Should at Least Make Evolutionists Consider

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Why, and how, does the muntjac deer have only seven pairs of chromosomes?

Please don't look this up, at least until you've considered for a moment how weird this is. Imagine you have 20 pairs of chromosomes, and you have a baby that has sixteen pairs. He shouldn't be able to breed with the rest of your species.

Is this at least weird? A regular deer has around 40-70 chromosomes. Is it at least strange that he can even be alive having lost that much genetic information? One more halving and he'll be a fruit fly (they have 4 pairs).

[marke]

Do I believe evolutionists assume similar DNA between species prove common ancestry? Yes.

including the close similarity between human and mice DNA.

We're both mammals, so why do you think they wouldn't be similar? If you're asserting that they're too similar in a way that affects evolutionary theory, how would you quantify that?

Marke: Just because humans and whales are both mammals does not mean they share a common ancester, in spite of what evolutionist theorists strangely imagine.

AI Overview
Learn more
Yes, the DNA similarity between humans and bananas, including the fact that they share some genes, indicates that they share a common ancestor. This common ancestor is a single-celled organism that lived billions of years ago, known as the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA). While the exact percentage of shared DNA varies depending on the method used, it's significant, demonstrating that all life on Earth evolved from a common origin.

[marke]

Do I believe evolutionists assume similar DNA between species prove common ancestry? Yes.

I don't understand why you think my concern about gorillas is not pertinent

I don't understand why you think it is. Gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans are all closely related and share common ancestors. Phylogenetic studies have determined that we share a more recent ancestor with chimpanzees than we do with gorillas, but because of the way things like genetic drift work in populations, there are a number of sequences that we share more closely with gorillas than we do with chimpanzees. This isn't a problem with any part of evolutionary theory and is expected with species that are very closely related. What do you think the actual problem is?

Marke: Evolutionists assume humans are related by common ancestry to animals and plants. That is an assumption, not a scientifically proven fact. There are similarities between gorillas and chimps that contradict common assumptions of the evolutionary pathway that mapped the divergence between the three species, and I posted something on that here earlier.

Has science proven gorillas and chimps are related by common ancestor to humans and is the pathway of divergence between the three species clear to scientists?

AI Overview
Learn more
Study: Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Looked Like ...
Yes, scientific evidence strongly supports that gorillas and chimpanzees share a common ancestor with humans. The pathway of divergence between these species is also generally understood, though some details are still being researched.
Evidence and Explanation:
Genetic Similarity:
Humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas share a high degree of genetic similarity, with chimpanzees being most closely related to humans. DNA studies show that humans and chimpanzees share 98.6% of their DNA, while humans and gorillas share approximately 98.3%.
Fossil Evidence:
While there's no direct fossil evidence linking humans to a specific common ancestor, the physical characteristics of primates, including the human-like features of early hominids, support a shared evolutionary history.
Phylogenetic Analysis:
Analysis of the human, chimpanzee, and gorilla genomes reveals that chimpanzees and humans are more closely related to each other than either is to gorillas.
Divergence Timeline:
Scientists have estimated that the divergence between the lineages leading to humans and chimpanzees occurred around 6-7 million years ago, while the divergence between the lineage leading to gorillas and the other two lineages occurred earlier, around 10 million years ago.
Incomplete Lineage Sorting (ILS):
Some genomic regions show a more complex picture, with human DNA being more similar to gorilla DNA in certain segments, and vice versa. This is thought to be due to a phenomenon called ILS, where genetic material from a common ancestor can be inherited by multiple lineages.

[marke]

I don't understand why you think my concern about gorillas is not pertinent

Here is an AI Overview. I asked ChatGPT the following question:

A creationist acquaintance is having trouble with the idea that gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans are so closely related that some human and gorilla sequences are shared with each other, but not chimpanzees. They're having difficulty reconciling that with both the idea that chimpanzees and humans share a more recent common ancestor than either does with a gorilla, and that this isn't a problem for evolutionary theory writ large. Assuming I've accurately explained their position and that mine is clear from the question, could you explain in some detail any potential flaws in each of our understandings?

ChatGPT responded with the following overview:

Yes, you've laid out a thoughtful and accurate framing of a classic point of confusion that even many scientifically literate people find initially counterintuitive. Let's carefully unpack the issue.



