Creationists such as Muslim are often heard squeaking that 'macroevolution + common descent have not been observed', hence 'there is no evidence for it', and that it is 'not real science'. Therefore evolution and Creationism are on equal footing.

When presented with such evidence which demonstrates evolution, and smashes Creationism (until Creationists pull a dozen ad hocs out of their ass), Creationuts flee like rats from a sinking ship. The next day, they pop up on another 'ship' (aka. thread) and squeak the same old song. "No evidence, not observed, all based on blind faith, blah blah blah."

I wish to demonstrate the Creationist's method of operation here in this thread, by posing Muslim with the Chromosome challenge. I've adapted it from Scigirl's great post here: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=116447

which is merely drawing on this source:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

and added a highly relevant picture from another source: http://webpages.charter.net/rufusatticus/YunisFig2.GIF

Now, without further ado... the Chromosome Challenge!!! *drumroll*
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Chromosome Challenge

In the lab, scientists have determined that chimpanzees have 24 chromosomes in their sperms and eggs, whereas humans only have 23.

Therefore, these 'evolutionists' theorized that two of our chromosomes might have fused together sometime in the recent past (aka million years ago.)

Their theory made 3 predictions:

1) One of our chromosomes would look like two of the chimp chromosomes stuck together.

2) This same chromosome would have an extra sequence in it that looked like a centromere. Centromeres are the things in the middle that microtubules grab onto to divide a pair of chromosomes during mitosis.

3) It would also have telomeres (ends) but in the middle - and they would be in reverse order. Sort of like this:

ENDchromosomestuffDNEENDchromosomestuffDNE

See the "DNEEND" in the middle? That's what two telomeres would look like if two chromosomes were stuck together.

The 'evolutionists' decided to test these predictions (so much for the Creationut claim that evolution theory doesn't make useful predictions!)

To test prediction 1, know that chromosomes all have a unique banding pattern. A "fingerprint." To test 2 and 3, you need sequence data. Telomeres and centromeres have characteristic DNA sequences.

What did those scientists find:

H=human, C=chimp, G=Gorilla, O=orangutan.

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom_2.gif

“ The second prediction - remnants of the 2p and 2q centromeres is documented in reference 4. The normal centromere found on human chromosome 2 lines up with the 2p chimp chromosome, and the remnants of the 2q chromosome is found at the expected location based upon the banding pattern. ”

and

“ 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. ”

Also note that the similarities do not stop at the 2nd chromosome, they can be found throughout the karyotype.

http://webpages.charter.net/rufusatticus/YunisFig2.GIF

To summarize, chimps have 24 chromosomes in sperm/eggs, while humans have only 23 chromsomes in sperm/eggs.

If chimps and humans share a common ancestor, you would expect that one of the human chromosomes would have the properties and sequencing of two of the chimp chromosomes which 'fused' together. Basically, all the technical jargon in the article explains what these properties are (existence of telomeres, order of genetic sequence, etc). When scientists compared the chimp and human chromosomes, one of the human chromosomes DOES INDEED have the sequence, and properties, of what we would expect two particular chimp chromosomes (2p and 2q) to have if they fused together.

Now the ball is in your court, Muslim. Here is very powerful evidence that human and chimps share a recent common ancestor, but also a very well supported explaination of how humans and chimps branched out from that common ancestor. Our 'human ancestor' had his two chromosomes fused, which altered gene expression in ways to change body plans, whereas our 'chimp' cousin did not have his two chromosomes fused.

Clear the water, audience! I have a nasty feeling that the rats are about to jump ship! But not before they hurl out ad hominems, non-sequitors, smokescreens, strawmen and red herrings! The last time I posted this, a certain poster (Einstuck) engaged solely in 'poisoning the well' fallacy. "Scientists are evil and corrupt. We can't trust their results and conclusions, waa waa waa."

Not once in my entire life have I seen a Creationist address the EVIDENCE of the chromosome challenge. Just attack the scientists, or the poster who made the challenge.

A Designer World is Neither Confirmed nor Disconfirmed by Science
http://nrcse.creighton.edu/DesignerWorld.html

The problem with evolution is that it is all supposition -- this evolved into this -- but there is no evidence."
"Lots of scientists question evolution, but they would lose their jobs if they spoke out."
"There really is not a lot of evidence for evolution,"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/03/AR2006020300822.html


but on the other side of the coin evolution theory fits the available evidence.
but that does not mean it's actually true.

sorry mountainhare, i know i'm not muslim but i had to respond.
and the reason being that there is biological evidence for why we believe in a god
doesn't it strike you as odd that such a thing would evolve?

A Designer World is Neither Confirmed nor Disconfirmed by Science
http://nrcse.creighton.edu/DesignerWorld.html

The problem with evolution is that it is all supposition -- this evolved into this -- but there is no evidence."
"Lots of scientists question evolution, but they would lose their jobs if they spoke out."
"There really is not a lot of evidence for evolution,"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/03/AR2006020300822.html


but on the other side of the coin evolution theory fits the available evidence.
but that does not mean it's actually true.

sorry mountainhare, i know i'm not muslim but i had to respond.
and the reason being that there is biological evidence for why we believe in a god
doesn't it strike you as odd that such a thing would evolve?


There is really a LOt of evidence for evolution.

leopold:

A Designer World is Neither Confirmed nor Disconfirmed by Science
http://nrcse.creighton.edu/DesignerWorld.html

Precisely. Intelligent design is not falsifiable, hence it is not a valid scientific theory. Unfalsifiable explainations are by their very nature useless ("The magic invisible unicorn causes my car to accelerate, not the combustion of petrochemicals), which is why they aren't accepted in a court of law.


The problem with evolution is that it is all supposition -- this evolved into this -- but there is no evidence."
"Lots of scientists question evolution, but they would lose their jobs if they spoke out."
"There really is not a lot of evidence for evolution,"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6020300822.html

A few selective quotations from one individual doesn't amount to evidence. I've provided solid evidence for common descent in this thread, which you conveniently have FAILED to address.

Also, may I point out that you need to read your article in depth? I'll give you hint... the tone changes drastically from page 3 onwards. Apparently Crocker isn't a reputable source...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/03/AR2006020300822_3.html


Crocker's arguments are part of a familiar litany of half-truths and errors, said Alan Gishlick, a research affiliate at the National Center for Science Education. The Miller-Urey experiment was not intended to be evidence for evolution but part of a research program into how biological mechanisms might arise from nonbiological chemical reactions. As for gluing moths to trees, Gishlick said, researcher Kettlewell affixed the moths to trees to determine how birds spot moths of different hues. The photos were illustrations and never meant to be depictions of real life.

