Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Genetic Recombination Study Defies Human-Chimp Evolution (article)
Institute for Creation Research ^ | May 31, 2013. | Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.

Posted on 06/05/2013 8:25:10 AM PDT by fishtank

Genetic Recombination Study Defies Human-Chimp Evolution by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. *

Results from a recent study in human and chimpanzee genetics have shipwrecked yet another Darwinian hypothesis.1 Genetic recombination is one of the key events that occur during the production of egg and sperm cells, and secular scientists have long thought it to be a major driver of human and ape evolution.

When sperm and egg cells are formed in humans and various animals, the process of meiosis generates genetic variation. For example, since humans have two sets of chromosomes, when similar ones (i.e., sister chromatids)–one each from your mother and father—pair up together in the cell, they undergo a controlled exchange of DNA segments (maintaining the same linear order of segments). This is one reason why the offspring of two parents are always genetically unique, except for identical twins where the fertilized egg cell splits into two identical embryos. This process of exchanging DNA segments across sister chromatids is called genetic or homologous recombination and does not occur randomly across the genome, but most often occurs in areas called “hotspots.”2

Evolutionists have speculated for years that genetic recombination is one of the key mechanisms generating mutations and resulting in new genes and regulatory DNA sequences. They claim that this process facilitates some sort of mystical evolutionary tinkering and shuffling mechanism.

The problem with this idea is the fact that genetic recombination is now being shown to be a highly regulated and controlled cellular process. It is limited to specific hotspots and directed away from the key regulatory parts of the genome that are critical for gene regulation.3,4 Unless something goes wrong with the process, recombination typically allows for variations in non-vital traits while protecting core-cellular processes. If this process was not precisely arranged and expertly controlled, severe damage to the genome would result and sexual reproduction would not be possible.

A recent study, published in the journal Molecular Biology and Evolution, evaluated various regions of the chimpanzee and human genomes for genetic recombination frequency by determining the DNA variability (differences) within large populations of both humans and chimpanzees.1 The researchers found that genetic recombination levels were much higher in regions of the genome between humans and chimps where sequence identity was higher. In the regions of much lower DNA similarity, which occur as differences in gene order, gene content, and other major DNA sequence differences—the recombination rates were much lower.

Interestingly, the authors also searched the DNA sequences between humans and chimpanzees for sections that were “flipped” in their orientation, called inversions. Large inversions, once they occur in a species and if they are tolerated, will stop recombination. However, the researchers found that inverted sequences accounted for very few differences in the regions they examined.

These results are the exact opposite of what evolutionists expected. According to evolutionary reasoning, the chromosomal areas between humans and chimps that were the most different should have had high levels of genetic recombination that would help explain why they were so different. But these chromosomal areas that were the most different between humans and chimpanzees had the lowest levels!

More recombination equals more evolutionary differences right? Apparently not!

Once again, new scientific data has falsified a prominent evolutionary hypothesis. While this study failed to uphold the hypothetical predictions of evolution, it did vindicate the now well-established fact that genetic recombination is a highly regulated, and complex bio-engineered feature that helps create variability in just the right areas of the genome.

Other recent research has shown that the human and chimpanzee genomes are radically different.5 And now this new study has demonstrated that these differences are not due to a mythical evolutionary tinkering and shuffling process associated with genetic recombination, but because humans and chimps were created separately and uniquely.

References

Farré, M. et al. 2013. Recombination Rates and Genomic Shuffling in Human and Chimpanzee—A New Twist in the Chromosomal Speciation Theory. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 30 (4): 853-864.

Smagulova, F. et al. 2011. Genome-wide analysis reveals novel molecular features of mouse recombination hotspots. Nature. 472 (7343): 375–378.

Tomkins, J. 2012. Gene Control Regions Are Protected--Negating Evolution. Posted on icr.org June 11, 2102, accessed May 17, 2013.

Brick, K. et al. 2012. Genetic recombination is directed away from functional genomic elements in mice. Nature. 485 (7400): 642-645.

Tomkins, J. 2013. Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70%. Answers Research Journal. 6 (2013): 63-69.

* Dr. Tomkins is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research and received his Ph.D. in Genetics from Clemson University.

Article posted on May 31, 2013.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: creation; dna; recombination

Image from ICR article.

