Updated March 6, 2011

We can see there is no "evolution" in evidence, anywhere on this earth, unless you have a deeply held religoius belief from academia forcing this belief on you.

For over 150 years this idea of simple life becoming more complex, seemed plausible to many.  But for all but the last 20 years we did not have the DNA data to really support or not support this idea.

The DNA does not support this idea of evolution at all. 

Evolution:  "that theory which sees in the history of all things organic and inorganic a development from simplicity to complexity, a gradual advance from a simple or rudimentary condition to one that is more complex and of a higher character."  Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbgenlSg198

It was this video that caused me to make my first hypothesis that Chimps came from interbreeding between humans and some missing apes some 4,000 years ago.  Everything this guy says backs up that hypothesis, while he thinks this is proof of evolution. 

Today after much more detailed study the original hypothesis is gone, because it has too many road blocks, and as a scientist I have developed a theory now because all of the evidence we have now supports it, perfectly.

It is proof of the "Law of Genetic Stability" that I propose as obvious and shown in all the facts found in all of biology. Genetic stability is what supports and holds a species genetic structures, until something acts on the DNA to "toxify" and destroy the original DNA structures. There is no evolution towards more complex.  We only have what we have and we must protect that.

The Law of Genetic stability:  The creature remains in a genetic lineage passing healthy genetic coding until mutagens act as a downgrading (devolving) of features until extinction.

When the foundational genetics can no longer adapt it or the mutagens reduce fitness the species dies. It does not change into some other type of life.  A mammal never becomes a fish and a fish never becomes a mammal.  What ever the magical belief is.

We know from science that the human genome is degrading. It is not improving.  We know that people have more and more genetic imperfections and are not getting any "better". This is an absolute fact found in all the data on medical sites about genetic problems we have.

Chimps and Humans are TOO CLOSE genetically to be anything but directly related by normal genetic reasons.  There is NO magical, other plausibility that is as accurate to all of the evidence. The only accurate hypothesis that fits all the evidence is that: older species of superior humans are the common ancestor of the other great primates/ great apes. That apes are degnenerated humans and humans are not apes because apes are a downgraded genetic humans.

The great primates are a degradation or degeneration of the Human Genome.

The mass of common ERV's have to be transmitted by interbreeding by procreation and reproduction or by  new infections that happen to hit the same location  (no other way), and by no other method to have this much in common. ( There is an extremely small possibility of some by infection as well, because that is how they got there in the first place.) 

That chimps are the degredation of the human genome, just like dogs are the genetic degredation of Wolves.

If humans bred with this inferior "human" chimp (at a developmental, de-evolution, stage where breeding could still take place), then any number of creatures can be brought into existence that have human characteristics.  It is possible that Chimps, (before too much de-evolution) and Humans bred to produce the Neanderthal and all of the DNA supports that hypothesis as of this date (Jan 24, 2011)(again at Mar 6 2011)

Humans are smarter, more dexterous, more able to survive than Chimps.  The oldest humans were much stronger, had stronger immune systems, stronger bones, and larger brain capacity and far better, synoptic connectoins, (better computer).

It is a "horrible" idea that we are degrading but it is factual in all the evidence. We are not more intelligent than our ancestors.  We simply have had more technological discoveries to use with what existing intelligence we have left.

The human brain was made with way more capacity than we have used.  However, as we continue to radiate, contact with toxic chemical, and biological infections causing mutations, our brains, and total genome, you can see the results by looking at chimps, gorillas and orangutans.

(Exceptionally intelligent people simply use more of their brain than most humans, because they do not let emotional "reasons" control thoughts.  They also don't fear anyone and they certainly do not find any need to conform to human beliefs, not founded on absolutely irrefutable evidence.)

The sad thing is that many of those technological discoveries are helping to speed up or genetic degradation.  see my Cancer Video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrNez5EvcNg

Wolves are stronger, smarter, more cunning hunters, and fully able to survive in the wild. Dogs are degraded with many genetic diseases, cancer, bone dysfunctions, and some can barely walk (Bulldogs). But dogs can still breed with their "parent" of the genetic lineage.  Humans may or may not, because we have not seen this attempted for ethical reasons. The 46 chromosomes caused by a fusion and a few other genetic differences can stop this breeding, making chimps a fully speciated devolved from human species.

Humans passing down ERV's and DNA to direct descendants who were subjected to radiation or any natural cause can degrade a whole tribe to the level of Chimps. (radiation, toxins in water, diseases we know nothing about because these things have changed as the volcanic radioactive materials have decayed and have been washed away.)

We have never seen any genetic improvements in humans (or dogs or any species) from the original. We know that there is a correct way for the gene expression to work because we can see it in people (and genome of all creatures) without genetic degradation in certain parts of the gene expression. We know that humans were better. We can judge the healthy way genes look in people who do not have a particular genetic disease and compare that gene with the people expressing that disease.

We can look to see the exact protean construction of healthy cells.  We can also see the protean constrution of cells that do not function fully.  And we can see the cells that are just "sick" from degredation in the many recognized diseases.  We now have over 4000 of those mapped.  Finally we can see the remnants of gene expressions that are no longer functioning at all.  These are the ones that by lack of use, are no longer needed, but may be triggered by environment to resurface and be usable again, called atavisms.

There is NOTHING NEW in the human genome or the genome of any creature. 

There are over 70% of the mutations are bad, deleterious to the human genome and 29% are considered neutral, ONE percent might be positive.  That is 70 to 1 against this religious mythological idea of "evolution".

Degradation of the genome and is ALL we know for sure.

We know that continual reproduction of genetic weakness will eventually weaken humans to the point of extinction. We have mapped thousands of genetic caused illnesses.

on DonExodus, By the way this guy is so weak that he bans all who question his belief.  He is your typical fanatic believer in Evodelusionism and is utterly afraid of me.  I asked this DonExodus a few questions and he banned me.  Cowards are common with people who cave into beliefs that are shoved in their face by society.

All religious HEMG needs to be removed from public schools and Evodelusionism is a mythological religion.

The first mapping of DNA of Neanderthals showed much more
"Chimpanzee like creatures". This is because they were only looking at mDNA which is transferred to offspring by the mother only.  That means that the "mother" of the Neanderthals is most probably an ancient Chimp creature.

Considering that Chimps at one time were a de-evolved partially speciated, from the genetic human lineage, this is the most logical reason for the mDNA showing "chimp like". The scientists originally stated that Neanderthals were not humans at all, now they can see they were from the same genetic lineage as humans.

In the latest DNA it is from the center of the cell DNA and shows that we are related and "probably bred humans and Neanderthal".  It is more likely that humans and chimps bred to create the Neanderthal.

This is the really nice guy who mapped out the Neanderthal's DNA.  He has many misconceptions to overcome. I have listened to him and he has the typical indoctrination into the religious ideas of Evodelusionism.

