What is the origin of MAN !!

Is he a product of evolution or creation.

I think to believe in the type of evolution that makes the crazy suggestion that we evolved from specie to specie over a billion years is not only impossible based on scientific logic but also on common sense.

Please state your case !!!!!!

What is wrong with you, Frosbel? What sort of ret.ar.ded thread is this? There is no evolution without creation, brethren, and vice versa. Something has to be created first to ever have a chance of evolving, no? And everything that was ever created was and is subjected to EVOLUTION, and that includes MAN.
My point is, CREATION and EVOLUTION both go hand in hand. One cannot exist without the other. So you theists and atheists should quit trying to create dichotomies where there are none just for the sake of creating endless and r.e.t.a.r.d.e.d debates.

frosbel:

What is the origin of MAN !!

Is he a product of evolution or creation.

I think to believe in the type of evolution that makes the crazy suggestion that we evolved from specie to specie over a billion years is not only impossible based on scientific logic but also on common sense.

Please state your case !!!!!!

^^


So you are neither atheist nor theist, what on earth are you,

I am a human being, brethren. Can you fathom that? It means that i am free. I don't have to cage myself in any man-made ideological confines so that i can give myself irrelevant labels like, "atheist" or "theist" or "deist", like you do. These labels mean nothing. The true human spirit transcends all these fake labels that are nothing but mental prisons. Prisons without bars. Prisons for your mind.

frosbel:

^^


So you are neither atheist nor theist, what on earth are you,

frosbel:

What is the origin of MAN !!

Is he a product of evolution or creation.

Don't know an I have never claim to have such knowledge. . . .

I think to believe in the type of evolution that makes the crazy suggestion that we evolved from specie to specie over a billion years is not only impossible based on scientific logic but also on common sense.

Please state your case !!!!!!

DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT MAN WAS CREATED FROM SAND AND THAT WOMAN WAS CREATED FROM THE RIBS OF A MAN?. . . . .

Maza maza how you dey bro, I can see you are one of the few still standing, still giving "them" hard time, I miss Chrisbenogor,

^^

My man how far na?. . , Where you go hide? Hope you are good. . . .Nice to have you back. . . .

Intellectual atheists are yet to explain the origin of man.

Please can one of you make your case !!!

frosbel:

Intellectual atheists are yet to explain the origin of man.

Please can one of you make your case !!!

Humans evolved.

evolved from what

frosbel:

evolved from what

From other animals.
What created humans?

^


and what other animals were they , and where did these animals evolve from ?

frosbel:

^


and what other animals were they , and where did these animals evolve from ?

You haven't addressed my own question. Please try doing that or I'll simply refer you to articles you can read.
To answer your question, they were other animals which we classify as hominids.

@christians, on the issue of origin, if someone is to put clay and a magic stick vs an ape-like creature? what do you think makes more sense?
we just puffed to existence and once we did the magic now stops, god cannot puff into existence things from nowhere anymore
God only does miracles in the absence of God video cameras and people with sufficient knowledge to see if there were any tricks. how convenient.

and on the ribs really, why do men and women have the same number of ribs?
many christians died believing that men has less ribs, until of course science happened.


@mazaje you have a lot of people who are keen to listen to you. This can only mean "we" are making good progress and heading to the direction.

@christians, on the issue of origin,  if someone is to put clay and a magic stick vs an ape-like creature?  what do you think makes more sense?

You have lost the plot 

@mazaje you have a lot of people who are keen to listen to you. This can only mean "we" are making good progress and heading to the direction.

[img]http://3.bp..com/-13EXDuY84oI/TfjXuTt-TCI/AAAAAAAAApM/cUkplvpv6fo/s640/lol-30.gif[/img][

frosbel:

What is the origin of MAN !!

Is he a product of evolution or creation.

I think to believe in the type of evolution that makes the crazy suggestion that we evolved from specie to specie over a billion years is not only impossible based on scientific logic but also on common sense.

Please state your case !!!!!!