1 posted on 06/05/2013 8:25:10 AM PDT by fishtank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fishtank

To bad it has ‘Creation’ in its moniker. That is an immediate repellent.


2 posted on 06/05/2013 8:29:48 AM PDT by Dudoight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

bm


3 posted on 06/05/2013 8:37:52 AM PDT by Para-Ord.45 (t ask the BIG question,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

[[the process of meiosis generates genetic variation.]]

But ONLY WITHIN specieis specific parameters- No new infromation is beign ‘created’

[[resulting in new genes and regulatory DNA sequences.]]

Bzzzzt- Nope- No NEW genes, only altered genes that can ONLY be altered withing strict species specific parameters

[[The problem with this idea is the fact that genetic recombination is now being shown to be a highly regulated and controlled cellular process]]

Hmmm- Whoda thunk it? Almostl ike it’s intelligently designed just for that particular species

[[Unless something goes wrong with the process, recombination typically allows for variations in non-vital traits while protecting core-cellular processes.]]

Which is precisely why I keep harping on ‘species specific paramters’- the FACT is that each species has several intelligently designed layers of species specific paramters which protect it from foreign ‘invasions or manipulations’ (that’s not to say that parasitic species can not invade and live in a symbiotic atmosphere, but symbiotic coexistence is NOT Mega-Evolution). Each species has layers of protection that prevent their DNA from beign altered beyond what can be tolorated by the species, and any attempts to break thsoe bariers results in the breakdown of the system of hte species and is not conducive to life— (Think organ transplant- even when two of hte same kind of species share organs, it can only be doen so under strict interlligently designed and controlled circumstances ie: Anti-rejection drugs and close monitoring

[[If this process was not precisely arranged and expertly controlled, severe damage to the genome would result and sexual reproduction would not be possible.]]

That just summed up what I’ve been sayign for years

[[These results are the exact opposite of what evolutionists expected.]]

Hmmm- whoda thunk it? Oh yeah- Intelligent Design scientisits had been sayign that for years- Well, at least the secular scientists were honest enough to admit that hwat htey foudn didn’t fit their preconceived belief abotu mega-evolution

[[While this study failed to uphold the hypothetical predictions of evolution, it did vindicate the now well-established fact that genetic recombination is a highly regulated, and complex bio-engineered feature that helps create variability in just the right areas of the genome.]]

Almost as if... Gasp.... An Intelligent Designer was needed to order such highly complex bio-engineering... Nah- couldn’t be... had to be the all powerful supernatural mother nature

[[Other recent research has shown that the human and chimpanzee genomes are radically different.5 And now this new study has demonstrated that these differences are not due to a mythical evolutionary tinkering and shuffling process associated with genetic recombination, but because humans and chimps were created separately and uniquely.]]

I imagine htat when everyoen stands before God, off to the side will be a big red lettered sign stating “No folks, primates did not evolve into people- My people Tried to tell ya- but you wouldn’t listen- I wish ya had”


4 posted on 06/05/2013 8:47:20 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Frankly it is somewhat difficult for me to imagine what it would take scientifically for the one on the right to become the one on the left. More like impossible than difficult.


5 posted on 06/05/2013 8:48:55 AM PDT by wita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

What the evolutionist cannot answer they will ignore.


6 posted on 06/05/2013 8:53:57 AM PDT by count-your-change (you don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wita

[[More like impossible than difficult]]

Brother, you have no idea how impossible it is- it is so impossible that it isn’t even possible, that’s how impossible it is-

Seriously- the odds against even the very beginnings- the most basic and ‘simple’ evoltutionary leaps from chemicals to protiens, is so impossible that there isn’t even hte slightest tiniest chance that it coudl have happened (and scientists in pittspberg convention HAD to come to the conclusion that it was NOT possible because the scientific facts do NOT support mega-evolution)- once you get beyond a certain number mathematically when calculating odds, there is no logner any chance that a change coudl have happened, and the mathematical odds facign even ONE ‘simple’ Evolutionary change at the most ‘basic levels’ of the hypothesis of evolution totally shatter that line of impossibility with a number so large, it’s hard to even visualize it

