Here comes another one...

[DutchLiam84]

BeesKnees has been banned?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

He's a scientist now! :lol:

Gilbo wrote:

You admitted that you are not a scientist, I am and so are my colleagues...

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=5642&view=findpost&p=95036

:facepalm:

Gilbo12345 is a perfect example of someone with delusions of grandeur. With all the examples of poor reading comprehension and even poorer logic on this site alone, one wonders if he actually thinks he is fooling anyone.

 

[Dave B.]

BeesKnees has been banned?

That's too bad. Maybe if he had been able to stick around for a little longer he could have convinced Gilbo that he's wrong about almost everything. :lol:

 

[Dave B.]

Gilbo12345 is a perfect example of someone with delusions of grandeur. With all the examples of poor reading comprehension and even poorer logic on this site alone, one wonders if he actually thinks he is fooling anyone.

He is a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Gilbo12345 is a perfect example of someone with delusions of grandeur. With all the examples of poor reading comprehension and even poorer logic on this site alone, one wonders if he actually thinks he is fooling anyone.

He is a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

I wanted to point this same thing out for a while, but I did not because large words seemed to confuse him. I am trying to keep it simple for this creationist. [sarcasm]He is a biology student after all.[/sarcasm]

 

[Dave B.]

Who is MGK over at EFF? I have a feeling you will be banned shortly. :lol:

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Who is MGK over at EFF? I have a feeling you will be banned shortly. :lol:

I have that feeling to. But then they can no longer come here and claim that they care about the answer.

Edit: What a surprise. I have been banned, and my post was removed.

 

[DutchLiam84]

So basically they are pushing Gilbo back to this forum since they ban everyone he's arguing with there. I hope they don't claim victory now.

And Gilbo a scientist,...???....you mean like Ken Ham, or like Carl Baugh or Kent "stretched b-hole" Hovind?

Gilbo, if you read this, you've been challenged to a one on one debate here. That means it would be only you and your challenger in one topic.

 

[Dave B.]

So basically they are pushing Gilbo back to this forum since they ban everyone he's arguing with there. I hope they don't claim victory now.

And Gilbo a scientist,...???....you mean like Ken Ham, or like Carl Baugh or Kent "stretched b-hole" Hovind?

Gilbo, if you read this, you've been challenged to a one on one debate here. That means it would be only you and your challenger in one topic.

He's an idiot and I doubt a debate with him would be worth anyone's time because any experiment that can be used to support common descent will just be considered common design by the creationists. There is literally no experiment that could support common descent that would convince Gilbo the ToE is the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet.

I'm sure you're all aware of the importance of chromosome 2 but just in case you're not I've posted a link to a short video below. I believe this experiment is evidence of common descent. But as I said earlier Gilbo will just scream "common design" and ignore it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

 

[Deleted member 619]

Just as an interesting aside regarding chromosome 2, something that I only became aware of a couple of years ago is that it expresses identically whether fused or unfused, which is to say that it accounts for none of the morphological difference between humans and our closest cousins.

 

[Dave B.]

Just as an interesting aside regarding chromosome 2, something that I only became aware of a couple of years ago is that it expresses identically whether fused or unfused, which is to say that it accounts for none of the morphological difference between humans and our closest cousins.

Can you elaborate a bit on this? I'm probably misunderstanding you but what you said doesn't make much sense. Thanks!

 

[Deleted member 619]

Certainly! I thought it was pretty unambiguous, but no worries.

The expression of human chromosome #2 is identical to the chromosomes 2a and 2b in chimpanzees. There is nothing in the fusion of that chromosome that accounts for any of the morphological difference between the two species.

Not sure I can do any better than a re-ordering of the words to say the same thing from here.

 

[Inferno]

Certainly! I thought it was pretty unambiguous, but no worries.

I understood you just fine the first time around.

 

[DutchLiam84]

I feel that the fused chromosome is not so much evidence for human evolution but more "not evidence" against it. As Miller explains, our understanding of human evolution would be in trouble if we couldn't account for chromosome 2 but we can. Creationists could still say "common design, common designer" but the designer built in an extra safe so humans and apes (because we're not apes according to them) couldn't interbreed due to the difference in karyotype (or something).

But during the Micah debates I learned that that wouldn't even pose a problem either, i.e. organisms with differing karyotypes could still interbreed.

It would be a good question to ask a creationist why their god supposedly did this.

 

[Inferno]

But during the Micah debates I learned that that wouldn't even pose a problem either, i.e. organisms with differing karyotypes could still interbreed.

I completely forgot that. Remind me quickly?

 

[Dave B.]

Certainly! I thought it was pretty unambiguous, but no worries.

The expression of human chromosome #2 is identical to the chromosomes 2a and 2b in chimpanzees. There is nothing in the fusion of that chromosome that accounts for any of the morphological difference between the two species.

Not sure I can do any better than a re-ordering of the words to say the same thing from here.

I was hoping you could elaborate on the identical expression of human chromosome 2 and chimp chromosomes 12 -13 (2a - 2b). Thanks.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

He's an idiot and I doubt a debate with him would be worth anyone's time because any experiment that can be used to support common descent will just be considered common design by the creationists.

Anyone using the common design = common designer argument is portraying ignorance of DNA, codons, and proteins. Any first year biology major would be able to tell you why this argument fails and how/why common descent perfectly explains the patterns we see.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Certainly! I thought it was pretty unambiguous, but no worries.

The expression of human chromosome #2 is identical to the chromosomes 2a and 2b in chimpanzees. There is nothing in the fusion of that chromosome that accounts for any of the morphological difference between the two species.

Not sure I can do any better than a re-ordering of the words to say the same thing from here.

I was hoping you could elaborate on the identical expression of human chromosome 2 and chimp chromosomes 12 -13 (2a - 2b). Thanks.

How much elaboration do you think it requires? There's no more information to impart, unless you want a detailed description of how these chromosomes express...

 

[Dave B.]

How much elaboration do you think it requires? There's no more information to impart, unless you want a detailed description of how these chromosomes express...

A link to the research showing the expression to be identical would suffice. Thanks.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Genetic nature - culture : anthropology and science beyond the two-culture divide - Goodman et al 2003.

Apparently a fusion occurred in the human lineage, creating chromosome 2 and reducing the count from 24 pairs to 23 pairs. Is that what makes us human? Yes and no. Yes in a narrow, diagnostic sense: given the chromosomes from a cell of any living species, if you find chromosome 2 among them, they are from a human. No in a functional sense: the fusion is not what gives us language or bipedalism or a big brain or art or sugarless bubble gum. It is simply one of those neutral changes lacking outward expression, which is neither good nor bad but merely diagnostic.