There is no proof that we evolved from apes. Period

the Sunday Telegraph ^ | 9/11/05 | Vij Sodera

[Doc Savage]

The basic problem is that Darwinists don't understand two very important scientific principles. One, mutational change occurs at the molecular level. The vast majority of mutations (deletions, tranlocations, duplications etc,) are lethal. Two, mutations occur at random so that even if the effects of a primary mutation were not lethal, there is no assurrance that there would ever be a secondary mutation let alone that it would "build" upon the primary event.

The mere concept of hundreds / thousands / millions/ of "repetitive" "positive" mutations eventually ending in a complex organism is highly unlikely. Speciation? Yes. But there is NO proof of MacroEvolution across Classes, Orders, or Families.

Doesn't it ever occur to anyone WHY Darwinists are so frightened of anyone offering an alternative theory? WHY they are so petrified of mere ideas? These are people who live in perpetual fear that someone may eventually come along someday and destroy their perfect, godless, secular, egomanaical world,...and wouldn't that just be a shame.......

[JABBERBONK]

Then why are some Black columnists calling the new King Kong movie racist?

[Coyoteman]

Doesn't it ever occur to anyone WHY Darwinists are so frightened of anyone offering an alternative theory?

Because its based on religion, not science?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The vast majority of mutations (deletions, tranlocations, duplications etc,) are lethal."

Not true. Most are neutral.

"Two, mutations occur at random so that even if the effects of a primary mutation were not lethal, there is no assurrance that there would ever be a secondary mutation let alone that it would "build" upon the primary event."

That implies that there is a goal to *build* to. This is not necessary.

"The mere concept of hundreds / thousands / millions/ of "repetitive" "positive" mutations eventually ending in a complex organism is highly unlikely. Speciation? Yes. But there is NO proof of MacroEvolution across Classes, Orders, or Families."

How can you have speciation if you believe that most mutations are deleterious? Why would speciation not eventually end up with new orders, classes, and such? If you have given up the idea of the fixity of species by admitting speciation, what do you say is the genetic stop sign denying higher taxonomic change?

" Doesn't it ever occur to anyone WHY Darwinists are so frightened of anyone offering an alternative theory?"

WE are not the frightened ones. :)

"These are people who live in perpetual fear that someone may eventually come along someday and destroy their perfect, godless, secular, egomanaical world,...and wouldn't that just be a shame......."

There, the REAL reason you fear evolution. :)

[Ichneumon]

Now since we're asking questions here, I wonder if you will tell me how a species evolves to have 23 chromosome pairs in each cell nucleus from some different integral number of pairs over "zillions of years."

Here ya go -- from a prior post of mine:

Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes ---chimps and gorillas have 24 pairs. How many pairs of chromosomes did the "common ancestor" have? Was it 23 or 24 pairs? How do you "evolve" missing or added chromosomes ---that would happen all at one time.

The common ancestor had 24 chromosomes.

If you look at the gene sequences, you'll find that Chromosome 2 in humans is pretty much just 2 shorter chimpanzee chromosomes pasted end-to-end, with perhaps a slight bit of lost overlap:

(H=Human, C=Chimpanzee, G=Gorilla, O=Orangutan)

Somewhere along the line, after humans split off from the other great apes, or during the split itself, there was an accidental fusion of two chromosomes, end-to-end. Where there used to be 24 chromosomes, now there were 23, but containing the same total genes, so other than a "repackaging", the DNA "instructions" remained the same.

If a chimpanzee gives birth to a creature with 23 chromosomes, that offspring isn't going to be a well-formed chimpanzee able to survive well.

It is if the same genes are present, which they would be in the case of a chromosome fusion.

Evolve would imply the genetic material changes little by little --not some big loss of two chromosomes at once but I don't see how they'd go away gene by gene.

Tacking two chromosomes together end-to-end is not a "big loss" of genes, and it really is a "little by little" change in the total genetic code. It's just been "regrouped" a bit. Instead of coming in 24 "packages", it's now contained in 23, but the contents are the same.