So yeah- evoltuion is way way beyond merelty difficult, it’s biologicaly impossible, mathematically impossible, chemically impossible and it also vioaltes natural laws. It’s not only impossible for just one leap from chemicals to protiens, but the steps of eovlution would have had to have nubmered in the trillions- that means the ‘evolving species’ woudl have had to overcome impossible odds, not just once, but trilliosn of times as it evolved into all the various species we have today-

One impossible ‘simple’ event in evolution is hard enough to accept- but now we’re to accept that nature over came impossible odds trillions of times? And the evolutionists accuse Creationists and Intelligent Design scientists of believign in mythological fairy tales? At least our faith is placed in an Intelligent SUPERNATURAL DEsigner who has proved Himself over and over again to us, and not in some suppsoed unthinking sueprnatural mother nature that somehow beat tremendous impossible odds to arrive at the variety of life we have and know today


7 posted on 06/05/2013 9:01:36 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
evoltutionary leaps from chemicals to protiens

Are you counting on everyone being ignorant of the difference between evolution and abiogenesis?

8 posted on 06/05/2013 9:07:21 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

“According to evolutionary reasoning, the chromosomal areas between humans and chimps that were the most different should have had high levels of genetic recombination that would help explain why they were so different. But these chromosomal areas that were the most different between humans and chimpanzees had the lowest levels!”

No. What this says is that mutations in protected areas are more likely to be retained than those in areas subject to recombination.


9 posted on 06/05/2013 9:21:31 AM PDT by VanShuyten ("a shadow...draped nobly in the folds of a gorgeous eloquence.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

[[Are you counting on everyone being ignorant of the difference between evolution and abiogenesis?
]]

apparently you ignored the rest of my post (Per usual- )Abiogensis is just ONE problem- EVEN IF you discount life startign from chemicals- and EVEN IF you allow that God may have ‘started life as what? A blob? A fish? A Worm?” you will STILL be faced with trilliosn of impossbile steps alogn hte way-

But of course you needed to totally disregard everythign else I said and just isolate oen small part of my psot in order to try to ‘refute’ what I said- Typical-


10 posted on 06/05/2013 9:32:57 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

They claim that this process facilitates some sort of mystical evolutionary tinkering and shuffling mechanism.

I was more in line with sure, it IS mystical evolutionary tinkering. I’ve read a book that said so!

Psalms 139:13-16 (ESV)

For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
Wonderful are your works;
my soul knows it very well.
My frame was not hidden from you,
when I was being made in secret,
intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
in your book were written, every one of them,
the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there was none of them.

Some folks attribute it to “evolution” - “pure chance” - “random luck”, and claim to be brilliant.

Others claim not to know where to attribute it.

Me? As for me and my house, we’ll serve the Lord.


11 posted on 06/05/2013 9:54:32 AM PDT by ro_dreaming (Chesterton, 'Christianity has not been tried and found wanting. It’s been found hard and not tried')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

[[Are you counting on everyone being ignorant of the difference between evolution and abiogenesis? ]]

And by the way- MANY scientists beleive life started from chemicals- Were you countign on people being ignorant of that fact when you threw out a red herring as your ‘rebuttle’?

here’s a neat idea- how about actually takign the precepts I laid out and refutign them with coutner facts?
For instance Mathemeticians have concluded it is scientifically impossible that evoltuion coudl have overcoem impossible odds- that’s a FACT- several scietific symposiums/meetings have taken place and come to thsoe conclusions- I’m NOT statign anythign that isn’t o nthe record- IF you have proof mega-evolution coudl have violated thsoe odds- then let’s see it-

Biologists have stated that species have several built in layers of protectiosn that PREVENT an alterign of their cells beyond species specific parameters (the layers don’t just make it hard, they PREVENT it from happening) IF you have evidence to refute that- let’s see it-

- IF you have If you beleive nature coudl have overcoem trillions of odds, show some scientific proof that it could have- or if you think the basis of this htread’s precepts that recombination throws a monkey wrench into the ‘primate to man’ evolutio ntheory is wrong, how about showing some evidence that refutes that? The thread was kind enough to show you soem evidence that scientists have discovered that what they thought turns out to be incorrect, but all you seem to be cotnent to do is htrow red herrings out while ignorign the key points- perhaps you think peopel will be distracvted long enough to ignore the rest of my posts by tryign htese tired out diversionary tactics, but I doubt it-


12 posted on 06/05/2013 9:57:56 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
apparently you ignored the rest of my post

It started out so badly it was painful to continue.