"They put us in a position that we have to defend things that don't need defending, and then they come back and say, Why are you defending things that we know are wrong?" Gishlick told me, his voice rising.
...
"Anyone who chooses not to believe in evolution is ignorant, stupid or insane," said Dawkins, professor of public understanding of science at Oxford University.



but on the other side of the coin evolution theory fits the available evidence.
but that does not mean it's actually true.

Evolution is a fact. It is undisputed in the scientific realm. The scientific theory of evolution addresses the mechanisms through which evolution occurs.


sorry mountainhare, i know i'm not muslim but i had to respond.

You haven't responded. You haven't addressed the chromosome challenge. Instead, you've totally derailed the thread, and engaged in selective quotations.

When will someone address the CHROMOSOME CHALLENGE, instead of insinuating that there is some sort of global conspiracy? "Waa waa waa, conspiracy, bias, no evidence. Boo hoo hoo." Yes, there is no evidence, which is why the first post in this thread of mine presented damning evidence... right?


and the reason being that there is biological evidence for why we believe in a god

I'd ask you for this evidence, but it's completely irrelevant to the thread. Once again, address the chromosome challenge, or don't even bother replying.

Mountainhare, that doesn't prove anything. God created all the animals and humans, so it is possible that the way chromosomes are is just the pattern that is needed to create a chimpanzee, or a human. The fusion of chromosomes could quite possibly be caused by the will of God.Evolution is a fact. It is undisputed in the scientific realm. The scientific theory of evolution addresses the mechanisms through which evolution occurs. Evolution is not fact so please stop saying something is a fact when it isn't! Evolution requires genetic deformity to occur: i.e. every now and then a new species will be born and if this is true why has it never been observed, today, that a primate gives birth to a human? There is also the matter of the missing-link: why aren't there primate-human hybrids walking the Earth today? This is because the theory of evolution is precisely that; a theory. Also there is the fact (and this is a fact) that humans give birth to their infants with an umbilical cord attached, where primates do not. How is this explained by evolution theory?

Spectrum:

Mountainhare, that doesn't prove anything.

By itself? Perhaps not, although it is extremely strong evidence, even by itself. However, when other multiple, independent lines of evidence from various scientific fields are combined with the chromosome challenge, it becomes quite apparent that evolution is a fact.


God created all the animals and humans, so it is possible that the way chromosomes are is just the pattern that is needed to create a chimpanzee, or a human. The fusion of chromosomes could quite possibly be caused by the will of God.

Excellent. Creationists use this argument every time, and it highlights their ignorance, and the intellectual vacousity of their position.

Evolution specifies that observed similarities have a 'nested hierarchy' (ergo. particular pattern). Essentially, similiarity by itself is not used to conclude that two organisms have a common ancestor, any more than a hole in an individuals chest is assumed to be due to a bullet. However, if the hole bears of the traits of a gunshot wound, and residue is found around the wound, then a gun assault is inferred.

Quite simply, evolution stresses that there is just one pattern of similarities, and no other. Creation allows for the existence of that pattern of similiarities. But wait... it also allows for OTHER patterns of similarities. In fact, it allows for any observation whatsoever. Essentially, creationism is unfalsifiable.

However, evolution is potentially falsifiable, and better yet, it provides a set in stone explaination for why we observe such a pattern. Creationism does not. Creationism is useless as a scientific theory, or even a metaphysical explaination.

The brilliance of the Chromosome Challenge is that it puts Creationists in a difficult position. THIS ISN'T JUST ABOUT SIMILARITY!!! Not only do one of our chromosomes look like two chromosomes, it also is quite clear that they have been 'welded' together. The 'genetic weld point' is quite clearly present in the form and placement of the telomeres and centromeres.

Evolution theory specifies that patterns of similarity follow a nested hierarchy. The scientists in the chromosome challenge then used this rule to extrapolate that since humans have 23 chromosomes, whereas other primates have 24, then one of our ancestors 2 chromosomes must have undergone a fusion event in the past when they diverged from the other primate species. Lo and behold, that is what they discovered when they observed the evidence. Creationism can't adequately explain why God would use a nested pattern of similarity, whereas evolution can.

Evolution = 1 billion. Creationism = 0.

mountainhare
i noticed you never answered the question as to why there is biological evidence for belief in a god.

leopold:

mountainhare
i noticed you never answered the question as to why there is biological evidence for belief in a god.

That's right, I never answered it. And I explained why. Obviously you're a little slow, so I'll try quoting my previous post:


I'd ask you for this evidence, but it's completely irrelevant to the thread. Once again, address the chromosome challenge, or don't even bother replying.


Try asking me your question in a different thread. This thread is devoted to the chromosome challenge. Do you wish to address the challenge?

Evolution is not fact so please stop saying something is a fact when it isn't! Evolution requires genetic deformity to occur: i.e. every now and then a new species will be born and if this is true why has it never been observed, today, that a primate gives birth to a human? There is also the matter of the missing-link: why aren't there primate-human hybrids walking the Earth today?

Perhaps you should learn something about the facts you so easily reject, instead of bleating out nonsense statements that merely make you look the fool.

Evolution requires genetic deformity to occur: i.e. every now and then a new species will be born and if this is true why has it never been observed, today, that a primate gives birth to a human?
genetic 'deformities' occur in every new organism, that much is obvious. it is not that "every now and then a new species will be born," but rather, when a nich becomes available for a certain species, it will tend to adapt better to that environment. creationists and many other people ignorant to the theory of evolution think that it is random, when it is not. a human will never pop fully formed from an ape, if that is what you were looking for as proof, that is just absurd. evolutionary change occurs in more gradual changes, though it is possible for an animal to have very different looking offspring (which i'm sure has been documented somewhere, even if not as evolution).

There is also the matter of the missing-link: why aren't there primate-human hybrids walking the Earth today? This is because the theory of evolution is precisely that; a theory. Also there is the fact (and this is a fact) that humans give birth to their infants with an umbilical cord attached, where primates do not. How is this explained by evolution theory?
why aren't there primate-human hybrids? because we're using up all the resources; apes have taken up all the environment they can, we have taken up all the environment we can. a human-ape hybrid would have to be born out of a change in gene recombination. which means that the population of apes would have to be drastically changed in someway (near extinction, or relocation) for their genes to be reorganized such as to produce a human-like offspring. that is how we evolved in the first place. its already taken place, what are the chances that it will happen just the same as it did before? our evolution isn't just some random occurence, there were direct causes for why we adapted thus.

how is the umbilical cord explained? i'm not an expert on this, but probably because our brains are bigger and we need a more constant feeding tube of nutrients and oxygen while in the womb.

