoning. Theres no evidence for any lineage conclusions from genes. like reactions from like needs to react can explain any genetic results.

DS said:

Werewolf Dongle said:

DS said:

Werewolf Dongle said: Well, we have from the paper:

More recently, a number of related studies have proposed an alternative explanation by which chromosomal rearrangements could reduce gene flow and potentially contribute to speciation by the suppression of recombination (Noor et al. 2001; Rieseberg 2001). According to this "suppressed recombination" model, chromosome rearrangements could have a minimal influence on fitness, but would suppress recombination leading to the reduction of gene flow across genomic regions and to the accumulation of incompatibilities.

Here's the problem--evolutionism demands that their be no incompatibility between humans and monkeys. If there are, how did monkeys have the first baby human? Evolutionism demands perfect compatibility between people and monkeys with all differences between them being the result of culture. Genetic incompatibilities make evolutionism doubtful.

Really? So if there were no "genetic incompatibilities" they would be able to interbreed and be classified as the same species. So as long as there are different species, evolution is disproven?

Well, Christians believe each kind was created separately. If evolutionists have found different, incompatible species and thinks that is consistent with their religion, then there is no way to distinguish between evolutionism and Christianity.

Funny how every real scientist overlooked that.

This is because they are all idiots who exist in an echo chamber of their fellow evolutionists.

Exactly how is localized reduced recombination an "incompatibility" when it doesn't affect fitness? Now chromosomal fusion, that's a kind of "incompatibility". Do you think that chromosomal fusion of two ancestral chromosomes in humans disproves evolution?

It does say humans and monkeys can't reproduce now. Ergo, it is merely a question-begging assumption based on the religion of evolutionism to suggest they ever could.

Your "understanding" doesn't seem to have anything to do with reality.

So evolutionists have hijacked the word "reality" to refer to the tenets of their religion. I am working on a new book that discusses this issue.

What these guys need is a direct quote from the paper explaining how the results disprove evolution, not just how they are unexpected or require further study. Until they have that, their opinions have no relevance, since every new discovery disproves evolution according to them. And if all new discoveries did somehow disprove evolution, why aren't creationists making any?

What christians believe is irrelevant. Species are "incompatible" by definition, get a clue.

Scientists don't have any religion. If you think otherwise, please name one that all scientists share

(HINT: science is NOT a religion). If you really think that all scientists are idiots, you should stop using the internet and every other technology developed by real scientists.

It is much more likely that some smarmy know-nothing internet troll is the real idiot.

The evidence is clear that humans and chimps share a common ancestor.

No one is claiming that they ever did or ever could interbreed. Grow up, learn some science, get a clue, then crawl back in your hole and stop displaying your ignorance. Since this jackass is most likely a Poe (I hope), I recommend that it be banished to the bathroom wall. Any further responses to it by me will be found there.

Karen S. said:

Here’s the problem–evolutionism demands that their be no incompatibility between humans and monkeys.

But you and your monkey lady have produced offspring together, disproving evolution

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmC7mvLw53DTaNtu_cnreEweoWrzatuB7Y said:

Robert Byers said:

TomS said:

Robert Byers said: There is no bodyform on earth as good as the ape one.

For the best vision, I'd vote for the mantis shrimp For survivability under extreme conditions, for an animal, there's the waterbears But what is the best body form? By the criterion of success, I'd have to vote for Pelagibacter ubique

Cheetahs run faster too but it would interfere in driving cars. The ape body is the best body for a being made in Gods image. Smarts and desires to do stuff. It could only be that we have a ape body! What would be better as long as we must be in the spectrum of the commonness of physical forms? Anyways scoring genes is still just a line of reasoning that like genes equals like origins. Even if true it would still be a line of reasoning. Theres no evidence for any lineage conclusions from genes. like reactions from like needs to react can explain any genetic results.

Hi, RobertByers. The twin nested hierarchies of genomes and morphology don't just involve useful stuff, they also involve useless stuff. For instance, humans have a gene (allele) for making vitamin C, but it's broken. Our ancestors ate vitamin C-rich food for so long that it was a harmless mutation, and was not selected against. It is almost identical to the mutation chimps have. The gorilla mutation is rather different - almost as though a neutral mutation had drifted away from the original longer than the chimp & human versions had. The guinea pig also has a non-functioning vitamin C-producing gene, but it is broken in a completely different way. Evolution from common ancestors explains this. Are you suggesting that a creator wanted to make sure that our non-functioning gene was more similar to a chimp's than a guinea pig's? Why? There are thousands of examples like this.

WD tells us: Evolutionism, like all religions involves moral prescriptions based on past events that can not be repeated...

