Do the creationist shuffle and twist!

| 120 Comments

Don't you hate it when you get up in the morning and the first thing you read on the internet is the news that your entire career has been a waste of time, your whole field of study has collapsed, and you're going to have to rethink your entire future? Happens to me all the time. But then, I read the creationist news, so I've become desensitized to the whole idea of intellectual catastrophes.

Today's fresh demolition of the whole of evolutionary theory comes via Christian News, which reports on a paper in the journal Molecular Biology and Evolution which challenges the ape to human evolutionary theory. Wait, that's a journal I read regularly. What did I miss?

Fresh findings in the field of genetics have directly challenged yet another key evolutionary hypothesis by showing that the differences between humans and apes cannot be easily accounted for under the theory of evolution.

A recent 12-page journal article, written by three scientists in Spain and published in Molecular Biology and Evolution, details the results of careful analysis of human and chimpanzee DNA. After comparing and contrasting thousands of orthologous genes from humans and chimps, the scientists found their final data to be very much at odds with evolutionary theory. [Oh, reeeally?] In fact, they even titled their article "Recombination Rates and Genomic Shuffling in Human and Chimpanzee--A New Twist in the Chromosomal Speciation Theory."

I knocked over my bowl of oatmeal in my haste to track down this "groundbreaking genetic discovery," and got the paper downloaded and read while I sipped my morning tea. Hey, it's from Aurora Ruiz-Herrera's lab — I know her work. Good stuff. Nice to know she's going to be winning the Nobel prize for toppling evolutionary theory, even if it means I'm going to have to find something new to study.

But there's a little contradiction here. The creationist account continues:

Why are these findings seen as a "new twist" to the evolutionary theory? In short, because many scientists have claimed that genetic differences between humans and apes can be attributed to a process known as "genetic recombination," [They do? News to me.] which is a phenomenon that generates slight genetic variation via meiosis. However, this new journal article seriously calls this proposition into question.

In their research, the three Spanish scientists scrutinized differences between human and chimp genes, expecting to find higher genetic recombination rates in these areas of dissimilarity [Are you sure about that, Christian News?]. Even though studies of human-chimp similarities have been conducted in years past, this particular research was unprecedented because the scientists took advantage of new, high-resolution genome maps.

Ultimately, the study results were contradictory to what evolutionists had theorized [Really?]. Not only were genetic recombination rates markedly low in areas of human-chimp DNA differences ("rearranged" chromosomes), but the rates were much higher in areas of genetic similarity ("collinear" chromosomes) [Correct.]. This is the reverse of what evolutionists had predicted. [Uh, what?]

"The analysis of the most recent human and chimpanzee recombination maps inferred from genome-wide single-nucleotide polymorphism data," the scientists explained, "revealed that the standardized recombination rate was significantly lower in rearranged than in collinear chromosomes." [Yes.]

Jeffrey Tomkins, a Ph.D. geneticist with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), told the Christian News Network that these results were "totally backwards" from what evolutionists had predicted, since genetic recombination is "not occurring where it's supposed to" under current evolutionary theory. [Now, you see, this is where I lose all respect for you, Mr Tomkins.]

The problem here is that while the creationists got the main result right, they tried to wedge it into a bungled, fallacious version of evolutionary theory. Ruiz-Herrera has refuted creationist evolution all right, but not the real science that the rest of us study. In fact, it goes the other way and uses detailed genomic maps to confirm a hypothesis about evolution.

You didn't expect anything else, did you? This is the way it always turns out. Creationist makes claim, creationist interpretation is bullshit.

Let's look at what the paper actually says. But first, a little background.

There are a number of common genetic changes that affect rates of recombination — inversions and translocations. These changes can suppress recombination.

For example, look at this pair of complementary chromosomes. One of them carries an inversion: that is, the chunk of DNA that carries the e, ro, and ca genes is flipped around on one strand, so that the sequence eroca on the white strand reads caroe on the black strand. This is not a problem for the organism. It still carries two copies of each of the genes, as it should, they're just arranged in different ways on the two chromosomes.

This rearrangement does not inhibit pairing during meiosis, either. As you can see in the bottom illustration, the two chromosomes have to get all twisty and kama-sutraey to line up all the genes, but they can do it just fine. So meiosis, the process by which the organism produces gametes like sperm and egg, can work out with no problem. So this is a rearrangement that doesn't affect viability or fertility in any significant way.

invxoa

With one exception. What if there is a crossover event, that is, an exchange of DNA strands, within the inversion? It can get ugly. In the diagram below, there has been a crossover or recombination event between the ro and ca genes. Try tracing the effects on each DNA strand with your finger — you'll see that some of the strands are going to be really messed up.

invxob

Or just look below. The four DNA strands that result from this process are separated to make it clear what happens.

A crossover event involves two strands of DNA out of the total of four, so you still get two uninvolved bystanders, the two noncrossover products. They're fine and will lead to two normal, healthy gametes with a full genetic complement.

The crossover strands are totally screwed up. One is now dicentric, having two centromeres — when they're separated at cell division, it will be like a little tug-of-war. This is a gross abnormality in the chromosomes, and will be read as a problem that leads to suppression of division and cell death. The other crossover chromosome is acentric, no centromere at all, as well as being severely truncated and lacking most of the genes present on the chromosome. It will most likely be lost completely during cell division, leading to a genetic deficiency.

invxoc

The net result of all this finagling is an apparent suppression of crossovers in the progeny. The alleles present at the e, ro, and ca genes on each chromosome are locked in to each other and aren't easily reshuffled around.

That's all basic genetics. What does evolutionary theory think about inversions?

They are mechanisms that could reduce gene flow between two populations, one that carries the inversion and another that doesn't. It's a process that could contribute to genetic isolation between those populations, and could therefore be part of speciation.

I'm not making this up, and I'm not relying on esoteric knowledge to know this: the paper states it clearly in the opening paragraph!

More recently, a number of related studies have proposed an alternative explanation by which chromosomal rearrangements could reduce gene flow and potentially contribute to speciation by the suppression of recombination (Noor et al. 2001; Rieseberg 2001). According to this "suppressed recombination" model, chromosome rearrangements could have a minimal influence on fitness, but would suppress recombination leading to the reduction of gene flow across genomic regions and to the accumulation of incompatibilities.

That's the part of evolutionary theory the scientists are addressing. It's the idea that regions of DNA that differ, that lead to the differences between two related species, might also be accompanied by genetic changes like inversions that reduced gene flow between the founding populations. It's a component of the speciation process that allowed novel polymorphisms to accumulate in one group without spreading to the other group.

Let me try to make this even simpler. The prediction of this hypothesis is that regions of DNA that contribute significantly to the differences between two species ought to also show higher frequencies of chromosomal rearrangements and lower frequencies of recombination. Master that one sentence and you'll have the gist of this part of evolutionary theory.

So, in this paper, what did they find? They used high resolution genomic data to compare recombination rates in regions of the human and chimpanzee genome, predicting low recombination in those areas that are significantly different. Here's the summary:

Overall, our data provide compelling evidence for the existence of low recombination rates within genomic regions that have been rearranged in the chromosomal evolution of human and chimpanzee.