Paalo

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100506-science-neanderthals-humans-mated-interbred-dna-gene/

---

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 11^th, 2009 at 12:13pm:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbgenlSg198

If you listen carefully all of his arguments are creationism aganist Evodelusionism, which are two religions.  That makes it clear that Evodelusionsim is a religion, because when I argue with them about science, they never have an answer. Their only argument is against another religion.  They call there religion The Theory of Evolution and disguise it in classrooms as science. There can be no "evolution" if all we see is "degeneration" and a general weakening of the species.

They only argue against religions. When you see someone who argues with religions, then you know it is not science but it is a religion.

The answer to all his nonsense is in the DNA and the Chromosomes and in the physical evidence  and in the nature of the characteristics of the creatures; morphology, mental ability, food, logic, emotions we see in chimps that are identical to humans. 

This shows a direct down lineage  transference of human DNA chromosomes into the primate culture, and quite possible all the primates with human characteristics came from human genetic transference.

Look at this video and tell me this isn't some form of human intelligence passed into the Chimp?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMHiOCD-0aI


This memory is not inhibited by speech or thoughts that have speech or direct linear logic.   This ability is super fast and not slowed down by other human brain functions.

To me this is evidence of a direct relationship from genetic lineage from humans at some point in time. The fact that Chimps have 94.6% of the human DNA and 48 chromosomes that are nearly identical to humans can only be attributed to a direct interbreeding or direct descendants from humans, at some point and that humans are the "ancestors" of Chimps and Humans. 


Go look a the Genome information on Chimps, Humans and Gorillas, and tell me there isn't a family resemblance?
The fusion of #2 chromosome seems very logical but it would have happened sometime after the interbreeding or natural events to produce the Chimps.

According to the Neanderthals DNA which shows both human and chimp DNA, the Chimps and Humans may be the parent group of the Neanderthals.

These are all facts that cannot be refuted by Evodelusionists.  The oldest Chimp artifact that has been dated is only 4000 years old. As you know the radiometric dating past 10,000 years is worthless. Read the Radiometric posts on here.

Using the utterly unverified radiometric dating we have humans at 6.1 million years and 3.4 million years and the oldest chimp fossil is 500 thousand years.  HMM?  The chimps are much younger by either method of deduction.

Here is the only chimp fossil we have. It is only teeth.
The fact that we only have one also spells out that it is a very young species that has not had time to deposit more fossils.

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrPb41hzYdw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=266FV--FmGo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7ttRaXlnfs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJAH4ZJBiN8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhG-_KsDYTA

This is another excellent video that explains in detail the odds of humans being a direct parent of the chimps.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
Please notice that he states that humans have 23 chromosomes.  That is a lie, we posses 46 23 from each parent. This shows up at 3.:37 on his video.  If I had made such a "huge mistake" as this guy in one of my videos the Evodelusionists would never let me live it down.

This guy rattles on and on and on about probability.  I find that alone to be funny. 
What is even funnier, is that he thinks this is evidence for "common ancestor" but it is even more compelling evidence for human as the common ancestor of all  primates, before the chromosomal fusion of #2 in humans.  Remember the Chimp has 94.6 the same DNA and 48 Chromosomes and the Chimp chart lines up perfectly with humans.  That is just too tight of a similarity to have them be a separate tree of some "mystical common ape ancestor".  The ERV's evidence puts the "nail in the coffin" this common ancestor idea.
The "odds" of the ERV's "coincendence" just shows more evidence for humans as the "common" ancestor of both humans and chimps, with some sort of direct sexual link between the two. Since the oldest artifact we have of a Chimp is about 4,000 years old, and that radiometric dating of fossils is crap science, this video's "evidence" spells out direct genetic lineages from humans as the parent of the great apes and the chimp is the least devolved.


Science has to have reality brought into it. All of the evidence must be looked at objectively and not with "evodelusion glasses" over your mind. 
This ERV evidence is extremely compelling for human and ape interbreeding and direct lineages from the parent human group.

  The chromosomal fusion would seem to be the limiting factor now for any further interbreeding.

There are species that have been separated by 2 million (fantasy years of radiometric nonsense) that can still interbreed.  The Cama is the most recent of these. The necessary ingredients that show breeding ability is DNA and chromosome matches.
Listen to this video and realize that my hypothesis is being proven in this video. There is no "common ancestor" shown in the ERV's there is only common well known  genetic facts :).

All of the other ERV evidence with other primates just shows the "mixing of these races".   The other primates are descendants of mixing and harmonizing of the ERV.s propagated through the species.   Humans and apes no longer can interbreed.  The original DNA cannot be tested to show anything beyond what is obvious and matches all the other evidence we have.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 14^th, 2009 at 11:28am:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA Please notice that he states that humans have 23 chromosomes.  That is a lie, we posses 46 23 from each parent. This shows up at 3.:37 on his video.  If I had made such a "huge mistake" as this guy in one of my videos the Evodelusionists would never let me live it down. This guy rattles on and on and on about probability.  I find that alone to be funny.

In the physical world there is no "random".  It only exists as a pure mathmatical idea and can not be integrated into science at all.

You will find that "evodedusionists" often use the idea of "random" when it  fits the propaganda (dogma) and they can use the art of deception on whomever is in front of them at that time, including themselves.

Random is abosolutely impossble in the physical world.  You only have events, interactoins of energy and mass and the effects are propogated down the line of physical events, like a wave or wake in water.   These interactions have a one event, and one interaction and one reaction per event but since everything is interconnected by this universal physical and energy connection, everything has an effect on everything else and some times the propagation of an event will have a short chain of events that bring it back to cause an interaction on the original propagator of the event.

(If you fire a gun in a room that has another person with a gun, you will most likely get shot at.)

It can circle back in a tight looped network of physical and energy connections. But it is never random.

In Quanum physics they have vague theories about this, but it only works on groups if identical pure energy forms.  It cannot operate outside of a group or quantum of the same matter.

There is no such thing as random in the universe.  There is a direct relationship between all things and are cause and effect, but no random.

Now, if you take their dumb ass idea of random and apply it to DNA, it would be absolutely impossible for humans to exist today as they are right now.   There are 3.2 billion base pairs in the Genome of humans.  They are all lined up perfectly to replicate from the DNA/RNA replication process but only exactly as they are.  If you change any of it, you get a different creature.  The "odds"  of that happening by random accident are in the tens of trillions of years of any advancement towards improvement and new features of development by random.  Adding new information has never been verified by any experiment.

