Why "YEC"/Fundamentalist Creationism is BAD for America

And you likely wasted that money.Thank you for demonstrating why creationist teaching is damaging to the intellectual development of people.Looking at your "gravity" proposed topic I am astounded by the laughable ignorance and silly foolishness, coupled with the arrogant pride to display your ignorance and foolishness as valid arguments ... in public ... among people who know better.It will be interesting to see you well you hold up if that ever gets promoted.You don't even know what the difference between science and evolution is and are terribly confused.Perhaps if you had let your son be educated in public schools there, then he might be able to teach you a thing or two. Who looks like an ape. and apparently you don't even know that apes and monkeys are different clades within primates. Not that I expect you to know what a clade is. Your parents are apes. Denial is not just a river in egypt. This Picture Has Creationists Terrified – Mother Jones

quote:

---

This Picture Has Creationists Terrified
And no wonder: It's the most powerful evidence for evolution that you can imagine.

​

Side-by-side comparison of the chromosomes of humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans (from left to right for each chromosome) From JJ Yunis, O Prakash, "The origin of man: a chromosomal pictorial legacy," Science, March 19 1982. Reprinted with permission from AAAS.

​

When it comes to DNA, comparing the chromosomes of humans with those of closely related ape species provides particularly stunning evidence of evolution. That brings us to the image above, which was originally published in a landmark paper in the journal Science in 1982. What you are looking at are highly magnified photographs of the chromosomes of humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans, aligned in that order for each chromosome.

​

Displayed in this way, the most striking thing about the four genomes is how remarkably similar they are; in the parlance of the Science paper, they show "extensive homology." But they're not perfectly similar. Humans have 23 chromosome pairs in each of their cells (only one member of each pair is shown above). The other three apes, by contrast, have 24 chromosome pairs. So if we're really close cousins, evolution has a puzzle to explain: How did we end up with one fewer chromosome pair than they have?

​

As it turns out, modern genetic science has answered that question flawlessly. In the image above, notice chromosome 2. You'll see that in chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans, there are actually two smaller chromosomes here (the Science paper called them 2p and 2q), but in humans there is just one:

​

Chromosomes 1-3 in humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. From Yunis & Prakash, Science, 1982. Reprinted with permission from AAAS..

​

And maybe you can already see where this is going: That's because the ancestral equivalents of chromosomes 2p and 2q fused together over the course of evolution and became human chromosome 2. In other words, this is sort of the genetic version of the missing link.

​

How do we know that this fusion occurred? The proof is written, indelibly, in the genetic material itself.

​

Chromosomes have multiple different regions, including two "telomeres," structures at the end of each chromosome that contain repetitive DNA and serve as a protective "cap," and one centromere, a region that binds together chromosome pairs during cell division. So if the ancestral equivalents of chromosomes 2p and 2q fused together, end to end, to become human chromosome 2, then there should be genetic proof of this evolutionary event. More specifically, that chromosome should be a bit odd: It should have telomere DNA in its middle as well as on its ends, and two centromeres (or at least, their genetic remnants), rather than one. Here's a highly simplified visualization of this fusion process, courtesy of Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller:

​

Illustration of how chromosome fusion formed human chromosome 2 Kenneth Miller

​

So does human chromosome 2 have the telltale DNA evidence of a fusion event? Yes, it does.

​

The authors of the 1982 Science paper had no hesitancy in declaring that "the telomeric fusion of chromosomes 2p and 2q accounts for the reduction of the 24 pairs of chromosomes of the great apes to 23 in modern man." But they could not confirm this with the high-powered techniques of modern genetics.

​

In a 2005 study published in Nature, however, the "precise fusion site" was located on human chromosome 2. The paper noted the presence of "multiple subtelomeric duplications" in this location (i.e., the expected telomere DNA) and also the vestiges of a second centromere on the chromosome that has since been "inactivated" (represented by the orange region above). In a 2012 study, meanwhile, an international team of scientists published a more detailed evolutionary account of how modern-day versions of human, chimpanzee, and gorilla chromosomes attained their current form. (For an easy-to-understand explanation of what they found, see here.)

​

In other words, the genetic evidence is precisely what you would expect to see if evolution is true. And that speaks volumes about the power of the theory to explain what we actually observe in the natural world.

---

Now I realize that you may be having trouble with two things here: (1) that this is empirical evidence demonstrating the common ancestry of gorillas, chimps, orangs and humans, and (2) understanding what this is saying -- because of cognitive dissonance.Feel free to ask any questions regarding this information ... if you are willing to learn ...

Where do you draw the line?You have a backbone, so you're Cordata, you're a Mammal, and a Primate, and a Hominid, and a Homo sapiens.They really only start calling them "apes" when you get to Hominid, so lets look at the qualifiers for that:

quote:

---

• large, tailless primates
• omnivorous
• mobile shoulder joints and arms due to the dorsal position of the scapula
• broad ribcages that are flatter front-to-back
• a shorter, less mobile spine
• Gestation lasts 8—9 months, and results in the birth of a single offspring, or, rarely, twins.
• The young are born helpless, and they must be cared for for long periods of time.
• a remarkably long adolescence, not being weaned for several years.