THE BASIC CLAIMS (summarized for clarity)

1. Your acquaintance's difficulty:
   They’re puzzled by the observation that some human DNA sequences are more similar to gorilla DNA than to chimpanzee DNA, even though the widely accepted evolutionary tree places humans and chimpanzees as closer relatives than either is to gorillas. They seem to think this observation contradicts the evolutionary model.
2. Your understanding (presumably):
   You're aware that humans and chimpanzees do share a more recent common ancestor than either does with gorillas, and you believe that the existence of shared human-gorilla sequences does not contradict that model.

Marke: In spite of the strong desire to use ILS to explain problems in evolutionary assumptions between species, there is not a single bonifide example of any modern species evolving into a majorly different species such as animals evolving into humans using ILS or any other speculative evolutionist mechanism.

[Difflugia]

I believe evolutionists misunderstand and misapply data on DNA and chromosome numbers to erroneously support unproven evolutionist assumptions.

Just because humans and bananas have similar DNA does not mean both share a common ancestor. That evolutionist assumption is both illogical and unsound.

Just because humans and whales are both mammals does not mean they share a common ancester, in spite of what evolutionist theorists strangely imagine.

Evolutionists assume humans are related by common ancestry to animals and plants. That is an assumption, not a scientifically proven fact. There are similarities between gorillas and chimps that contradict common assumptions of the evolutionary pathway that mapped the divergence between the three species, and I posted something on that here earlier.

Has science proven gorillas and chimps are related by common ancestor to humans and is the pathway of divergence between the three species clear to scientists?

In spite of the strong desire to use ILS to explain problems in evolutionary assumptions between species, there is not a single bonifide example of any modern species evolving into a majorly different species such as animals evolving into humans using ILS or any other speculative evolutionist mechanism.

Support your claims. I keep telling you why you're wrong, but you just say more wrong things without any sort of justification or evidence. In fact, your AI overviews offered in lieu of evidence have even started to contradict your own claims.

It's time for you to hold up your end of the debate. Pick any of the claims you've made above and offer a reasoned explanation for why it's true.

[marke]

I believe evolutionists misunderstand and misapply data on DNA and chromosome numbers to erroneously support unproven evolutionist assumptions.

Just because humans and bananas have similar DNA does not mean both share a common ancestor. That evolutionist assumption is both illogical and unsound.

Marke: I posted a commonly accepted position about human and banana common ancestry.

AI Overview
Learn more
Yes, while it's not quite a "forcing" in the sense of coercion, scientific evidence strongly suggests that humans and bananas share a common ancestor, albeit a very distant one. This is based on the concept of common descent, which states that all life on Earth has evolved from a single common ancestor.

Marke: How has science 'proven' humans and bananas share a common ancestor? Science has proven no such thing. Nevertheless, evolutionists believe science has 'proven' the common ancestor theory based upon the assumption that states all life evolved from a common ancestor. However, you cannot prove a scientific theory by quoting the theory as proof.

[Difflugia]

I posted a commonly accepted position about human and banana common ancestry.

Yeah. It said this: "While the exact percentage of shared DNA varies depending on the method used, it's significant, demonstrating that all life on Earth evolved from a common origin."

Even aside from that, a three-line "AI Overview" is neither evidence nor an argument.

How has science 'proven' humans and bananas share a common ancestor?

Until you support at least some of your claims, here is my response. If you want someone to engage with you, you have to keep up your end of the bargain. If you have a supportable claim, make it and support it.

[marke]

Just because humans and whales are both mammals does not mean they share a common ancester, in spite of what evolutionist theorists strangely imagine.

Marke: Debatable assumptions, conclusions, interpretations and theories about evidence will never prove evolution in spite of the fact that evolutionists believe such opinionated interpretations, conclusions, and declarations by respected evolutionists are all the proof they need.

Search instead for how has science proven humans are related to pakicetuses

AI Overview
Learn more
The evolution of whales
Science proves the relationship between humans and Pakicetus through a combination of fossil evidence, comparative anatomy, and molecular biology. Fossil discoveries show Pakicetus, an early whale ancestor, had characteristics linking it to artiodactyls (even-toed hoofed mammals like hippos), including a unique ear bone and ankle bone. Comparative anatomy reveals similarities in bone structure and other features, while molecular biology, specifically the study of DNA, supports the idea that whales and hippos share a common ancestor, distinct from other mammals.