So, whenever this mathematical fact is  brought up, the evodelusionists will tell you there is no random.   Listen to Ken Miller's arguments against evolution.  I seems that random only works for evolutionists, but it doesn't work in any other science.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B1g_DObYIc

By the way; I have asked Ken Miller twice to do a public debate, argument, or even just presentations side by side on video even in front of his audiences at a pubic place like a college auditorium.  He has refused.  The only debates he does are against creationists who try to use faith against his indoctrinated beliefs.

I have emailed him and he seems sincere, but has no idea what the evidence actually means.

Look at these chromosome charts and DNA of the Human, Chimp, Gorilla and Orangutang.  These are all directly genetically linked.

We have absolutely, irrefutable, physical evidence showing in the genomes of all creatures a continual loss of gene expression, genes that do not function as the original design, weakened cells that are much more prone to diseases, atavisms which are old genes that do not express.  We have NO indication of any improvements towards more complexity nor fitness in any genome on this planet.

This is absolute evidence that I ask the Evodelusionists to come up with that proves the opposite.  I have asked over 500 people to come up with this evidence, and of course they cannot.  This is because it does not exist.  There is ONLY evidence of de-evolution, from more complex, more fit more capacity for intelligence and more strength in the ancestors.

My hypothesis on this. Modified Jan 24, 2011
1/ Chimp is a direct defective human that survived some catastrophic event on the genome.  It caused LOSS of genetic information and only loss.

2/ Chimps bred with humans.

3/ Chimps downgraded again to produce Gorilla and Orangutaion in some direct genetic events, by interbreeding and or genetic defects continually degrading the species.


4/ The Chimp and Human produced the Neanderthals.
     A/ Neanderthals mated with humans.

Synopsis:

1/ A separated human tribe was exposed to environmental causes that degraded the genome in the entire tribe.  Shorting life, reducing mental abilities, and distorting the bodies.
2/ This tribe as a group reproduced = Chimps.
3/ Humans interbred with them Chimps = Neanderthal

4/ Neanderthals bred with humans. (this has been discovered recently to be fact)

5/ Humans had the Chromosome fusion that resulted in Chromosome number 2. and 46 total Chromosomes from the original 48 when they could breed with chimps or other primates. No more plausible to breed with primates.

Orangutans, Gorillas are in the mix somewhere with interbreeding from the degraded human genome.

and so on.


And NO I do not believe any of this. It is just a much more plausible hypothesis than some mystical nonsense. This does fit all the evidence we have.

4/ The only way science works is through pure logic and reason, not some wish and religious belief that evoldelusion was real. IF you believe in evolution, you will see it in your mind and it taints your objectivity, making you not a scientists but a religious believer.

5/ Because this is a highly plausible hypothesis, (much more plausible than any other hypothesis) it negates the idea of the belief in some common ancestor of the chimp and the human.  There has to be a genetic reason for this amazing closeness to humans and chimps and this answers it far better than any other hypothesis. It also fits all the verifiable evidence on humans and chimps in the physical world.  The genetic evidence really only suggests that the Human IS the "common ancestor" of both Chimps and Humans. This cannot be "falsified" either.

If you have no physical evidence to show genus "mutations" that result in evolution, you make up nonsense based on belief, like common ancestors, that have never been seen, then to fill in the blanks with fantasy and mythological creatures that have never shown up in any evidence.

These Evodelusionism believers overlook all the evidence we have, for some very obvoius reasons.

You have to be very ignorant of science and genetics, like the TV newscasters on the liberal  media to believe this fantasy. 

Ask yourself if you are that foolish as to accept all distorted logic without taking the time to understand what these believers are doing?

If you go to school (screwal) and learn all the dogma and indoctrination and they never allow you to think for yourself, nor do they show you ALL of the evidence, nor do they evaluate any piece of evidence by any other extremely plausible and more logical idea, that would destroy the (your) belief they want to force on you in the classroom, then you know it is an indoctrination and a religion based on belief and faith.

http://evolutionforum.info/yabbfiles/Attachments/HumChimpGorlaOran-Utan.gif

---

Everything that happens in life has an absolute truth to it.

Everything in life has an absolute truth as to the events that took place.

Every event, action, interaction, reaction, and chain reaction of mass (physical matter) or energy has an absolute truth as to how it took place and what really happened.

In my science that is what I seek.  It is called the "truth". I never accept delusional premises based on ideas that have no absolute evidence.

In my science we deal in reality and in only the things we know as absolute evidence.

Radiation dating (Radiometric dating) is not real science because it cannot ever be verified by humans with the tools we have now. It's limits and accuracy have never been tested an cannot be tested. It is based on assumption.

The fossil record consists of people who have been taught that all this is evidence, when in fact it is nothing but opinions and projections of what they think these fossils are.

Humans are extremely flawed and tend to project beliefs on things. If you put your faith in humans, you are in deep trouble.  Since there is no DNA evidence or chromosomal evidence to test to see if any of these fossils are even related, they are actually worthless as science.  They make good novelties on the bookshelf.

But just like all the people who were released from prison when "real evidence" showed up in their criminal cases in the form of DNA, there is no empirical evidence in the fossil record.  It is just humans and their beliefs (and beliefs have killed many innocent people). There is absolutely no way to tie any fossil to any other fossil, if all you have is human eyeballs and thoughts projected on the "evidence".  It is not even close to evidence.  It certainly does not fit any definition of science.  You cannot perform any scientific, repeatable test to show this is even science.  It is a religion that started well over 2000 years ago in pagan religions.

Once you have the first "authority" who believes this crap, then they force it on others.  As it propagates throughout "science" it is thought of as "real", just like "the world is flat",or "the earth is the center of the universe" which were propagated the same way.

In classrooms all over they teach this as if it was real, because the teachers were not able to guard thier intelligence against the indoctrinatoin and they never looked outside the cult to verify if it was true or not.  That is what happens today when these kids, babies, are telling me that I don't understand science.   The problem is I do understand their science completely and know for a fact that it is not science at all, but a pseudo science propagated by belief and faith in humans looking at "evidence" that they don't understand, but force it to fit a dumb ass belief.

If you can prove, absolutely, any tie between any fossil that is not opinion, then you must have a time machine and evidence of your time machine.   This is the most ridiculous form of pseudo science I have ever seen.

In all the news clippings and articles in science journals, the headlines are like this.  "New finding of the BlaBlaBla suggest evolution according to DR, Delusion who got his Ph D in "Evodelusional Morphology" from some ivy league school funded by corporations.

There is never any absolute evidence, never: Just the delusional *opinions* by believers.
No one has the right to tell you what any evidence is. They are all humans and if you let other humans tell you how to think, they own you, your soul ,your mind and your life, because you gave it to them either out of innocence and coercion of society, or because of your compulsions.

wrote on Nov 24^th, 2009 at 12:18pm:

You sure are way off about this randomness. Can you predict how many snowflakes will land on your lawn? They're talking about things that are not predictable due to complexity. The events are NOT random. I don't think there is any randomness in the universe. But they aren't predictable either. An animal decides to go west instead of east and gets hit with a gamma ray from some uranium in the ground and BAM. "Random" mutation. It just happens.

