Forum

The genomes of humans and chimpanzees are strikingly similar. In fact, humans and chimpanzees are actually more genetically similar to each other than chimpanzees and orangutans are. The chromosomes of humans and apes also show striking similarities. However, there is a glaring difference that would seem to throw a monkey wrench in the pristine evolutionary picture: Humans have 46 chromosomes (23 pairs), while all other apes have 48 chromosomes (24 pairs). At first glance this might seem to contradict the theory of evolution. Afterall, if humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor, then wouldn't we expect them to have the same number of chromosomes? But a closer look reveals a different story. It turns out that we used to have 48 chromosomes, too. DNA sequencing confirms that our human chromosome number 2 is actually two chromosomes that have been fused together, which explains why we have one less pair of chromosomes. Chromosomes have distinctive sections that include a central region called a *centromere* and ends called *telomeres*. DNA sequencing not only reveals the exact location where the two chromosomes fused together, it has also confirmed the presence of two sets of centromeres and telomeres in human chromosome number 2. This is definitive proof that human chromosome number 2 truly was made from the fusion of two different chromosomes. It also matches the evolutionary picture perfectly, showing that the ancestor of chimpanzees and humans had 48 chromosomes (24 pairs), but then after chimpanzees and humans diverged there was a chromosome fusion event in the line leading to humans, which reduced our chromosomes to 46 (23 pairs). The evidence for chromosome fusion further strengthens the case for common ancestry. By contrast, the alternative hypothesis that chimpanzees and humans were separately created requires us to believe that an intelligent designer created human chromosome 2 to make it falsely look like it had an earlier history that involved a fusion event that included the creation of an extra centromere with no function as well as two extra telomeres stuck in the middle of the chromosome instead of on the ends. Here's a link to more information along with a video explanation: "This Picture Has Creationists Terrified"

Self explanatory, really...

https://youtu.be/kboUBQnMP8w Interesting talk on the eye.

And we'll try to discuss it.

Lets ask a serious question. We have two theories that attempt to explain our origins. Creation says an intelligent designer created and designed the earth to support life. Evolution says it happened by a series of accidents. Be honest. Which one makes sense? Isn't it obvious that somebody had to have done this?

Lets ask a serious question. We have two theories that attempt to explain our origins. Creation says an intelligent designer created and designed the earth to support life. Evolution says it happened by a series of accidents. Be honest. Which one makes sense? Isn't it obvious that somebody had to have done this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noj4phMT9OE&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR3CB7-Hg1BtegxWzMvEinsd5XgFk2_zkD9VPCE5-95THYq8qCAB3BOb3-A Nice discussion

Natural selection to me has always been an excuse for things that were made by design, and this is one of the reasons: Sharks have camo in that their underside is white, to match with the ocean from below, and their topside is grey, to hide from above. Most fish have this, but how did they come to have it?

Are ERVs (Endogenous Retroviruses) evidence for evolution that humans and chimpanzees are related and have a common ancestor? Consider the facts and you decide. Summary of Facts: 1. Some viruses (we'll call them ERVs) insert their genetic material into the genomes of organisms in random places and this genetic material can be inherited. [Analogy: Imagine an ERV is like a food stain on a random page of a book] 2. In humans, there are >100,000 such places in our genome where genetic material from these ERVs has been randomly inserted. [Analogy: Imagine you get a book that has over 100,000 random stains of different shapes and sizes on different pages] 3. Over 99.9% of these >100,000 ERVs are also found in the chimpanzee genome in the same, corresponding locations. [Analogy: Imagine a friend gets a copy of the book and when you compare you discover that it, too, has >100,000 random stains, and 99.9% of these stains are in the same, corresponding places as your book] What Would You Conclude? (What is the best explanation of the facts?) A. Independent Ancestry: The human and chimpanzees genomes independently acquired >100,000 bits of viral genetic material in the same corresponding locations by luck. [Analogy: The two books independently acquired almost all of these >100,000 stains in the same places by luck] B. Common Ancestry: 99.9% of these >100,000 ERVs are found in the same, corresponding places in the human genome and chimpanzee genome because humans and chimpanzees are related and have a common ancestor that already had 99.9% of these >100,000 ERVs in the places where they're found. [Analogy: The two books have >100,000 food stains nearly all in the same place because they are photocopies of a third book that already had 99.9% of these stains in the locations where they're found]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEf6mKZqJZs&t=1753s I have to admit I feel insulted when someone says I'm not allowed to have an opinion and speak about things I'm not an expert in. If this was not the intent those I'm speaking to mean, I'm sorry but it comes across that way. I want to point out that experts disagree, so to say that we cannot formulate our opinions because there is an expert that says otherwise is about as insulting as it gets. Science is not a cult is it, where the free exchange of ideas is looked down on, or is it?   We believe what we put our faith in that is telling us the truth if we are not concerned with truth, what is the point any lie or error will do. Truth is very exclusive something either is true or not, therefore it does have a dogmatic feel to it. Any belief system we hold we treat this way if we believe in a purely materialistic universe that will be held up to judge all things in the universe. Anything not seen as a material view only will be a threat to that world view, this will be no different for anyone's point of view on what they believe is true or not.   So we debate and argue which is, in my opinion, a great thing as long as we do it in a respectful manner without twisting or ignoring truth when we have to admit our own views are not consistent with the truth in reality. If our views contradict themselves we know we are not standing on good ground if our views do not reflect reality, we know we are not standing on good ground. If we find our views are not in agreement with someone else's view, good, lets put the views to the tests as we sort it all out. If you only want to live in an echo chamber listening to those who agree with you and not allow your opinions about truth to be tested, that is a blind faith dogmatic view that requires to be shielded from skepticism. The bottom line sharp educated people are on both sides of any discussion, defend your own views if you cannot or will not, why believe and question other's points of view?

