Proof evolution is wrong

Originally posted by RJHinds
No. Because if you will look close at my OP, I use species in a restrictive sense and not in the broad sense that you wish to use it. The species I am referring to is cat, dog, horse, man, monkey, etc. -- not tiger, lion, leopard, panther, etc.

Hard to see the "restricted sense" of species leaping off that OP when I checked.

Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong

There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible.

When did you get the privilige to announce that well established words are to have a new meaning? How can anyone have an informed and meaningful conversation on terms like that?

Nobody ever claimed Man could evolve from a monkey in the way you imply. They say instead that Man and monkeys share a common ancestor. Very different statement. And there are many intermediates in the ancestral lines of both Man and monkeys (modern ones) before you reach that common ancestor. Evolution does not happen in the way you object to it happening!

Originally posted by finnegan
Hard to see the "restricted sense" of species leaping off that OP when I checked.

[quote]Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong

There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully w ...[text shortened]... u reach that common ancestor. Evolution does not happen in the way you object to it happening!

I am not making my own defintion, but am restricting it to the standrard definiton and not as others like twhitehead might use.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/species
spe·cies

noun

1. a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind.

2. Biology . the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

As I pointed out the chromosome count of lions and tigers is 38.

P.S. The cat has 38 chromosomes.
http://www.chromosome18.org/AboutGenetics/BasicGenetics/tabid/117/Default.aspx

YouTube

Originally posted by finnegan
Hard to see the "restricted sense" of species leaping off that OP when I checked.

[quote]Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong

There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully w ...[text shortened]... u reach that common ancestor. Evolution does not happen in the way you object to it happening!

The quoted argument caught my interest. There is strong evidence that at some point two ape chromosomes fused, and that fusion is preserved in humans. This is why we have only 46 (23 pair) and other apes have 48 (24 pair). But how could the new, 23-pair ancestor reproduce with his or her 24-pair contemporaries? I found a good explanation of the answer.

The whole article is well worth reading. If you want the specific part that shows that an ancestor with 23 pairs can breed with a 24-pair mate, search for "Robertsonian", 2nd match from page top.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/09/15/luskins-ludicrous-genetics/

So, the argument that beings with differing number of chromosomes cannot mate is false. (As well as the argument that the chromosome count is fixed!)

Originally posted by SwissGambit
The quoted argument caught my interest. There is strong evidence that at some point two ape chromosomes fused, and that fusion is preserved in humans. This is why we have only 46 (23 pair) and other apes have 48 (24 pair). But how could the new, 23-pair ancestor reproduce with his or her 24-pair contemporaries? I found a good explanation of the answer.
...[text shortened]... hromosomes cannot mate is false. (As well as the argument that the chromosome count is fixed!)

I don't even have to consider that any more because this kid will have to be refuted first because he has just chopped off the head of the Goliath giant of evolution. So evolution is dead.

Proof the Earth is about 6000 years old:

YouTube

A modern young David slaying the Goliath of evolution.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I don't even have to consider that any more because this kid will have to be refuted first because he has just chopped off the head of the Goliath giant of evolution. So evolution is dead.

Proof the Earth is about 6000 years old:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L72h2R4FO0k

A modern young David slaying the Goliath of evolution.

Now you can retire from the forum. 😀

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Now you can retire from the forum. 😀

Not until you evolutionists accept defeat.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

Originally posted by RJHinds
Not until you evolutionists accept defeat.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

I already put up my answer to that BS video. You entered it here in at least 3 posts. I think no matter what we refute you will just come up with more BS video's, not having an original thought in your head, your brain self cauterized by your blind faith in those things not even in the bible and the 6 day creation story, that was copied from the ancient Egyptians who made up that BS tale several thousand years before Jews glommed on to it and tried to make it sound like their god inspired all that patent BS.

So not even your religion is original. All copied, all plagiarized. Pathetic, actually.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I already put up my answer to that BS video. You entered it here in at least 3 posts. I think no matter what we refute you will just come up with more BS video's, not having an original thought in your head, your brain self cauterized by your blind faith in those things not even in the bible and the 6 day creation story, that was copied from the ancient Egy ...[text shortened]... BS.

So not even your religion is original. All copied, all plagiarized. Pathetic, actually.

This is all from speculation. Give me some solid proof.

Originally posted by RJHinds
This is all from speculation. Give me some solid proof.

I already told you. You need to take your alzheimer meds.

You are not the only one to actually leave the US.

I saw the 6 day creation myth in a 6000 year old cartouche where it was drawn out day by day. It is in the Cairo museum, I recommend anyone to go and see it. And guess what. There wasn't even a mention of Jews or Christians.

Plagiarized religion, second hand god. Pathetic really.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I already told you. You need to take your alzheimer meds.

You are not the only one to actually leave the US.

I saw the 6 day creation myth in a 6000 year old cartouche where it was drawn out day by day. It is in the Cairo museum, I recommend anyone to go and see it. And guess what. There wasn't even a mention of Jews or Christians.

Plagiarized religion, second hand god. Pathetic really.

Those other people got their information about God and creation handed down from generation to generation and it got distorted along the way. On the other hand, Moses received the information directly from God and wrote it down. So whose story is more likely to be accurate or at least more accurate?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Those other people got their information about God and creation handed down from generation to generation and it got distorted along the way. On the other hand, Moses received the information directly from God and wrote it down. So whose story is more likely to be accurate or at least more accurate?

Neither one since the 6 day creation story is just that, one of many many stories and this one from ancient Egypt. With a thousand creation tales out there, you cannot say yours is inspired by some god or other, it's just one of many. BTW, why do you say it was distorted along the way since you don't even know the history of your own creation myth?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Neither one since the 6 day creation story is just that, one of many many stories and this one from ancient Egypt. With a thousand creation tales out there, you cannot say yours is inspired by some god or other, it's just one of many. BTW, why do you say it was distorted along the way since you don't even know the history of your own creation myth?

Adam walked and talked with God and knew about the creation. Obviously, he would not keep something like that a secret from the next generation, etc. Then we have Noah, who God talked to and at least instructed him to build the ark. I would expect Noah to know about the creation story and pass it on to the next generation and so on until the peoples languages were confounded by God and they were scattered over the Earth and distorting the story along the way. Then God (the pre-incarnate Christ) returned to free the Israelites from Eqyptian slavery. Moses was instructed by God and surely God would have corrected any distortion about the creation that had arisen when He spoke to Moses for so long on the top of that mountain in Saudia Arabia. I think the Moses creation account would be more reliable.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Adam walked and talked with God and knew about the creation. Obviously, he would not keep something like that a secret from the next generation, etc. Then we have Noah, who God talked to and at least instructed him to build the ark. I would expect Noah to know about the creation story and pass it on to the next generation and so on until the peoples langu ...[text shortened]... p of that mountain in Saudia Arabia. I think the Moses creation account would be more reliable.

Bleat Bleat Bleat Bleat Bleat Bleat, that's all you are capable of.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Bleat Bleat Bleat Bleat Bleat Bleat, that's all you are capable of.

I see you do not like the truth. Why is that?
Maybe it is because you need a Savior.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I see you do not like the truth. Why is that?
Maybe it is because you need a Savior.

Still more Bleat Bleat Bleat. You are a one trick pony, pure and simple, but mostly simple.