They aren't predictable, because they aren't predictable with any tools we have now. Not because they are random.  . Random and predictable are not even in the same sentence. Not even in the same "ball park" as is the common terminology. Once the matter came into being, it follows the laws of science.



No one can predict anything that is beyond the ability of the human mind to predict.   We barely can predict simple physics equations and the results of normal use of projectiles and controlling the direction and speed of aircraft and space missiles.   

Prediction, beyond what the human mind can see,  is voodoo and left to the psychics and astrologers, not scientists. 

Sometimes. statistics, permutations, combinations and probability, (the study of what humans believe are random)  seems to work, but most of the time it fails by a large percentage.  Seeming to work is not science. Predictions, without reason,  are also not part of science.  I don't deal in political poles and tiny ideas that if a tiny part does this then it must represent the larger.  This is the bovine feculence of projection of belief that I do not allow in science.

I only want what really works and is real science.

wrote on Nov 24^th, 2009 at 12:18pm:

You sure are way off about this randomness. Can you predict how many snowflakes will land on your lawn? They're talking about things that are not predictable due to complexity. The events are NOT random. I don't think there is any randomness in the universe. But they aren't predictable either. An animal decides to go west instead of east and gets hit with a gamma ray from some uranium in the ground and BAM. "Random" mutation. It just happens.

I take it that you don't realize that this is a law of physics.
It is not some theory.  There is only cause and effect in the real world. Random is not even a possibility in the natural world.  Random is only an abstract mathematical term that has never worked on complex creatures.  Because it is not possible.   IN other words creatures are not predictable, and they do not have any random events.  All the interactions in the creature have to follow logic.

This is something you have been brainwashed out of. You cannot or are not able to see obvious pure logic. 

Whenever a scientist cannot understand why something is happening or has taken place, they use the word random and pull it out of their ass. When they speak with authority and have degrees in this religious idea, then they are in power to inflict their religious beliefs on poor unsuspecting children and make intellectual victims of them.

I have some contempt for this because this evodelusion stuff is not science, but is sold to ignornate people as science with all the trappings that has been used for centuries.

DR, "so and so" says this is truth.  And he is the god of all the universe and knows everything.

---

wrote on Nov 24^th, 2009 at 12:18pm:

You sure are way off about this randomness. Can you predict how many snowflakes will land on your lawn? They're talking about things that are not predictable due to complexity. The events are NOT random. I don't think there is any randomness in the universe. But they aren't predictable either. An animal decides to go west instead of east and gets hit with a gamma ray from some uranium in the ground and BAM. "Random" mutation. It just happens.

This is a repost.

I really am trying to believe that you want to know, so I am repeating the same facts over and over. But I realize now you are a troll who has lied about your intentions of learning. This is the sort of sneaky and insincere, behavior a religious person with compulsions to save his religion.

If you are not aware of the laws of physics, I suggest you get a few books on the subject and study.

 
This is your last post on this.  If you are too intellectually and educationally handicapped to understand that  random in the universe means no universe, because without the fundamental laws of science that hold the universe together it doesn't exist.

The universe operates on structures and laws that reveal themselves by discovery.  Any random (scrambled with no cause) is destructive to the universe.

There is only cause and effect, no random.  After the first impulse that generated this universe and all the laws of science were started that hold the universe together, it has never changed.  It is one action, event after another that is only cause and effect. 

When humans are too weak minded an feeble to see all the "events" taking place at at one instant, does not make them apparently random, but it shows clearly how weak and feeble the human mind is.


When we have computer that can analyze billions of events in one instance quantum will be shown to be idiotic.

Because humans are so stupid the try to force ideas on the universe. Mostly because they are weak and fearful and have to make things up to answer questions their weak and feeble minds can't even comprehend.  Religion in science is caused by weak and stupid people who make up fantasy to answer things they have no way of knowing.



This fantasy of evodelusion requires the fantasy of random in some of its silly beliefs in order to have random DNA happen by magic.These fools then say that there is no random when it comes to other parts of their beliefs. Seriously that is called selective use of random based upon what part of the belief they are forcing on the evidence that day.

If they tell you one lie, and you figure it out, then it unravels pretty easily as you go study all the evidence they don't show you and how there are upright humans living some 6.1 million years ago with a modern femur.  You won't find that evidence in any classroom, because I have asked an not one student is aware of this.  This is because radiometric dating on replacement fossils is a totally not verified as correct.

Now we have them violating the laws of physics and saying that these new DNA in the offspring must be "random mutations" when there is no such thing in the entire universe.  There are many more logical fallacies that this HEMG belief is imposed on evidence.  Only a person who is brainwashed into belief would allow this nonsense in science.

You have to realize it makes me sick to have to deal with really stupid people for too long who keep repeating the same things as if they were proven. 

Getting into that level of ignorance and trying to pull people out means that I have to go in and understand all of your delusions and see the conditions you are in.  To me it is like a doctor going to a village of people with cholera and having no way to fix them, because the disease is too deep.  You have to fix yourself.

I can only tell you the truth about science from an entirely objective perspective of no beliefs. I only go with what is in the evidence and what is obvious and what follows the laws of science that have never failed to be true in my 47 years of science study.

When I was 16 years old I realize immediately that these weak humans who are in charge of the fossils are delusional believers in this idea that evolution is real and were projecting that belief on the fossils and ruining them as scientific specimens.

Belief destroys all credibility.  Knowledge of the truth is not believe.  As soon as you are brainwashed into a belief and you "absorb it" declare your allegiance to it by getting a degree in it or teaching this delusional HEMG, or just telling your friends you believe (Amen Darwin god of the universe)  to other people you are totally screwed  in the head and have no credibility as a scientist and no logic or reason left. 

Your life then becomes nothing but a ridiculous fantasy that you must protect, that never seem to go anywhere and not many of the pieces seem to fit.

Only what is true produces good results.

How do you know if it is true science?  Look at the results.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUN0GPzGwnY




If you don't have the capacity to understand the laws of physics I strongly suggest that you find some other hobby.
If you do anything with science you will make mostly mistakes and be worthless to humanity as a scientist until you grasp the "rules" of life and science.

I am not going to wast any more time until you are ready to learn from me and stop being a troll, spamming this forum with your nonsense.

You can go read all the articles of the physicists on this. They will tell you that anyone of the fundamental laws of science  were to not function life would cease. 

There are many articles on this and you can google them.

Don't ask any more really dumb questions.