Allow me to repeat what creationist geneticist Jeffrey Tomkins said.

Jeffrey Tomkins, a Ph.D. geneticist with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), told the Christian News Network that these results were "totally backwards" from what evolutionists had predicted, since genetic recombination is "not occurring where it's supposed to" under current evolutionary theory.

Huh. Did he not read that paragraph I quoted from the introduction, that clearly stated the expectation of evolutionary theory, and that the results fit that expectation?

Perhaps he skipped over the introduction, knowing it all already. So did he miss this statement in the results?

These data suggest that those chromosomes that have been maintained collinear during evolutionary history retained higher recombination rates than those that have been altered during evolution in each particular lineage.

That's the flip side: collinear regions between chimp and human chromosomes retain a conserved arrangement, and have a higher recombination rate.

So he didn't read or understand the introduction or the results. Did he comprehend this statement from the discussion?

Using this approach, we provide evidences of a reduction of recombination within genomic regions that have been implicated in the chromosomal evolution between human and chimpanzee.

I daresay Mr Tomkins failed to read the whole damned paper! Or stared at it with glazed eyes and struggled to find some imaginary objection he could use to distort it into a rejection of evolution.

I'm sorry to say that Dr Ruiz-Herrera will not be winning a Nobel prize for refuting evolution, but she has still made a useful and interesting contribution to the evidence for evolution.


Farré M, Micheletti D, Ruiz-Herrera A (2012) Recombination Rates and Genomic Shuffling in Human and Chimpanzee--A New Twist in the Chromosomal Speciation Theory. Mol Biol Evol 30(4):853-864.

120 Comments

If you think this was bad, click on the Dinosaur Skin Discovery Threatens to Debunk Long-Held Evolutionary Assumptions. More “breathtaking inanity”, or creationists’ “two-step”, etc.

Well, we have from the paper:

More recently, a number of related studies have proposed an alternative explanation by which chromosomal rearrangements could reduce gene flow and potentially contribute to speciation by the suppression of recombination (Noor et al. 2001; Rieseberg 2001). According to this “suppressed recombination” model, chromosome rearrangements could have a minimal influence on fitness, but would suppress recombination leading to the reduction of gene flow across genomic regions and to the accumulation of incompatibilities.

Here’s the problem–evolutionism demands that their be no incompatibility between humans and monkeys. If there are, how did monkeys have the first baby human? Evolutionism demands perfect compatibility between people and monkeys with all differences between them being the result of culture. Genetic incompatibilities make evolutionism doubtful.

Werewolf Dongle said:

Well, we have from the paper:

More recently, a number of related studies have proposed an alternative explanation by which chromosomal rearrangements could reduce gene flow and potentially contribute to speciation by the suppression of recombination (Noor et al. 2001; Rieseberg 2001). According to this “suppressed recombination” model, chromosome rearrangements could have a minimal influence on fitness, but would suppress recombination leading to the reduction of gene flow across genomic regions and to the accumulation of incompatibilities.

Here’s the problem–evolutionism demands that their be no incompatibility between humans and monkeys. If there are, how did monkeys have the first baby human? Evolutionism demands perfect compatibility between people and monkeys with all differences between them being the result of culture. Genetic incompatibilities make evolutionism doubtful.

Really? So if there were no “genetic incompatibilities” they would be able to interbreed and be classified as the same species. So as long as there are different species, evolution is disproven? Funny how every real scientist overlooked that. Exactly how is localized reduced recombination an “incompatibility” when it doesn’t affect fitness? Now chromosomal fusion, that’s a kind of “incompatibility”. Do you think that chromosomal fusion of two ancestral chromosomes in humans disproves evolution? Your “understanding” doesn’t seem to have anything to do with reality.

What these guys need is a direct quote from the paper explaining how the results disprove evolution, not just how they are unexpected or require further study. Until they have that, their opinions have no relevance, since every new discovery disproves evolution according to them. And if all new discoveries did somehow disprove evolution, why aren’t creationists making any?

Werewolf Dongle said: Here’s the problem–evolutionism demands that their be no incompatibility between humans and monkeys. If there are, how did monkeys have the first baby human? Evolutionism demands perfect compatibility between people and monkeys with all differences between them being the result of culture. Genetic incompatibilities make evolutionism doubtful.

Oh for heaven’s sake. By that logic Latin couldn’t have evolved into both Italian and French. Do you think some baby is born every once in a while that speaks a completely different language from their parents?

Here’s the problem–evolutionism demands that their be no incompatibility between humans and monkeys.

Absolutely. I mean, other than the fact that evolutionary theory predicts such incompatibilities to arise.

Werewolf Dongle said:

Well, we have from the paper:

More recently, a number of related studies have proposed an alternative explanation by which chromosomal rearrangements could reduce gene flow and potentially contribute to speciation by the suppression of recombination (Noor et al. 2001; Rieseberg 2001). According to this “suppressed recombination” model, chromosome rearrangements could have a minimal influence on fitness, but would suppress recombination leading to the reduction of gene flow across genomic regions and to the accumulation of incompatibilities.

Here’s the problem–evolutionism demands that their be no incompatibility between humans and monkeys. If there are, how did monkeys have the first baby human? Evolutionism demands perfect compatibility between people and monkeys with all differences between them being the result of culture. Genetic incompatibilities make evolutionism doubtful.

And Poe’s law predicts that someone like Werewolf Dongle will appear from time to time, possibly sounding slightly less sophisticated than UD does.

Glen Davidson

Werewolf Dongle said:

Well, we have from the paper:

This is the way it always turns out. Creationist makes claim, creationist interpretation is bullshit.

Apparently, WD didn’t read this part…

JimboK said:

Werewolf Dongle said:

Well, we have from the paper:

This is the way it always turns out. Creationist makes claim, creationist interpretation is bullshit.

Apparently, WD didn’t read this part…

Seems more to me like he read it and took it to heart.

The date on the paper should be 2013, not 2012.

This particular post-modern creationist dynamic is very strange.

The use of scam artists (albeit plausibly self-deluded and deeply conflicted scam artists) to pretend to the ignorami that there is some sort of scientific controversy.

They don’t just honestly say that they reject science. They desperately want to pretend that they care about and understand science, and that it supports them.

Of course, that’s the post-modern way. Deny reality, and then deny that you deny reality.

Here’s the problem–evolutionism demands that their be no incompatibility between humans and monkeys.

But you and your monkey lady have produced offspring together, disproving evolution

Better trolls, please.

harold said:

This particular post-modern creationist dynamic is very strange.

The use of scam artists (albeit plausibly self-deluded and deeply conflicted scam artists) to pretend to the ignorami that there is some sort of scientific controversy.

They don’t just honestly say that they reject science. They desperately want to pretend that they care about and understand science, and that it supports them.

Of course, that’s the post-modern way. Deny reality, and then deny that you deny reality.

And then the anti-science scammers whine oh so mightily about how their mean mean critics point out how they don’t understand even half an iota of the science they allege to understand.

SWT said:

Better trolls, please.

With the Wimbledon tennis fortnight coming, perhaps that should be

New trolls, please.

In his couple of brief appearances here, I think Werewolf Dongle has earned permanent BW status. He’s almost certainly a poe, and who needs poes on the main threads?