Further to previous answers. Humans do share common ancestors with other primates. The evidence to support that view is outstanding. Two lines of evidence that I have previously mentioned in this forum to support shared ancestry are genetic. The first is the presence of Chromosome No.2 in humans. The second is the indication of shared Endogenous Retroviruses. In my opinion, unless some god was trying to deceive us, or humans evolved we shouldn't have those hallmarks that point to a shared history with other apes.

KAG:

Further to previous answers. Humans do share common ancestors with other primates. The evidence to support that view is outstanding. Two lines of evidence that I have previously mentioned in this forum to support shared ancestry are genetic. The first is the presence of Chromosome No.2 in humans. The second is the indication of shared Endogenous Retroviruses. In my opinion, unless some god was trying to deceive us, or humans evolved we shouldn't have those hallmarks that point to a shared history with other apes.

the typical red herring atheists throw out ad infinitum.

fusion of chromosome 2 is usually thrown up as an excuse for why we humans have one less pair of chromosomes than other primates . . . arguably because its much harder to argue for a chromosome either appearing by magic in apes or disappearing by magic in humans for no concrete reason.

davidylan:

the typical red herring atheists throw out ad infinitum.

fusion of chromosome 2 is usually thrown up as an excuse for why we humans have one less pair of chromosomes than other primates . . . arguably because its much harder to argue for a chromosome either appearing by magic in apes or disappearing by magic in humans for no concrete reason.

How is it a red herring in this case to point it out? What does magic have to do with the chromosome fusion? Or don't you think there is evidence for this?

thehomer:

How is it a red herring in this case to point it out? What does magic have to do with the chromosome fusion? Or don't you think there is evidence for this?

Empirically and HONESTLY SPEAKING, there is NO evidence for this beyond mere speculating from the position of a preconceived outcome.

davidylan:

Empirically and HONESTLY SPEAKING, there is NO evidence for this beyond mere speculating from the position of a preconceived outcome.

My advice to you is that you take a look at something like this.

From the article,

Wikipedia:
All members of Hominidae except humans have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Humans have only 23 pairs of chromosomes. Human chromosome 2 is widely accepted to be a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.
Fusion of ancestral chromosomes left distinctive remnants of telomeres, and a vestigial centromere

The evidence for this includes:

[list]
[li]The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the chimpanzee, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan.[/li]
[li]The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 there are remnants of a second centromere.[/li]
[li]The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 there are additional telomere sequences in the middle.[/li]
[/list]

Chromosome 2 presents very strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes. According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2."

thehomer:

My advice to you is that you take a look at something like this.

From the article,

and my advice to you would be to think first before posting sometimes. this is what i said to you earlier - Empirically and HONESTLY SPEAKING, there is NO evidence for this beyond mere speculating from the position of a preconceived outcome.

Look at what you posted from wikipedia - it is "widely accepted" that chromosome 2 is the result of end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes" . . . well the ONLY reason this is postulated is the prevailing bias of having to account for the imbalance in number of chromosomes between humans and the primates they are claimed to have descended from.

One big problem you folks have failed to account for is simple - apes share 99% similarity with human DNA . . . why do they encode 2 completely disimilar phenotypes? It isnt as much about how similar DNA sequences may look but what genes they encode. For example a simple change in start codon between two exactly identical genes may result in 2 completely diff results.

davidylan:

and my advice to you would be to think first before posting sometimes. this is what i said to you earlier - Empirically and HONESTLY SPEAKING, there is NO evidence for this beyond mere speculating from the position of a preconceived outcome.

Look at what you posted from wikipedia - it is "widely accepted" that chromosome 2 is the result of end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes" . . . well the ONLY reason this is postulated is the prevailing bias of having to account for the imbalance in number of chromosomes between humans and the primates they are claimed to have descended from.

One big problem you folks have failed to account for is simple - apes share 99% similarity with human DNA . . . why do they encode 2 completely disimilar phenotypes? It isnt as much about how similar DNA sequences may look but what genes they encode. For example a simple change in start codon between two exactly identical genes may result in 2 completely diff results.