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmC7mvLw53DTaNtu_cnreEweoWrzatuB7Y said: Are you suggesting that a creator wanted to make sure that our non-functioning gene was more similar to a chimp's than a guinea pig's?

Werewolf Dongle said:

DS said:

Werewolf Dongle said:

DS said:

Werewolf Dongle said: Well, we have from the paper:

More recently, a number of related studies have proposed an alternative explanation by which chromosomal rearrangements could reduce gene flow and potentially contribute to speciation by the suppression of recombination (Noor et al. 2001; Rieseberg 2001). According to this "suppressed recombination" model, chromosome rearrangements could have a minimal influence on fitness, but would suppress recombination leading to the reduction of gene flow across genomic regions and to the accumulation of incompatibilities.

Here's the problem--evolutionism demands that their be no incompatibility between humans and monkeys. If there are, how did monkeys have the first baby human? Evolutionism demands perfect compatibility between people and monkeys with all differences between them being the result of culture. Genetic incompatibilities make evolutionism doubtful.

Really? So if there were no "genetic incompatibilities" they would be able to interbreed and be classified as the same species. So as long as there are different species, evolution is disproven?

Well, Christians believe each kind was created separately. If evolutionists have found different, incompatible species and thinks that is consistent with their religion, then there is no way to distinguish between evolutionism and Christianity.

Funny how every real scientist overlooked that.

This is because they are all idiots who exist in an echo chamber of their fellow evolutionists.

Exactly how is localized reduced recombination an "incompatibility" when it doesn't affect fitness? Now chromosomal fusion, that's a kind of "incompatibility". Do you think that chromosomal fusion of two ancestral chromosomes in humans disproves evolution?

It does say humans and monkeys can't reproduce now. Ergo, it is merely a question-begging assumption based on the religion of evolutionism to suggest they ever could.

Your "understanding" doesn't seem to have anything to do with reality.

So evolutionists have hijacked the word "reality" to refer to the tenets of their religion. I am working on a new book that discusses this issue.

What these guys need is a direct quote from the paper explaining how the results disprove evolution, not just how they are unexpected or require further study. Until they have that, their opinions have no relevance, since every new discovery disproves evolution according to them. And if all new discoveries did somehow disprove evolution, why aren't creationists making any?

What christians believe is irrelevant. Species are "incompatible" by definition, get a clue.

Yes, they are, because they were created as separate kinds. If evolutionism was a falsifiable scientific theory and not just another religion, this would be evidence evolutionism is false.

Scientists don't have any religion. If you think otherwise, please name one that all scientists share

You're right, not all scientists are evolutionists.

(HINT: science is NOT a religion). If you really think that all scientists are idiots, you should stop using the internet and every other technology developed by real scientists.

Technology has nothing to do with evolutionism. Evolutionism, like all religions involves moral prescriptions based on past events that can not be repeated like the Fall of Man or Jesus' death on the cross. It's worth noting that you asked a questions about what scientists believe. Well, why should I believe them. You're worldview is just as authoritarian as the Christians'. At least we admit we believe the Bible. You evos like to use the word "reality" to describe the tenants of your religion, reality meaning brute perceptual facts understood without a faith-based perspective. If so, why does what scientists or anybody else believes actually matter. Don't you have access to the way things are?

It is much more likely that some smarmy know-nothing internet troll is the real idiot.

Appeal to authority, now ad hominem, got anything else?

The evidence is clear that humans and chimps share a common ancestor.

So, did an unknown species have a human and chimp set of twins? If so, who saw them?

No one is claiming that they ever did or ever could interbreed. Grow up, learn some science, get a clue, then crawl back in your hole and stop displaying your ignorance. Since this jackass is most likely a Poe (I hope), I recommend that it be banished to the bathroom wall. Any further responses to it by me will be found there.

Censorship, the standard response to all challenges to the evolutionary worldview, just like in North Korea.

Werewolf Dongle said:

DS said:

Werewolf Dongle said:

DS said:

Werewolf Dongle said: Well, we have from the paper:

More recently, a number of related studies have proposed an alternative explanation by which chromosomal rearrangements could reduce gene flow and potentially contribute to speciation by the suppression of recombination (Noor et al. 2001; Rieseberg 2001). According to this "suppressed recombination" model, chromosome rearrangements could have a minimal influence on fitness, but would suppress recombination leading to the reduction of gene flow across genomic regions and to the accumulation of incompatibilities.

Here's the problem--evolutionism demands that their be no incompatibility between humans and monkeys. If there are, how did monkeys have the first baby human? Evolutionism demands perfect compatibility between people and monkeys with all differences between them being the result of culture. Genetic incompatibilities make evolutionism doubtful.