So how, you might ask, would the chromosomes from the first 23-chromosome "fused" individual match up with the 24 chromosomes from its mate when it tried to produce offspring? Very well, thanks for asking. The "top half" of the new extra-long Chromosome 2 would adhere to the original chromosome (call it "2p") from which it was formed, and likewise for the "bottom half" which would adhere to the other original shorter chromosome (call it "2q"). In the picture above, imagine the two chimp chromosomes sliding over to "match up" against the human chromosome. The chimp chromosomes would end up butting ends with each other, or slightly overlapping in a "kink", but chromosomes have overcome worse mismatches (just consider the XY pair in every human male -- the X and the Y chromosome are *very* different in shape, length, and structure, but they still pair up).

In fact, the "rubbing ends" of the matched-up chimp chromosomes, adhering to the double-long human-type chromosome, would be more likely to become fused together themselves.

For studies in which recent chromosome fusions have been discovered and found not to cause infertility, see:

Chromosomal heterozygosity and fertility in house mice (Mus musculus domesticus) from Northern Italy. Hauffe HC, Searle JB Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PS, United Kingdom. hauffe@novanet.it

An observed chromosome fusion: Hereditas 1998;129(2):177-80 A new centric fusion translocation in cattle: rob (13;19). Molteni L, De Giovanni-Macchi A, Succi G, Cremonesi F, Stacchezzini S, Di Meo GP, Iannuzzi L Institute of Animal Husbandry, Faculty of Agricultural Science, Milan, Italy.

J Reprod Fertil 1979 Nov;57(2):363-75 Cytogenetics and reproduction of sheep with multiple centric fusions (Robertsonian translocations). Bruere AN, Ellis PM

J Reprod Fertil Suppl 1975 Oct;(23):356-70 Cytogenetic studies of three equine hybrids. Chandley AC, Short RV, Allen WR.

In that last reference, the Przewalski horse, which has 33 chromosomes, and the domestic horse, with 32 chromosomes (due to a fusion), are able to mate and produce fertile offspring.

Meanwhile, the question may be asked, how do we know that the human Chromosome 2 is actually the result of a chromsome fusion at/since a common ancestor, and not simply a matter of "different design"?

Well, if two chromsomes accidentally merged, there should be molecular remnants of the original chromosomal structures (while a chromosome designed from scratch would have no need for such leftover "train-wreck" pieces).

Ends of chromosomes have characteristic DNA base-pair sequences called "telomeres". And there are indeed remnants of telomeres at the point of presumed fusion on human Chromosome 2 (i.e., where the two ancestral ape chromosomes merged end-to-end). If I may crib from a web page:

Telomeres in humans have been shown to consist of head to tail repeats of the bases 5'TTAGGG running toward the end of the chromosome. Furthermore, there is a characteristic pattern of the base pairs in what is called the pre-telomeric region, the region just before the telomere. When the vicinity of chromosome 2 where the fusion is expected to occur (based on comparison to chimp chromosomes 2p and 2q) is examined, we see first sequences that are characteristic of the pre-telomeric region, then a section of telomeric sequences, and then another section of pre-telomeric sequences. Furthermore, in the telomeric section, it is observed that there is a point where instead of being arranged head to tail, the telomeric repeats suddenly reverse direction - becoming (CCCTAA)3' instead of 5'(TTAGGG), and the second pre-telomeric section is also the reverse of the first telomeric section. This pattern is precisely as predicted by a telomere to telomere fusion of the chimpanzee (ancestor) 2p and 2q chromosomes, and in precisely the expected location. Note that the CCCTAA sequence is the reversed complement of TTAGGG (C pairs with G, and T pairs with A).