Marke: Do evolutionists prove beyond doubt that their assumptions, conclusions, and theories are irrefutably accurate and correct?

AI Overview
Learn more
Whale evolution will always amaze me. : r/Naturewasmetal
Yes, scientific evidence strongly supports the idea that humans and whales share a common ancestor. While we can't definitively prove it "beyond any doubt" in the absolute scientific sense, the evidence from paleontology, genetics, and anatomy paints a compelling picture of a shared evolutionary history.

[Difflugia]

Debatable assumptions, conclusions, interpretations and theories about evidence will never prove evolution in spite of the fact that evolutionists believe such opinionated interpretations, conclusions, and declarations by respected evolutionists are all the proof they need.

This is just another unsupported claim.

AI Overview

Do you have an actual argument to make?

[Jose Fly]

Evolutionists assume humans are related by common ancestry to animals and plants. That is an assumption, not a scientifically proven fact.

I'm always fascinated by the black/white thinking exhibited by creationists. Here it's that common ancestry is either a scientifically proven fact or an assumption, with no other options available.

Fortunately, not everyone is so limited.

Has science proven gorillas and chimps are related by common ancestor to humans

Basically, yes. The same methods used to establish relatedness (e.g., paternity) in courts also show that humans share a common ancestry with other primates. So we can indeed say that it's been "proven beyond a reasonable doubt".

[A Freeman]

Evolutionists assume humans are related by common ancestry to animals and plants. That is an assumption, not a scientifically proven fact.

I'm always fascinated by the black/white thinking exhibited by creationists. Here it's that common ancestry is either a scientifically proven fact or an assumption, with no other options available.

Fortunately, not everyone is so limited.

Has science proven gorillas and chimps are related by common ancestor to humans

Basically, yes. The same methods used to establish relatedness (e.g., paternity) in courts also show that humans share a common ancestry with other primates. So we can indeed say that it's been "proven beyond a reasonable doubt".

Truthfully, no. There is no actual proof. There is only total speculation and guesswork, where so-called scientists guess at what they want to believe, and then see if they can make up something that looks and sounds "scientific" to sell their desperate alternative origin story to their unwitting(?) customers.

That's why we find total nonsense like this, to try to work around the non-existence of any intermediate species ("the missing link"), coupled with DNA evidence that the experts don't seem to realize is a programming code for life that very obviously didn't write itself.

Excerpt below from:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 142133.htm

Humans diverged from apes -- specifically, the chimpanzee lineage -- at some point between about 9.3 million and 6.5 million years ago, towards the end of the Miocene epoch. To understand hominin origins, paleoanthropologists aim to reconstruct the physical characteristics, behavior, and environment of the last common ancestor of humans and chimps.

Wow! Sometime during an alleged 2.8 million year gap that allegedly occurred between 9.3 million and 6.5 million years ago, humans allegedly diverged from apes...specifically (and also allegedly) chimps. That's it! The case cracker.

Are we really not supposed to hold any of these experts to account for how they came up with these random numbers, or what evidence they have to support this and other totally made-up stories? Or should we ignore the fact that even by their own account they could be millions of years off, and have no actual fossil records of intermediate species, or any other physical evidence to back up their hypotheses?

These so-called scientists then admit that they are going to fabricate models out of thin air to try to support their baseless assumptions (they "aim to reconstruct the physical characteristics AND the environment of the last common ancestor of humans and chimps"), even though they have NO IDEA what was going on millions of years ago, and are completely clueless as to whether the environment was even suitable for human, apes, or their alleged common ancestor, or even if there was a common ancestor. Perhaps not surprising, because they have NOTHING but conjecture to build on. Can't wait to see the CGI models and the made-for-TV documentary!

This has absolutely NOTHING in common with the methods used to establish paternity in court. But don't let little things like honesty and integrity get in the way of peddling the latest tale the Darwinian worshippers want to hear from their priests/pseudo-scientists/magicians.

How any of this passes for actual evidence, or proof of anything other than some people's penchant for finding any explanation other than the most obvious (that all life was created/programmed by the code commonly referred to as "DNA"), is a mystery in itself.