I was strolling by this thread and thought I'd stop in to clear up some misconceptions.

Mountainhare, that doesn't prove anything. God created all the animals and humans, so it is possible that the way chromosomes are is just the pattern that is needed to create a chimpanzee, or a human.

Firstly: your assumption that God created the humans and animals is unrooted. Totally. The Cathars of the 12th century said Satan created the world and the animals and little green apples, too (which is a major reason they used to not have sex, stopped eating meat, abandoned Catholicism and sometimes went around castrating themselves; which are very extreme ways to get back at your parents for not buying you a genuine "Sword of Roland" from the passing friar stand). Are they correct then? The Gnostics (when they're not in an entranced catatonic state from endlessly interpreting the folds and surfaces of their navels) believe the same thing; or at least some of them do, if the moon is right, midway before sundown of Tuesday last, but don't quote them on that. Anyway, let's lay off the unrooted proclamations. An "if" would be good here.

The fusion of chromosomes could quite possibly be caused by the will of God.

Or little green men from Zebulon: see "Gnostic" comment above. Again, it could be - but we don't know that. You're asking for the invocation of magic instead of using your (presumably) God-given senses.

Evolution is not fact so please stop saying something is a fact when it isn't!

Evolution, I regret to say, is the change in gene frequency over generations, and as such is very much a fact. Our following interpretations in this matter are no more different than physicists and chemists who propose very grand and complex theories to ensure that they a) get grant money, b) ensure their continuing fame and importance and c) never get laid. I might add that our systems are more complex because we're working with living things that add new and unexpected randomness into our equations because of their ongoing predilection for struggling, oozing and biting while you're trying to do something as simple as sticking them with a needle. (I mean, honestly.)

But the fact of the matter is that evolution is occurring, and it is decidedly not neutral in all cases, even where molecular ecologists like to pretend it is so that they can rush out into the field and collect their data, finish their theses (which sounds a lot like "feces") and submit to high-profile, timely publications like the Journal of Heredity or the South African Journal of Zoological Nutrition without ever having to consider the effects of substrate bias from selection, or brush their teeth in an actual bathroom.

Evolution requires genetic deformity to occur: i.e. every now and then a new species will be born and if this is true why has it never been observed, today, that a primate gives birth to a human?

I can't say whether or not evolution requires genetic deformity to occur; honestly, I've never even met your mother. :D I'm here all week, folks: tip your waitress.

Puns aside - evolution doesn't require it (again, changes in gene frequency), and it's not necessarily "deformity". Would you call humans a deformity, if the presumption is that our origin is of other primates?

There is also the matter of the missing-link: why aren't there primate-human hybrids walking the Earth today?

The simple answer? First off, we don't seem to be "hybrids" of anything, but rather chimps who've had a fusion between two acrocentric chromosomes, some sequence divergence, a change in upright posture, some strategic shaving, and subscriptions to basic cable. Moutain's link isn't meant to mean that we're hybrids, but rather derived forms who had an ancestral chromosome fusion. Essentially, we're talking fusion first, sequence modification probably later and Ultimate Fighting Champion(hopefully) last.

You could ask where the intermediate forms went - the simple answer would be "we killed them off". The human tree is filled with lots of dead ends, and the span of human habitation with unquiet, out-of-the-way graves. For example, the Neanderthals, like most large dumb animals (recent commercials noted and excepted), were probably out-competed by our more direct ancestors. Heck, even 10,000 years ago we had giant animals in Australia and North America. Then Homo sapiens showed up and probably thought what great throw-rugs they'd make. The rest is ancient history.

This is because the theory of evolution is precisely that; a theory.

Evolution itself is not really a theory so much as mathematic fact via changes in allelic frequencies for one or another reason (drift, selection, etc.). The fact of selection - i.e. the change in allelic frequencies from fitness, implying differences in allelic effects at given loci and thus phenotype-genotype correlation

Also there is the fact (and this is a fact) that humans give birth to their infants with an umbilical cord attached, where primates do not. How is this explained by evolution theory?

You realize of course that primates also have an umbilical cord? Anyway, you might as well ask why we are taller than chimps, or - or some of us anyway - have less hair than them, or better tastes in literature.

Geoff

I might add this:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/birth.htm

"Early rupture of the membranes is also common in breeches, and since the fetus does not fit fully in the pelvic brim, prolapse of the umbilical cord may result. Probably the greatest danger is that the head cannot be easily compressed in a breech delivery, and it may be held too long by the pelvic outlet, resulting in hypoxia in the fetus. When the fetus experiences the rapid cooling of its lower body upon emergence, attempts at breathing may begin; asphyxia and aspiration of amniotic fluid are likely outcomes. This is apparently what often happens in breech deliveries in nonhuman primates." ~ Wenda R. Trevathan, Human Birth, (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1987), p. 92

Anyway, you might as well ask why we are taller than chimps, or - or some of us anyway - have less hair than them, or better tastes in literature.Although we should give credit to that masterful historical and literary work The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon. :)

Aha! A gibbon! Need I say more?

Geoff

Wow, Geoff....Impressive post!

Spectrum,

God created all the animals and humans, so it is possible that the way chromosomes are is just the pattern that is needed to create a chimpanzee, or a human. The fusion of chromosomes could quite possibly be caused by the will of God.
Or it could've been caused by the evil leprechaun in my closet who gave me a note that tells me to burn things.

Evolution is not fact so please stop saying something is a fact when it isn't!
Evolution is fact. Even if you think it isn't.

Evolution requires genetic deformity to occur: i.e. every now and then a new species will be born [...]
HAHAHA!

No.

Evolution requires genetic mutations to occur, meaning, every now and then an organism is slightly different genetically from the organisms that begot it. If the genetic mutation allows the organism to survive long enough to reproduce, then that mutation is passed on to its offspring. If their inherited mutation in turn allow them to survive long enough to reproduce, then they too pass on the mutation.

Soon, within the population of that organism's species, you have a smaller population of organisms (let's call it A) with the mutation, in contrast to the other smaller population (B) without that mutation. For reasons that the theory of evolution explains, A starts developing more genetic mutations and thereby starts to diverge genetically from B.