Really? So if there were no "genetic incompatibilities" they would be able to interbreed and be classified as the same species. So as long as there are different species, evolution is disproven?

Well, Christians believe each kind was created separately. If evolutionists have found different, incompatible species and thinks that is consistent with their religion, then there is no way to distinguish between evolutionism and Christianity.

Funny how every real scientist overlooked that.

This is because they are all idiots who exist in an echo chamber of their fellow evolutionists.

Exactly how is localized reduced recombination an "incompatibility" when it doesn't affect fitness? Now chromosomal fusion, that's a kind of "incompatibility". Do you think that chromosomal fusion of two ancestral chromosomes in humans disproves evolution?

It does say humans and monkeys can't reproduce now. Ergo, it is merely a question-begging assumption based on the religion of evolutionism to suggest they ever could.

Your "understanding" doesn't seem to have anything to do with reality.

So evolutionists have hijacked the word "reality" to refer to the tenets of their religion. I am working on a new book that discusses this issue.

What these guys need is a direct quote from the paper explaining how the results disprove evolution, not just how they are unexpected or require further study. Until they have that, their opinions have no relevance, since every new discovery disproves evolution according to them. And if all new discoveries did somehow disprove evolution, why aren't creationists making any?

What christians believe is irrelevant. Species are "incompatible" by definition, get a clue.

Yes, they are, because they were created as separate kinds. If evolutionism was a falsifiable scientific theory and not just another religion, this would be evidence evolutionism is false.

Scientists don't have any religion. If you think otherwise, please name one that all scientists share

You're right, not all scientists are evolutionists.

(HINT: science is NOT a religion). If you really think that all scientists are idiots, you should stop using the internet and every other technology developed by real scientists.

Technology has nothing to do with evolutionism. Evolutionism, like all religions involves moral prescriptions based on past events that can not be repeated like the Fall of Man or Jesus' death on the cross. It's worth noting that you asked a questions about what scientists believe. Well, why should I believe them. You're worldview is just as authoritarian as the Christians'. At least we admit we believe the Bible. You evos like to use the word "reality" to describe the tenants of your religion, reality meaning brute perceptual facts understood without a faith-based perspective. If so, why does what scientists or anybody else believes actually matter. Don't you have access to the way things are?

It is much more likely that some smarmy know-nothing internet troll is the real idiot.

Appeal to authority, now ad hominem, got anything else?

The evidence is clear that humans and chimps share a common ancestor.

So, did an unknown species have a human and chimp set of twins? If so, who saw them?

No one is claiming that they ever did or ever could interbreed. Grow up, learn some science, get a clue, then crawl back in your hole and stop displaying your ignorance. Since this jackass is most likely a Poe (I hope), I recommend that it be banished to the bathroom wall. Any further responses to it by me will be found there.

Censorship, the standard response to all challenges to the evolutionary worldview, just like in North Korea.

I guess you can now read it both place if you dare.

But you and your monkey lady have produced offspring together, disproving evolution

FL said: Imagine: A lifetime of solid belief, of the certainty ..., not just believed personally but you've taught it to hundreds, maybe thousands, of knowledge-seeking young people. You're sure it's the truth, you're sure it's reality, you're sure it's fact, undefeatable ... fact. And you've been sure of all that for years, decades even. What happens to you if a day comes in which it all falls down? ... What would that feel like? What does a total paradigm collapse feel like? What would you say to your family? What would you say in the classroom tomorrow? What would you say to your faculty colleagues when they find out? What of your career? What of you? ... It's just that the questions are there, floating about like clouds, to be quietly explored if one dares. FL

What would a scientist say to his/her family if they discovered that evolution was wrong and the diversity we all see was caused by something else?

"Honey guess what? I just won the Nobel Prize! Woot Woot!"

Evolution is wrong. The bible is correct, it is only the interpretation of some that makes it like wrong. Before science was developed the WORD of God was already existed. Science is now the engine of knowledge to make the Bible clearer to man. Through science, I could now grasp what really happened in the FALL.

Adam and Eve were instructed to replenish the earth. Satan came in to destroy tmhe reproductio plan of God. Satan a spirit possessed the Serpent to impregnate Eve before Adam get the divine revelation to carryout the reproduction plan of God. Note that the serpent was an upright creature very much like a man but was created in the image and likeness of God.before he of God. He became like a snake after he was cursed by God. Eve gave birth to twin, Cain was the serpent seed and Abel was Adam's. Cain killed Abel, Seth was born later to become as replacement as his name implied. The upright serpent is the missing link.

After seven generations, the descendants of Cain and Seth intermingled, hence, all had acquired the mixed, stained blood. God had then declared that His Spirit will no longer abide in man. The absence of God's Spirit made them to do wickedness.