Hey…@PZMyers…just wanted to say thanks for a great explanation PZM. Funny…I just recently finished an intro course with Noor who was cited (awesome!)…but YOUR explanation went a step beyond and NOW recomb v. re-arrange frequency makes a whole lot of sense! Of course the nut jobs twist and spin…but they are clever and posts like yours are continuously needed for non-science majors to understand HOW and WHY the spinning is taking place.

DS said:

Werewolf Dongle said:

Well, we have from the paper:

More recently, a number of related studies have proposed an alternative explanation by which chromosomal rearrangements could reduce gene flow and potentially contribute to speciation by the suppression of recombination (Noor et al. 2001; Rieseberg 2001). According to this “suppressed recombination” model, chromosome rearrangements could have a minimal influence on fitness, but would suppress recombination leading to the reduction of gene flow across genomic regions and to the accumulation of incompatibilities.

Here’s the problem–evolutionism demands that their be no incompatibility between humans and monkeys. If there are, how did monkeys have the first baby human? Evolutionism demands perfect compatibility between people and monkeys with all differences between them being the result of culture. Genetic incompatibilities make evolutionism doubtful.

Really? So if there were no “genetic incompatibilities” they would be able to interbreed and be classified as the same species. So as long as there are different species, evolution is disproven?

Well, Christians believe each kind was created separately. If evolutionists have found different, incompatible species and thinks that is consistent with their religion, then there is no way to distinguish between evolutionism and Christianity.

Funny how every real scientist overlooked that.

This is because they are all idiots who exist in an echo chamber of their fellow evolutionists.

Exactly how is localized reduced recombination an “incompatibility” when it doesn’t affect fitness? Now chromosomal fusion, that’s a kind of “incompatibility”. Do you think that chromosomal fusion of two ancestral chromosomes in humans disproves evolution?

It does say humans and monkeys can’t reproduce now. Ergo, it is merely a question-begging assumption based on the religion of evolutionism to suggest they ever could.

Your “understanding” doesn’t seem to have anything to do with reality.

So evolutionists have hijacked the word “reality” to refer to the tenets of their religion. I am working on a new book that discusses this issue.

What these guys need is a direct quote from the paper explaining how the results disprove evolution, not just how they are unexpected or require further study. Until they have that, their opinions have no relevance, since every new discovery disproves evolution according to them. And if all new discoveries did somehow disprove evolution, why aren’t creationists making any?

harold said:

This particular post-modern creationist dynamic is very strange.

The use of scam artists (albeit plausibly self-deluded and deeply conflicted scam artists) to pretend to the ignorami that there is some sort of scientific controversy.

Isn’t a scam artist by definition someone who does not believe his own BS and just wants your money? Is it possible for you to believe that somebody could disagree with you? Your own incoherence suggests that overwhelming evidence before your eyes convinces you that Christianity is, even if false, not a scam but a way of life truly believed in by billions who are not merely pawns of leaders who don’t.

Can’t you just say we’re wrong and leave it at that? Of course you can’t, because you do not have the evidence. Ergo, you must explain the existence of Christianity in terms of some Leninist false consciousness or else some conspiracy of corporate bigwigs in a smoke-filled room scheming to keep the people down that your own self-contradictory musings about self-deluded scam artists suggests you find this explanation unconvincing yourself.

They don’t just honestly say that they reject science. They desperately want to pretend that they care about and understand science, and that it supports them.

Of course, that’s the post-modern way. Deny reality, and then deny that you deny reality.

Once again, we see the words “science” and “reality” hijacked by evolutionists as affirmations of their religious beliefs.

cwjolley said:

Werewolf Dongle said: Here’s the problem–evolutionism demands that their be no incompatibility between humans and monkeys. If there are, how did monkeys have the first baby human? Evolutionism demands perfect compatibility between people and monkeys with all differences between them being the result of culture. Genetic incompatibilities make evolutionism doubtful.

Oh for heaven’s sake. By that logic Latin couldn’t have evolved into both Italian and French. Do you think some baby is born every once in a while that speaks a completely different language from their parents?

Ever heard of international adoption?

As we all know, language is the result of culture. Of course, this is what the behaviourist wing of the evolutionist movement said about everything else.

I don’t care about studies in genetics. Genetic researchers today are like alchemists of yesterday. instead of mixing minerals to make the impissible exist they mix genes.

my fellow creationist miss the bigger point. There is no need or desire to find genetic differences between us and apes. We clearly have the ape body. its not a coincedence a creator didn’t notice. We simply, being made in Gods image, can’t have a body representing our true image/identity. So we must be in the spectrum of nature and so we get the best body for fun and profit. There is no bodyform on earth as good as the ape one. Creationists are wasting their time trying to enlarge the DNA difference between us and primates. Its a wrong line of reasoning. A little bit satisfies our creation from adam and Eve.

In fact all gentic connections are just lines of reasoning and unmrelated to scientific genetic investigation if one pays attention.

Wolfy is Joe, I think. The delusions of grandeur about working on a book is pretty diagnostic. So is the “evolution is a religion” idiocy.

Byers, on the other hand, is, well, he’s Byers. Someone likened argument with him like punching water.

I’d comment, but my breath was taken away by the inanity.

I wonder if guys like these creationist Dunning-Kruger candidates ever apologize for getting things so wrong. Have they ever come back in the Christian News and admitted that they got things totally wrong?

Hi Werewolf Dongle, As I assume you would like to see evolution take a fall and creationism win the battle, perhaps I can give you a short word of advice. Know your enemy. You certainly don’t have to believe in it, but to be able to have any real chance of scoring against it, you have to understand it, and understand it through and through. With your comments above you show clearly that you don’t have a clear grasp of evolutionary theory. That’s why you get such a response from the other contributors here. You might be surprised how differently you’ll be recieved if you show that you really understand what evolution is all about and then try to point to weaknesses. All the best, Jared

I don’t care about studies in genetics. Genetic researchers today are like alchemists of yesterday. instead of mixing minerals to make the impissible exist they mix genes.

Make the “impissible” exist? You have kidney stones?

I think you’ll be ok, as far as I understand, your cushy 7-figure Darwinist job will be protected by the secret government cartel pushing atheism on our children while honest ID scientists who courageously challenge your bankrupt paradigm will continue to be “expelled”.

At least, that’s what Jesus told me.

Werewolf Dongle said:

DS said:

Werewolf Dongle said:

Well, we have from the paper:

More recently, a number of related studies have proposed an alternative explanation by which chromosomal rearrangements could reduce gene flow and potentially contribute to speciation by the suppression of recombination (Noor et al. 2001; Rieseberg 2001). According to this “suppressed recombination” model, chromosome rearrangements could have a minimal influence on fitness, but would suppress recombination leading to the reduction of gene flow across genomic regions and to the accumulation of incompatibilities.

Here’s the problem–evolutionism demands that their be no incompatibility between humans and monkeys. If there are, how did monkeys have the first baby human? Evolutionism demands perfect compatibility between people and monkeys with all differences between them being the result of culture. Genetic incompatibilities make evolutionism doubtful.

Really? So if there were no “genetic incompatibilities” they would be able to interbreed and be classified as the same species. So as long as there are different species, evolution is disproven?

Well, Christians believe each kind was created separately. If evolutionists have found different, incompatible species and thinks that is consistent with their religion, then there is no way to distinguish between evolutionism and Christianity.

Funny how every real scientist overlooked that.

This is because they are all idiots who exist in an echo chamber of their fellow evolutionists.

Exactly how is localized reduced recombination an “incompatibility” when it doesn’t affect fitness? Now chromosomal fusion, that’s a kind of “incompatibility”. Do you think that chromosomal fusion of two ancestral chromosomes in humans disproves evolution?

It does say humans and monkeys can’t reproduce now. Ergo, it is merely a question-begging assumption based on the religion of evolutionism to suggest they ever could.

Your “understanding” doesn’t seem to have anything to do with reality.

So evolutionists have hijacked the word “reality” to refer to the tenets of their religion. I am working on a new book that discusses this issue.

What these guys need is a direct quote from the paper explaining how the results disprove evolution, not just how they are unexpected or require further study. Until they have that, their opinions have no relevance, since every new discovery disproves evolution according to them. And if all new discoveries did somehow disprove evolution, why aren’t creationists making any?

What christians believe is irrelevant. Species are “incompatible” by definition, get a clue. Scientists don’t have any religion. If you think otherwise, please name one that all scientists share (HINT: science is NOT a religion).

If you really think that all scientists are idiots, you should stop using the internet and every other technology developed by real scientists. It is much more likely that some smarmy know-nothing internet troll is the real idiot.

The evidence is clear that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. No one is claiming that they ever did or ever could interbreed. Grow up, learn some science, get a clue, then crawl back in your hole and stop displaying your ignorance.

Since this jackass is most likely a Poe (I hope), I recommend that it be banished to the bathroom wall. Any further responses to it by me will be found there.

Robert Byers said:

I don’t care about studies in genetics. Genetic researchers today are like alchemists of yesterday. instead of mixing minerals to make the impissible exist they mix genes.

my fellow creationist miss the bigger point. There is no need or desire to find genetic differences between us and apes. We clearly have the ape body. its not a coincedence a creator didn’t notice. We simply, being made in Gods image, can’t have a body representing our true image/identity. So we must be in the spectrum of nature and so we get the best body for fun and profit. There is no bodyform on earth as good as the ape one. Creationists are wasting their time trying to enlarge the DNA difference between us and primates. Its a wrong line of reasoning. A little bit satisfies our creation from adam and Eve.

In fact all gentic connections are just lines of reasoning and unmrelated to scientific genetic investigation if one pays attention. c

Guess what Bobby boy, no one cares much about your ignorant opinions. Your line of reasoning is faulties and strupids, on one is paying attentions. Grow up, take a course in genetics, when you flunk repeat it until you pass, then come back and lecture us about how it doesn’t matter. Until then, piss off.

Another one to be dumped to the bathroom wall.

This comment is preposterous. If there were no incompatibility between chimp and humans, they could interbreed and produce viable and fertile descendents. In fact by the very definition of species, they would belong to the same species.

Werewolf Dongle said:

Well, we have from the paper:

More recently, a number of related studies have proposed an alternative explanation by which chromosomal rearrangements could reduce gene flow and potentially contribute to speciation by the suppression of recombination (Noor et al. 2001; Rieseberg 2001). According to this “suppressed recombination” model, chromosome rearrangements could have a minimal influence on fitness, but would suppress recombination leading to the reduction of gene flow across genomic regions and to the accumulation of incompatibilities.

Here’s the problem–evolutionism demands that their be no incompatibility between humans and monkeys. If there are, how did monkeys have the first baby human? Evolutionism demands perfect compatibility between people and monkeys with all differences between them being the result of culture. Genetic incompatibilities make evolutionism doubtful.

Karen S. said:

I don’t care about studies in genetics. Genetic researchers today are like alchemists of yesterday. instead of mixing minerals to make the impissible exist they mix genes.

Make the “impissible” exist? You have kidney stones?

“Impissible”. That hurts just to read it!

Werewolf Dongle said:

Ever heard of international adoption?

Actually, I know quite a bit about it first hand. And I am unaware of a case where a child was born to it’s adoptive parents. That makes no sense at all, so I guess just throw it onto the pile of nonsense you are creating from all your posts.

And with that: No more food for you Troll.

What would a scientist say to his/her family if they discovered that evolution was wrong and the diversity we all see was caused by something else?

“Honey guess what? I just won the Nobel Prize! Woot Woot!”

Evolution is wrong. The bible is correct, it is only the interpretation of some that makes it like wrong. Before science was developed the WORD of God was already existed. Science is now the engine of knowledge to make the Bible clearer to man. Through science, I could now grasp what really happened in the FALL.

Adam and Eve were instructed to replenish the earth. Satan came in to destroy tmhe reproductio plan of God. Satan a spirit possessed the Serpent to impregnate Eve before Adam get the divine revelation to carryout the reproduction plan of God. Note that the serpent was an upright creature very much like a man but was created in the image and likeness of God.before he of God. He became like a snake after he was cursed by God. Eve gave birth to twin, Cain was the serpent seed and Abel was Adam’s. Cain killed Abel, Seth was born later to become as replacement as his name implied. The upright serpent is the missing link.

After seven generations, the descendants of Cain and Seth intermingled, hence, all had acquired the mixed, stained blood. God had then declared that His Spirit will no longer abide in man. The absence of God’s Spirit made them to do wickedness.

Science wants to establish the relationship of Ape (which was the upright creature then) to man. The serpent which is the missing link was wiped out during the earth cleansing by the Great Flood.

There was an error in typing, the word ‘not’ was missed to indicate that the serpent was not created in the image and likeness of God.—-sorry!

Angelino Acosta said:

Evolution is wrong. The bible is correct, it is only the interpretation of some that makes it like wrong. Before science was developed the WORD of God was already existed. Science is now the engine of knowledge to make the Bible clearer to man. Through science, I could now grasp what really happened in the FALL.

Adam and Eve were instructed to replenish the earth. Satan came in to destroy tmhe reproductio plan of God. Satan a spirit possessed the Serpent to impregnate Eve before Adam get the divine revelation to carryout the reproduction plan of God. Note that the serpent was an upright creature very much like a man but was created in the image and likeness of God.before he of God. He became like a snake after he was cursed by God. Eve gave birth to twin, Cain was the serpent seed and Abel was Adam’s. Cain killed Abel, Seth was born later to become as replacement as his name implied. The upright serpent is the missing link.

After seven generations, the descendants of Cain and Seth intermingled, hence, all had acquired the mixed, stained blood. God had then declared that His Spirit will no longer abide in man. The absence of God’s Spirit made them to do wickedness.

Science wants to establish the relationship of Ape (which was the upright creature then) to man. The serpent which is the missing link was wiped out during the earth cleansing by the Great Flood.

The bible is a bunch of myths. There are no gods, not in reality. Gods are fictional constructs, just like Harry Potter and the Incredible Hulk.

Evolution is correct, and you can test that claim for yourself.

Angelino Acosta said:

Evolution is wrong. The bible is correct, it is only the interpretation of some that makes it like wrong. Before science was developed the WORD of God was already existed. Science is now the engine of knowledge to make the Bible clearer to man. Through science, I could now grasp what really happened in the FALL.

Adam and Eve were instructed to replenish the earth. Satan came in to destroy tmhe reproductio plan of God. Satan a spirit possessed the Serpent to impregnate Eve before Adam get the divine revelation to carryout the reproduction plan of God. Note that the serpent was an upright creature very much like a man but was created in the image and likeness of God.before he of God. He became like a snake after he was cursed by God. Eve gave birth to twin, Cain was the serpent seed and Abel was Adam’s. Cain killed Abel, Seth was born later to become as replacement as his name implied. The upright serpent is the missing link.

After seven generations, the descendants of Cain and Seth intermingled, hence, all had acquired the mixed, stained blood. God had then declared that His Spirit will no longer abide in man. The absence of God’s Spirit made them to do wickedness.

Science wants to establish the relationship of Ape (which was the upright creature then) to man. The serpent which is the missing link was wiped out during the earth cleansing by the Great Flood.

Angelino,

Please explain the pattern of recombination documented in the paper that is the topic of this thread. If man was created separately, what possible effect could the gene order in chimps have on recombination rates in various regions of the genome in humans? If you choose not to answer, as every other creationist did, then your ideas will be dismissed as being scientifically unsound.

Angelino, can you show us the research and experimentation you have done and the data you have gathered for you to come to the conclusion that evolution is magically wrong, and that snakes are really the cursed descendants of a cursed mammal intermediary between Satan, Cain and Seth who tried to rape Eve on behalf of Satan?

Or at least show us the specific Bible passages that state this fabulous word salad?

Amazing logic!

“Brian Thomas … recently published an article for ICR, in which he details why it is absurd to believe that dinosaur skin like this could have possibly survived for tens of millions of years.”… “under realistic conditions, collagen’s maximum “shelf life” is probably closer to 300,000 years.”… “most dinosaur fossils were buried during the Great Flood around 4,400 years ago.”

So why, FFS, don’t virtually ALL dinosaur fossils contain significant amounts of collagen?

Robert Byers said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/[…]weoWrzatuB7Y said:

Robert Byers said:

TomS said:

Robert Byers said: There is no bodyform on earth as good as the ape one.

For the best vision, I’d vote for the mantis shrimp

For survivability under extreme conditions, for an animal, there’s the waterbears

But what is the best body form? By the criterion of success, I’d have to vote for Pelagibacter ubique

Cheetahs run faster too but it would interfere in driving cars. The ape body is the best body for a being made in Gods image. Smarts and desires to do stuff. It could only be that we have a ape body! What would be better as long as we must be in the spectrum of the commonness of physical forms? Anyways scoring genes is still just a line of reasoning that like genes equals like origins. Even if true it would still be a line of reasoning. Theres no evidence for any lineage conclusions from genes. like reactions from like needs to react can explain any genetic results.

Hi, RobertByers. The twin nested hierarchies of genomes and morphology don’t just involve useful stuff, they also involve useless stuff. For instance, humans have a gene (allele) for making vitamin C, but it’s broken. Our ancestors ate vitamin C-rich food for so long that it was a harmless mutation, and was not selected against. It is almost identical to the mutation chimps have. The gorilla mutation is rather different - almost as though a neutral mutation had drifted away from the original longer than the chimp & human versions had. The guinea pig also has a non-functioning vitamin C-producing gene, but it is broken in a completely different way. Evolution from common ancestors explains this. Are you suggesting that a creator wanted to make sure that our non-functioning gene was more similar to a chimp’s than a guinea pig’s? Why? There are thousands of examples like this.

All things changed at the point in the bible called the fall. Our bodies changed. We are dying and before that must protect against early dying. Changing vit c need only be seen as a needed or some species of reaction to some problem newly occurring. If apes have it too then thats fine. It makes sense they would for the same reason. They have a very like body. If some primates don’t then simply there is a lack of need or a reaction to newly change. Its only a line of reasoning that these like/dislike DNA details equals a original ancestry. Even if true it would still be ONLY a line of reasoning. Another line ends it as any claim to proof of common descent. This is not evidence for common descent but a simple conclusion that ignores heaps of other options.

This doesn’t make any sense. We clearly don’t need a gene for making vitamin C now; our ape diet provides enough. (Although it would prevent the occasional case of scurvy). Why would our fellow apes, our close cousins, have this gene broken in the same way (or less same, in the case of gorillas)? And very differently, in the case of guinea pigs, our more distant cousins? Why couldn’t God break them in the same way?

Why do we have a plantaris tendon - did we hold oranges with our toes like chimps before the fall?

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/[…]weoWrzatuB7Y said:

Robert Byers said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/[…]weoWrzatuB7Y said:

Robert Byers said:

TomS said:

Robert Byers said: There is no bodyform on earth as good as the ape one.

For the best vision, I’d vote for the mantis shrimp

For survivability under extreme conditions, for an animal, there’s the waterbears

But what is the best body form? By the criterion of success, I’d have to vote for Pelagibacter ubique

Cheetahs run faster too but it would interfere in driving cars. The ape body is the best body for a being made in Gods image. Smarts and desires to do stuff. It could only be that we have a ape body! What would be better as long as we must be in the spectrum of the commonness of physical forms? Anyways scoring genes is still just a line of reasoning that like genes equals like origins. Even if true it would still be a line of reasoning. Theres no evidence for any lineage conclusions from genes. like reactions from like needs to react can explain any genetic results.

Hi, RobertByers. The twin nested hierarchies of genomes and morphology don’t just involve useful stuff, they also involve useless stuff. For instance, humans have a gene (allele) for making vitamin C, but it’s broken. Our ancestors ate vitamin C-rich food for so long that it was a harmless mutation, and was not selected against. It is almost identical to the mutation chimps have. The gorilla mutation is rather different - almost as though a neutral mutation had drifted away from the original longer than the chimp & human versions had. The guinea pig also has a non-functioning vitamin C-producing gene, but it is broken in a completely different way. Evolution from common ancestors explains this. Are you suggesting that a creator wanted to make sure that our non-functioning gene was more similar to a chimp’s than a guinea pig’s? Why? There are thousands of examples like this.

All things changed at the point in the bible called the fall. Our bodies changed. We are dying and before that must protect against early dying. Changing vit c need only be seen as a needed or some species of reaction to some problem newly occurring. If apes have it too then thats fine. It makes sense they would for the same reason. They have a very like body. If some primates don’t then simply there is a lack of need or a reaction to newly change. Its only a line of reasoning that these like/dislike DNA details equals a original ancestry. Even if true it would still be ONLY a line of reasoning. Another line ends it as any claim to proof of common descent. This is not evidence for common descent but a simple conclusion that ignores heaps of other options.

This doesn’t make any sense. We clearly don’t need a gene for making vitamin C now; our ape diet provides enough. (Although it would prevent the occasional case of scurvy). Why would our fellow apes, our close cousins, have this gene broken in the same way (or less same, in the case of gorillas)? And very differently, in the case of guinea pigs, our more distant cousins? Why couldn’t God break them in the same way?

Why do we have a plantaris tendon - did we hold oranges with our toes like chimps before the fall?

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/[…]weoWrzatuB7Y said:

Robert Byers said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/[…]weoWrzatuB7Y said:

Robert Byers said:

TomS said:

Robert Byers said: There is no bodyform on earth as good as the ape one.

For the best vision, I’d vote for the mantis shrimp

For survivability under extreme conditions, for an animal, there’s the waterbears

But what is the best body form? By the criterion of success, I’d have to vote for Pelagibacter ubique

Cheetahs run faster too but it would interfere in driving cars. The ape body is the best body for a being made in Gods image. Smarts and desires to do stuff. It could only be that we have a ape body! What would be better as long as we must be in the spectrum of the commonness of physical forms? Anyways scoring genes is still just a line of reasoning that like genes equals like origins. Even if true it would still be a line of reasoning. Theres no evidence for any lineage conclusions from genes. like reactions from like needs to react can explain any genetic results.

Hi, RobertByers. The twin nested hierarchies of genomes and morphology don’t just involve useful stuff, they also involve useless stuff. For instance, humans have a gene (allele) for making vitamin C, but it’s broken. Our ancestors ate vitamin C-rich food for so long that it was a harmless mutation, and was not selected against. It is almost identical to the mutation chimps have. The gorilla mutation is rather different - almost as though a neutral mutation had drifted away from the original longer than the chimp & human versions had. The guinea pig also has a non-functioning vitamin C-producing gene, but it is broken in a completely different way. Evolution from common ancestors explains this. Are you suggesting that a creator wanted to make sure that our non-functioning gene was more similar to a chimp’s than a guinea pig’s? Why? There are thousands of examples like this.

All things changed at the point in the bible called the fall. Our bodies changed. We are dying and before that must protect against early dying. Changing vit c need only be seen as a needed or some species of reaction to some problem newly occurring. If apes have it too then thats fine. It makes sense they would for the same reason. They have a very like body. If some primates don’t then simply there is a lack of need or a reaction to newly change. Its only a line of reasoning that these like/dislike DNA details equals a original ancestry. Even if true it would still be ONLY a line of reasoning. Another line ends it as any claim to proof of common descent. This is not evidence for common descent but a simple conclusion that ignores heaps of other options.

This doesn’t make any sense. We clearly don’t need a gene for making vitamin C now; our ape diet provides enough. (Although it would prevent the occasional case of scurvy). Why would our fellow apes, our close cousins, have this gene broken in the same way (or less same, in the case of gorillas)? And very differently, in the case of guinea pigs, our more distant cousins? Why couldn’t God break them in the same way?

Why do we have a plantaris tendon - did we hold oranges with our toes like chimps before the fall?

IMHO, any single case of similarity is not “proof” of common descent. (Of course, in the world of real things, we don’t have proof. Only in a world like mathematics. But that is a distraction. Creationists are good at distractions. They are wrong about so many things that it’s easy to get distracted in pointing out every way that they go wrong.)

First of all, we observe the obvious fact that humans are most similar to chimps and other apes among all of the variety of living things. That encompasses an extremely complex set of facts that is just asking for an explanation. It’s part of the huge collection of facts that are known as the nested hierarchical structure of taxonomy, or the “tree of life”.

Now, no one has ever thought of an explanation for a nested hierarchy which does not involve “descent with modification”. There are other nested hierarchies - I think of (1) several language families, such as the Indo-European languages (2) textual traditions, such as in the manuscripts and other citations of Biblical texts. Nobody has come up with an explanation for any of these which does not involve a process of reproduction with errors.

But that alone is not “proof”. All that that does is establish a plausible hypothesis. Following the scientific method, we then test the plausible hypothesis by generating testable consequences of the hypothesis. If descent with modification is going on in the world of life, then we ought to be able to observe it happening in life today: And there are many observations of life in the wild, and reproducible experiments on life in laboratory conditions, which show descent with modification. And, if there is descent with modification, then there should be cases of transitional forms from the past. And we find surprising fossils which document transitions which seem highly unlikely - such as the doubly-articulated jaw of Morganucodon. And plenty of other testable predictions of the plausible hypothesis in plenty of other fields.

That’s the “proof”.

The Bible has the answer! Adam was a son of God, and he was to bring forth sons and daughters of God ‘after his kind’ There would not be, nor could there be, one bit of Satan’s traits, such as lying and murdering In them.

Cain was of the evil one (1John3:12). The serpent seduce Eve.(2Corinthians11:1-3) Eating means sexual act( Proverbs 30:20) Eve committed adultery with the Serpent, which was an erect mammal before he wad cursed by God to crawl like snake.(Gen.1:14)

Blood was involved in FALL. The substance, which carried the Satanic traits was the blood gene of the Serpent (who was demonically influenced). Sex must be the gateway onto the fall of man. If sex was not involved in Sin, why did Adam and Eve sew fig leaves together and make themselves apron to cover their nakedness.(Gen 1:7). And why was the female sexual organ cursed by God that her SORROW and CONCEPTION were greatly mutiplied?(Gen3:16) Was not it strange for Adam and Eve to cover their sexual organs instead of their mouth If eating of the forbidden fruit was their sin?

Cain was the serpent seed.Gen1:15. After 7 generations, Cain’s descendants and Seth’s (the son Adam out of “his kind”) intermingled (Gen 6:1-3). Since then, all men had acquired a fallen nature, had serpentine blood cells.

The blood was stained. Therefore God had to choose BLOOD In his redemption plan as His Own law requires it(Gen 9:6; Exodus 21:23-25) Jesus Christ had to by-pass ordinary human conception and be Virgin Born because the blood of man is sinful (polluted) before God, for God requires only pure innocent blood as atonement for sins.

The erect mammal serpent was the “missing”. he was cursed by God to crawl like a snake as punishment.

Mmmmkay.

Robert Byers, the crazy gauntlet has been thrown down. I expect you to rise to the challenge.

idiot babbled:

The Bible has the answer! Adam was a son of God, and he was to bring forth sons and daughters of God ‘after his kind’ There would not be, nor could there be, one bit of Satan’s traits, such as lying and murdering In them.

Cain was of the evil one (1John3:12). The serpent seduce Eve.(2Corinthians11:1-3) Eating means sexual act( Proverbs 30:20) Eve committed adultery with the Serpent, which was an erect mammal before he wad cursed by God to crawl like snake.(Gen.1:14)

So, when Jesus Christ was participating in the Last Supper, are you saying that, when He was making all those food metaphors, He and the Apostles were engaged in a sex orgy?

Blood was involved in FALL. The substance, which carried the Satanic traits was the blood gene of the Serpent (who was demonically influenced). Sex must be the gateway onto the fall of man. If sex was not involved in Sin, why did Adam and Eve sew fig leaves together and make themselves apron to cover their nakedness.(Gen 1:7). And why was the female sexual organ cursed by God that her SORROW and CONCEPTION were greatly mutiplied?(Gen3:16) Was not it strange for Adam and Eve to cover their sexual organs instead of their mouth If eating of the forbidden fruit was their sin?

Then why are humans required to have sex in order to reproduce in the first place? That, and why is it that Biology has determined that sperm and egg cells, and not blood, are what carries heritable traits?

Cain was the serpent seed.Gen1:15. After 7 generations, Cain’s descendants and Seth’s (the son Adam out of “his kind”) intermingled (Gen 6:1-3). Since then, all men had acquired a fallen nature, had serpentine blood cells.

Any evidence of this insanely inane claim?

The erect mammal serpent was the “missing”. he was cursed by God to crawl like a snake as punishment.

If snakes are the cursed descendants of a cursed mammal who magically contaminated humans’ blood lines on behalf of Satan, then why are 1) humans are demonstratibly not related to snakes on genetic or anatomical levels, 2) why are snakes biologically and genetically lizards without eyelids or limbs, 3) The Bible never actually stated mentioned the Snake raped Eve to conceive Cain, or that humans have snake blood via magical contamination of Eve being magically raped on behalf of Satan, or even that the Serpent in the Garden of Eden was a mammal who was cursed to become a legless, and eyelidless lizard?

apokryltaros said: are you saying that, when He was making all those food metaphors, He and the Apostles were engaged in a sex orgy?

13 guys, 1 cup.

I feel dirty even writing that. PZ, feel free to BW this post.

Not all scriptures were written metaphorically. The curse to the woman was literal and so to Serpent. The serpent as originally formed Is no longer existing. T

Cain was physically the son of the serpent; but he was vicariously the son of Satan. In the murder of Abel, three devilish traits were manifested in Cain. Read Gen.4:8-9. The murderous or lying nature does not come from God; it comes from Satan (John10:10;11:25; Numbers23:19). Jesus said that Satan “was a murderer from the beginning” and that “he Is a liar. and the father of it”(John8:4) His rebellious nature was manifested in Cain when he defiantly shouted at God, saying “Am I my brother’s keeper?”

These traits alone are enough proofs that Cain was not a sonof Adam who was a son God. Gen4:16-2 is the record of Cain’s own geneaology. Gen5:6-32 were the descendants of Seth. Compare!

idiot lied:

Cain was physically the son of the serpent; but he was vicariously the son of Satan. In the murder of Abel, three devilish traits were manifested in Cain. Read Gen.4:8-9. The murderous or lying nature does not come from God; it comes from Satan (John10:10;11:25; Numbers23:19). Jesus said that Satan “was a murderer from the beginning” and that “he Is a liar. and the father of it”(John8:4) His rebellious nature was manifested in Cain when he defiantly shouted at God, saying “Am I my brother’s keeper?”

These traits alone are enough proofs that Cain was not a sonof Adam who was a son God. Gen4:16-2 is the record of Cain’s own geneaology. Gen5:6-32 were the descendants of Seth. Compare!

So where in the Bible does it specifically state that Cain was the “son of the Serpent”?

Oh, wait, it does not say that. You’re making shit up.

1 John 3:12 “We should not be like Cain, who WAS OF THE EVIL ONE and murdered his brother. And why did he murdered him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother’s righteous.”

aying said:

1 John 3:12 “We should not be like Cain, who WAS OF THE EVIL ONE and murdered his brother. And why did he murdered him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother’s righteous.”

Actually It was because Cain was jealous of Abel because God favored Abel’s fat offerings rather than Cain’s grain offerings. (Gen 4:2-5)

Genesis 4 (NIV) says pretty plainly that Cain was Adam’s son.

4 Adam made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, “With the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man.” 2 Later she gave birth to his brother Abel.

I think that says it pretty plainly. No need to read any metaphoric sexual meaning about Eve eating with the serpent to conceive Cain.

The devine command to Adam and Eve Is to fruitful and multiply. Adam was a son of God, and he was to bring forth sons and daughters of God “AFTER HIS KIND” unto God. God has placed a law in His creation that the the earth would bring forth the vegetation, fishes, birds, and animals “AFTER THEIR KIND”. This phrase is repeated five times in Gen 1(verses 11, 12, 21, 24, 25) To go against this law is to produce something not of its kind. This is a sin in theyes of the Lord God. Adam who was created in the image and likeness of God would not be, nor could there be a bit of Satan’s traits in him.

apokryltaros said:

idiot lied:

Cain was physically the son of the serpent; but he was vicariously the son of Satan. In the murder of Abel, three devilish traits were manifested in Cain. Read Gen.4:8-9. The murderous or lying nature does not come from God; it comes from Satan (John10:10;11:25; Numbers23:19). Jesus said that Satan “was a murderer from the beginning” and that “he Is a liar. and the father of it”(John8:4) His rebellious nature was manifested in Cain when he defiantly shouted at God, saying “Am I my brother’s keeper?”

These traits alone are enough proofs that Cain was not a sonof Adam who was a son God. Gen4:16-2 is the record of Cain’s own geneaology. Gen5:6-32 were the descendants of Seth. Compare!

So where in the Bible does it specifically state that Cain was the “son of the Serpent”?

Oh, wait, it does not say that. You’re making shit up.

No, he’s not making it up, he’s cribbing it from here.

All life, big and small, good or evil, comes from God (Isaiah45:7. Thus, was able to say that she had “gotten a man from the Lord”(Gen4:1)

The genealogy of a person is traced to the side of the man(the father) why does not the Bible tells us that Adam was the father of all living instead of stating that Eve was the mother of all living.Gen 3:20. And consider why Adam so named the first son of Eve ‘Cain’. Cain means acquisition, because he was not of Adam’s begotten son; he was merely an acquired son.

The birth right belongs to the firstborn alone(Gen43:33); Why was Cainnot mentioned in the Genealogy of Adam.

Jude 14 states that Enoch was seventh from Adam. If Cain was of Adam, Enoch could not have been the seventh, he should be the counting from Adam. Whoever, nowhere in the Bible is Cain referred to as a son of Adam.

Sexual fornication had its beginning in the Garden of Eden. Since then ‘filthy’ sex is rampant everywhere. Satan is a perverter and from him sprang three great evils that blanket the whole world today- Sexual perversions, lies and murders. They were found manifested in the land of Eden. Since then, they have been on the increase, with added attributes, in every generation.

Also, in Gen 4:1 states only one act of union between Adam and Eve, but two children were born. Yet, it does not record the two as twins. Whenever “twins” of same father were born they are specifically stated in the scriptures. Read Genesis25:24; 38:27

aying said:

All life, big and small, good or evil, comes from God (Isaiah45:7. Thus, was able to say that she had “gotten a man from the Lord”(Gen4:1)

The genealogy of a person is traced to the side of the man(the father) why does not the Bible tells us that Adam was the father of all living instead of stating that Eve was the mother of all living.Gen 3:20. And consider why Adam so named the first son of Eve ‘Cain’. Cain means acquisition, because he was not of Adam’s begotten son; he was merely an acquired son.

The birth right belongs to the firstborn alone(Gen43:33); Why was Cainnot mentioned in the Genealogy of Adam.

Jude 14 states that Enoch was seventh from Adam. If Cain was of Adam, Enoch could not have been the seventh, he should be the counting from Adam. Whoever, nowhere in the Bible is Cain referred to as a son of Adam.

Sexual fornication had its beginning in the Garden of Eden. Since then ‘filthy’ sex is rampant everywhere. Satan is a perverter and from him sprang three great evils that blanket the whole world today- Sexual perversions, lies and murders. They were found manifested in the land of Eden. Since then, they have been on the increase, with added attributes, in every generation.

But aying, there are no gods. Gods are fictional. They are not real.

All your stories are great fun, especially because you make them up yourself, but everybody knows that they are only that - stories.

But while you’re spinning tales, by all means tell us about the nonsexual fornication whose existence you imply.

SWT said:

No, he’s not making it up, he’s cribbing it from here.

Sorry aying, I see you are not making up your own stories at all. You’re just plagiarizing, like all the other religious loonies who come here.

aying said:

The Bible has the answer! Adam was a son of God, and he was to bring forth sons and daughters of God ‘after his kind’ There would not be, nor could there be, one bit of Satan’s traits, such as lying and murdering In them.

Cain was of the evil one (1John3:12). The serpent seduce Eve.(2Corinthians11:1-3) Eating means sexual act( Proverbs 30:20) Eve committed adultery with the Serpent, which was an erect mammal before he wad cursed by God to crawl like snake.(Gen.1:14)

Blood was involved in FALL. The substance, which carried the Satanic traits was the blood gene of the Serpent (who was demonically influenced). Sex must be the gateway onto the fall of man. If sex was not involved in Sin, why did Adam and Eve sew fig leaves together and make themselves apron to cover their nakedness.(Gen 1:7). And why was the female sexual organ cursed by God that her SORROW and CONCEPTION were greatly mutiplied?(Gen3:16) Was not it strange for Adam and Eve to cover their sexual organs instead of their mouth If eating of the forbidden fruit was their sin?

Cain was the serpent seed.Gen1:15. After 7 generations, Cain’s descendants and Seth’s (the son Adam out of “his kind”) intermingled (Gen 6:1-3). Since then, all men had acquired a fallen nature, had serpentine blood cells.

The blood was stained. Therefore God had to choose BLOOD In his redemption plan as His Own law requires it(Gen 9:6; Exodus 21:23-25) Jesus Christ had to by-pass ordinary human conception and be Virgin Born because the blood of man is sinful (polluted) before God, for God requires only pure innocent blood as atonement for sins.

The erect mammal serpent was the “missing”. he was cursed by God to crawl like a snake as punishment.

Adam [on the verge of tears]: Did you have to do it with that, that snake?

Eve: He is not a snake! He’s a mammal, with warm blood and nipples and lots of really thick dark orange body hair, and he’s a lot more erect than you ever were, I can tell you that!

Adam: He’s a snake! In your grass!

Eve [exasperated]: Look, I said I’m sorry. It’s not like we’re married or something. We’re gardenmates, that’s it.

Adam: But Eve, you and me, we coulda begot godlets!

Eve: Yeah, so your father keeps saying. Did either of you think about consulting me in this little plan of yours? I don’t think so. You can’t even make your fig leaf twitch, Adam. How’re you gonna father gods?

Adam: Can so! Ask Miss Bessy!

Eve: And you’re all over me for sleeping with that ape. If you get that goat pregnant, Adam, all your begettings will acquire a goat nature. They’ll have goatish blood cells. Nobody wants those little bastards for gods, except maybe the Greeks.

Adam: And what about YOU?! What about when you get knocked up, huh? Now whatever we beget is gonna be stained! STAINED!

Eve: I ate of the fruit of knowledge, Adam, I know how to prevent that. Besides, you are not the only pair of balls on this Earth. There must be 15000 other people out there right now, and I’m going to join them for a change. And Adam - we weren’t just sexually fornicating - we were eating! Goodbye!

Waiting for FL or IBIG or Byers or SteveP to jump in and tell this idiot that he’s an idiot and goin’ to hell.

I think I’ll have a long wait.

I don’t think I have ever seen such an infestation of loonies here. The rationalizations, the projection, the plagiarism, the bible quotes, the lies, the insanity. I think I need to take my brain out and wash it now…

It is discouraging to say the least, to know that there are people out there doing this to their children. Thank you PT residents, for doing your best every day to shine some light on the likes of these fools. I live for the day when reality finally takes precedence over myth.

The Bible is flawless! Romand3:4 “God forbid! Let God be true and man a liar” I believe Science.is the fulfillment of Daniel12:4 “ Knowledge shall increase at the end time.”Truly, this is being realized in our present day. God permits the development of Science to help us understand the remaining mystery of the Bible, and not to refute His own WORD. The Bible is true, only the wrong interpretations of some make it seemingly wrong. GOD BLESS EVERYONE!

aying said:

The Bible is flawless! Romand3:4 “God forbid! Let God be true and man a liar” I believe Science.is the fulfillment of Daniel12:4 “ Knowledge shall increase at the end time.”Truly, this is being realized in our present day. God permits the development of Science to help us understand the remaining mystery of the Bible, and not to refute His own WORD. The Bible is true, only the wrong interpretations of some make it seemingly wrong. GOD BLESS EVERYONE!

So that would be a no. You have no explanation whatsoever for the observed pattern of recombination rates. Got it.

I just want to point out that this comment is ridiculous, if for no reason other than the fact that the commenter appears to be under the impression that all primates are “monkeys” (there are also huge holes in the logic and understanding of evolutionary theory, as well as at least one annoying grammatical mistake, but we can leave those alone for now). Humans are Catarrhine primates and are members of the Infraorder Hominoidea, which includes the Families Hylobatidae (lesser apes) and Pongidae (great apes), as well as the Family to which we and our ancestors belong, Hominidae. There are both Catarrhine and Platyrrhine monkeys (Cercopithecoidea and Ceboidea), but humans and the great/lesser apes are neither, and are very different in a number of ways from both…and even more so from Strepsirhine primates (or Prosimians which, by the way, are also not monkeys). It’s pretty hard to take someone seriously when they have such a blatant lack of knowledge at such a basic level of this “argument” (labelling it an argument erroneously implies that anyone on the creationist/ID/anti-evolution side has even a single decent point or sliver of compelling evidence with which to argue, in my opinion). In any case, I think using the word monkey in the context it was used here pretty much disqualifies you from further participation or comments (or should, at least), as it shows how wildly uninformed you are on even the most basic aspects of primate taxonomy, let alone the intricacies of the evolution of the Order.

Werewolf Dongle said:

Well, we have from the paper:

More recently, a number of related studies have proposed an alternative explanation by which chromosomal rearrangements could reduce gene flow and potentially contribute to speciation by the suppression of recombination (Noor et al. 2001; Rieseberg 2001). According to this “suppressed recombination” model, chromosome rearrangements could have a minimal influence on fitness, but would suppress recombination leading to the reduction of gene flow across genomic regions and to the accumulation of incompatibilities.

Here’s the problem–evolutionism demands that their be no incompatibility between humans and monkeys. If there are, how did monkeys have the first baby human? Evolutionism demands perfect compatibility between people and monkeys with all differences between them being the result of culture. Genetic incompatibilities make evolutionism doubtful.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PZ Myers published on June 18, 2013 9:20 AM.

Rabidosa rabida was the previous entry in this blog.

Meyer’s Hopeless Monster, Part II is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.38

Site Meter