Another piece of evidence is that if human Chromosome 2 had formed by chromosome fusion in an ancestor instead of being designed "as is", it should have evidence of 2 centromeres (the "pinched waist" in the picture above -- chromosomes have centromeres to aid in cell division). A "designed" chromosome would need only 1 centromere. An accidentally "merged" chromosome would show evidence of the 2 centromeres from the two chromosomes it merged from (one from each). And indeed, as documented in (Avarello R, Pedicini A, Caiulo A, Zuffardi O, Fraccaro M, Evidence for an ancestral alphoid domain on the long arm of human chromosome 2. Hum Genet 1992 May;89(2):247-9), the functional centromere found on human Chromosome 2 lines up with the centromere of the chimp 2p chromosome, while there are non-functional remnants of the chimp 2q centromere at the expected location on the human chromosome.

As an aside, the next time some creationist claims that there is "no evidence" for common ancestry or evolution, keep in mind that the sort of detailed "detective story" discussed above is repeated literally COUNTLESS times in the ordinary pursuit of scientific research and examination of biological and other types of evidence. Common ancestry and evolution is confirmed in bit and little ways over and over and over again. It's not just something that a couple of whacky anti-religionists dream up out of thin air and promulgate for no reason, as the creationists would have you believe.

[editor-surveyor]

" There's considerable variance between skulls, if my half-century of day-to-day observation of the passing parade of fellow humans is any guide."

That's a fact. Have you ever seen Duane Gish in profile view? I'm sure that when they find his skull they'll fill volumes on the 'early hominid' skull found :o)

[bvw]

Looks like a normal case of cranial deformation.

As can be any of the small number of skulls in your photographic progression. Not very scientific a presentation that. Exactly at the level of anecdotal. Evidence of something, but it is the narrative you and the producer of that photo series want us to take take on faith. To do so we would be accepting anecdote.

[editor-surveyor]

"What about the missing Link? Wasn't that proved to be a hoax?"

All the links are missing. the idea of any linkage is definately a hoax. Look at coyoteman's skull picture for example; anyone that sees anything other than a collection of unrelated skulls there is seriously deluded, and in need of mental help.

[Revolting cat!]

[LiteKeeper]

talkorigins.org is the home of anti-Christian, anti-creation propaganda.

True Origins was created to answer and refute Talk Origins.

[webstersII]

" Doesn't it ever occur to anyone WHY Darwinists are so frightened of anyone offering an alternative theory?"

Maybe because they are afraid of losing their guaranteed gov't job (i.e., tenured college professors).

[editor-surveyor]

"To any so called 'fundamentalists:' please prove me wrong. But you must provide rational argument"

If you understood God's stated plan of salvation, and the reason for it's existance, you would not be making such a needless request. Study the word and understand the plan and all else will fall into place. If this makes no sense to you, then disregard it, because the plan is not for you. Simple??

P.S. God did specifically state that evolution didn't happen. He said that all creatures reproduce according to their own kind. That prevents evolution from destroying his creation. The genetic code is what God provded to stop evolution from happening.

[editor-surveyor]

"Your medical doctors today are just pill pushers with a portfolio"

And that is giving them the benefit of the doubt.

[Fintan]

 

[Coyoteman]

That's cute! Good use of available material, nice satire.

Here's a couple more cuties. See what you can do with these.

---

Herto skulls (Homo sapiens idaltu)

Some new fossils from Herto in Ethiopia, are the oldest known modern human fossils, at 160,000 yrs. The discoverers have assigned them to a new subspecies, Homo sapiens idaltu, and say that they are anatomically and chronologically intermediate between older archaic humans and more recent fully modern humans. Their age and anatomy is cited as strong evidence for the emergence of modern humans from Africa, and against the multiregional theory which argues that modern humans evolved in many places around the world.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/herto.html

[editor-surveyor]

"Because its based on religion, not science?"

That's exactly right, evolution is 100% religion, and rejects the most important element of science: objective gathering of all the evidence.

[ml/nj]

I'm not impressed, the supposed similarities notwithstanding.