Science wants to establish the relationship of Ape (which was the upright creature then) to man. The serpent which is the missing link was wiped out during the earth cleansing by the Great Flood.

There was an error in typing, the word 'not' was missed to indicate that the serpent was not created in the image and likeness of God.----sorry!

Angelino Acosta said: Evolution is wrong. The bible is correct, it is only the interpretation of some that makes it like wrong. Before science was developed the WORD of God was already existed. Science is now the engine of knowledge to make the Bible clearer to man. Through science, I could now grasp what really happened in the FALL. Adam and Eve were instructed to replenish the earth. Satan came in to destroy tmhe reproductio plan of God. Satan a spirit possessed the Serpent to impregnate Eve before Adam get the divine revelation to carryout the reproduction plan of God. Note that the serpent was an upright creature very much like a man but was created in the image and likeness of God.before he of God. He became like a snake after he was cursed by God. Eve gave birth to twin, Cain was the serpent seed and Abel was Adam's. Cain killed Abel, Seth was born later to become as replacement as his name implied. The upright serpent is the missing link. After seven generations, the descendants of Cain and Seth intermingled, hence, all had acquired the mixed, stained blood. God had then declared that His Spirit will no longer abide in man. The absence of God's Spirit made them to do wickedness. Science wants to establish the relationship of Ape (which was the upright creature then) to man. The serpent which is the missing link was wiped out during the earth cleansing by the Great Flood.

Angelino Acosta said: Evolution is wrong. The bible is correct, it is only the interpretation of some that makes it like wrong. Before science was developed the WORD of God was already existed. Science is now the engine of knowledge to make the Bible clearer to man. Through science, I could now grasp what really happened in the FALL. Adam and Eve were instructed to replenish the earth. Satan came in to destroy tmhe reproductio plan of God. Satan a spirit possessed the Serpent to impregnate Eve before Adam get the divine revelation to carryout the reproduction plan of God. Note that the serpent was an upright creature very much like a man but was created in the image and likeness of God.before he of God. He became like a snake after he was cursed by God. Eve gave birth to twin, Cain was the serpent seed and Abel was Adam's. Cain killed Abel, Seth was born later to become as replacement as his name implied. The upright serpent is the missing link. After seven generations, the descendants of Cain and Seth intermingled, hence, all had acquired the mixed, stained blood. God had then declared that His Spirit will no longer abide in man. The absence of God's Spirit made them to do wickedness. Science wants to establish the relationship of Ape (which was the upright creature then) to man. The serpent which is the missing link was wiped out during the earth cleansing by the Great Flood.

Angelino, can you show us the research and experimentation you have done and the data you have gathered for you to come to the conclusion that evolution is magically wrong, and that snakes are really the cursed descendants of a cursed mammal intermediary between Satan, Cain and Seth who tried to rape Eve on behalf of Satan?

Or at least show us the specific Bible passages that state this fabulous word salad?

Amazing logic!

"Brian Thomas ... recently published an article for ICR, in which he details why it is absurd to believe that dinosaur skin like this could have possibly survived for tens of millions of years."...
"under realistic conditions, collagen’s maximum “shelf life” is probably closer to 300,000 years."...
"most dinosaur fossils were buried during the Great Flood around 4,400 years ago."

So why, FFS, don't virtually ALL dinosaur fossils contain significant amounts of collagen?

Robert Byers said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmC7mvLw53DTaNtu_cnreEweoWrzatuB7Y said:

Robert Byers said:

TomS said:

Robert Byers said: There is no bodyform on earth as good as the ape one.

For the best vision, I'd vote for the mantis shrimp For survivability under extreme conditions, for an animal, there's the waterbears But what is the best body form? By the criterion of success, I'd have to vote for Pelagibacter ubique

Cheetahs run faster too but it would interfere in driving cars. The ape body is the best body for a being made in Gods image. Smarts and desires to do stuff. It could only be that we have a ape body! What would be better as long as we must be in the spectrum of the commonness of physical forms? Anyways scoring genes is still just a line of reasoning that like genes equals like origins. Even if true it would still be a line of reasoning. Theres no evidence for any lineage conclusions from genes. like reactions from like needs to react can explain any genetic results.

Hi, RobertByers. The twin nested hierarchies of genomes and morphology don't just involve useful stuff, they also involve useless stuff. For instance, humans have a gene (allele) for making vitamin C, but it's broken. Our ancestors ate vitamin C-rich food for so long that it was a harmless mutation, and was not selected against. It is almost identical to the mutation chimps have. The gorilla mutation is rather different - almost as though a neutral mutation had drifted away from the original longer than the chimp & human versions had. The guinea pig also has a non-functioning vitamin C-producing gene, but it is broken in a completely different way. Evolution from common ancestors explains this. Are you suggesting that a creator wanted to make sure that our non-functioning gene was more similar to a chimp's than a guinea pig's? Why? There are thousands of examples like this.