A becomes its own species when its mutations accrue to the point that members of A either will not mate with members of B or cannot have fertile offspring when they do mate with them.

It's a gradual thing – gradual as in, it progresses by continuous minor degrees.

[...] and if this is true why has it never been observed, today, that a primate gives birth to a human?
Because only an ignorant lout would think that's what evolution means. Remember: it's a gradual thing.

There is also the matter of the missing-link: why aren't there primate-human hybrids walking the Earth today?
You can't very well have a primate-human hybrid when humans are primates. :bugeye:

This is because the theory of evolution is precisely that; a theory.
Yeah, just like the theory of gravity is precisely that: a theory.

Learn to differentiate the phenomenon from the theory. There is a phenomenon where species gradually change from generation to generation and become new species. Now that phenomenon has to be explained. That's when the theory comes into play.

The definition of a theory is "a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena". You can find that in pretty much any dictionary. The theory of evolution is a set of statements devised to explain the phenomenon of evolution. That set of statements has been repeatedly tested, and it still holds up. And it's widely accepted by the scientific community and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena, as it has been used in this chromosome challenge.

Mountainhare, this is a lovely thread. Thanks for sharing the challenge with all of SciForums. :cool:

Spectrum:

There is also the matter of the missing-link: why aren't there primate-human hybrids walking the Earth today?

I'm going to be late to my lecture, but I couldn't resist replying to your comment with this:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v113/SoulofVoorhees/hominids2.jpg

Please explain this image. Which skulls are 'human', and which skulls are 'monkeys'?

This ought to be good. :D

WHOOOOOO Mountainhare! I believe the score is about 1000 : 0 with this^ post.

just to state the obvious:

if evolution does not exist then neither do you. if evolution does not exist, then explain why you are not an exact clone of one of your parents? every time any lifeform reproduces sexually, the offspring is an evolved form of the parents, as their DNA has evolved to create your own.

It looks like its N.

I would like to clear something up: I have been insulted and ridiculed by posters for writing that a primate must give birth to a human for evolution to produce us. I know that evolution is a gradual prosess, but mutations/deformities must occur, and, as Athelwulf wrote, this means that ...every now and then an organism is slightly different genetically from the organisms that begot it. So, either there is/are (a) missing link/s, or primates began to give birth to humans. :) It's a gradual thing – gradual as in, it progresses by continuous minor degrees. I understand that Athelwulf. Posted by GeoffP
You could ask where the intermediate forms went - the simple answer would be "we killed them off". What about the precious fossil record where so many of your 'facts' are recorded? There should be fossils showing intermediate forms, and (possibly) evidence for the cause of their death (blow to the head, knife marks on the bone etc.). So, you believe that murder is a biological urge? Why didn't early primates kill off their parents? Why don't all creatures kill off their creators/ancestors?? If this was the case then there would be none of us here! Posted by Vslayer
If evolution does not exist then neither do you. If mass murder is a fact then none of us should be here.
There is also present the ability of humans to speak, where primates cannot. How many genetic mutations do you think would have to occur for this possibility to arise?? :)

Spectrum:

What about the precious fossil record where so many of your 'facts' are recorded? There should be fossils showing intermediate forms,

Apparently you're blind, illiterate, ignorant or stupid. Or perhaps all 4. Once again:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v113/SoulofVoorhees/hominids2.jpg

I think N is the only human. What does this prove exactly??

Spectrum:

I think N is the only human. What does this prove exactly??

*sigh*
It's frustrating when a Creationist feigns obtuseness. I love how you only address skull N, without even mentioning the 13 other skulls.

Let's try again. This time, no question dodging.

Which skulls are 'human', and which skulls are 'monkey'?

And, since you gave a half reply, I might as well address it. Why did you classify A to M as "not human" whereas you classified N as "human"?
What criteria did you use?
You can't assert that N is human, whereas M is not, without first highlighting the major characteristics which differentiate them. What magical characteristics does N have that magically bestow it the title of 'human', which the 13 other skulls do not have?

How do you explain the diagram? Do you agree that there is only one obvious inference one can draw from it?

Is the correct answer that all are spurious monkeys? In effect none of them are monkeys?

I would like to clear something up: I have been insulted and ridiculed by posters for writing that a primate must give birth to a human for evolution to produce us. I know that evolution is a gradual prosess, but mutations/deformities must occur, and, as Athelwulf wrote, this means that So, either there is/are (a) missing link/s, or primates began to give birth to humans. :) I understand that Athelwulf. What about the precious fossil record where so many of your 'facts' are recorded? There should be fossils showing intermediate forms, and (possibly) evidence for the cause of their death (blow to the head, knife marks on the bone etc.).
fossils are rarely formed and only under the right geological circumstances. a lot of the animals that have died have not become fossils. also, imagine the amount of land in which these fossils could be hidden on earth. now imagine how much land only a few hundred archeologists have uncovered.

So, you believe that murder is a biological urge? Why didn't early primates kill off their parents? Why don't all creatures kill off their creators/ancestors?? If this was the case then there would be none of us here! If mass murder is a fact then none of us should be here.
There is also present the ability of humans to speak, where primates cannot. How many genetic mutations do you think would have to occur for this possibility to arise?? :)
they did not kill their parents for the same reason you do not kill your parents. but they did kill others of their kind for the same reason that we still have wars today. "If this was the case then there would be none of us here!" that is exactly why it wasn't the case, or at least the way you see it. now, you should know that there are still wars on this planet. why should it be so hard to imagine that there were wars so long ago, then? also, it was largely a matter of taking up space and food supply back then, so the tribe that was the winner would get the habitat, and the other would have to leave, most likely to starve and die. such is survival of the fittest. if they did not kill, then they would die.

primates do speak. you just don't understand it the way you understand our language. its similar in that they are both composed of sounds and motions. they can get ideas across, though primitive, but that doesn't matter because they can't really think of much more. we are able to talk because we evolved more complex vocal cords which allowed for a more diverse range of sound. this was obviously and advantage to be able to communicate better.

its not a matter of how many mutations it takes for this to happen. we don't even know the method by which mutations are selected for, if at all. evolution is an extraordinarily complex process.

Thank you mountainhare for this interesting thread.

I think that the chromosome challenge, while plausible, is incomplete.
It doesn't explain in details how a 24-primate becomes a 23 one.
It's like asking how the human species continues after Cain and Abel.

