Officially Debunking Evolution (Without Mentioning God)

[Roger Bartlett]

For years now, our strategy for disproving the Theory of Evolution has been "It wasn't in the Bible, so it didn't happen." And while I'm a Christian, I don't think that's the sort of thing that belongs in a scientific debate, so I'll try something new.

Let's start off with something simple. Every living thing has chromosomes. They are essential for life, since they carry our DNA. Moreover, since all types of animals are different, no two species has the same types or amount of chromosomes in their cells. Can you see where I'm going with this?

Anyone who's taken a biology class (and stayed awake for most of it) should know about meiosis. Since I'm not an expert, and you probably want to refresh your memory, here's some information on the subject: Meiosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The reason I'm bringing meiosis up is this: as you can clearly see an offspring recieves half of its chromosomes from one parent and half from another. Because of this an offspring has exactly the same amount of chromosomes as his or her parents. No exceptions.

Here's where we get into the whole man/ape thing. According to this page: Chromosome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, human beings have 46 chromosomes (13 from each parent), whereas apes and chimpanzees have 48.

Can anyone tell me how apes could evolve into humans, losing two whole chromosomes in the process? According to the rules of meiosis, that's completely impossible.

Anyone care to prove me wrong?

[lynn]

No exceptions huh? Ever met anyone with down syndrome, also known as trisomy 21? Are those people not human? They have an extra chromosome compared to the rest of us.

[Kamehameha34]

Chromosome fusion

It's been tried. In court, no less. Guess what the ruling was.

[Derach]

Quote by: Roger Bartlett Because of this an offspring has exactly the same amount of chromosomes as his or her parents. No exceptions. Anyone care to prove me wrong?

You are wrong because you fail to take into account the main premise of evolution ... namely, mutation. Here, read up and see if you can make a more persuasive argument against evolution including the facts this time:

Mutation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Roger Bartlett]

Quote by: lynn No exceptions huh? Ever met anyone with down syndrome, also known as trisomy 21? Are those people not human? They have an extra chromosome compared to the rest of us.

Well, such irregularities hardly count as "evolution". In fact they're quite the opposite. I haven't yet read the two links those other guys gave me (and I will), but just because something is tested "in court" doesn't make it scientific law.

[lynn]

Yes, such irregularities do count as evolution. Trisomy 21 is just an example. If someone affected by it were to reproduce, there is a pretty good chance he would pass it on to his offspring. Mutations in evolution happen the same way. If an organism with a mutation reproduces, the mutation gets passed on...and on...and on...until that mutation is a normal feature of the population.

[rez]

Quote by: Roger Bartlett For years now, our strategy for disproving the Theory of Evolution has been "It wasn't in the Bible, so it didn't happen." And while I'm a Christian, I don't think that's the sort of thing that belongs in a scientific debate, so I'll try something new.

No matter what, as long as evolution conflicts with your superstitions you will always want to disprove evolution.

You see, people don't disprove science because it conflicts with their spiritual sensibilities, they disprove science because they have better explanations instead. You, on the other hand, are quite different. You are not a scientist or a philosopher, you seem like a hoaxer trying to persuade ignorant people.

Your motivation is to disprove evolution not because it doesn't explain how life changes, but because it conflicts with your superstitions. Do you have a better explanation in its place? Because if you were unbias and legit you would have a alternate explanation that would explain how life changes over time. You would be able to show us through your experiments. Because what kind of person reaches a conclusion without reasons...

Do you have anything to show for yourself?

Can anyone tell me how apes could evolve into humans, losing two whole chromosomes in the process? According to the rules of meiosis, that's completely impossible. Anyone care to prove me wrong?

How about you ask yourself what you mean by apes. When you say apes do you mean chimps? Do you think chimps existed millions of years ago?

Do you actually think meiosis is perfect every single time it occurs?

[Roger Bartlett]

Do you actually think meiosis is perfect every single time it occurs?

Obviously not, but irregularities (such as trisonomy 21) don't produce new species, but creatures of the same species with defects. They can't survive in their habitat (much less mate and pass their defective genes along), so how could something like that result in a totally new species?