All things changed at the point in the bible called the fall. Our bodies changed. We are dying and before that must protect against early dying. Changing vit c need only be seen as a needed or some species of reaction to some problem newly occurring. If apes have it too then thats fine. It makes sense they would for the same reason. They have a very like body. If some primates don't then simply there is a lack of need or a reaction to newly change. Its only a line of reasoning that these like/dislike DNA details equals a original ancestry. Even if true it would still be ONLY a line of reasoning. Another line ends it as any claim to proof of common descent. This is not evidence for common descent but a simple conclusion that ignores heaps of other options.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmC7mvLw53DTaNtu_cnreEweoWrzatuB7Y said:

Robert Byers said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmC7mvLw53DTaNtu_cnreEweoWrzatuB7Y said:

Robert Byers said:

TomS said:

Robert Byers said: There is no bodyform on earth as good as the ape one.

For the best vision, I'd vote for the mantis shrimp For survivability under extreme conditions, for an animal, there's the waterbears But what is the best body form? By the criterion of success, I'd have to vote for Pelagibacter ubique

Cheetahs run faster too but it would interfere in driving cars. The ape body is the best body for a being made in Gods image. Smarts and desires to do stuff. It could only be that we have a ape body! What would be better as long as we must be in the spectrum of the commonness of physical forms? Anyways scoring genes is still just a line of reasoning that like genes equals like origins. Even if true it would still be a line of reasoning. Theres no evidence for any lineage conclusions from genes. like reactions from like needs to react can explain any genetic results.

Hi, RobertByers. The twin nested hierarchies of genomes and morphology don't just involve useful stuff, they also involve useless stuff. For instance, humans have a gene (allele) for making vitamin C, but it's broken. Our ancestors ate vitamin C-rich food for so long that it was a harmless mutation, and was not selected against. It is almost identical to the mutation chimps have. The gorilla mutation is rather different - almost as though a neutral mutation had drifted away from the original longer than the chimp & human versions had. The guinea pig also has a non-functioning vitamin C-producing gene, but it is broken in a completely different way. Evolution from common ancestors explains this. Are you suggesting that a creator wanted to make sure that our non-functioning gene was more similar to a chimp's than a guinea pig's? Why? There are thousands of examples like this.

All things changed at the point in the bible called the fall. Our bodies changed. We are dying and before that must protect against early dying. Changing vit c need only be seen as a needed or some species of reaction to some problem newly occurring. If apes have it too then thats fine. It makes sense they would for the same reason. They have a very like body. If some primates don't then simply there is a lack of need or a reaction to newly change. Its only a line of reasoning that these like/dislike DNA details equals a original ancestry. Even if true it would still be ONLY a line of reasoning. Another line ends it as any claim to proof of common descent. This is not evidence for common descent but a simple conclusion that ignores heaps of other options.

This doesn't make any sense. We clearly don't need a gene for making vitamin C now; our ape diet provides enough. (Although it would prevent the occasional case of scurvy). Why would our fellow apes, our close cousins, have this gene broken in the same way (or less same, in the case of gorillas)? And very differently, in the case of guinea pigs, our more distant cousins? Why couldn't God break them in the same way? Why do we have a plantaris tendon - did we hold oranges with our toes like chimps before the fall?

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmC7mvLw53DTaNtu_cnreEweoWrzatuB7Y said:

Robert Byers said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmC7mvLw53DTaNtu_cnreEweoWrzatuB7Y said:

Robert Byers said:

TomS said:

Robert Byers said: There is no bodyform on earth as good as the ape one.

For the best vision, I'd vote for the mantis shrimp For survivability under extreme conditions, for an animal, there's the waterbears But what is the best body form? By the criterion of success, I'd have to vote for Pelagibacter ubique

Cheetahs run faster too but it would interfere in driving cars. The ape body is the best body for a being made in Gods image. Smarts and desires to do stuff. It could only be that we have a ape body! What would be better as long as we must be in the spectrum of the commonness of physical forms? Anyways scoring genes is still just a line of reasoning that like genes equals like origins. Even if true it would still be a line of reasoning. Theres no evidence for any lineage conclusions from genes. like reactions from like needs to react can explain any genetic results.

Hi, RobertByers. The twin nested hierarchies of genomes and morphology don't just involve useful stuff, they also involve useless stuff. For instance, humans have a gene (allele) for making vitamin C, but it's broken. Our ancestors ate vitamin C-rich food for so long that it was a harmless mutation, and was not selected against. It is almost identical to the mutation chimps have. The gorilla mutation is rather different - almost as though a neutral mutation had drifted away from the original longer than the chimp & human versions had. The guinea pig also has a non-functioning vitamin C-producing gene, but it is broken in a completely different way. Evolution from common ancestors explains this. Are you suggesting that a creator wanted to make sure that our non-functioning gene was more similar to a chimp's than a guinea pig's? Why? There are thousands of examples like this.

All things changed at the point in the bible called the fall. Our bodies changed. We are dying and before that must protect against early dying. Changing vit c need only be seen as a needed or some species of reaction to some problem newly occurring. If apes have it too then thats fine. It makes sense they would for the same reason. They have a very like body. If some primates don't then simply there is a lack of need or a reaction to newly change. Its only a line of reasoning that these like/dislike DNA details equals a original ancestry. Even if true it would still be ONLY a line of reasoning. Another line ends it as any claim to proof of common descent. This is not evidence for common descent but a simple conclusion that ignores heaps of other options.

This doesn't make any sense. We clearly don't need a gene for making vitamin C now; our ape diet provides enough. (Although it would prevent the occasional case of scurvy). Why would our fellow apes, our close cousins, have this gene broken in the same way (or less same, in the case of gorillas)? And very differently, in the case of guinea pigs, our more distant cousins? Why couldn't God break them in the same way? Why do we have a plantaris tendon - did we hold oranges with our toes like chimps before the fall?

The Bible has the answer!
Adam was a son of God, and he was to bring forth sons and daughters of God 'after his kind' There would not be, nor could there be, one bit of Satan's traits, such as lying and murdering In them.

Cain was of the evil one (1John3:12). The serpent seduce Eve.(2Corinthians11:1-3) Eating means sexual act( Proverbs 30:20) Eve committed adultery with the Serpent, which was an erect mammal before he wad cursed by God to crawl like snake.(Gen.1:14)

Blood was involved in FALL. The substance, which carried the Satanic traits was the blood gene of the Serpent (who was demonically influenced). Sex must be the gateway onto the fall of man. If sex was not involved in Sin, why did Adam and Eve sew fig leaves together and make themselves apron to cover their nakedness.(Gen 1:7). And why was the female sexual organ cursed by God that her SORROW and CONCEPTION were greatly mutiplied?(Gen3:16) Was not it strange for Adam and Eve to cover their sexual organs instead of their mouth If eating of the forbidden fruit was their sin?

Cain was the serpent seed.Gen1:15. After 7 generations, Cain's descendants and Seth's (the son Adam out of "his kind") intermingled (Gen 6:1-3).
Since then, all men had acquired a fallen nature, had serpentine blood cells.

The blood was stained. Therefore God had to choose BLOOD In his redemption plan as His Own law requires it(Gen 9:6; Exodus 21:23-25) Jesus Christ had to by-pass ordinary human conception and be Virgin Born because the blood of man is sinful (polluted) before God, for God requires only pure innocent blood as atonement for sins.

The erect mammal serpent was the "missing". he was cursed by God to crawl like a snake as punishment.

Mmmmkay.

Robert Byers, the crazy gauntlet has been thrown down. I expect you to rise to the challenge.

idiot babbled: The Bible has the answer! Adam was a son of God, and he was to bring forth sons and daughters of God 'after his kind' There would not be, nor could there be, one bit of Satan's traits, such as lying and murdering In them. Cain was of the evil one (1John3:12). The serpent seduce Eve.(2Corinthians11:1-3) Eating means sexual act( Proverbs 30:20) Eve committed adultery with the Serpent, which was an erect mammal before he wad cursed by God to crawl like snake.(Gen.1:14)

Blood was involved in FALL. The substance, which carried the Satanic traits was the blood gene of the Serpent (who was demonically influenced). Sex must be the gateway onto the fall of man. If sex was not involved in Sin, why did Adam and Eve sew fig leaves together and make themselves apron to cover their nakedness.(Gen 1:7). And why was the female sexual organ cursed by God that her SORROW and CONCEPTION were greatly mutiplied?(Gen3:16) Was not it strange for Adam and Eve to cover their sexual organs instead of their mouth If eating of the forbidden fruit was their sin?

Cain was the serpent seed.Gen1:15. After 7 generations, Cain's descendants and Seth's (the son Adam out of "his kind") intermingled (Gen 6:1-3). Since then, all men had acquired a fallen nature, had serpentine blood cells.

The erect mammal serpent was the "missing". he was cursed by God to crawl like a snake as punishment.

apokryltaros said: are you saying that, when He was making all those food metaphors, He and the Apostles were engaged in a sex orgy?

Not all scriptures were written metaphorically. The curse to the woman was literal and so to Serpent.
The serpent as originally formed Is no longer existing. T

Cain was physically the son of the serpent; but he was vicariously the son of Satan. In the murder of Abel, three devilish traits were manifested in Cain. Read Gen.4:8-9. The murderous or lying nature does not come from God; it comes from Satan (John10:10;11:25; Numbers23:19). Jesus said that Satan "was a murderer from the beginning" and that "he Is a liar. and the father of it"(John8:4) His rebellious nature was manifested in Cain when he defiantly shouted at God, saying "Am I my brother's keeper?"

These traits alone are enough proofs that Cain was not a sonof Adam who was a son God. Gen4:16-2 is the record of Cain's own geneaology. Gen5:6-32 were the descendants of Seth. Compare!

idiot lied: Cain was physically the son of the serpent; but he was vicariously the son of Satan. In the murder of Abel, three devilish traits were manifested in Cain. Read Gen.4:8-9. The murderous or lying nature does not come from God; it comes from Satan (John10:10;11:25; Numbers23:19). Jesus said that Satan "was a murderer from the beginning" and that "he Is a liar. and the father of it"(John8:4) His rebellious nature was manifested in Cain when he defiantly shouted at God, saying "Am I my brother's keeper?" These traits alone are enough proofs that Cain was not a sonof Adam who was a son God. Gen4:16-2 is the record of Cain's own geneaology. Gen5:6-32 were the descendants of Seth. Compare!

1 John 3:12 "We should not be like Cain, who WAS OF THE EVIL ONE and murdered his brother. And why did he murdered him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother's righteous."

aying said: 1 John 3:12 "We should not be like Cain, who WAS OF THE EVIL ONE and murdered his brother. And why did he murdered him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother's righteous."

4 Adam made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, “With the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man.” ² Later she gave birth to his brother Abel.

The devine command to Adam and Eve Is to fruitful and multiply. Adam was a son of God, and he was to bring forth sons and daughters of God "AFTER HIS KIND" unto God. God has placed a law in His creation that the the earth would bring forth the vegetation, fishes, birds, and animals "AFTER THEIR KIND". This phrase is repeated five times in Gen 1(verses 11, 12, 21, 24, 25) To go against this law is to produce something not of its kind. This is a sin in theyes of the Lord God. Adam who was created in the image and likeness of God would not be, nor could there be a bit of Satan's traits in him.

apokryltaros said:

idiot lied: Cain was physically the son of the serpent; but he was vicariously the son of Satan. In the murder of Abel, three devilish traits were manifested in Cain. Read Gen.4:8-9. The murderous or lying nature does not come from God; it comes from Satan (John10:10;11:25; Numbers23:19). Jesus said that Satan "was a murderer from the beginning" and that "he Is a liar. and the father of it"(John8:4) His rebellious nature was manifested in Cain when he defiantly shouted at God, saying "Am I my brother's keeper?" These traits alone are enough proofs that Cain was not a sonof Adam who was a son God. Gen4:16-2 is the record of Cain's own geneaology. Gen5:6-32 were the descendants of Seth. Compare!

So where in the Bible does it specifically state that Cain was the "son of the Serpent"? Oh, wait, it does not say that. You're making shit up.

All life, big and small, good or evil, comes from God (Isaiah45:7. Thus, was able to say that she had "gotten a man from the Lord"(Gen4:1)

The genealogy of a person is traced to the side of the man(the father) why does not the Bible tells us that Adam was the father of all living instead of stating that Eve was the mother of all living.Gen
3:20. And consider why Adam so named the first son of Eve 'Cain'. Cain means acquisition, because he was not of Adam's begotten son; he was merely an acquired son.

The birth right belongs to the firstborn alone(Gen43:33); Why was Cainnot mentioned in the Genealogy of Adam.

Jude 14 states that Enoch was seventh from Adam. If Cain was of Adam, Enoch could not have been the seventh, he should be the counting from Adam. Whoever, nowhere in the Bible is Cain referred to as a son of Adam.

Sexual fornication had its beginning in the Garden of Eden. Since then 'filthy' sex is rampant everywhere. Satan is a perverter and from him sprang three great evils that blanket the whole world today- Sexual perversions, lies and murders. They were found manifested in the land of Eden. Since then, they have been on the increase, with added attributes, in every generation.

Also, in Gen 4:1 states only one act of union between Adam and Eve, but two children were born. Yet, it does not record the two as twins. Whenever "twins" of same father were born they are specifically stated in the scriptures. Read Genesis25:24; 38:27

aying said: All life, big and small, good or evil, comes from God (Isaiah45:7. Thus, was able to say that she had "gotten a man from the Lord"(Gen4:1) The genealogy of a person is traced to the side of the man(the father) why does not the Bible tells us that Adam was the father of all living instead of stating that Eve was the mother of all living.Gen 3:20. And consider why Adam so named the first son of Eve 'Cain'. Cain means acquisition, because he was not of Adam's begotten son; he was merely an acquired son. The birth right belongs to the firstborn alone(Gen43:33); Why was Cainnot mentioned in the Genealogy of Adam. Jude 14 states that Enoch was seventh from Adam. If Cain was of Adam, Enoch could not have been the seventh, he should be the counting from Adam. Whoever, nowhere in the Bible is Cain referred to as a son of Adam. Sexual fornication had its beginning in the Garden of Eden. Since then 'filthy' sex is rampant everywhere. Satan is a perverter and from him sprang three great evils that blanket the whole world today- Sexual perversions, lies and murders. They were found manifested in the land of Eden. Since then, they have been on the increase, with added attributes, in every generation.

SWT said: No, he's not making it up, he's cribbing it from here.

aying said: The Bible has the answer! Adam was a son of God, and he was to bring forth sons and daughters of God 'after his kind' There would not be, nor could there be, one bit of Satan's traits, such as lying and murdering In them. Cain was of the evil one (1John3:12). The serpent seduce Eve.(2Corinthians11:1-3) Eating means sexual act( Proverbs 30:20) Eve committed adultery with the Serpent, which was an erect mammal before he wad cursed by God to crawl like snake.(Gen.1:14) Blood was involved in FALL. The substance, which carried the Satanic traits was the blood gene of the Serpent (who was demonically influenced). Sex must be the gateway onto the fall of man. If sex was not involved in Sin, why did Adam and Eve sew fig leaves together and make themselves apron to cover their nakedness.(Gen 1:7). And why was the female sexual organ cursed by God that her SORROW and CONCEPTION were greatly mutiplied?(Gen3:16) Was not it strange for Adam and Eve to cover their sexual organs instead of their mouth If eating of the forbidden fruit was their sin? Cain was the serpent seed.Gen1:15. After 7 generations, Cain's descendants and Seth's (the son Adam out of "his kind") intermingled (Gen 6:1-3). Since then, all men had acquired a fallen nature, had serpentine blood cells. The blood was stained. Therefore God had to choose BLOOD In his redemption plan as His Own law requires it(Gen 9:6; Exodus 21:23-25) Jesus Christ had to by-pass ordinary human conception and be Virgin Born because the blood of man is sinful (polluted) before God, for God requires only pure innocent blood as atonement for sins. The erect mammal serpent was the "missing". he was cursed by God to crawl like a snake as punishment.

Waiting for FL or IBIG or Byers or SteveP to jump in and tell this idiot that he's an idiot and goin' to hell.

I think I'll have a long wait.

I don't think I have ever seen such an infestation of loonies here. The rationalizations, the projection, the plagiarism, the bible quotes, the lies, the insanity. I think I need to take my brain out and wash it now...

It is discouraging to say the least, to know that there are people out there doing this to their children. Thank you PT residents, for doing your best every day to shine some light on the likes of these fools. I live for the day when reality finally takes precedence over myth.

The Bible is flawless! Romand3:4 "God forbid! Let God be true and man a liar" I believe Science.is the fulfillment of Daniel12:4
" Knowledge shall increase at the end time."Truly, this is being realized in our present day. God permits the development of Science to help us understand the remaining mystery of the Bible, and not to refute His own WORD. The Bible is true, only the wrong interpretations of some make it seemingly wrong. GOD BLESS EVERYONE!

aying said: The Bible is flawless! Romand3:4 "God forbid! Let God be true and man a liar" I believe Science.is the fulfillment of Daniel12:4 " Knowledge shall increase at the end time."Truly, this is being realized in our present day. God permits the development of Science to help us understand the remaining mystery of the Bible, and not to refute His own WORD. The Bible is true, only the wrong interpretations of some make it seemingly wrong. GOD BLESS EVERYONE!

Werewolf Dongle said: Well, we have from the paper:

More recently, a number of related studies have proposed an alternative explanation by which chromosomal rearrangements could reduce gene flow and potentially contribute to speciation by the suppression of recombination (Noor et al. 2001; Rieseberg 2001). According to this "suppressed recombination" model, chromosome rearrangements could have a minimal influence on fitness, but would suppress recombination leading to the reduction of gene flow across genomic regions and to the accumulation of incompatibilities.

Here's the problem--evolutionism demands that their be no incompatibility between humans and monkeys. If there are, how did monkeys have the first baby human? Evolutionism demands perfect compatibility between people and monkeys with all differences between them being the result of culture. Genetic incompatibilities make evolutionism doubtful.