I remember that mule, offspring of a horse and a donkey, is sterile.
So I tried to dig up some material regarding the step from 24 to 23.
In wiki's mule page, I found that there are recorded cases, reliability unknown, of fertile mules.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule

In its common modern meaning, a mule is the offspring of a male ass and a female horse. Compare hinny — the offspring of a male horse and a female donkey.

The chromosome match-up more often occurs when the jack (male donkey) is the sire and the mare (female horse) is the dam. It has been known for people to let a stallion (male horse) run with a jenny (female donkey) for as long as six years before getting her pregnant. Mules are always sterile, as almost all hinnies are. (see External links). The sterility is attributed to the different number of chromosomes the two species have: donkeys have 62 chromosomes, while horses have 64. Their offsping thus have 63 chromosomes which cannot evenly divide.

Red = my emphasis. An interesting choice of words.

Another note: zebras have 46.

So I suggest the following scenario:

Once upon a time, there were only the 24-primate on earth.
By mutation or whatever reason, a primate gave birth to an offspring (or more)
where two chromosomes joined to form one. The resulting 23 thingy (not yet human)
managed to reproduce a number of other 23 thingies. Ugly as it may seem, this new species multiply and prosper through incest and inbreed.
Then, gradual evolution continued as the way we know and eventually our species was born.

That picture above: from what dates are the skulls thought to be from and why?

I think N is the only human. What does this prove exactly??
Oh for the love of god!!!!! Is this some sort of act you’re putting on, or are you really that willfully ignorant?

What it demonstrates is that the fossil record DOES contain different transitional forms between ape and modern human, the very transitional forms you requested to be shown in one of your posts on this page. There they are right in front of you – not all of them human, not all of them ape, yet all of them different.

Are we learning yet? :bugeye: <P>

moutainhare, this is a very good picture, can you provide some explanation of the pictures, maybe a link so we can read background information on this?

spectrum, I believe you have a good point and agree completely with your point.

I myself believe that for life to be created, there does not have to be a species before it to evolve from.

Look at the whole foundation of the theory of evolution that organic molecules and phospholipids formed from reactions catalyzed by metals which evolved into acting process, which turned to unicellular organisms, which were consumed by other molecules to form multicellularorganism.

Peace.

Am Not A Creationist, I Never Said I Was Infact I Believe In Evolution. So Stop Making Lies Against Me.

Look at the whole foundation of the theory of evolution that organic molecules and phospholipids formed from reactions catalyzed by metals which evolved into acting process, which turned to unicellular organisms, which were consumed by other molecules to form multicellularorganism.


That's not the foundation for the theory of evolution.

Evolution is a fact. It is undisputed in the scientific realm. The scientific theory of evolution addresses the mechanisms through which evolution occurs.


this statement by itself makes you unable to continue talking about this. evolution is a THEORY, not an indisputable fact.

In the scientific world, a theory is basically a fact that is still being developed upon. Evolution <i>is</is> an undisputed fact among scientists. It is only considered a thoery amongst laymen and the religious.

Diamond:

moutainhare, this is a very good picture, can you provide some explanation of the pictures, maybe a link so we can read background information on this?

No.
First, I want an explaination for why both Spectrum and you as to:

Why did you classify A to M as "not human" whereas you classified N as "human"?
What criteria did you use?
You can't assert that N is human, whereas M is not, without first highlighting the major characteristics which differentiate them. What magical characteristics does N have that magically bestow it the title of 'human', which the 13 other skulls do not have?


The Devil Inside:

this statement by itself makes you unable to continue talking about this. evolution is a THEORY, not an indisputable fact.

No. Evolution is both a fact, and a theory.

Nice work mountainhare, good thread.

The top jaws on A through to G are too elongated to be a human skull, as the rear of the skull protrudes too far backwards. The same is true of H through to M (the back of the skull protrudes too much), but N looks to be closest to a human (if it in fact is). Also N seems to have a cerebrum (the underneath of the back of the skull) where the others do not.Posted by Hercules Rockefeller
Oh for the love of god!!!!! Is this some sort of act you’re putting on, or are you really that willfully ignorant?

What it demonstrates is that the fossil record DOES contain different transitional forms between ape and modern human, the very transitional forms you requested to be shown in one of your posts on this page. There they are right in front of you – not all of them human, not all of them ape, yet all of them different.

Are we learning yet? Wow! I thought only creationists got so defensive about their beliefs, but here is a real live evolutionist losing his rag with me. I believe that 'The Origin Of Species' (just read the title one word at a time, slowly, and to yourself) does not specify where the original forms of animals came from, but simply where cross-breeds, such as new species, came from, and so Darwin did not claim that all life was started by single-celled organisms.

Wow! I thought only creationists got so defensive about their beliefs, but here is a real live evolutionist losing his rag with me. I believe that 'The Origin Of Species' (just read the title one word at a time, slowly, and to yourself) does not specify where the original forms of animals came from, but simply where cross-breeds, such as new species, came from, and so Darwin did not claim that all life was started by single-celled organisms.
Logical fallacy:- non sequitur strawman statement.

This drivel does nothing to invalidate the theory of evolution, neither does it address Moutainhare’s point.


The top jaws on A through to G are too elongated to be a human skull, as the rear of the skull protrudes too far backwards. The same is true of H through to M (the back of the skull protrudes too much), but N looks to be closest to a human (if it in fact is). Also N seems to have a cerebrum (the underneath of the back of the skull) where the others do not.
I’m sorry dude, but you’ve neatly demonstrated the value of your analysis – zero.

Firstly, the cerebellum is a fleshy part of the brain, not a bony part of the skull. Secondly, the part of the skull that you are clumsily trying to refer to is the occipital bone, and the cerebellum lies medial to this bone, not below it.

Three strikes in one post – you’re out!

I thought only creationists got so defensive about their beliefs, but here is a real live evolutionist losing his rag with me. I believe that 'The Origin Of Species' (just read the title one word at a time, slowly, and to yourself) does not specify where the original forms of animals came from, but simply where cross-breeds, such as new species, came from, and so Darwin did not claim that all life was started by single-celled organisms.

Nonsense, evolution explains evolutionary novelty. If it was mere crossbreeding then no new design would ever come into existence.

Such as the appearance of ants. And their subsequent radiation.