Does reducing everything to natural explanations only limit all things down to the most basics, that is just the material makeup of the universe itself?

Would endless time matter in having abiogenesis occur if all of the conditions required were not setup correctly? A small handful would be the conditions the size and distance of a planet from its sun, the planet's axis, and rotation, along with the atmosphere? Some of the other not so minor details, having all the proper chemicals in one place going through the appropriate chemical reactions towards life and not anything else! All of this, of course, only done in a stable environment that could cause life to thrive and survive over time. The only time a chance for life to occur could happen would be if all the variables were appropriately met; if not, more time is meaningless; it would add nothing to the window of opportunities. The complexity of life is so great the mind that could design it would have to be incredibly powerful. Now we are in time, we have a past, present, and future (hopefully) and all we do is in this little sliver of time we call now. Now is so small it's leading edge, and its trailing edge occupies the same place. If we see things that present to us a chicken or egg issue in life's beginning, wouldn't the designer have to be outside of our time limitations? This designer would also not only have to incredibly intelligent but not be bound to time as we are! Since some requirements have several things being true at once, while we cannot have one without the other, that could only happen with someone outside of our time limitations doing the work? Just a thought.

This forum thread is meant to show everyone here what the US law says about teaching creationism and evolution side by side in public schools. The state of Louisiana enacted a law that required public school teachers to teach evolution and creationism side by side. The US Supreme Court in the Edwards v. Aguillard case declared the Louisiana law unconstitutional due to the establishment clause because the law wasn’t secular, as was interpreted from the establishment clause in the US constitution. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Edwards-v-Aguilard

I am, as the title of this thread says, puzzled as to why a club for "the evolution discussion" exists. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus both that (a) evolution occurred and (b) the theory of evolution (together with genetics) provides a good explanation of how evolution occurred, certainly in its broad outlines and also in many details (although many details remain unknown, and important mechanisms, like genetic drift, can still sometimes be added to the theory). Now, those of us who are not experts are always free to disagree with the overwhelming consensus of experts, but it's generally a bad idea to do so. The overwhelming of the experts *is* the overwhelming consensus of the experts for good reason, and they're the ones who are more likely to be getting it right. Would a club like this exist for "the gravity discussion," faux-debating whether or not the orbits of the planets really were gravitationally determined? Would a club like this exist for "the electricity discussion," faux-debating whether or not computers and TVs really ran on electricity? Would a club like this exist for "the supply and demand discussion," faux-debating whether or not economists' law of supply and demand really had validity? Come on. The experts know what they're talking about. Why pretend they don't?

I decided to create a thread devoted simply to asking and answering questions. No arguing, just discovering. If you encounter someone who either disagrees with you or you believe they said something factually incorrect, refrain from arguing with them. Just ask questions. Someone start by asking a question, and then let's continue the discussion the way I had in mind (questions and discovery).