I notice you never did, and I'm assuming you never will answer that question.

You want me to believe that it must be an "either-or" proposition - that it's not possible for God to have created life with the ability to evolve, and I'm not going to do it.

13 posted on 06/05/2013 10:08:51 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ro_dreaming

[[Some folks attribute it to “evolution” - “pure chance” - “random luck”, and claim to be brilliant.]]

Hittign hte lottery, with it’s mere 1 in 500,000,000 chance (or whatever low odds it is) is ‘random luck’ and is a possibility- even a small one- Evoltution violating natural law, and reating NEW non species specific information is so far beyond random luck, even for just one event to happen, is so far beyond random luck that it simply isn’t possible- never mind the fact that this impossible process had to happen not just once or twice, or even a few dozens times, but thsi impossible feat had to happen over and over and over again, trillions of times-

Brother, that’s a WHOLE lotta faith goign on if we’re to beleive a midnless entity such as mother nature coudl violate it’s own laws over and over and over again, and beleive that it coudl simpyl ignore the impossible, and create the diversioty of life we see today

Some think that when organisms were smaller, ‘in their infancy’ so to speak, that they were simpler to ‘alter via mutation’ however, as we delve deeper and deeper into molecular biology, we see that things begin to get very complex and complicated, and we see just hte reverse, MORE design, not less- We discover what was ocne thought to be ‘simple’ turns out to be quite complex

[[DNA is the famous molecule of heredity that carries the code of life—an altogether remarkable biopolymer (polynucleotide). As expected, the more research that is conducted on the DNA molecule, the more complexity it divulges.1]]

http://www.icr.org/article/6393/

(And YES, this is fro mthe same site, however, you can finsd htis same scietific info andm ore on ‘secular’ science sites too)


14 posted on 06/05/2013 10:10:34 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Pride in the USA; Stillwaters

oops


15 posted on 06/05/2013 10:15:54 AM PDT by lonevoice (Today I broke my personal record for most consecutive days lived)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

[[I notice you never did, and I’m assuming you never will answer that question]]

there’s no need to- you took my post out of context and tried to make it appear as though there was only one beleif in evolution that life had to start from chemicals- that was the whole basis of your ‘rebuttle’? Wow- I’ll refer you to my previous post to you as you seem unwilling to address the facts IN CONTEXT- and I expaliend to you that EVEN IF you allow that God began the process of mega evolution- it is STILL IMPOSSIBLE- It doesn’t matter where you begin the process- You can beleive God created Monekys and just let nature take over from there- it’s still impossible

[[It started out so badly it was painful to continue.]]

i see yopu are swtil lgoign to play the game of ignoring the facts and leading the conversation down one rabbit trail after antoher- IF you don’t care to show the following, then conversation is over with you- not itnerested i nyour silly little games- however, IF you care to address any of the points below, then I’ll be more than happy to discuss the issue- if not- then whatever- everythign I’ve said stands on it’s own merrits:

here’s a neat idea- how about actually takign the precepts I laid out and refutign them with coutner facts?
For instance Mathemeticians have concluded it is scientifically impossible that evoltuion coudl have overcoem impossible odds- that’s a FACT- several scietific symposiums/meetings have taken place and come to thsoe conclusions- I’m NOT statign anythign that isn’t o nthe record- IF you have proof mega-evolution coudl have violated thsoe odds- then let’s see it-

Biologists have stated that species have several built in layers of protectiosn that PREVENT an alterign of their cells beyond species specific parameters (the layers don’t just make it hard, they PREVENT it from happening) IF you have evidence to refute that- let’s see it-

- IF you have If you beleive nature coudl have overcoem trillions of odds, show some scientific proof that it could have- or if you think the basis of this htread’s precepts that recombination throws a monkey wrench into the ‘primate to man’ evolutio ntheory is wrong, how about showing some evidence that refutes that? The thread was kind enough to show you soem evidence that scientists have discovered that what they thought turns out to be incorrect, but all you seem to be cotnent to do is htrow red herrings out while ignorign the key points- perhaps you think peopel will be distracvted long enough to ignore the rest of my posts by tryign htese tired out diversionary tactics, but I doubt it-


16 posted on 06/05/2013 10:17:09 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
I expaliend to you that EVEN IF you allow that God began the process of mega evolution- it is STILL IMPOSSIBLE-

The problem is, you didn't explain anything. All you did was spout your personal opinion as if it were self-evident truth. In order to be able to say it's impossible you must first understand everything about and know every possible outcome that is possible. Neither you nor anyone else understands it well enough to be able to say that.