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2006/406/2

I believe that 'The Origin Of Species' (just read the title one word at a time, slowly, and to yourself) does not specify where the original forms of animals came from, but simply where cross-breeds, such as new species, came from, and so Darwin did not claim that all life was started by single-celled organisms.
lol, why don't you try to read it slowly to yourself. the title says "The... Origin... of... Species". not the origin of life. not the origin of cells. the origin of species. which means how the first organisms evolved to become the diversity of life on this planet. not how life began. origin of species = how life became diverse after it was already here.

creationists like yourself must learn to understand that darwin's original theories are not what is being presently used. darwin's theories are extremely outdated and don't even begin to go into genetics, which i must say is the leading support for evolution.

Number of replies by Muslim: 0.

Spectrum,

I would like to clear something up: I have been insulted and ridiculed by posters for writing that a primate must give birth to a human for evolution to produce us.
It doesn't surprise me. Writing stuff like that doesn't reflect very well on your understanding of the fundamentals of evolution. I'm sorry if I come across as insulting to you &ndash; sometimes I can't help myself.

I know that evolution is a gradual prosess, but mutations/deformities must occur, and, as Athelwulf wrote, this means that So, either there is/are (a) missing link/s, or primates began to give birth to humans. :)
Humans are more than slightly different from their primate ancestors. In fact, they are a different species. But that changes nothing.

Maybe "gradual" doesn't make it clear enough. I think I'll use your username. You could try to think of this as a spectrum. On a rainbow, you can move ever so slighty along it from a given point, and you will come to a slightly different color which is nevertheless considered the same color. Continue moving along and you'll continue to see similar colors, but only for so long. You will get to a point where, if you looked back at your starting point, you would think to yourself "This is not the same color!". You never suddenly and drastically jumped from one color to another, and you never can &ndash; but you still came to a new color.

Evolution works in a similar fashion. It cannot be so sudden and drastic as to cause a new species to be born in one generation. An organism will always be the same species as its parents. Go up one generation, and the organism will always be the same species as its grandparents. The organism may be very slightly different, but it is always the same species as the organisms a few generations before it. But if go back a few thousand generations, or more, you may be looking at two organisms that cannot be considered the same species.

I can tell you're trying to clearly define in your mind when a certain species of primate became another species of primate called H. sapiens. You're trying to insert a sudden and drastic jump where it doesn't belong and isn't needed. And unfortunately for you, it doesn't work.

I understand that Athelwulf.
I doubt you fully understand, to be blunt.

What about the precious fossil record where so many of your 'facts' are recorded? There should be fossils showing intermediate forms, and (possibly) evidence for the cause of their death (blow to the head, knife marks on the bone etc.).
And there are.

So, you believe that murder is a biological urge? Why didn't early primates kill off their parents? Why don't all creatures kill off their creators/ancestors?? If this was the case then there would be none of us here!
By that logic, killing your own parents eliminates your own existence. Killing organisms that have already reproduced doesn't have the effect you seem to think it has.

There is also present the ability of humans to speak, where primates cannot. How many genetic mutations do you think would have to occur for this possibility to arise?? :)
Humans are remarkable for their ability to produce strings of complex sounds that make equally complex sense. But primates that are the most closely related to humans &ndash; chimpanzees and gorillas, for example &ndash; are capable of learning and using language. Koko the gorilla is evidence of this. And this article may be of interest to you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_language

Furthermore, you seem to be trying to prove that humans did not descend from a primate ancestor by showing something that humans are unique for. It's entirely possible for a species within a given taxonomic classification to have a characteristic that is not shared by any other species in that classification. That's what makes the wide variety of life on Earth possible. Also, it disregards the many similarities that we share with other primates and that show our primate 'heritage'.

Am Not A Creationist, I Never Said I Was Infact I Believe In Evolution. So Stop Making Lies Against Me.
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=53661

*cough cough*

Just some random link that maybe will put the doubters to shame:

Newly found species fills evolutionary gap between fish and land animals

http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/06/060405.tiktaalik.shtml

Firstly, the cerebellum is a fleshy part of the brain, not a bony part of the skull. Secondly, the part of the skull that you are clumsily trying to refer to is the occipital bone, and the cerebellum lies medial to this bone, not below it. I wrote 'cerebrum', not cerebellum. Cerebrum means skull; i.e. bone. I may have been referring to the lower rear part of the skull, and not the whole skull, but I never claimed to be an expert on biology, or evolution. Despite what you may write I still don't believe it. Evolution is an attack on morality: it has already been proposed by other posters that war could be responsible for the missing link/s, and war is simply murder on a large-scale.Posted by RoyLennigan
not the origin of life. not the origin of cells. the origin of species. which means how the first organisms evolved [my bold] to become the diversity of life on this planet. not how life began. origin of species = how life became diverse after it was already here. It doesn't even mean evolution, and that's what I'm saying. Apparently Darwin claimed the individual species were already present at some time, but what created those original forms? Why is it so hard for people to believe that the creator is independent to the Laws within which we live? Why can't He be a shape changing, invisible being? It sounds like magic, but there are plenty of examples of magic in the world. For example should I order you to do something, such as "do x!", then I would like to bet that your interpretation of that command is significant. Without physically touching you your soul has been tainted: a visual image of what is being acheived is surely interpreted by the mind, and I also bet that ninety-percent of the population have twisted the interpetation. :) Posted by Athelwulf
I doubt you fully understand, to be blunt. Oh but I do, I just don't believe it. I believe in the existence of the soul too much.Posted by SouthStar
Just some random link that maybe will put the doubters to shame:

Newly found species fills evolutionary gap between fish and land animals
You can claim that evolution is responsible for life on the planets all you like, but when it simply on not true, or factual, than it is just fiction.

cerebrum:

the large rounded structure of the brain occupying most of the cranial cavity, divided into two cerebral hemispheres that are joined at the bottom by the corpus callosum. It controls and integrates motor, sensory, and higher mental functions, such as thought, reason, emotion, and memory.

dictionary.com

The word "cerebrum" is the Latin word for "brain." The Romans used the same word to refer to the "skull" (which houses the brain) and the "head" (which houses the skull). And in Rome "cerebrum" also meant "understanding" (and a fiery temper). The word "cerebrate", meaning "to use the mind or think", comes from the Latin "cerebrum."
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2678 Even if I'm wrong, I never claimed to be a biological expert, which I have already stated.

...I never claimed to be a biological expert...
Yes, this much is obvious. You admit this yet somehow you seem to think you are capable of invalidating a scientific theory that people who are biological experts consider to be the best-supported theory in all of science.

What does this tell you?

(BTW, I'm sorry for misreading 'cerebrum' as 'cerebellum', but as SM pointed out above, my point with respect to the brain is still valid.)