Also, you use the word "superstitious" very freely, but I've been hearing all this talk of a "common ancestor" between humans and apes. Can you prove its existence? Or do you believe in an entity without any proof? Doesn't that make you just as "superstitious" as me?

[rez]

Quote by: Roger Bartlett Obviously not, but irregularities (such as trisonomy 21) don't produce new species, but creatures of the same species with defects. They can't survive in their habitat (much less mate and pass their defective genes along), so how could something like that result in a totally new species?

Mutations are not always negative. Sometimes the mutations work for the environment.

Can you prove its existence?

I can prove the existence of common ancestors by the fossil record. Bones are apart of many of the living organisms on earth. The way these bones are structed can be compared to the way human bones are structured.

Or do you believe in an entity without any proof?

Fossil record. Bones.

Associating me with the same mentality as a theist is rather amusing. I look toward geology, archeology, biology, and physics for my claims. You, however, look toward holy books and spirits.

Doesn't that make you just as "superstitious" as me?

I don't have the actual bones of the very first off shoot of the ape like creature that started walking up right. However, we have other fossils that do indicate this trend. These are the reasons for my conclusions.

I will never be as superstitious as you, no matter what. As long as I base claims on the findings that are supplied to me I am fine.

You base your conclusions on holy books written by nomadic herdsmen.

[Roger Bartlett]

I've already given you the basis for my argument, and it is based on far more than just the Bible. You seem to have a very narrow-minded and stereotypical view of me.

I guess we can add all christians are stupid to the list of superstitions you believe in.

[rez]

Quote by: Roger Bartlett I've already given you the basis for my argument

Your argument is based on the conflict between the Theory of Evolution and your holy book.

and it is based on far more than just the Bible.

It is based on conflict between your superstitions and the discovered facts.


It is your mission to disprove the facts, but not to present alternatives.

[Deo Volente]

It is your mission to disprove the facts, but not to present alternatives.

If evolution is correct, then it should stand up to scrutiny on its own merits. Your evidence is "fossils", yet I am not aware of any transitional life form fossils of a transition from ape to man or chimp to man, or any other monkey to man. It is merely wishful thinking.

And while beneficial mutations are theoretically possible, what might some examples be? I'm still trying to figure out how "male" and "female" pairs both just happened to spring up by mutation over millions of years into separate, viable, fully functional anatomy. It just doesn't make sense!

[rez]

Quote by: Deo Volente If evolution is correct, then it should stand up to scrutiny on its own merits.

What good is scrutiny if its not based on an alternative explanation that lacks the scrutiny?

Your evidence is "fossils", yet I am not aware of any transitional life form fossils

Well if you are not aware then what am I suppose to do?

The best way to learn is through ones own motivation. Teachers are good to guide that individuals experience along.

If you are unaware that means you lack the motivation to discover the information because it is available.

of a transition from ape to man or chimp to man, or any other monkey to man.

When we deal with facts we deal with precise and well identified language/terms. You need to state the exact facts of what transitions you are talking about. You could be talking about any transition throughout the number of years this process has gone on. When you are in math class you say 2 + 2 = 4. In Biology class you talk about cells and their organelles. When we discuss Evolution we talk of Cro magnon man man, Neanderthals, chromosome pairing, etc. Please list the specific terms that are used in this subject, so I can atleast think that I know what you are talking about.

It is merely wishful thinking.

Why would I wish these facts? What exactly am I hoping for out of this information that has been obtained throughout the years?

And while beneficial mutations are theoretically possible, what might some examples be?

Beneficial mutations are mutations that actually stick around. A Beneficial mutation could be the fact that my nose is downward, or a peacocks feathers are long and colorful.

I'm still trying to figure out how "male" and "female" pairs both just happened to spring up by mutation over millions of years into separate, viable, fully functional anatomy.

Science is not conducted by just sitting in your house and trying to figure out stuff. Its done through problem solving investigation. Its done through making experiments and making predictions on what you think you should find.

Without receiving genes from a mother and a father there would be no diversity in the gene pool. Diversity in the gene pool helps fight disease and death. If everybody had the same genes then everybody would just die off because everybody would be the same.

The male and female exchange of genes give us that diversity. Sex is the most important factor in Evolution.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Roger Bartlett Well, such irregularities hardly count as "evolution". In fact they're quite the opposite. I haven't yet read the two links those other guys gave me (and I will), but just because something is tested "in court" doesn't make it scientific law.

