Summations Only

Hi Kofh2u,I'm not moderating this thread - I'm just a participant.I think you need to connect your ideas to evidence. For example, what evidence leads you to believe that Adam was a Sahefanthropus tchadensis? What evidence leads you to believe that a member of one species can give birth to a member of a different species?--Percy

1) I'm not moderating this thread - I'm just a participant.ANS: You are openly bias against my point of view and seem eager to silence it simply because of that.
It seems fair that you avoid the urge to press your own views such as to make sure my own are not available here.
I thank you for the fair play.

ANS:A) The theological evidence of 22 links to the present human population are enumerated in Genesis.
The Scientific evidence for 22 links to the present human population are enumerated in The Last Human: the 22 now extinct humans.B) Paleontologists hypothesize that Sahefanthropus tchadensis is a good candidate for the first branch from chimps to the new species, Humanoids.Re:
Search for the First Human (Sahelanthropus Tchadensis)Sahelanthropus Tchadensis is one of the oldest known species on the human family tree. This species lived sometime between 7 and 6 million years ago.topdocumentaryfilms.com/search-first-human-sahelanthropus-tchade...And, conversely, Gen 5:2 says that Adam is the first of the human species:Gen 5:2 Male and female created he THEM; and blessed THEM, and called THEIR name Adam, (a species), in the day when THEY were created.

ANS: "Chromosome 2 presents very strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes."According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2.Because the fused chromosome is unique to humans and is fixed, the fusion must have occurred... before modern humans spread around the world, that is, between 6 million and ~1 million years ago (Mya; Chen and Li 2001; Yu et al. 2001) (Fig.5).References:
1.Fan Y, et al. Genomic Structure and Evolution of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in 2q13-2q14.1 and paralogous regions on other human chromosomes. Genome Research 2002, volume 12, pages 1651-1662.

People who believe in evolution believe in common descent, so it should be clear that Percy's question was not so simply answered.The question is whether fusion alone would produce a new species such that the offspring with a fused gene is of a different species than his/her parent not having the fused gene.That question is decidedly more difficult to answer.

This thread was created for you to discuss your point of view. Expressing disagreement is not an attempt to silence you. Expressed disagreement is instead an opportunity for you to provide evidence and argument in support of your view. In other words, you are being invited to have further discussion.

Hi Kofh2u,I'm just bringing to your attention the lack of fact connecting your ideas to reality. There's no bias and no one wants to silence you, just the opposite in fact. I want you to shout your evidence from the rooftops.So let's try to get the evidence train going, we can start with those same questions I asked before: What evidence leads you to believe that Adam was a Sahefanthropus tchadensis? What evidence leads you to believe that a member of one species can give birth to a member of a different species?AbE: Whoops, don't bother replying, I see now that you posted three replies to my message, I'm looking at the other ones now.--PercyEdited by Percy, : AbE.

Uh, there is no such specific enumeration. You've aslready been shown that this claim is wrong. There isn't a lot of evidence in that book and the species under discussion are not in a straight lineage. Most of them are our distant cousins, not in our direct lineage. The pronoun "them" does not imply anything but except "more than one."Genesis doesn't say that Adam and Eve were a species. It says that adam was a single man placed in the garden and alone. Eve was made specifically to be his wife.That is not a species.The bible does not say that Adam was the first human species. It says, quite plainly for anyone with reading comprehension, that Adam was the first man.In fact, "Adam" in Hebrew means "man."

Wait just a second.You removed the most important part. The part that completely demolishes your claim.That means that you understand that what you are claiming is bogus. You know that you are lying.Let's see the part that you removed:Because the fused chromosome is unique to humans and is fixed, the fusion must have occurred after the human-chimpanzee split, but before modern humans spread around the world, that is, between 6 and 1 million years agoYeah, so that proves you know you are wrong. What exactly is your point in participating in forums if you are just going to remove all evidence that proves you wrong?Obviously humans were not born out of this fusion (mostly because chromosome fusions don't change gene expression on their own) because the line that leads to modern humans HAD ALREADY SPLIT OFF FROM OTHER APES.Wake up, Kofh2u.It's time to leave your little fantasy. You know you are lying.