Spectrum:


The top jaws on A through to G are too elongated to be a human skull, as the rear of the skull protrudes too far backwards. The same is true of H through to M (the back of the skull protrudes too much), but N looks to be closest to a human (if it in fact is). Also N seems to have a cerebrum (the underneath of the back of the skull) where the others do not.


1. The cerebrum is not at the underneath of the back of the skull. In fact, it's the opposite:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebrum

I can't blame Hercules for assuming that you meant 'Cerebellum', because the location which you described IS were the Cerebellum lies. Not the Cerebrum.

2. Ironically, all primates have a well-developed Cerebrum. So you've merely displayed your ignorance for all to see.

3. You're drawing too much from external features of the skull. External features of the skull aren't necessarily indicative of brain anatomy, but have more to do with things such as diet and lifestyle.

The most decisive difference should be in brain volume and structure, which is determined by examining the inside of these skulls.

I can't spot many of these so-called 'differences' that you have observed. How is skull M more 'elongated' than skull N? Or any skull in that row? It sounds to me that you are making this shit up as you go along. First you claim that only N has a cerebrum (which is utter bullshit), and now you're making claims about elongation... when it appears to me that all the skulls in the bottom are roughly as elongated as each other.

4. Perhaps the most important point I have to make... you have yet to fully answer my original question! If you classify N as human, then how do you classify the rest of the skulls? Monkey? Chimp?

Any skull that isn't human must be a primate.

I cannot believe that some of you are getting so defensive over a theory that simply is not valid (or true). If that is what you choose to believe then you can believe that, and I will retain my beliefs: we should agree to disagree. However my remarks about the soul have not been replied to.

Spectrum:

Any skull that isn't human must be a primate.

1. Humans ARE primates.

2. Why must they be primates? This is something that you have yet to justify.

Once again, give me a valid, conclusive, concise answer to my question. What are the other 13 skulls? Monkeys? Chimps? And explain why.

I cannot believe that some of you are getting so defensive

Who here is 'defensive'? We are merely correcting misconceptions and distortions.


over a theory that simply is not valid (or true).

An assertion which you have yet to support. What I find amazing is that you can continue to parrot that evolution 'theory' isn't true, while displaying a complete ignorance of evolution, and also by failing to address either...

1. The Chromosome Challenge.

2. The Skulls Challenge.


If that is what you choose to believe then you can believe that, and I will retain my beliefs: we should agree to disagree.

I have no problem with you believing in whatever nonsense you want. However, if you are going to make bullshit assertions about a scientific fact, then expect to have your drivel picked apart, piece by piece.


However my remarks about the soul have not been replied to.

Nobody cares. It's not relevant to the discussion, it's not relevant to science, it's not relevant to evolution, and it sure as hell isn't relevant to the Chromosome Challenge.

Do you not find it odd Mountainhare, that one who chooses such a spectacular and colourful name as Spectrum, is so monochromatic in their thinking?

I can't believe I let this forum slide. I guess I prefer arguing about political and religious things more: evolution is basically a done deal, really. Unless God shows up and says it isn't.

What about the precious fossil record where so many of your 'facts' are recorded? There should be fossils showing intermediate forms

Considering the fact that we've only been studying evolution for about 140 years or so, but evolving for around 4 billion years, I'd say we're doing all right in our coverage. For example, I assume you saw this article:

************************************************** ********************************

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/science/06fossil.html

"In the fishes' forward fins, the scientists found evidence of limbs in the making. There are the beginnings of digits, proto-wrists, elbows and shoulders. The fish also had a flat skull resembling a crocodile's, a neck, ribs and other parts that were similar to four-legged land animals known as tetrapods.

Other scientists said that in addition to confirming elements of a major transition in evolution, the fossils were a powerful rebuttal to religious creationists, who have long argued that the absence of such transitional creatures are a serious weakness in Darwin's theory."

************************************************** ********************************

, and (possibly) evidence for the cause of their death (blow to the head, knife marks on the bone etc.). So, you believe that murder is a biological urge? Why didn't early primates kill off their parents? Why don't all creatures kill off their creators/ancestors?? If this was the case then there would be none of us here! If mass murder is a fact then none of us should be here.

Easy there, Columbo. I didn't mean it quite that literally. Don't go clubbing your parents just yet. Murder is not an innate biological urge, unless someone else has the TV remote. However, killing other animals - other species - is kind of biological, yes - and where it extends to similar competing forms, I regret to say, absolutely.

Other human species (and I'm focusing on this case) would probably have existed as separate tribes eventually, with the fixation of more derived types (that is, eventually the more "modern" form comes to dominate a tribal gene pool through drift and fitness etc.). This would probably be the case for 'humans' and Neanderthals - both 'humans' (in that we're all Homo) (heh) but not the same species, not the same tribe or breeding group. Neanderthals probably went out because of competition with other humans - namely, our ancestors, cro-Magnons or whatever they're calling them this week. Some of this competition probably would have taken the form of brutally murdering each other. Because we all know that whenever humans find something new or different or bizarre, they always embrace it with both arms, trying to understand and bond with it, rather than fearing it, rejecting it and hitting it with a big club, right? Anyway, that's what I meant by "unquiet graves". Both humans: technically, would that be murder? I wonder at the legal status of it, but that's beside the point.

There is also present the ability of humans to speak, where primates cannot. How many genetic mutations do you think would have to occur for this possibility to arise?? :)

One can teach a parrot to repeat words, and to repeat them in context (i.e. "food", etc), so as long as the machinery for vocalization is there, and a brain with a sufficiently complex language centre. Hell, I heard there's a lizard in Vietnam that makes a sound like "f*** you".

Geoff

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4900946.stm

another fossil that fills a gap. This time in the human lineage.

If you would pay attention to the news you would notice that regularly intermediate forms are discovered and gaps are filled. You may wonder why this doesn't happen more. Well, most research money goes to medical research, not to pure basic research such as evolution, and phylogeny. If you want more intermediates pump more money in it. It's not that there is a lack of fossils. There is a lack of researchers.

fossils are rarely formed and only under the right geological circumstances. a lot of the animals that have died have not become fossils. also, imagine the amount of land in which these fossils could be hidden on earth. now imagine how much land only a few hundred archeologists have uncovered.

Imagine, too, how many of them are under water. :eek:

Geoff

Imagine how many fossils get lost every day because of erosion!?!

Apparently Darwin claimed the individual species were already present at some time, but what created those original forms?

Previous ones, all the way back to unicellular animals and before that to self-reproducting cellulles.