Your argument was tried in court. The scientists that spoke on behalf of.. science disproved it. That makes you legally and scientifically incorrect.

[Night]

Quote by: Deo Volente If evolution is correct, then it should stand up to scrutiny on its own merits. Your evidence is "fossils", yet I am not aware of any transitional life form fossils of a transition from ape to man or chimp to man, or any other monkey to man. It is merely wishful thinking.

You and I did not evolve from apes, nor monkeys. We, along with monkeys and apes, all evolved from an earlier primate.

Quote by: Deo Volente And while beneficial mutations are theoretically possible,

They are not "theoretically possible". They have been proven, beyond any form of a doubt.

Quote by: Deo Volente what might some examples be? I'm still trying to figure out how "male" and "female" pairs both just happened to spring up by mutation over millions of years into separate, viable, fully functional anatomy. It just doesn't make sense!

It did not just "happen". Over a period of millions of years, bacteria gained the ability to absorb genetic material through their cell membranes. I am not certain of how the sexes developed, but what is certain is that the principle of incorporating outside genetic material into your offspring's DNA will foster diversity unto the species, which is beneficial to the species.

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: Roger Bartlett Can anyone tell me how apes could evolve into humans, losing two whole chromosomes in the process? According to the rules of meiosis, that's completely impossible.

For the second time, apes didn't evolve into humans, they just share a common ancestor.
Easy answer to the question: Chromosome fusion
Debunking debunked.

Where was the official debunking of evolution? Did you really expect PhD-level dudes to yell "jeez, I didn't notice!" all of a sudden, then turn out to believe young earth creationism?

You cannot disprove a theory with gaps or minor contradiction, but with major contradictory observation. If what you said was true (minor gap), we would just make a stronger theory which agree with this new observation. Evolution 1.1, using software dictionnary. But Biblical Creationism got major contradictory observation going against it, so do not expect creationism to replace evolution anytime soon just by debunking evolution.

[Night]

Quote by: Roger Bartlett Can anyone tell me how apes could evolve into humans, losing two whole chromosomes in the process? According to the rules of meiosis, that's completely impossible.

As vincent said, we did not evolve from apes.

It is probable that when apes evolved from a primitive primate, they originally had 46 but developed two extra chromosomes. Us humans never found it beneficial to develop those two chromosomes.

[Jinei]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Chromosome fusion

Quote by: Derach Mutation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These two links are more than enough to rebuke the initial argument made by the OP.

Quote by: Roger Bartlett Obviously not, but irregularities (such as trisonomy 21) don't produce new species, but creatures of the same species with defects. They can't survive in their habitat (much less mate and pass their defective genes along), so how could something like that result in a totally new species?

If the mutation is beneficial.

Quote by: Deo Volente If evolution is correct, then it should stand up to scrutiny on its own merits. Your evidence is "fossils", yet I am not aware of any transitional life form fossils of a transition from ape to man or chimp to man, or any other monkey to man. It is merely wishful thinking.

1. Men are apes.
2. We did not evolve from chimps.
3. Paleontology is not the only line of evidence for evolution. Even if you've managed to raise doubt about the fossil evidence we've collected (you haven't), you'd still need to contend with all other lines of evidence.
4. There are tons of transitional forms in the fossil record. Look them up.

And while beneficial mutations are theoretically possible, what might some examples be? I'm still trying to figure out how "male" and "female" pairs both just happened to spring up by mutation over millions of years into separate, viable, fully functional anatomy. It just doesn't make sense!

It's a billion year old invention of single-celled organisms: The Evolution of Sex. And just because you don't understand where sex comes from it doesn't mean anything as far as the validity of evolution is concerned.

[Jack]

I am not aware of any transitional life form

For all we know, we are. We have no reason to think we're the endpoint to human evolution. If humans survive for another few hundreds of thousands of years they will most likely be very different from us physically and mentally.

[Tycoon]

Quote by: Roger Bartlett I haven't yet read the two links those other guys gave me (and I will), but just because something is tested "in court" doesn't make it scientific law.

Ever going to get around to looking? You completely ignored genetic mutation.