And Sahefanthropus tchadensis wasn't human. Did you mean to say that Adam was the first of the hominid line? What is it that you're finding in the Bible that leads you to think Adam wasn't human? Yes it does, but it isn't evidence that a member of one species can give birth to a member of a different species. Evolution has to be gradual and in terms of entire populations because any new species produced in a single generation would have no breeding partners. The genetic accident that produced the chromosome 2 fusion could not have introduced a species reproductive barrier, else the individual possessing it could never have passed it on.The questions only get worse for you. For example, what evidence leads you to conclude that Ardipithecus ramidus is descended from Sahefanthropus tchadensis, and what leads you to believe that Cain was an Ardipithecus ramidus? How can Tubal-cain be Jabal's descendant if, according to the Bible, he's Jabal's half-brother? And so on. And there's still the major question of why you believe Adam and his descendants up until the flood were not human.--Percy

Not really. The question is decided.Domestic horses have one fewer chromosome pair than a Przewalski's horses which have 33 pairs, but they can interbreed, and their offspring are fertile.Centric fusion translocations have been found in Italian cattle, yet the cattle remain cattle.Pampas deer have fused chromosomes and have 3 subspecies. The genetic variation has to do with an extreme population size in the past and not the fusion.And, of course, Down Sydrome children have a different chromosomal pattern than the rest of us.Species are not created in a single pregnancy.

Percy, you are exactly right.The relational patterns alone, even if the rest of the biblical account was completely disregarded, show that these comparisons do not line up.Father/son relationships are cannot be matched to cousin/cousin relationships.Not to mention that these biblical characters dwelt in tents, farmed, did metal work, and played musical instruments.Is kofh2u suggesting that Lucy was a sword-maker?These comparisons are just silly.

You are reading to that sentence something that OBVIOUSLY the writer could NOT have meant, because he specifically is saying that this fusion is the very evidence of common descent:

​

"Chromosome 2 presents very strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes. "His point is merely that the branch of humans appeared after this fusion.
He is also reserving the opinion that this immediately produced such a stark difference between the surrogate mother Ape to this early first divergence as to question whether it was still more ape than Hominid, but that after this the common decent followed:
"Chromosome 2 presents very strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes.
According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2.
Because the fused chromosome is unique to humans and is fixed, the fusion must have occurred after the human—chimpanzee split, but before modern humans spread around the world, that is, between 6 million and ~1 million years ago (Mya; Chen and Li 2001; Yu et al. 2001) (Fig.5).References:
1.Fan Y, et al. Genomic Structure and Evolution of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in 2q13-2q14.1 and paralogous regions on other human chromosomes. Genome Research 2002, volume 12, pages 1651-1662.Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

More nonsense. Is the 44 chromosome man not a human?Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that Adam was a Sahefanthropus tchadensis?What do either of those utter nonsense assertions have to do with the topic which was " The SEVEN "DAYS" WERE GEOLOGICAL ERAS "?

Of course I did respond to that question.But this thread is not about providing evidence that Adam was Sahefanthropus tchadensis.Science History of the Earth enumerates and refers to evidence that science already accepts, while Genesis states what the Bible has long said.I am merely comparing the two lists.Science does NOT refute that Sahefanthropus tchadensis was the oldest and first species in our common ascent, and that is DE FACTO comparable to the first Adam of the Bible story.Science does NOT refute a short list of 22 species in the ascent of man.Science does NOT refute that seven durations of time are marked with the events of the History of the Earth.Science does NOT refute that the first of our species was the source of the current three racial stocks that differentiated into the seven genetic races now here.Science does NOT refute that there was an In the beginning they call the Big Bang.Science does NOT refute that a Cosmic Dark Age existed before light transversed the universe.Science does NOT refute that Rodinia/Pangaea was an event when "all the waters, (plural) had been gathered together into one place."Science does NOT refute that a Two Kingdom System of life began with Plants on the third "duration" of the history of the earth.Science does NOT refute that the long 4th duration incubated the plant life while the Sun energy transformed the atmosphere into enough Oxygen to allow animal life to appear.Science does NOT refute that the first man appeared in the Cenozoic 6th "day."Science does NOT refute 22 members in the ascent tot modern man.Science does NOT refute that that different kinds of mankind hybridized with each other as an event =in the ascent of modern man.Science does NOT refute that Modern man initially was rooted in three racial stocks.Science does NOT refute Genesis.WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE THAT IS DOES?