17 posted on 06/05/2013 10:27:07 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Its finger snappin’ time.


18 posted on 06/05/2013 10:27:49 AM PDT by Allen In Texas Hill Country
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

A thank you bookmark.


19 posted on 06/05/2013 10:28:08 AM PDT by frog in a pot ("To each according to his need..." This from a guy who never had a real job and his family starved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

20 posted on 06/05/2013 10:29:29 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Maybe it is because Chimps and humans are “mature”species.


21 posted on 06/05/2013 10:35:46 AM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dudoight
Only to those who are so allergic to reality hate pops up when it manifests.
22 posted on 06/05/2013 10:53:42 AM PDT by American in Israel (A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish mans heart directs him toward the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Tactic- I played your game a year ago- took me awhile- but I caught on- I did infact explain the FACTs- if you don’t wish to address them- the by all means don’t- but if you’re goign to play your little games here- forget about it

[[gravel, rocks, boulders, stones, cobble, water, strea, brook, creek, trees, forrest, woods, wilderness]]

Hmmm- hyou might wanna tell that to the scioentists that met at several meetigns over the yeasrs that came ot these same conclusiosn thenm- Bet they’ll get a good laugh too-

[[Neither you nor anyone else understands it well enough to be able to say that.]]

Lol- Still not goign to address the quesitosn with anythign credible eh? Oh well- whatever- As I said- since you don’tcare to discuss anythign other than saying “Nuh Uh”- then there’s no point discussing it further with you- If you insist on playign sillyl ittle games, I’ll oblige by returnign the favor


23 posted on 06/05/2013 11:21:13 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
You aren't "playing my game". My first rule is that you don't try to pass dogma off as "FACTs".

Your endless proseletizing masquerading as "science" does no service to religion or science. It makes a mockery of both.

24 posted on 06/05/2013 11:31:48 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

These results are the exact opposite of what evolutionists expected.


So the evidence doesn’t support the theory. They say they will go where the evidence leads them. All the information and biological machinery points to intelligent design, but they won’t go there.


25 posted on 06/05/2013 11:45:34 AM PDT by PeterPrinciple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Tactic- I’ll say it again- scientists gave thsoe FACTS- not me- so please refrain from FALSELY claiming i am spiouting dogma- if you can’t at least be the slightesdt bit honest in your ‘discussions’ then I must ask, what is your objkective? I ASKED YOU TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT THOSE SCIENTISTS WERE WRONG AND all you come back with is what you just wrote? Apparently you aren’t goign to- so pleasse stop stalking thsoe who don’t beleive in evolution- I’ve watched your posts for many years now, and you NEVER offer ANY sort of evidence and simply attack thsoe who present arguments relentlessly dfespite their repeated requests that you refraIN from doing so and address the issues-

NOTHING I said was prostelizing- Everythign I mentioend is backed up by secular scientists- Hell- even this thread was a result of secular scientists who were baffled that what they foudn didn’t support their beleif- I asked you to address that topo and you refused- The only one makign a mockerty of science is you tactic- you Never offer anythign but petty little insults- you are liek a heckler cruising htreads looking for creationsits to attack- and quite frankly it;s gettign old


26 posted on 06/05/2013 3:11:24 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: PeterPrinciple

I will give you one more chance to answer the quesitosn I asked, to provide the evidence to refute the assertions that SCIENTISTS made- and remember, repeated dodging and avoidance whiel simpyl insulting htose that present evidence you don’t like just further makes a mockery of science on your part- -

how about actually takign the precepts I laid out and refutign them with coutner facts?
For instance Mathemeticians have concluded it is scientifically impossible that evoltuion coudl have overcoem impossible odds- that’s a FACT- several scietific symposiums/meetings have taken place and come to thsoe conclusions- I’m NOT statign anythign that isn’t o nthe record- IF you have proof mega-evolution coudl have violated thsoe odds- then let’s see it-