It's seems the evidence is never really evidence when it comes to the followers of magic man.


All members of Hominidae except humans have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Humans have only 23 pairs of chromosomes. Human chromosome 2 is widely accepted to be a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.
Fusion of ancestral chromosomes left distinctive remnants of telomeres, and a vestigial centromere

The evidence for this includes:

The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the chimpanzee, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan.
The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 there are remnants of a second centromere.
The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 there are additional telomere sequences in the middle.

Chromosome 2 presents very strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes. According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2."

@Christians.

Let's just say, the fusion of the two chromosomes happened when man ate the fruit of knowledge and realized he was naked etc Thats when we went from ape like creatures to humans. Lol

Or maybe the fusion is the reason humans have souls and no other living organism has one.

The fusion should solve the creationism problem because you can admit that we evolved while giving credit to big daddy,

davidylan:

and my advice to you would be to think first before posting sometimes. this is what i said to you earlier - Empirically and HONESTLY SPEAKING, there is NO evidence for this beyond mere speculating from the position of a preconceived outcome.

And my advice to you is that you should think before posting because you're simply saying rubbish.

davidylan:

Look at what you posted from wikipedia - it is "widely accepted" that chromosome 2 is the result of end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes" . . . well the ONLY reason this is postulated is the prevailing bias of having to account for the imbalance in number of chromosomes between humans and the primates they are claimed to have descended from.

Have you considered that the reason it is postulated is that it has one less chromosome than other great apes, it has a vestigial cetromere and that it has vestigial telomeres? I hope you know what centromeres and telomeres are and where they are usually located on chromosomes? Having such knowledge, how do you think such things occurred?

davidylan:

One big problem you folks have failed to account for is simple - apes share 99% similarity with human DNA . . . why do they encode 2 completely disimilar phenotypes? It isnt as much about how similar DNA sequences may look but what genes they encode. For example a simple change in start codon between two exactly identical genes may result in 2 completely diff results.

So how does this help your case?

thehomer:

Have you considered that the reason it is postulated is that it has one less chromosome than other great apes, it has a vestigial cetromere and that it has vestigial telomeres? I hope you know what centromeres and telomeres are and where they are usually located on chromosomes? Having such knowledge, how do you think such things occurred?

exactly my point if you bothered to read or think through what i wrote . . . let me restate it here - well the ONLY reason this is postulated is the prevailing bias of having to account for the imbalance in number of chromosomes between humans and the primates they are claimed to have descended from.

You seem to agree that the reason the chromosome 2 fusion THEORY (no evidence) is postulated is that it solves the problem of why we have one less pair of chromosomes than apes. i.e. it is a "theory" that was formulated to account for an already biased outcome.

Secondly, rather than just foaming in the mouth and posting links you dont understand - let me humor you for a second and say that indeed human chromosome 2 is the fusion of ape chromosomes 2p and 2q . . . are you suggesting that the genes on chromosome 2 are largely responsible for the vast phenotypic differences between humans and chimps today? Why are we different?
In what way does a fusion event in chromosome 2 suggest common ancestry with chimps?

thehomer:

So how does this help your case?

Its a valid question - why cant you answer it? apes share 99% similarity with human DNA . . . why do they encode 2 completely disimilar phenotypes?

davidylan:

exactly my point if you bothered to read or think through what i wrote . . . let me restate it here - well the ONLY reason this is postulated is the prevailing bias of having to account for the imbalance in number of chromosomes between humans and the primates they are claimed to have descended from.

You seem to agree that the reason the chromosome 2 fusion THEORY (no evidence) is postulated is that it solves the problem of why we have one less pair of chromosomes than apes. i.e. it is a "theory" that was formulated to account for an already biased outcome.