I am totally aware of all of Einsteins work.  He is one of my mentors.

wrote on Nov 24^th, 2009 at 12:18pm:

You sure are way off about this randomness. Can you predict how many snowflakes will land on your lawn? They're talking about things that are not predictable due to complexity. The events are NOT random. I don't think there is any randomness in the universe. But they aren't predictable either. An animal decides to go west instead of east and gets hit with a gamma ray from some uranium in the ground and BAM. "Random" mutation. It just happens.

What an intellectually handicapped person you are!  The change to the genome has a cause, the "gamma ray".   It did not occur by some magic.

In the passing of genetic information, you idiots think that DNA is at the deepest level.  It is a result of the deepest level and nothing happens by random in the breeding process.  The whole of the traits are passed from both parents and any changes can only come from the parents under all normal circumstances.  So those 100 or so differences in the DNA are caused by the transference of information from the parents.

DNA is not the cause of itself. This is something you need to know.  It is scientific fact that NOTHING IS THE CAUSE OF ITSELF.

Random is never a possibility in real science.

If someone gets hit by lightening, it is because they were in the location of a lightening storm.  Not because some random lightening shot up their ass while typing garbage beliefs on a computer as you do. ;D

You are not a rational person.  I really had hopes for you.
Here is a song for you to think about.
You have a very ugly spirit, very hateful and unreasonable, obstinate and prideful and egotistical with no accurate knowledge of the natural world of science.  There is no reason to be prideful if you are ignorant of even the most basic laws of physics.
This is what I have found in most people with delusions not based on the truth.

This is our band. HavenHead My wife signs and writes the lyrics and melodies.  I play the guitar and my best friend play guitar and bass.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7Eu8yVna10

These fools think that there is some primitive "common ancestor" to humans and Chimps, and they think this with absolutely no real evidence to back it up.

If all the evidence does no support this idea then it needs to be trashed. The physical evidence does not support this idea.

The only reasoning they have is that "it must be" and if you listen to them, that is only evidence of their beliefs.

They are intellectually dishonest, because they never look at other more logical plausibilities. That is not science but a tyrannical forced belief that does not allow any thinking outside of this ridiculous unfounded, not proven religion of Evodelusionism.

prolescum wrote on Dec 31^st, 2009 at 1:12pm:

Fist sign of madness is talking to yourself, you know.

The first sign of madness is believing in nonsense and actually thinking it is real. It is called delusions.  It is common with all people.  It is the cause of suffering. It is the definition of ignorance and suffering. 

Belief with no reality, is insanity.

"In the sky, there is no distinction of east and west; people create distinctions out of their own minds and then beleive them to be true."
Buddha

"No one saves us but ourselves. No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path."
Buddha

"If you allow others to control how you think, are you free, no, not ever are you free if you just accept other people's beliefs and allow them to control you?"
GoodScienceForYou.

"If you are concerned for other people's opinions, you will never find the truth."  Swami Muktananda.

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Albert Einstein

"Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school." Albert Einstein

That has always pertained to education.  Academia by it own constructs and formation, doesn't allow for free thinkers who do not want to conform to other people's crap. It is a form of control on the public as well as having some education, but not much.

I teach people to think for themselves. That is what I do.
If you don't like my methods, find someone else to help you who has my knowledge and intellect.  I have a limit to the amount of pure, delusional, nonsense I can stand. I am not perfect.  If you want someone who is perfect go find them.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 31^st, 2009 at 3:37pm:

prolescum wrote on Dec 31st, 2009 at 1:12pm: Fist sign of madness is talking to yourself, you know. The first sign of madness is believing in nonsense and actually thinking it is real. It is called delusions.  It is common with all people.  It is the cause of suffering. It is the definition of ignorance and suffering.  Belief with no reality, is insanity. "In the sky, there is no distinction of east and west; people create distinctions out of their own minds and then beleive them to be true." Buddha "No one saves us but ourselves. No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path." Buddha "If you allow others to control how you think, are you free, no, not ever are you free if you just accept other people's beliefs and allow them to control you?" GoodScienceForYou. "If you are concerned for other people's opinions, you will never find the truth."  Swami Muktananda. "The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Albert Einstein "Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school." Albert Einstein That has always pertained to education.  Academia by it own constructs and formation, doesn't allow for free thinkers who do not want to conform to other people's crap. It is a form of control on the public as well as having some education, but not much. I teach people to think for themselves. That is what I do. If you don't like my methods, find someone else to help you who has my knowledge and intellect.  I have a limit to the amount of pure, delusional, nonsense I can stand. I am not perfect.  If you want someone who is perfect go find them.

I think it may surprise you that people do understand what you are saying, but they might not always agree with you.

I believe it's futile to try to have a constructive debate with someone when there is no respect, no common ground, and no effort to understand the other person's perspective.

It's very frustrating to try to make a connection with someone when it seems they are not making an equal effort and appear to have no interest in doing same with you.

Please don't take this as a personal thing, it's just broken.

There exists only one truth. There are not two.

When you have zero evidence for evolution, I would choose my point of view any day, clear of delusions.

Wow Ken Miller is awesome in that first video. It's good to have some christian biologists explaining the evidence for evolution - I know a lot of people who think religion and evolution are in opposition.

Aught3 wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2010 at 8:22pm:

Wow Ken Miller is awesome in that first video. It's good to have some christian biologists explaining the evidence for evolution - I know a lot of people who think religion and evolution are in opposition.

Unfortunately there is no science used in his conclusions of his presentation.
Because we do not have any evidence for evolution, but we have evidence for devolution and degradation of DNA, interbreeding and normal genetic reasons.

If all you have is DNA, ERV's. chromosomes the only thing this shows in direct lineage between humans and chimps with humans as the more complex losing "data" coding as it devolved into the chimp.

There is only one way the Chimp can be so close to humans and that is it.

I suggest you study genetics as it is and not project belief on the evidence.

Quote:

Unfortunately there is no science used in his presentation.

His presentation is accurate science, there is no requirement for you to like it.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2010 at 8:28pm:

Aught3 wrote on Jan 2nd, 2010 at 8:22pm: Wow Ken Miller is awesome in that first video. It's good to have some christian biologists explaining the evidence for evolution - I know a lot of people who think religion and evolution are in opposition. Unfortunately there is no science used in his presentation.

If by science you mean tobacco smoke, I agree. There's also no science (using its traditional meaning) in this next part of this quote.

Quote:

Because we do not have any evidence for evolution, but we have evidence for interbreeding. If all you have is DNA, ERV's. chromosomes the only thing this shows in interbreeding between humans and some animal. There is only one way the Chimp can be so close to humans and that is it.

How very scientific. Are you sure you're not just unhappy with evolution (for reasons as yet unclear) and making up your own conclusions? Where's the evidence of interbreeding that you talk about? How is it evidence of interbreeding and contrary to evolution? How was this conclusion reached? Certainly sounds like you're projecting nonsense on the 'evidence' to me.