Biologists have stated that species have several built in layers of protectiosn that PREVENT an alterign of their cells beyond species specific parameters (the layers don’t just make it hard, they PREVENT it from happening) IF you have evidence to refute that- let’s see it-

- IF you have If you beleive nature coudl have overcoem trillions of odds, show some scientific proof that it could have- or if you think the basis of this htread’s precepts that recombination throws a monkey wrench into the ‘primate to man’ evolutio ntheory is wrong, how about showing some evidence that refutes that? The thread was kind enough to show you soem evidence that scientists have discovered that what they thought turns out to be incorrect, but all you seem to be cotnent to do is htrow red herrings out while ignorign the key points- perhaps you think peopel will be distracvted long enough to ignore the rest of my posts by tryign htese tired out diversionary tactics, but I doubt it-


27 posted on 06/05/2013 3:13:42 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

aND JUST so you know- Science coems up with facts all the time despite your insistence that it doesn’t- Courts weigh evidence to coem up with facts all the itme despite your petty assertion that they can’t because ‘they don’t know everythign there is to know ever’- And when soemthign is impossiblem, it’s impossible- you can kick and scream about it all you like, but the fact remains, when somethjign is impossible, it’s impossible- Again, this isn’t MY dogma- this is a fact that is supported by science- Science also supports the idea that life gets very complex in the microbiology department- not simpler- and the fAXCT is that species have several build in species specific layers of protection that prevent a evoltuion- Again, these are facts whether youl iek it or not- and they arern’t my factsd as you so snidely suggested either-

So againm, I’ll ask that you at least try to be honest in your discussion- and stop throwign crap out which is a blatant lie- thanks


28 posted on 06/05/2013 3:20:31 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

sorry peterprinciple- that post was meant for tactic logic- I clicked the wrong reply by mistake-


29 posted on 06/05/2013 3:21:17 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
I’ll say it again- scientists gave thsoe FACTS-

Then you need to find better "scientists".

I repaeat - the only way you can say definitively that something is impossible is to be able to understand the process well enough to demonstate what all the possible outcomes are, and prove that isn't one of them. Nobody has that kind of knowlege or understanding of the process. If they did, we wouldn't still be doing research.

What is it about that you can't understand?

30 posted on 06/05/2013 3:21:36 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

[[I repaeat - the only way you can say definitively that something is impossible is to be able to understand the process well enough to demonstate what all the possible outcomes are, and prove that isn’t one of them.]]

you rweally don’t udnerstand science do you?

[[Nobody has that kind of knowlege or understanding of the process.]]

Hmmm- Guess we shoudl throw out all our court’s decisiosn and let everyoen out of prisons then then because by your wierd logic, nooen can ever be convicted again because ‘all the possible combinations of variables can’t be known-

Cripes-

[[Then you need to find better “scientists”.]]

LOL- stil lgoign to avoid providing evidence eh? Yiour ‘Nuh Uh’s’ are gettign comical


31 posted on 06/05/2013 3:24:22 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
Science coems up with facts all the time despite your insistence that it doesn’t-

Okay. Show us where I've said science doesn't come up with facts.

Didn't your Momma ever teach you not to lie?

32 posted on 06/05/2013 3:26:43 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
LOL- stil lgoign to avoid providing evidence eh? You're ‘Nuh Uh’s’ are gettign comical

Your the one claiming to have answers. Now you expect me to cough up the evidence for you, and you say I'm the one who doesn't understand science. Where did you learn this stuff?

33 posted on 06/05/2013 3:35:14 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

I believe in micro-evolution. The darwin finches, for example, changed beak shape depending on available food sources. I do not believe in macro-evolution, cross speciation changes.


34 posted on 06/05/2013 4:19:00 PM PDT by ro_dreaming (Chesterton, 'Christianity has not been tried and found wanting. It’s been found hard and not tried')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ro_dreaming

Microevolution is a fact- a verifiable fact- a scientificalyl proven fact- Marco-Evolution is a beleif in the impossible as proven out by science-

Demski has mathematically proven that any odds more than 10 to the 150’th power is impossible, can’t happen- regardless of any variables not known- The odds of Mega-evolution happening is 10 to the 4,478,296’th power- and again, this is just for one single cell evolving by chance-


35 posted on 06/05/2013 8:06:02 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

I don’t think your argument is with me. The evidence does not support the theory of evolution. A good scientist will then go back and examine their theory. The evidence points to God but they will not go there...................