Why is it so hard for people to believe that the creator is independent to the Laws within which we live? Why can't He be a shape changing, invisible being? It sounds like magic, but there are plenty of examples of magic in the world.

All right, I'm sensing we're headed at breakneck speed for a theological impasse. Just a suspicion.

For example should I order you to do something, such as "do x!", then I would like to bet that your interpretation of that command is significant. Without physically touching you your soul has been tainted: a visual image of what is being acheived is surely interpreted by the mind, and I also bet that ninety-percent of the population have twisted the interpetation.

Err...isn't that communication? Isn't that what we're doing right now?

:) Oh but I do, I just don't believe it. I believe in the existence of the soul too much.

...so? What does the soul - assuming it exists - have to do or not do with evolution?

You can claim that evolution is responsible for life on the planets all you like, but when it simply on not true, or factual, than it is just fiction.

...planets?

Anyway, you have to proof first that evolution isn't true before you can call it fiction. And, unfortunately for you, evolution is a mathematical fact.

Geoff

Notice how Spectrum is for the most part disregarding my post and is going off using the same shit with other people, shit that we all refuted more than once. Notice also how every time we refute his shit, OMG we're suddenly defensive WTF! Notice finally how he can't comprehend the difference between how a phenomenon works and how the phenomenon initiated.

Imagine how many fossils get lost every day because of erosion!?!

Scary. But to be fair, I have it on good authority that those fossils were sluts.

Geoff

http://www.med.harvard.edu/AANLIB/cases/caseNA/gr/sagp0/070.png

http://www.med.harvard.edu/AANLIB/cases/caseNA/gr/cor/051.png

More info? :confused:

The position of the arrow is a bit unclear. It might be pointing to the pons which sits above the midbrain, or it might be attempting to point to the thalamus.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y260/bubblepics/brain.jpg

Ignore the arrow, the pics are for general reference for Spectrum.

More info? :confused:

The position of the arrow is a bit unclear. It might be pointing to the pons which sits above the midbrain, or it might be attempting to point to the thalamus.
i believe its pointing to the pineal gland

If we evolved from primates then why don't we all have AIDS, because we should all have the same blood.

It is now generally accepted that HIV is a descendant of a Simian Immunodeficiency Virus because certain strains of SIVs bear a very close resemblance to HIV-1 and HIV-2, the two types of HIV. http://www.avert.org/origins.htm

"The original source of the HIV-1 virus, responsible for the bulk of the epidemic, was almost certainly a chimpanzee, from which closely related viruses have been isolated. http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/news/namonkey.htm

If we evolved from primates then why don't we all have AIDS, because we should all have the same blood.



You do know that there are humans out there who are naturally immune to the HIV virus. And still we have the 'same' blood. But not exactly the same. We all have different immunesystems. Even genetic twins.

If we evolved from primates then why don't we all have AIDS, because we should all have the same blood.

Do you have proof of the point at which the AIDS virus evolved?

My understanding was that it occurs only in the "green monkey", which is not considered to be a direct antecedent of Homo sapiens sapiens, but rather another derived form on the primate tree. Thus, the green monkey might well have the virus, but that doesn't imply humans should also carry it. What is the evolutionary point of mutation for HIV? I don't believe that we know, but given the high mutational rate of viruses I would expect it (or its lethal form, anyway) to be quite recent - a million years or so in the utter, utter maximum. Our differentiation from green monkeys is much, much further than that. Here's a link to our estimated recent (5 million year) evolutionary "tree":

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html

As you can see, the genera (first Latin name in the 'scientific' name: i.e. Australopithecus) are all very derived hominids - two-legged people nothing like monkeys. No tails, either. ;) So we're very, very far removed from the green monkey, and we certainly don't have the "same blood" - and thus, it's highly unlikely that we would carry anything much looking like HIV, let alone a human-lethal variant, on an evolutionary basis.

So it's a bit of a stretch to say that "we should all have the same blood".

Look, I am not in any way objecting to Christianity or even religion in general (although I do have strong reservations about one religion in particular, for obvious reasons) - no one can really disprove the existence of God (what would be the distribution of the test? Infinite binary? LOL) but evolution as it stands today has gone way, way past a theory. If you want to believe God is responsible for evolution, all we can say is that we've never detected any evidence of Him, which is not to say He isn't real. Science cannot answer this question for you; we work in non-overlapping magisteria (Gould) and like DiamondHearts and her conscience, never the twain shall meet.

Best,

Geoff

From his own link

A 1998 analysis of the plasma sample from 1959 has suggested7 that HIV-1 was introduced into humans around the 1940s or the early 1950s; much earlier than previously thought. Other scientists have dated the sample to an even earlier period - perhaps as far back as the end of the 19th century.

In January 2000 however, the results of a new study presented at the 7th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, suggested that the first case of HIV-1 infection occurred around 1930 in West Africa . The study was carried out by Dr Bette Korber of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. The estimate of 1930 (which does have a 15 year margin of error) was based on a complicated computer model of HIV's evolution. If accurate, it means that HIV was in existence before many scenarios (such as the OPV and conspiracy theories) suggest.

So the simian virus jumped over to humans a few decades ago or the most 100 years ago, while the chimp species and the human species had been separated for millions of years. The human species had not co-evolved with this virus, the chimp has. That is why we react badly to it. But as I mentioned in an earlier post there are humans who are resistant to the virus. Give it time and AIDS will not pose the problem of today. Just wait for many generations. At a terrible cost of course.

The same thing happens with birdflu. This flu hasn't evolved in humans but can jump to humans and have potentially devasting results.

If we evolved from primates then why don't we all have AIDS, because we should all have the same blood.
Oh terrific, now we’re onto HIV. http://www.fadzter.com/smilies/rolleyes.gif So you’re one of those sorts of creationist, are you? The worst kind, that is. :( You’ve collected a long laundry list of disjointed creationist claptrap from creationist websites and are going to jump from topic to topic (whilst displaying your awesome lack of biological knowledge in the process) without ever bothering to assimilate and learn from the information provided in response.

What’s next? We’ve already had two of the all-time greats – “evolution is just a theory” and “no transitional fossils”. What other classic creationist nonsense do you have on your list? In a few posts you’ll jump from HIV to the second law of thermodynamics, I’ll wager. No macroevolution, maybe? No beneficial mutations? Ooooh I know! “Why are there still monkeys if man is supposed to have evolved from monkeys?” :eek:

LMFAO. Hercules! Hercules!