Again, this is simply not correct. It appears that you lack the necessary background knowledge to understand the implication of the evidence presented to you. My advice to you now is that you should look up what cetromeres and telomeres are and where they are generally located on chromosomes.

davidylan:

Secondly, rather than just foaming in the mouth and posting links you dont understand - let me humor you for a second and say that indeed human chromosome 2 is the fusion of ape chromosomes 2p and 2q . . . are you suggesting that the genes on chromosome 2 are largely responsible for the vast phenotypic differences between humans and chimps today? Why are we different?

Once again, you're ranting about people posting links they don't understand when you're the one who doesn't understand what is said on the links. It isn't about humoring me but about what the evidence shows. Put some effort into understanding it.
No that is not what I am suggesting the point there is that it is one of the traces of human evolution.

davidylan:

In what way does a fusion event in chromosome 2 suggest common ancestry with chimps?

It shows that human ancestors once had 24 pairs of chromosomes like chimps.

davidylan:

Its a valid question - why cant you answer it? apes share 99% similarity with human DNA . . . why do they encode 2 completely disimilar phenotypes?

You already said it yourself that a single alteration can give vastly different results which should answer your question. Another thing you need to realize is that the 99% similarity is of about 6 billion diploid base pairs. This of course makes the 1% a large number in absolute terms.
And the phenotypes aren't that dissimilar when you compare them both to mice, birds, fish or round worms.

davidylan:

the typical red herring atheists throw out ad infinitum.

Red-herring? What was the red-herring in my response?

fusion of chromosome 2 is usually thrown up as an excuse for why we humans have one less pair of chromosomes than other primates . . . arguably because its much harder to argue for a chromosome either appearing by magic in apes or disappearing by magic in humans for no concrete reason.

Except, it's not an excuse but a factually based explanation for the noticed fusion of two chromosomes. While the Creationist is left fumbling for what amounts to a trickster god (or as you say, magic), a fusion is well supported by the banding patterns in chromosome 2. Again, unless you resort to a trickster deity or magic, there's no other parsimonious explanation for the presence of telomeres in the center of a chromosome that somehow shows a fusion where there should be one.

I take it you still have nothing against shared ERVs and what they show, then?

KAG:

Except, it's not an excuse but a factually based explanation for the noticed fusion of two chromosomes. While the Creationist is left fumbling for what amounts to a trickster god (or as you say, magic), a fusion is well supported by the banding patterns in chromosome 2. Again, unless you resort to a trickster deity or magic, there's no other parsimonious explanation for the presence of telomeres in the center of a chromosome that somehow shows a fusion where there should be one.

I take it you still have nothing against shared ERVs and what they show, then?

how is it "factually based"? Has this ever been shown to actually be the case or is this a case of the most plausible explanation?

I dont have time to talk about the shared ERVs either . . . its tedious considering many of you are arguing from the point of a preconceived conclusion.

I think you will get your answer by watching more channels like Discovery, BBC Knowledge, et cetera (if you have cable TV) or subscribe to Discover Magazine (if you can understand "science stuff" that is because I know it's not made for everybody - above average intelligence is a requirement). You could even spend less time making noise here and scour the Internet which is a gold-mine of all the information you need (again the previous caveat applies).

logica:

I think you will get your answer by watching more channels like Discovery, BBC Knowledge, et cetera (if you have cable TV) or subscribe to Discover Magazine (if you can understand "science stuff" that is because I know it's not made for everybody - above average intelligence is a requirement). You could even spend less time making noise here and scour the Internet which is a gold-mine of all the information you need (again the previous caveat applies).

What an id.otic and irrelevant comment. You get your own "science" from discovery magazine, no wonder you all spew the same factless nonsense perpetuated by internet jingoists. I have free reign to run my own REAL LIFE immuno lab, I don't need a tv show to teach me how genes work.

^^^^

Davidlyan, do you have any evidence that falsifies the theory of evolution?


Please Publish it here.


, waiting

Kay 17:

^^^^

Davidlyan, do you have any evidence that falsifies the theory of evolution?


Please Publish it here.


, waiting

Let me speak for myself here, yes I do have evidence.

It's called COMMON SENSE !!!