If all the time and resources were spend on discovering the design instead of trying to prove there was not a design, think about how much further along we would be. Same for global warming. If all that time money effort could only be spent on solving real problems.


36 posted on 06/06/2013 6:19:37 AM PDT by PeterPrinciple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: American in Israel

Sorry if I offended you, but ‘creationists’ have given a bad name to Christianity. Dinosaurs and homo sapiens did not roam the earth hand in hand because the earth was ‘created’ 6 thousand years ago.

To disbelieve the Creationist’s presentation is not blasphemous! God must be laughing. LOL!


37 posted on 06/06/2013 6:48:34 AM PDT by Dudoight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

So, you’re saying I’m right.

Got it.


38 posted on 06/06/2013 7:54:01 AM PDT by ro_dreaming (Chesterton, 'Christianity has not been tried and found wanting. It’s been found hard and not tried')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: PeterPrinciple

[[If all the time and resources were spend on discovering the design instead of trying to prove there was not a design, think about how much further along we would be.]

That’s a goodp oint- instead of cosntantly trying to discount that htere is design, tryign to discover how that design operates would open up the door to many discoveries one woudl think- It’s kinda l ike someone who desperately needs insulin and a vial of it sits right smack dab i nthe middele of hte table, but hte person states that it can’t possibly be insulin and frantically searches every place else for soemthign that is right in front of them-


39 posted on 06/06/2013 8:16:24 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Dudoight

[[Sorry if I offended you, but ‘creationists’ have given a bad name to Christianity.]]

So in other words- Christians that beleive God’s word are givign Christianity a bad name? alrighty then


40 posted on 06/06/2013 8:26:14 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ro_dreaming

yes, my post was both to you in confirmation for what you stated, but also to htose who keep insisting there’s no credible scientific evidence that macro-evoltuion is impossible- there’s actually a lot of scientific evidence that it’s not possible, not even remotely possible


41 posted on 06/06/2013 8:28:59 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

in the bible, God clearly tells us that THROUGH ADAM Death entered the world, He did NOT state that through evolving animals, Death entered the world. ‘Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned’ (Romans 5:12).

Before the fall of man, there was no death because htere was no sin- but in theistic evolution, there HAD to be death and sin before the fall unless oen is to beleive that animals as they were evolving didn’t die for billions of years until Adam eventaully evovled- The only way to reconcile evoltuion with hte bible to come up witrh theistic evolution is to deconstruct God’s word, and to once again beleive i nthe impossible- that life could have gone on without death which is a result of sin for billions of years awaiting the evoltuion of man so that man coudl then sin and cause death to begin- Either that or “God didn’t really mean that Adam was the the cause of death and sin-” (once again beign forced to decosntruct God’s word i norder to fit into a theistic evolutionary belief system)

26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28And God blessed them, and God said to them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth. …

Man and animal, created together- but to believe Theistic evolution, once again we MUST deconstruct God’s word aND disbelieve His word as beign an accurate historical account of the creation week In other words, we must convince ourselves “God said it but didn’t really mean it, and hte apostles and Christ and the prohpets all said it too, but htey too didn’t really mean it”


42 posted on 06/06/2013 9:27:28 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

So...God’s word is the earth was created 6000 years ago, man and dinosaurs hand in hand.

Sorry, haven’t found that in the Bible!


43 posted on 06/07/2013 6:33:44 AM PDT by Dudoight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Dudoight

[[Sorry, haven’t found that in the Bible!]]

Really? It’s pretty clear right in the begining of God’s word- Did man bring sin in the world or not? (Hint, God says he did) Is death caused by sin accordign to God (Hint- God says it is)

It’s funny you ‘don’t find it in the bible’ when it coems to six day creation, (Even thoguh there is plenty of evidnece it had to be six days) Yet you are more than willign to accept swomethign htat isn’t the bible and has NO evidence to back it up- that God took billions of years to evolve species or that dinosaurs lived for millions of years before man came on the scene-

But whatever- The truth is right therre for you to either accept or reject- it’s pretty clear which you’ve chosen


44 posted on 06/07/2013 8:18:39 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson