Australian Politics Forum - Hu-man Did Not Descend from Apes

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

Forum rules, Recent posts (with text), RSS, Search options, Browse all uploaded images
Home, Articles, Green Tax Shift, Evolution,

Australian Politics Forum › General Discussion › Chat › Hu-man Did Not Descend from Apes

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 9

Hu-man Did Not Descend from Apes (Read 17204 times)

it_is_the_light

Gold Member

Offline

Christ Light

Posts: 41434
The Pyramid of LIGHT
Gender: male

Re: Hu-man Did Not Descend from Apes
Reply #30 - Sep 19^th, 2016 at 11:27am

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 19^th, 2016 at 11:09am:

it_is_the_light wrote on Sep 19^th, 2016 at 7:43am:

many blessings ,

let us conduct a simple test .. if any can answer this question I would be glad to see the product of your intellect ...

question 1 .

What percentage of brain capacity do humans use?

100%

this does not make any sense pastafarian ..

for if you did you would not let mad scientists inject mercury and squalene into your system through vaccines however yes

you are correct rather than the idiocy taught that you use 16 or so % ... and yet

why do you not teach this to your students rather than the scientific narrative ?

further I would suggest you start using as much and cleanse your system of toxic heavy metals , yet either way

be at peace

namaste

- : ) =

ॐ May Much LOVE and CHRISTS LIGHT be upon and within us all.... namasté ▲ - : ) ╰დ╮ॐ╭დ╯

IP Logged

Prime Minister for Canyons

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 26906
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Hu-man Did Not Descend from Apes
Reply #31 - Sep 19^th, 2016 at 11:47am

it_is_the_light wrote on Sep 19^th, 2016 at 11:27am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 19^th, 2016 at 11:09am:

it_is_the_light wrote on Sep 19^th, 2016 at 7:43am:

many blessings ,

let us conduct a simple test .. if any can answer this question I would be glad to see the product of your intellect ...

question 1 .

What percentage of brain capacity do humans use?

100%

Because the scientific narrative has never said 16%. Thats a common myth.

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy)

IP Logged

it_is_the_light

Gold Member

Offline

Christ Light

Posts: 41434
The Pyramid of LIGHT
Gender: male

Re: Hu-man Did Not Descend from Apes
Reply #32 - Sep 20^th, 2016 at 9:19am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percent_of_the_brain_myth

Ten percent of the brain myth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 10 percent of the brain myth is the widely perpetuated urban legend that most or all humans only make use of 10 percent (or some other small percentage) of their brains. It has been misattributed to many people, including Albert Einstein.[1] By extrapolation, it is suggested that a person may harness this unused potential and increase intelligence.

Changes in grey and white matter following new experiences and learning have been shown, but it has not yet been proven what the changes are.[2] The popular notion that large parts of the brain remain unused, and could subsequently be "activated", rests in popular folklore and not science. Though mysteries regarding brain function remain—e.g. memory, consciousness—the physiology of brain mapping suggests that all areas of the brain have a function.[3][4]

Origin[edit]
One possible origin is the reserve energy theories by Harvard psychologists William James and Boris Sidis in the 1890s who tested the theory in the accelerated raising of child prodigy William Sidis; thereafter, James told audiences that people only meet a fraction of their full mental potential, which is a plausible claim.[5] In 1936, American writer Lowell Thomas summarized this idea (in a foreword to Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People) by adding a falsely precise percentage: "Professor William James of Harvard used to say that the average man develops only ten percent of his latent mental ability".[6] This book was not the first to use the 10 percent figure, which was already circulating within the self-help movement before then; for example, the book Mind Myths: Exploring Popular Assumptions About the Mind and Brain includes a chapter on the ten percent myth which shows a self-help advertisement from the 1929 World Almanac containing the line "There is NO LIMIT to what the human brain can accomplish. Scientists and psychologists tell us we use only about TEN PERCENT of our brain power."[7]

In the 1970s, psychologist and educator Georgi Lozanov proposed the teaching method of suggestopedia believing "that we might be using only five to ten percent of our mental capacity".[8][9] The origin of the myth has also been attributed to Wilder Penfield, the U.S.-born neurosurgeon who was the first director of Montreal Neurological Institute of McGill University.[10]

According to a related origin story, the ten percent myth most likely arose from a misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of neurological research in the late 19th century or early 20th century. For example, the functions of many brain regions (especially in the cerebral cortex) are complex enough that the effects of damage are subtle, leading early neurologists to wonder what these regions did.[11] The brain was also discovered to consist mostly of glial cells, which seemed to have very minor functions. Dr. James W. Kalat, author of the textbook Biological Psychology, points out that neuroscientists in the 1930s knew about the large number of "local" neurons in the brain. The misunderstanding of the function of local neurons may have led to the ten percent myth.[12] The myth might have been propagated simply by a truncation of the idea that some use a small percentage of their brains at any given time.[1] In the same article in Scientific American, John Henley, a neurologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota states: "Evidence would show over a day you use 100 percent of the brain".[1]

Although parts of the brain have broadly understood functions, many mysteries remain about how brain cells (i.e., neurons and glia) work together to produce complex behaviors and disorders. Perhaps the broadest, most mysterious question is how diverse regions of the brain collaborate to form conscious experiences. So far, there is no evidence that there is one site for consciousness, which leads experts to believe that it is truly a collective neural effort. Therefore, as with James's idea that humans have untapped cognitive potential, it may be that a large number of questions about the brain have not been fully answered.[1]

ॐ May Much LOVE and CHRISTS LIGHT be upon and within us all.... namasté ▲ - : ) ╰დ╮ॐ╭დ╯

IP Logged

it_is_the_light

Gold Member

Offline

Christ Light

Posts: 41434
The Pyramid of LIGHT
Gender: male

Re: Hu-man Did Not Descend from Apes
Reply #33 - Sep 20^th, 2016 at 9:19am

Analysis[edit]
Neurologist Barry Gordon describes the myth as false, adding, "we use virtually every part of the brain, and that (most of) the brain is active almost all the time."[1] Neuroscientist Barry Beyerstein sets out seven kinds of evidence refuting the ten percent myth:[13]

Studies of brain damage: If 10 percent of the brain is normally used, then damage to these areas should not impair performance. Instead, there is almost no area of the brain that can be damaged without loss of abilities. Even slight damage to small areas of the brain can have profound effects.
Brain scans have shown that no matter what one is doing, all brain areas are always active. Some areas are more active at any one time than others, but barring brain damage, there is no part of the brain that is absolutely not functioning.
The brain is enormously costly to the rest of the body, in terms of oxygen and nutrient consumption. It can require up to 20 percent of the body's energy—more than any other organ—despite making up only 2 percent of the human body by weight.[14][15] If 90 percent of it were unnecessary, there would be a large survival advantage to humans with smaller, more efficient brains. If this were true, the process of natural selection would have eliminated the inefficient brains. It is also highly unlikely that a brain with so much redundant matter would have evolved in the first place; given the historical risk of death in childbirth associated with the large brain size (and therefore skull size) of humans,[16] there would be a strong selection pressure against such a large brain size if only 10 percent was actually in use.
Brain imaging (neuroimaging): Technologies such as positron emission tomography (PET) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) allow the activity of the living brain to be monitored. They reveal that even during sleep, all parts of the brain show some level of activity. Only in the case of serious damage does a brain have "silent" areas.
Localization of function: Rather than acting as a single mass, the brain has distinct regions for different kinds of information processing. Decades of research have gone into mapping functions onto areas of the brain, and no function-less areas have been found.
Microstructural analysis: In the single-unit recording technique, researchers insert a tiny electrode into the brain to monitor the activity of a single cell. If 90 percent of cells were unused, then this technique would have revealed that.
Synaptic pruning: Brain cells that are not used have a tendency to degenerate. Hence if 90 percent of the brain were inactive, autopsy of normal adult brains would reveal large-scale degeneration.

In popular culture[edit]
Several books, films, and short stories have been written closely related to this myth. They include the novel The Dark Fields, its film adaptation, the 9th book (White Night) of Jim Butcher's book series The Dresden Files, Limitless (claiming 20 percent rather than the typical 10 percent), and the 2014 film Lucy, all of which operate under the notion that the rest of the brain could be accessed through use of a drug.[17] Lucy, in particular, depicts a character who gains increasingly godlike abilities once she surpasses 10 percent, though the film suggests that 10 percent represents brain capacity at a particular time rather than permanent usage.

The myth is "busted" on an October 27, 2010 episode of MythBusters. The hosts used magnetoencephalography and functional magnetic resonance imaging to scan the brain of someone attempting a complicated mental task, and found that over 10% but less than 20% of the brain was used.
[citation needed]

The 10 percent brain myth occurs frequently in advertisements,[18] and in entertainment media it is often cited as if it were fact.[19]

Some New Age proponents propagate the "ten percent of the brain" belief by asserting that the "unused" ninety percent of the human brain is capable of exhibiting psychic powers and can be trained to perform psychokinesis and extra-sensory perception.[3][13] There is no scientifically verified body of evidence supporting the existence of such powers.[13]

In 1980, Roger Lewin published an article in Science, "Is Your Brain Really Necessary?",[20] about studies by John Lorber on cerebral cortex losses. He reports the case of a Sheffield University student who had a measured IQ of 126 and passed a Mathematics Degree but who had hardly any discernible brain matter at all since his cortex was extremely reduced by hydrocephalus. The article led to the broadcast of a Yorkshire Television documentary of the same title, although it was about a different patient who had normal brain mass distributed in an unusual way in a very large skull,.[21]

ॐ May Much LOVE and CHRISTS LIGHT be upon and within us all.... namasté ▲ - : ) ╰დ╮ॐ╭დ╯

IP Logged

Prime Minister for Canyons

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 26906
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Hu-man Did Not Descend from Apes
Reply #34 - Sep 20^th, 2016 at 9:28am

If this were true, the process of natural selection would have eliminated the inefficient brains. It is also highly unlikely that a brain with so much redundant matter would have evolved in the first place; given the historical risk of death in childbirth associated with the large brain size (and therefore skull size) of humans,[16] there would be a strong selection pressure against such a large brain size if only 10 percent was actually in use.

I thought you thought evolution was false.

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy)

IP Logged

it_is_the_light

Gold Member

Offline

Christ Light

Posts: 41434
The Pyramid of LIGHT
Gender: male

Re: Hu-man Did Not Descend from Apes
Reply #35 - Sep 20^th, 2016 at 11:53am

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 20^th, 2016 at 9:28am:

as usual pastafarian

your brain is mercury addled , a result of your vaccine addiction .

this has a direct effect on your mind and the ability to discern fact and logic in your reality

I have merely exposed the common myth and revealed the applicable data that embodies mainstream thought and now ,

you may have the care to explain how Hu-mans have come to embody 46 chromosomes which make up their nuclear DNA genome, the diploid number, from the 48 chromosomes or 24 pairs from an alleged " common ancestor "

you can cease with your semantics within inanity and answer the question that confronts your evolution theory .

http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=801

In contrast, as that same common ancestor evolved into a human, two of the 48 chromosomes underwent a genetic malfunction and were fused together to produce a new species with a diploid number of 46.

Figure 1: Evolutionary Map of Proposed Ape and Human Descent. Note the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and the bonobo or pigmy chimpanzee are grouped together.

There are problems with this explanation. First, this hypothesis openly assumes that the chromosomal fusion took place after humans supposedly split from the apes in the proposed evolutionary tree. Allegedly at some point in the past, a human ancestor’s DNA underwent a genetic fusion between two of its chromosomes. This event occurred in no other species. Does this provide evidence that humans share a common ancestor with apes? No. This line of thinking provides no empirical evidence that humans and apes share a common ancestor. All that it really does is suggest that a past human may have undergone this genetic change. In order for this fusion event to demonstrate common ancestry with the chimpanzee, there would have to be some link between the fusion event and the great apes. But no such link exists. The fused-looking chromosome is specific to humans, so it does not directly connect with the great apes. Therefore, it cannot be empirical evidence for a common link between Homo sapiens and the great apes. The only genetic “link” (which is no link at all) between humans and the apes is our close DNA sequence similarity. But this similarity is completely expected given the similar body structure, physiology, and biochemistry that we share with our primate friends. In reality, DNA sequence similarity is just as much evidence for common design as it is for evolution. In actuality, neither viewpoint is proven by the matter of similarity.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that evolutionists are correct and a distant human ancestor with 48 chromosomes did evolve into a new species with 46 chromosomes via the chromosome 2 fusion event. Did this event occur in a single individual or simultaneously in an entire population? Mutations of this nature are certainly rare, but they do occur occasionally. However, the probability that this mutation would occur simultaneously in multiple individuals is so staggeringly low that we can assume its impossibility. At best, the mutation occurred in a single individual. How then was it propagated from one individual to his or her offspring and eventually to every human? Chromosomal rearrangements of this nature are not easily passed to offspring. When mutations of this magnitude occur, they pose serious problems for an organism when the process of gamete production occurs. Gametes are the egg and sperm cells used to form a new individual during sexual reproduction. The process of generating gametes is a special form of cell division known as meiosis. During this process, a specific alignment of chromosomal pairs always occurs and is essential for meiosis. This alignment is dependent on the near-identical structure and sequence of chromosomal pairs. If an individual carries a mutation such as a chromosomal fusion, then he or she will often be unable to produce gametes, because meiosis will fail to occur properly due to improper alignment of the now non-identical chromosome pairs. Today, we know chromosomal fusion to be one cause of infertility. In some cases, meiosis can find a way to complete despite non-identical chromosomal pairs. However, the gametes that result, or the offspring produced by fertilization with these gametes, usually have a short lifespan due to genetic problems. Problems associated with chromosomal alignment lead to spontaneous miscarriages and genetic abnormalities such as Down’s Syndrome.

« Last Edit: Sep 20^th, 2016 at 1:21pm by it_is_the_light »

ॐ May Much LOVE and CHRISTS LIGHT be upon and within us all.... namasté ▲ - : ) ╰დ╮ॐ╭დ╯

IP Logged

it_is_the_light

Gold Member

Offline

Christ Light

Posts: 41434
The Pyramid of LIGHT
Gender: male

Re: Hu-man Did Not Descend from Apes
Reply #36 - Sep 20^th, 2016 at 11:56am

A third problem with the hypothesis of a chromosomal fusion in human ancestry lies in the complete absence of humans with 48 chromosomes. If it were true that a chromosomal split occurred in human evolution, then two distinct human groups would have been generated: one containing 48 chromosomes which were not altered by any genetic change, and a second containing 46 chromosomes including the fusion of chromosome 2 (Figure 2). The problem is, however, that no humans have 48 chromosomes. The only possible historical explanation is that an entire population of 48-chromosome humans became extinct and was replaced by a 46-chromosome human race. For this scenario to have occurred, a very strong positive selection must have favored the diploid number of 46 over that of 48 (Bowers, 2003). Unfortunately for evolutionists, the paradox is that the same selection would be expected for the other apes as well. Apes, however, maintained a chromosome number of 48. Because of the known problems of infertility that go along with large genomic rearrangements, natural selection would actually operate against this proposed chromosomal fusion. The fitness for survival for such individuals would be extremely low. Taken together, no evidence supports common ancestry between humans and chimpanzees via chromosome 2 fusion.

Figure 2: Evolutionary Map of Human Divergence Following Chromosome 2 Fusion.

So, if humans were not a split from the ape lineage in evolutionary theory, there are two other explanations for the appearance of human chromosome 2. The first explanation is that an intelligent designer created humans with 48 chromosomes, but they underwent the fusion sometime following Creation. At first glance, this explanation might appear to be a combination of creation and evolution—but only if “evolution” is defined as microevolution. Let us assume that God created humans with a diploid number of 48 chromosomes, and that they were in all respects the same as humans today except in chromosome number. Later, a fusion occurred between two chromosomes to give humans 46 chromosomes just like ourselves. This would be an example of microevolution. A genetic change occurred, but did not alter the species by creating a new distinct species. Unfortunately, this explanation holds up no better than that of the evolutionist’s common ancestry theory. As described above, the problems of infertility, low survival fitness, and the absence of humans with 48 chromosomes today make this explanation improbable for the appearance of chromosome 2. It could be argued that Noah or his wife (Genesis 6) contained the chromosome 2 fusion and thus repopulated the Earth following the great Flood with this genomic alteration. If Noah or his wife contained a fusion of chromosomes 2A and 2B, then their offspring would have a 50% chance of receiving this chromosome. Then, offspring from their sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, would have only a 25% chance of receiving the altered chromosome 2. With each successive generation, the probability of maintaining the altered chromosome would reduce by one-half. These genetic frequencies of passage to offspring, coupled with the likelihood of infertility and genetic syndromes, make the Noah hypothesis unlikely as well.

The only remaining explanation for the similarity of human chromosome 2 to chromosomes 2A and 2B in the chimpanzee is that God created mankind with 46 chromosomes including a second chromosome with the visible characteristics that we see today. No evidence or any line of rational thought can explain how a single human underwent a genetic chromosomal fusion and passed that alteration to all of mankind—except that he was created by God at the beginning, along with woman, with that chromosomal makeup.

Atheists have asked why God would purposefully create a human chromosome that “looks” like the fusion of two chromosomes. At this stage of understanding, we do not know. Recall God’s words: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8-9, ESV). Eliphaz rightly stated: “He catches the wise in their own craftiness, and the schemes of the wily are brought to a quick end” (Job 5:13, ESV). We cannot know God’s intentions for creating us as we exist, nor can we know why He created chimpanzees with such close genetic similarities to humans. We can know, however, that despite the close similarities in genetics, anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry between Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes, man can think and reason far beyond the chimpanzee or any other living organism. (It is doubtful that genetics will ever solely explain that difference.) But, the greatest difference will always be that man alone has an immortal soul which is yet another created gift from God.

We will continue to learn as we delve deeper into our studies of biology and the living world. We may well discover an explanation. But, there will always be questions which cannot be answered, puzzles which cannot be solved. While God has placed some of His creation beyond our ability to discover, He has left other parts of it for us to ponder. What we can know is that the evolutionists’ “argument” regarding chromosome 2 in no way proves that humans evolved from apes.

« Last Edit: Sep 20^th, 2016 at 1:20pm by it_is_the_light »

ॐ May Much LOVE and CHRISTS LIGHT be upon and within us all.... namasté ▲ - : ) ╰დ╮ॐ╭დ╯

IP Logged

Prime Minister for Canyons

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 26906
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Hu-man Did Not Descend from Apes
Reply #37 - Sep 20^th, 2016 at 2:19pm

1. You've stolen from a creationist website
2. Many organisms have more chromosomes than us. Ciliated protozoa (look that up) have many more chromosomes

There is lots of evidence for the fusion of two chromosomes to get our chromosome 2

1. Near-identical DNA sequences between our chromosome 2 and chimp DNA that is found in two distinct chromosomes
2. Remnants of a 2nd centromere in chromosome 2
3. Remants of telomere in the middle of chromosome 2 instead of at the ends of the chromosome like nromal.

But why bother? You never listen.

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy)

IP Logged

it_is_the_light

Gold Member

Offline

Christ Light

Posts: 41434
The Pyramid of LIGHT
Gender: male

Re: Hu-man Did Not Descend from Apes
Reply #38 - Sep 21^st, 2016 at 2:25am

many blessings pastafarian ,

the reason I do not listen to you is because you have no logic that can refute these facts

1. it is not theft , its called evidence and contributing data and information applicable to the title thread .. you falsely call this theft

2. you attempt to say many other organisms have more chromosomes to distract this topic in specificity 46 ( 23 pairs ) to 48 ( 24 pairs ) chromosomes HUman and chimp/ape respectively ..

1. Near-identical DNA sequences between our chromosome 2 and chimp DNA that is found in two distinct chromosomes

a. this is in direct contrast to the International Weekly Journal of Science in specificity here

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08700.html

Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content

even after all their extensive tests they found that:

- The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome. Humans have at least 78 genes and Chimpanzees have only 37.

- The Y chromosomes of Chimpanzees and humans are radically different in the arrangement of their genes.

Both of these facts make it impossible for apes to have evolved into humans because there are no genetic mechanisms that would account for the vast differences between the ape and human Y chromosomes.

In order for apes to add genes, they would have to have a genetic mechanism to generate new genes and insert them into their chromosomes.

But apes do not have any "gene generating system."

Nor do apes have a "gene insertion system."

« Last Edit: Sep 21^st, 2016 at 2:48am by it_is_the_light »

ॐ May Much LOVE and CHRISTS LIGHT be upon and within us all.... namasté ▲ - : ) ╰დ╮ॐ╭დ╯

IP Logged

it_is_the_light

Gold Member

Offline

Christ Light

Posts: 41434
The Pyramid of LIGHT
Gender: male

Re: Hu-man Did Not Descend from Apes
Reply #39 - Sep 21^st, 2016 at 2:28am

lets explore more facts

http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/

NEW SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES PROVE DARWIN WAS WRONG

Researchers in genetics and embryology are learning something new every day. The more they learn, the more obvious it becomes that it is impossible for humans to have evolved from apes.

We wish to reiterate and emphasize that this website will inform you about the latest scientific discoveries based on peer reviewed research papers published in the most respected scientific journals.

For purposes of clarity and ease of writing, on this website, we will use the term "Darwin Busters" to refer to scientific evidence that strongly contradict "ape to human evolution" theory.

Since 2001, many scientists conducting research in genetics and embryology have discovered more than just a few Darwin Busters.

Here are four Darwin Busters:

Darwin Buster One: Darwinians have been dead wrong whenever they have claimed that the "genetic matter of ape and humans is 98% identical." The ape and human chromosomes are remarkably divergent and too different for "ape to human evolution" theory to adequately explain. For example, the human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the chimpanzee Y chromosome and the chromosome structures are not at all similar.

Darwin Buster Two: There are laws of embryology that directly contradict "ape to human evolution." One reason is that genes work together in teams to form body parts during embryonic development. This makes it impossible to add genes to any genome because there is no way to coordinate any new gene with existing genes. Yet "ape to human evolution" requires apes and humans to be able to add genes - for example, the chimpanzee Y chromosome has 37 genes and the human Y chromosome has at least 78 genes.

Darwin Buster Three: The laws of genetics prevent "ape to human evolution" from ever taking place. One reason is there is no genetic mechanism that creates new genes. But "ape to human evolution" relies on apes and humans having the ability to create new genes with new functions. New genes are required in order to have morphological changes, such as gills into lungs or more efficient brains. So called "gene duplication" is not evidence that organisms can create new genes. Although bacteria can duplicate existing genes by mistake through "gene duplication," this only occurs in single sex bacteria and this is not evidence that apes and humans can create new genes with new functions.

Darwin Buster Four: Darwinians have no explanation for why humans and apes have a different number of chromosomes. Darwinians claim that "chromosome fusion" of two ape chromosomes into a single chromosome resulted in humans having only 23 pairs of chromosomes while apes have 24 pairs. But there is not one example of "chromosome fusion" in mammals. Darwinians claim that 1 in 1000 human babies have a "fused chromosome" but this is an out and out lie. They are actually referring to Robertsonian Translocations, which are "translocations" and not fused chromosomes and does not result in a change in the chromosome number. Besides, scientifically derived facts refute "chromosome fusion" can occur in apes or humans.

We have just provided you with a summary of four Darwin Busters. Each one busts and invalidates "ape to human evolution."

But of course almost all atheist scientists refuse to admit any of them because they worship Darwin And almost all scientists are atheists because people of faith no longer seek careers in science.

Also, you probably have not even read any news about any of this because there is a very powerful worldwide atheist Darwin Conspiracy that actively suppresses the truth about evolution and instead spreads lies.

This is why we created this website. We are here to combat the Darwin Conspiracy and bring you the scientific information you need to make your own judgment about "ape to human evolution" theory.

To help you to begin to understand the truth about "ape to human evolution" theory, we prepared the following short summary of the theory, and we provide you with some details about the first Darwin Buster we listed above. In the future, about every five weeks, we will add details about the other three Darwin Busters.

« Last Edit: Sep 21^st, 2016 at 2:35am by it_is_the_light »

ॐ May Much LOVE and CHRISTS LIGHT be upon and within us all.... namasté ▲ - : ) ╰დ╮ॐ╭დ╯

IP Logged

it_is_the_light

Gold Member

Offline

Christ Light

Posts: 41434
The Pyramid of LIGHT
Gender: male

Re: Hu-man Did Not Descend from Apes
Reply #40 - Sep 21^st, 2016 at 2:29am

APE AND HUMAN CHROMOSOMES ARE NOT 98% IDENTICAL

BUT ARE TOO DIFFERENT FOR EVOLUTION TO EXPLAIN

Scientists in genetics and embryology are learning something new every day.

One of the things we now know is Darwinians were lying to us when they insisted that the genetic matter of apes and humans are 98% identical.

During the last 12 years, there has been a steady flow of scientific discoveries informing us that Chimpanzee and human chromosomes are so remarkably different that it is inconceivable for the ape genome to evolve into the human genome. For example:

In 2010, Nature published a scientific paper entitled "Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content." (Nature, by the way, is the most respected peer reviewed scientific journal for evolutionary genetics.)

The paper was the product of several teams of well-respected geneticists all of whom were fervent supporters of "ape to human evolution."

Nonetheless, they found that:

The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome. Humans have at least 78 genes and Chimpanzees have only 37.

The Y chromosomes of Chimpanzees and humans are radically different in the arrangement of their genes.

Both of these facts make it impossible for apes to have evolved into humans because there are no genetic mechanisms that would account for the vast differences between the ape and human Y chromosomes.

Below are maps of the Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes:

The top map is the Chimpanzee Y chromosome and the lower map is the human Y chromosome.

"Ape to human evolution" theory asserts that the Chimpanzee Y chromosome (top one) evolved into the human Y chromosome (the lower one) and few changes were necessary.

That is obviously baloney - there is no way that could have happened.

There is no genetic mechanism that could have rearranged the genes in the Chimpanzee Y chromosome to become the human Y chromosome.

The two chromosomes are so different it is like comparing the chromosomes of humans to those of chickens.

The regions of both chromosomes are color coded to identify the gene family or DNA type as follows (MSY means male specific region of the Y chromosome):

APE TO HUMAN EVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE

APES AND HUMANS CANNOT ADD GENES TO THEIR GENOMES

The same research paper also revealed that the human Y chromosome has at least 35 more genes than the Chimpanzee Y chromosome. Below is the gene table:

The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome. Humans have 41 more genes.

This means that in order for the ape Y chromosome to evolve into the human Y chromosome, apes had to add 41 genes. In order for apes to add genes, they would have to have a genetic mechanism to generate new genes and insert them into their chromosomes.

But apes do not have any "gene generating system."

Nor do apes have a "gene insertion system."

This means that "ape to human evolution" theory is missing the genetic mechanisms necessary for evolution to actually take place.

This is ABSOLUTE CONTRADICTING EVIDENCE that proves "ape to human evolution" is impossible,

and further pastafarian ,

your vaccine addiction and mercury overload has you believing you are the genetic product of a monkey fish

you are forgiven

namaste

« Last Edit: Sep 21^st, 2016 at 2:41am by it_is_the_light »

ॐ May Much LOVE and CHRISTS LIGHT be upon and within us all.... namasté ▲ - : ) ╰დ╮ॐ╭დ╯

IP Logged

it_is_the_light

Gold Member

Offline

Christ Light

Posts: 41434
The Pyramid of LIGHT
Gender: male

Re: Hu-man Did Not Descend from Apes
Reply #41 - Sep 21^st, 2016 at 2:45am

http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/ape_vs_human.php

EVIDENCE DARWINIANS HAVE ALWAYS KNOWN
ABOUT VAST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN APE AND HUMAN DNA

We have accused Darwinians of willfully lying when they told us “the genetic matter of apes and humans is 99% identical.”

The three sets of diagrams below provide evidence to back up our accusation – the diagrams provide us with side by side comparisons of human and gorilla chromosomes that have been stained with chemicals so we can see “chromosome bands.”

When chromosomes are stained with certain chemicals, different types of DNA will stain in different colors and shades of colors. The result is chromosomes will show colored “bands” and that gave rise to the term “chromosome banding.” The colors and depth of colors of chromosome bands also vary depending on the chemical used for staining.

The point is that if two chromosomes do not have identical chromosome banding patterns, they cannot contain identical DNA.

This first illustration below compares human chromosome 1 side by side with gorilla chromosome 1. They are obviously not 99% identical. For example, gorilla chromosome 1 has a medium sized gray banded area at the top that is entirely missing from the chromosome 1. Human chromosome 1 has a very wide gray band near the middle but the gorilla gray band in the middle is very narrow, only about one fifth the size.

Here is something else we need to understand about chromosome banding:

If chromosome bands are different then it is certain the DNA is different but the reverse is not true because different DNA can stain the same. An analogy is two parking lots both full of blocks of white vehicles, and blocks of black vehicles. The color is just one indicator of similarity – but there are white Fords and white BMWs, and some Fords are SUVs and others are sedans. Similarly, many different genes stain exactly the same color.

Our point is that just because a section of human chromosome is black it does not mean the DNA there is identical to the DNA found in a section of gorilla chromosome that is black in the above diagram. But if one is white and the other black, then it is a certainty the DNA is different.

Taking all this into consideration, there is no question that the DNA of human chromosome 1 is not anywhere nearly identical to that of gorilla chromosome 1.

Let's compare another pair of chromosomes.

When Darwinians compare human and gorilla chromosomes, they like to use human chromosome 4 as an example, even though they never compare it to gorilla chromosome 4. Instead, Darwinians compare human chromosome 4 to gorilla chromosome 3. Darwinians must think we are blind but they claim it is a “nearly identical match.” Below are diagrams and you can judge for yourself.

The two chromosomes above are also obviously not identical. The top parts of the two chromosomes are so different they are simply not comparable.

Let's analyze another set of chromosome comparisons before we give you our conclusions.

From 1940's to 1970's there were many studies of the chromosome banding patterns of ape and human chromosomes and they all showed vast differences between the ape and human chromosome banding patterns. This means Darwinians have known for over 60 years that there are vast differences between ape and human DNA.

That is why Darwinians concocted the phoney concept of “junk DNA.” By claiming that human and ape DNA is “98% junk DNA,” they could ignore as much as 98% of the DNA that did not match up by claiming it did not count because it was junk.

The fraud of “junk DNA” was very costly to humankind because it stifled true scientific research into genetics for decades - most scientists stopped looking into the 98% of human chromosomes that was labeled as "junk." But that is where all the true activity is. If it were not for the “junk DNA” baloney, we may now have a cure for some forms of cancer and many other diseases that are now ravaging humanity worldwide. The answers are in the “junk DNA.” But we will explain why in another article.

Additional Sites That Explain Why Darwin Was Wrong

www.discovery.org

www.judgingpbs.com

www.conservapedia.com

www.arn.org

www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org

www.designwatch.org

www.reasons.org

www.scienceagainstevolution.org

www.darwinbusters.com

www.trueorigin.org

www.answersingenesis.org

www.creationscience.com

www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org

www.icr.org

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution

www.evolutionnews.org

community.beliefnet.com

www.talkorigins.org

ॐ May Much LOVE and CHRISTS LIGHT be upon and within us all.... namasté ▲ - : ) ╰დ╮ॐ╭დ╯

IP Logged

AiA Gold Member Offline Posts: 18405 Gender:	Re: Hu-man Did Not Descend from Apes Reply #42 - Sep 21^st, 2016 at 3:43am your schtick is past its expiry date - DO NOT EAT
Back to top	“Jerry, just remember: It’s not a lie … if you believe it.” George Costanza IP Logged

it_is_the_light Gold Member Offline Christ Light Posts: 41434 The Pyramid of LIGHT Gender:	Re: Hu-man Did Not Descend from Apes Reply #43 - Sep 21^st, 2016 at 3:54am AiA wrote on Sep 21^st, 2016 at 3:43am: your schtick is past its expiry date - DO NOT EAT
Back to top	ॐ May Much LOVE and CHRISTS LIGHT be upon and within us all.... namasté ▲ - : ) ╰დ╮ॐ╭დ╯ IP Logged

AiA Gold Member Offline Posts: 18405 Gender:	Re: Hu-man Did Not Descend from Apes Reply #44 - Sep 21^st, 2016 at 4:15am
Back to top	“Jerry, just remember: It’s not a lie … if you believe it.” George Costanza IP Logged

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 9

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

« Forum

‹ Board

Top of this page