You fail to address my central point which is that when the "ancestor" with 24 pairs gave birth to a 23 pair animal, that 23 animal had to be able to mate with members of the 24 population (unless you are supposing that two 23s were born at nearly the same time and found each other). So for a while at least the 23 and 24s were biologically compatible (i.e. the same species). Over a long time supposedly the 23 and 24 went their separate ways, I guess you want to tell us. But if this really takes a long time, and if similar processes continue today, which I think you also want us to believe, then we should see numerous species with mixed chromosome counts. But we don't.

ML/NJ

[thomaswest]

Ovulation versus cretinism

Two different theories exist concerning the origin of children: the theory of sexual reproduction, and the theory of the stork. Many people believe in the theory of sexual reproduction because they have been taught this theory at school.

In reality, however, many of the world's leading scientists are in favour of the theory of the stork. If the theory of sexual reproduction is taught in schools, it must only be taught as a theory and not as the truth. Alternative theories, such as the theory of the
stork, must also be taught.

Evidence supporting the theory of the stork includes the following:

1. It is a scientifically established fact that the stork does exist.
This can be confirmed by every ornithologist.

2. The alledged human foetal development contains several features that the theory of sexual reproduction is unable to explain.

3. The theory of sexual reproduction implies that a child is approximately nine months old at birth. This is an absurd claim. Everyone knows that a newborn child is newborn.

4. According to the theory of sexual reproduction, children are a result of sexual intercourse. There are, however, several well documented cases where sexual intercourse has not led to the birth of a child.

5. Statistical studies in the Netherlands have indicated a positive correlation between the birth rate and the number of storks. Both are decreasing.

6. The theory of the stork can be investigated by rigorous scientific methods.
The only assumption involved is that children are delivered by the stork.

http://www.antievolution.org/features/evohumor/storkism.html

[thomaswest]

Two different theories exist concerning the origin of children: the theory of sexual reproduction, and the theory of the stork. Many people believe in the theory of sexual reproduction because they have been taught this theory
at school.

In reality, however, many of the world's leading scientists are in favor of the theory of the stork. If the theory of sexual reproduction is taught in schools, it must only be taught as a theory and not as the truth. Alternative theories, such as the theory of the stork, must also be taught.

Evidence supporting the theory of the stork includes the following:

1. It is a scientifically established fact that the stork does exist.
This can be confirmed by every ornithologist.

2. The alledged human fetal development contains several features that the theory of sexual reproduction is unable to explain.

3. The theory of sexual reproduction implies that a child is approximately nine months old at birth. This is an absurd claim. Everyone knows that a newborn child is newborn.

4. According to the theory of sexual reproduction, children are a result of sexual intercourse. There are, however, several well documented cases where sexual intercourse has not led to the birth of a child.

5. Statistical studies in the Netherlands have indicated a positive correlation between the birth rate and the number of storks. Both are decreasing.

6. The theory of the stork can be investigated by rigorous scientific methods.
The only assumption involved is that children are delivered by the stork.

(Original version by Erkki Aalto, Dept. of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Stork
Science, University of Helsinki ---
English version by Jopi Louko, Institute of Stork Research,
University of Alberta)
http://www.antievolution.org/features/evohumor/storkism.html

[Phsstpok]

Wow. I knew you were out there. Either end of the irrational spectrum could have sprung up, but you were first.

You owe a very big apology to God for restricting him to what your feeble mind is capable of understanding. Most of His children are able to get beyond the 14th century and a few irrational French Popes, but you seem to be in love with them, instead of God's creation.

Reality. What a concept.

Reality does not contradict God. Only flawed peoples inability to understand reality, which He created, after all.

The genetic code is what God provded (SIC) to stop evolution from happening.

And you base this on what revelation in His word? Reverend Jim doesn't count.

God is bigger than you, and bigger than you can imagine. Do not limit His reach and His truth. You only do injury to yourself and to those you proselytize to falsely.

And to His plan not being for me? His plan is for all of his creation. With or without your limited mind.

Is that simple enough for you?

Get right with God before you challenge others, for you clearly have no idea what He is capable of, nor what He intends for us.