---

Does any of that not describe you?Or maybe you don't like being a Primate? Let's look at the qualifiers for that:

quote:

---

• forward-facing eyes on the front of the skull
• A bony ridge above the eye sockets reinforces weaker bones in the face which are put under strain during chewing.
• skull has a large, domed cranium,
• generally have five digits on each limb
• with keratin nails on the end of each finger and toe
• collar bone is retained as prominent element of the pectoral girdle; this allows the shoulder joint broad mobility
• a reduced snout
• lost most of their incisors, all retain at least one lower incisor

---

Again, does any of that not describe you?I understand people not wanting to think that they are apes, as it gives a connotation they are uncomfortable with.But without any bias, and just looking at the morphology, humans are clearly classified as Hominids, i.e. apes.

The apes may not be thrilled about being related to you either but we don't get to choose our relatives.

How do I explain that bones are similar in species? Lol, we'll we know how you explain it and it's patently ridiculous, how do you explain why all animal pelts scales and feathers are different? Is you skin the same as a monkeys? keep it real friend.

We get to tell people in funny white coats, clip boards and Bunsen burners to effoff when they try and lie to us about who are ancestors are. Until Dwakins and RAZD get there way of ocurse.

Are you a theistic evolutionist. Is god not allowed to use similar materials, clearly this is what he did, manufacturers do this all the time. Common ancestor common creator, mate if I was just primate there is no way in Gods good green earth I would be in here chewing the fat with you, I'd be smacking you over the nut and banging your wife,

The rule of ad hominem use in debate is that when you resort to insults rather than dealing with the arguments, that you have lost the debate.http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/attack.htm

quote:

---

The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.

---

So not only do you not have evidence on your side, you don't have logic on your side.Keep up the good work and you can show that creationist beliefs are morally bankrupt.

Okay, regardless of the origin, and based upon the classification systems that are used, a human is an ape, right? Wait right there, without simply denying the classification outright, take a look at what the requirements are (that I posted), and you'll find that you do not disqualify for any of them, and that is why you should be classified as a primate.Can you do that? Think of your father's father's father's father's father. Then think 10 times that much. There was some ubergrand-father of your's, that was "smacking you over the nut and banging your wife" to others.And if you think back to Darwin's seemingly racist quotes about the "savages", and also realize that the point he was making was that all of our forefathers were once in that state, then can you get a sense of the broader message of unity that he was actually to make?We are all apes. That is what we are.

Not that it matters what your beliefs are when dealing with knowledge of reality ... I am a Deist, and I believe that science is the best way to understand the scope and breadth of creation and that science is the best available explanation for how creation has occurred. When we look into the details, this simplistic view does not explain the evidence. For instance: Notice how similar these two creatures are, they are about the same size and weight, there are visible differences in coloration, but it looks like the body plans are more similar than chimps and humans ...And yet the one on the right has a pouch to carry young -- it is a marsupial, and the "similar materials" used are more closely associated with kangaroos and koala bears than with the one on the left, including skull bones and jaw\teeth types ...While the one on the left is a placental mammal, and the "similar materials" used are more closely associated with rabbits and polar bears than with the one on the left, including skull bones and jaw\teeth types ... Obviously "similar materials" could easily have been used to create virtually identical organisms in different locations, but these two animals falsify that hypothesis. And when manufacturers do this there is no nested hierarchy of the development of the products -- this would be like taking parts of a cat and parts of a kangaroo to make a new organism, it doesn't happen in the natural world.If this was part of how organisms were manufactured then we should see organisms and traits that are much better than the ones we see that are just sufficiently functional to survive. For instance we should expect taking parts of the octopus eye, that has the light sensors facing forward with the nerves behind the retina and that focuses by moving the retina, with parts of the mammal eye, that although it has a backwards facing fixed retina, focuses by changing the shape of the lens -- combined you would have a telescopic to microscopic adjustable vision that would never need glasses ... just the way that manufacturers have made zoom lenses by combining different parts from different designs. And the common ancestor is part of the creation ... the mechanism\method of bringing creation to life. And you clearly are not familiar with the behavior of primates, or why moral behavior exists within the context of social animals, not just humans.

Are you saying your god is as limited in imagination and resources as human manufacturers?

Without people like me you wouldn't get to pontificate and wax lyrical about your religious beliefs, face it Bucky you need me.

I was asking the science catholic not you, I know your god is Darwin.

Clearly you have no idea what I'm saying, but thanks for sharing.

Then you are unable to understand simple concepts you have been told, but feel you can pontificate ad nauseum about your ignorance, with pride in your lack of knowledge.How curious. Please feel free to keep demonstrating how intellectually bankrupt you are. Maybe you can come up with something valid by accident.Edited by RAZD, : ...

Just because someone invents a classification doesn't mean I belong to it, you blokes can't agree on what a freakin species is yet.