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Will you admit that the ostrich lives in Africa, where there's lions? Will you admit that the ostrich might be on the menu for a tasty snack? Will you admit that the ostrich has a powerful kick that can kill a lion, and that's it's defense? Will you admit that if the ostrich needed time to develop this defensive ability, the first one would get eaten, and they would not be able to reproduce(cause they're dead)?

I thought of this in the light of my interest in expanding my English vocabulary (due to my curiosity). I’ve always looked up to amazing writers and many who use many words that I don’t know the meaning of. As I’m learning words that I don’t hear very often and go through their meanings and usage in my head, some of the words no longer feel out of reach but rather ordinary as though I’ve used them to describe things in fewer words (and mainly these descriptions are in my thoughts). This experience so far has opened a new perception in my mind, the idea that an ordinary person like me can train himself or herself to be well-versed in things that they are very interested in (when I say “ordinary” I mean people who never scored as a genius on an official IQ test). I also think people might be perceived as very intelligent from engaging in intellectual activities on a regular basis. This happens because whatever goes into the brain comes out. If someone watches a science program for a half hour every day, they will know more than if they watched a reality TV show in that same amount of time. What do you all think?

Since evolution takes effect over geological time, it's necessary first to establish that such time has been available for evolutionary forces to act. So what is the age of our planet? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth " The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).[1][2][3][4] This age may represent the age of the Earth's accretion, of core formation, or of the material from which the Earth formed.[2] This dating is based on evidence from radiometric age-dating of meteorite[5] material and is consistent with the radiometric ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. Following the development of radiometric age-dating in the early 20th century, measurements of lead in uranium-rich minerals showed that some were in excess of a billion years old.[6] The oldest such minerals analyzed to date—small crystals of zircon from the Jack Hills of Western Australia—are at least 4.404 billion years old.[7][8][9] Calcium–aluminium-rich inclusions—the oldest known solid constituents within meteorites that are formed within the Solar System—are 4.567 billion years old,[10][11] giving a lower limit for the age of the solar system. " https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-science-figured-out-the-age-of-the-earth/ "Aristotle thought the earth had existed eternally. Roman poet Lucretius, intellectual heir to the Greek atomists, believed its formation must have been relatively recent, given that there were no records going back beyond the Trojan War. The Talmudic rabbis, Martin Luther and others used the biblical account to extrapolate back from known history and came up with rather similar estimates for when the earth came into being. The most famous came in 1654, when Archbishop James Ussher of Ireland offered the date of 4004 B.C." "Within decades observation began overtaking such thinking. In the 1660s Nicolas Steno formulated our modern concepts of deposition of horizontal strata. He inferred that where the layers are not horizontal, they must have been tilted since their deposition and noted that different strata contain different kinds of fossil. Robert Hooke, not long after, suggested that the fossil record would form the basis for a chronology that would “far antedate ... even the very pyramids.” The 18th century saw the spread of canal building, which led to the discovery of strata correlated over great distances, and James Hutton’s recognition that unconformities between successive layers implied that deposition had been interrupted by enormously long periods of tilt and erosion. By 1788 Hutton had formulated a theory of cyclic deposition and uplift, with the earth indefinitely old, showing “no vestige of a beginning—no prospect of an end.” Hutton considered the present to be the key to the past, with geologic processes driven by the same forces as those we can see at work today. This position came to be known as uniformitarianism, but within it we must distinguish between uniformity of natural law (which nearly all of us would accept) and the increasingly questionable assumptions of uniformity of process, uniformity of rate and uniformity of outcome." etc.. ".... The second act of the drama sees a prolonged attempt by a new generation of geologists to estimate the age of the earth from observational evidence, to come up with an answer that would satisfy the demands of newly dominant evolutionary thinking, and to reconcile this answer with the constraints imposed by thermodynamics. The third act sees the entry of a newly discovered set of physical laws—those governing radioactivity. Radioactivity offered not only a resolution to the puzzle of the earth’s energy supply but also a chronology independent of questionable geologic assumptions and a depth of time more than adequate for the processes of evolution." Without the acceptance of the age of the Earth that evidence & careful measurement gives us, no useful discussion of evolution can take place as far as I can see.

Thought I’d share an article about the evolution of butterflies. It’s a short article with not much going on, but I like it. Enjoy! https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/butterflies/evolution Please share any other articles you like about the evolution of butterflies.