Quote:

I suggest you study genetics as it is and not project nonsense on the evidence.

prolescum wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2010 at 4:51am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 2nd, 2010 at 8:28pm: Aught3 wrote on Jan 2nd, 2010 at 8:22pm: Wow Ken Miller is awesome in that first video. It's good to have some christian biologists explaining the evidence for evolution - I know a lot of people who think religion and evolution are in opposition. Unfortunately there is no science used in his presentation. If by science you mean tobacco smoke, I agree. There's also no science (using its traditional meaning) in this next part of this quote. Quote: Because we do not have any evidence for evolution, but we have evidence for interbreeding. If all you have is DNA, ERV's. chromosomes the only thing this shows in interbreeding between humans and some animal. There is only one way the Chimp can be so close to humans and that is it. How very scientific. Are you sure you're not just unhappy with evolution (for reasons as yet unclear) and making up your own conclusions? Where's the evidence of interbreeding that you talk about? How is it evidence of interbreeding and contrary to evolution? How was this conclusion reached? Certainly sounds like you're projecting nonsense on the 'evidence' to me. [quote]I suggest you study genetics as it is and not project nonsense on the evidence.

[/quote]


I have presented my "theory" on this ERV, Chromosome, DNA evidence to many PHD's in biology, genetics, and none can refute this as a huge plausibility that negates the belief in common "great primate" ancestor.  That is because it follows the evidence, not some magical, mystical bovine feculence of creatures that have never been shown to exist and some magical process of evolution that has no evidence.

Humans have been mating animals for as long as recorded history. That is a fact.  Animals have been mating humans for just as long.  That is fact. 

Chimps have not been around for more than 4000 years by any degree of accuracy with dating.  There is only one, repeat, one chimp fossil that has been found and it was dated by the assumptions and BS of radiometric dating.

It seems rather odd that chimps live in the same jungles as humans did, but we can't find but one fossil?  That is because the radiometric dating of "replacement" fossils is nonsense.  They found Chimp artifacts only, less than 4000 years old. This would explain the rarity of Chimp fossils.
The brain function and social phenomenon of Chimps is different than any other primate.



The closeness of the DNA 94.6%+ the same, nearly identical ERV's and Chromosomes (human 46 Chimp 48 with the signs of fusion on the human #2) is way beyond any plausibility of some common ancestor other than human as the common ancestor. The only plausible way to see this is by human as the common ancestor of humans and chimps.

Ken Miller's beliefs are way out of line and are based on brainwashing, indoctrination and hanging around with other delusional people, who pretend to be scientists.  Whenever there is no evidence, and the evidence is "gray", it only supports ("suggests" is their wording) their magical beliefs and nothing else.  Do you ever notice this?

They see "random" where random cannot exist.  You cannot have any random coding in DNA without death.

They see "common ancestor" of some "great primate", when the evidence shows chimps are human genome creatures with severe genetic disorders.

These people are so screwed up. It is amazing that they can tie their own shoelaces.

This nonsense of the DNA, ERV's and Chromosome number 2 as evidence for "common ancestor" has been around for a while.

This crap was supposed to save this religion of Evodelusionism. These guy latched on to this idea as if it was real.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 14^th, 2009 at 4:41pm:

Look at these chromosome charts of the Human, Chimp, Gorilla and Orangutang.  These are all directly genetically linked. My hypothesis on this. ( it could be another creature that the humans mated with.) 1/ Human tribe had genetic defects and produce the Chimp. 2/ The Chimp devolves into Gorrilla and Chimp produces the Orangutang. 3/ The Chimp and Human produced the Neanderthals. 4/ Neanderthals mated with humans, why we have Neanderthal DNA and Chimp DNA in Neanderthals. It is just a much more plausible theory than some mystical nonsense. 4/ The only way science works is through pure logic and reason, not some wish and religious belief that evoldelusion was real. IF you believe in evolution, you will see it and it taints your objectivity, making you not a scientists but a religious believer. 5/ Because this is a highly plausible theory on chimps, (much more plausible than any other hypothesis) it negates the idea of the belief in some ape like common ancestor of the chimp and the human.  There has to be a genetic reason for this amazing closeness to humans and chimps and this answers it far better than any other hypothesis. It also fits all the verifiable evidence on humans and chimps in the physical world.  The genetic evidence really only suggests that the Human IS the "common ancestor" of both Chimps and Humans. This cannot be "falsified" either. If you have no physical evidence to show genus "mutations" that result in evolution, you make up nonsense based on belief, like common ancestors, that have never been seen, then to fill in the blanks with fantasy and mythological creatures that have never shown up in any evidence. These delusional fools overlook all the evidence we have, for some "delusional" reason. You have to be very ignorant of science and genetics, like the TV newscasters on the liberal  media to believe this fantasy.  Ask yourself if you are that stupid as to accept all crap logic without taking the time to understand what these nut cases are doing? If you go to school (screwal) and learn all the dogma and indoctrination and they never allow you to think for yourself, nor do they show you ALL of the evidence, nor do they evaluate any piece of evidence by any other extremely plausible and more logical idea, that would destroy the (your) belief, then you know it is a friggin brainwashing and a religion based on indoctrination and faith. http://evolutionforum.info/yabbfiles/Attachments/HumChimpGorlaOran-Utan.gif

With translocation of chromosomes, the subfertility is caused by problems in chromosome pairing and segregation during meiosis. We know this from the study of human fertility. However, when the two mating creatures have the same chromosomal arrangements and the same number of chromosomes then mating can occur. Whither or not the offspring is fertile depends on the meiosis in the paired offspring. Not by some "magic". This is why the primate mating was possible with 48 chromosomes and why no PHD of genetics can refute the plausibility of humans being the parent of chimps.

Neanderthals not the only apes humans bred with

12 May 2010 by Ewen Callaway
Magazine issue 2760. Subscribe and save
For similar stories, visit the Neanderthals , Genetics and Human Evolution Topic Guides
Editorial: Welcome to the human family, Neanderthals

A LONG-awaited rough draft of the Neanderthal genome has revealed that our own DNA contains clear evidence that early humans interbred with Neanderthals.

Such interminglings have been suspected in the past, but there's more: Neanderthals were probably not the only other Homo species early Homo sapiens mixed with.

These findings call into question the familiar story that modern humans left Africa around 100,000 years ago and swept aside all other Homo species as they made their way around the globe. "It was a very simple story," says João Zilhão at the University of Bristol, UK. "Its simplicity suggested it would not be true." A more likely scenario is that as H. sapiens migrated, they met and interbred with other Homo species that have all since died out.

The first definitive evidence of interbreeding comes from Svante Pääbo's team at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. They reported last week that the genome of humans today is roughly 1 to 4 per cent Neanderthal (Science, vol 328, p 710). This holds true for all non-Africans, suggesting that H. sapiens and Neanderthals interbred sometime between 100,000 and 45,000 years ago, after the first humans left Africa but before they split into regional populations.

Another genetic study confirms this. Jeffrey Long at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque presented results from nearly 100 modern human populations at a meeting of the American Association for Physical Anthropologists in April. His team found evidence that Eurasians acquired genetic diversity from breeding with other Homo species after they left Africa.

Eurasians acquired genetic diversity from breeding with other Homo species after they left Africa
They also noticed a spike in genetic diversity in Indo-Pacific peoples, dating to around 40,000 years ago. This time, it's unlikely the diversity came from H. sapiens getting it on with Neanderthals, who never travelled that far south. That leaves a number of candidates, including Homo erectus and species related to Homo floresiensis, a small species which lived on an Indonesian island until about 13,000 years ago.

Neither Pääbo nor Long were able to show that when humans arrived in Europe they mixed with resident Neanderthals, but archaeological finds tell a different story, says Zilhão. In Portugal, his team discovered the 25,000-year-old bones of a child they are convinced is a human-Neanderthal hybrid. Zilhão says fossils from Romania and the Czech Republic also bear Neanderthal features, though others dispute this.

Moreover, decorative artefacts characteristic of humans have cropped up at Neanderthal sites, dated to around the time of contact with humans in Africa and the Middle East. Further east, 40,000-year-old human bones from a cave near Beijing, China, have features that recall other Homo species, says Erik Trinkaus of Washington University in St Louis, Missouri.

In March, Pääbo's team reported the discovery of DNA from a hominin that is probably neither human nor Neanderthal that lived 50,000 to 30,000 years ago in a cave in southern Siberia. They dubbed the creature X-woman, and sequencing machines are already decoding its genome, says Pääbo's colleague Ed Green of the University of California, Santa Cruz. Could X-woman or its kind have bred with humans, too? "Stay tuned," Green says.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on May 16^th, 2010 at 12:01am:

Neanderthals not the only apes humans bred with 12 May 2010 by Ewen Callaway Magazine issue 2760. Subscribe and save For similar stories, visit the Neanderthals , Genetics and Human Evolution Topic Guides Editorial: Welcome to the human family, Neanderthals A LONG-awaited rough draft of the Neanderthal genome has revealed that our own DNA contains clear evidence that early humans interbred with Neanderthals. Such interminglings have been suspected in the past, but there's more: Neanderthals were probably not the only other Homo species early Homo sapiens mixed with. These findings call into question the familiar story that modern humans left Africa around 100,000 years ago and swept aside all other Homo species as they made their way around the globe. "It was a very simple story," says João Zilhão at the University of Bristol, UK. "Its simplicity suggested it would not be true." A more likely scenario is that as H. sapiens migrated, they met and interbred with other Homo species that have all since died out. The first definitive evidence of interbreeding comes from Svante Pääbo's team at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. They reported last week that the genome of humans today is roughly 1 to 4 per cent Neanderthal (Science, vol 328, p 710). This holds true for all non-Africans, suggesting that H. sapiens and Neanderthals interbred sometime between 100,000 and 45,000 years ago, after the first humans left Africa but before they split into regional populations. Another genetic study confirms this. Jeffrey Long at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque presented results from nearly 100 modern human populations at a meeting of the American Association for Physical Anthropologists in April. His team found evidence that Eurasians acquired genetic diversity from breeding with other Homo species after they left Africa. Eurasians acquired genetic diversity from breeding with other Homo species after they left Africa They also noticed a spike in genetic diversity in Indo-Pacific peoples, dating to around 40,000 years ago. This time, it's unlikely the diversity came from H. sapiens getting it on with Neanderthals, who never travelled that far south. That leaves a number of candidates, including Homo erectus and species related to Homo floresiensis, a small species which lived on an Indonesian island until about 13,000 years ago. Neither Pääbo nor Long were able to show that when humans arrived in Europe they mixed with resident Neanderthals, but archaeological finds tell a different story, says Zilhão. In Portugal, his team discovered the 25,000-year-old bones of a child they are convinced is a human-Neanderthal hybrid. Zilhão says fossils from Romania and the Czech Republic also bear Neanderthal features, though others dispute this. Moreover, decorative artefacts characteristic of humans have cropped up at Neanderthal sites, dated to around the time of contact with humans in Africa and the Middle East. Further east, 40,000-year-old human bones from a cave near Beijing, China, have features that recall other Homo species, says Erik Trinkaus of Washington University in St Louis, Missouri. In March, Pääbo's team reported the discovery of DNA from a hominin that is probably neither human nor Neanderthal that lived 50,000 to 30,000 years ago in a cave in southern Siberia. They dubbed the creature X-woman, and sequencing machines are already decoding its genome, says Pääbo's colleague Ed Green of the University of California, Santa Cruz. Could X-woman or its kind have bred with humans, too? "Stay tuned," Green says.

With every new piece of DNA study, the idea of common ancestor is being destroyed by the reality of this and that it is nothing but human interbreeding in ancient times and that offspring from this seems to be where all the primates came from.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSAgQfhyd9A&NR=1

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9145721/ns/technology_and_science-science/

By Bjorn Carey

updated 8/31/2005 2:59:38 PM ET
Share Print Font:
The first-ever chimpanzee fossils were recently discovered in an area previously thought to be unsuitable for chimps. Fossils from human ancestors were also found nearby.
Although researchers have only found a few chimp teeth, the discovery could cause a shake-up in the theories of human evolution.
“We know today if you go to western and central Africa that humans and chimps live in similar and neighboring environments,” said Nina Jablonski, an anthropologist at the California Academy of Sciences. “This is the first evidence in the fossil record that they coexisted in the same place in the past.”
It had previously been thought that chimps never lived in the arid Rift Valley — they prefer more lush environments like the Congo and jungles of western Africa. For years, scientists believed that early human ancestors left the jungles and moved east to the less wooded grasslands, and that this move caused the evolutionary split between the human and chimp lines.
But now, with the discovery of ancient chimps and humans in the same area, evolutionists may have to rethink what caused humans to become humans.
“For many years people have used this kind of geographic split in environment as an explanation as an origin of humans and bipedalism,” co-author Sally McBrearty of the University of Connecticut told LiveScience. “People have still retained this idea of a split geographic distribution of chimps and humans. This shows it certainly wasn’t true half a million years ago, and may not have been true before that. We need to look for another reason for the evolutionary split.”
Only the teeth survive
One of the more frustrating aspects of paleontology is that full skeletons are very infrequently preserved — especially in jungle environments, where soil acidity and scavengers destroy or eat bones that could otherwise become fossils.
Teeth, on the other hand, more frequently survive. They’re coated with thick enamel, which protects them from chemical attacks and makes them less desirable for hungry scavengers.
“Teeth are the part of the body that gets preserved most frequently,” McBrearty said. “All things being equal, you’re more likely to find teeth than anything else.”
Half a million years ago, the Rift Valley was likely more moist and wooded than it is today. But since that time, the lake shore that the chimps and other animals called home has dried up, creating conditions good for preserving fossils.
advertisement | ad info

Researchers dug up three teeth — two incisors and one molar. Although these teeth were mixed in with fossils of many other animals, they quite definitely belonged to a chimp.
“Chimp teeth are actually very distinctive, because compared to human teeth, molars for instance, they have very, very low crowns,” Jablonski said. “The incisor teeth at the front of the jaw are also very distinctive. They’re triangular and very thick — much thicker than the same tooth in a human.”
They also found fossilized remains of fish, hippopotami, antelopes, cane rats, buffalos, monkeys and other moisture-loving animals. Based on the presence of these animals, researchers determined the area used to be much different.
“We know two things. First, chimps were once more widely distributed. And second, these environments have changed dramatically in the last half-million years,” Jablonski said. “The chimps and all the other forest-loving animals that lived with them became extinct, locally, because of this change.”
Human ancestors nearby
Hominid fossils were also discovered less than a half-mile (1 kilometer) from the lake shore where the chimp fossils were buried. More importantly, they were found in sediments of the same age as the chimp teeth — about half a million years old.
Although not modern humans, these hominids were fairly advanced, as evidenced by the wide variety of stone tools they used.
“These represent an earlier species of human, relatives to modern humans, but not Homo sapiens,” Jablonski said. “There’s some controversy over what this species is called. Most would call it an advanced form of Homo erectus. They looked like people and were a fairly sophisticated culture with various stone tools and lived in the same environment as humans.”
The discovery of ancient chimps and humans living in the same area opens the door to many questions. More teeth, and perhaps even bones, may lie in the Rift Valley sediments, and finding them could help answer these questions.
“I’m going back to look for the rest,” McBrearty said.
These findings are detailed in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.

++++++++++++++++++++++

There is also no Gorrilla fossils and only one Orangutan. 

This finding reinforces, utterly, my hypothesis that Chimps are descendants of humans and most likely from interbreeding or some form of "devolution" like what has caused all forms of genetic diseases in humans now (diabetes, sickle cell anemia and the huge list of the rest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders. )

If you realize that all of these "genetic diseases" are the result of conditions in the life of all of the ancestors, then this is contrary to this idea that "mutations" can ever be beneficial.  Once this crap is in the genome it never goes away, except by extinction of the people with this disease.

There is no such thing as magical positive evolution that causes creatures to get better or more complex.

---

The more research on this Chimp human and primate phenomenon reveals many things as we pile on the evidence.

"The Theory of Evolution" is nothing but a bunch of religious slogans. There is no evidence for evolution, but a lot of evidence for gradual degradation of all species and extinction from environmental issues. There is no net positive change in any species. If your idea of evolution is degradation of the genome of most all the species, you are right. There is no improvement shown anywhere.

Chimps and Primates are degraded spin offs of humans. Humans were obviously first then Chimps came from humans. That is clear. There is no evolution but there is only a continual net degradation to all genomes and extinction from environmental poisons..

In all of my studies on this idea of "mutation" what I see is simply the same DNA patterns repeating that have already been shown in the species. There is no "new" changes to the DNA, but there is a programmed response to the toxins of environment and bad foods, like the huge amounts of hydrogenated oils that cause clogged arteries. The body will pull up any pre coding that is available to survive with and make adaptations, but no evolution.
In each genome is the programming that was established in the beginning. And part of that programming is in response to environment. It is intelligent programming that takes into account all "toxic" possibilities.  When we see differences in the DNA from the parent to the child there is only one cause of those differences: passed down traits from the genetic lineage. There is no such possibility of any random change, because random is death. If one base pare being off can cause severe illness, imagine what 100 or so random changes can do?---Extinction

There is no such thing as evolution shown in any evidence. The Galapagos finches are a perfect example of adapting based upon a deep level of genome programming. The beaks get bigger, then smaller, with no net change. This is because the ability to adapt in different directions is build in the programming of the species.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj1TrL--Jxw

Now adapting has never shown any improvements over the foundational genetic make up of a species. Never. The only, obvious purpose of adaptation is for the creature to survive AS THE SAME CREATURE.

We can see DNA gene expressions for the synthesis of vitamin C, but it is no longer functional, due to a net degradation of the Genome of all creatures with this pattern. We have cancer caused by DNA defects. Diabetes, Sickle cell anemia, Alzheimer's, and a list of hundreds of genetic diseases that don't go away by any form of "improvements". If there were "random" improvements to any species this crap would simply go away "magically" by itself. It continues to degrade.

When you do a study on the great primates it is clear that they have human characteristics. It is also clear that they are a much younger species, because 1/ the scarcity of any fossils 2. the only evidence we have is younger than Humans, and the only way to get the ERV's and the DNA shown in the chimp is by a direct genetic link that came FROM early humans when they had the 48 chromosomes. Since there is ONLY shown a continual degradation of the Human Genome, what we see in Chimps is the ability to speak is gone, but they have a fantastically fast memory. This is because the speech is an impediment to memory. The tests shown on the Neutral Evolution Forum Videos shows Chimps performing amazing tasks far better than any human. The logical parts are retarded from the degradation of the human genome they inherited, either by a direct genetic lineage or by interbreeding.

Then you must start to consider the plausibility that fit the laws of genetics and all of the other evidence, particularly the fact that we have no real fossil of a chimp and we have only 4000 year old artifacts.

We know that environmental issues, like radioactive materials in the ground, water, and toxic poisons can cause damage to the DNA of any creature.  If they don’t kill off the creature, then it will degrade the DNA and the only result IF IT SURVIVES, IS A NET DEGREDATION.

When you  look at the DNA of the Chimp and see that is has approximately 95% of the human genome, but it has 48 chromosomes, you can easily see it as a degraded human.

Keep in mind that it is clear in the Human Genome has a fusion in the number 2 Chromosome that matches perfectly with the Chimp Chromosomes.  This is shown by the Telomeres in the center and the two centromeres. Telomeres only appear at the ends of chromosomes.  Base pair 114,455,823,214, 823 to 828.

The chimp genome is a degradation of the Human Genome and it fits perfectly with the science.

So how could this happen?  When the earth was young and wild, with primitive humans, they broke off into “tribes” as they do now.  You  can see this pattern in all of the human cultures.  We still have tribes today and we go to war with them, because humans are still controlled by emotions.

So if you have a tribe of humans off by themselves and something happens to the drinking water, the food is contaminated with radioactive matter we can easily see a scenario where the degradation of the genome could accelerate. The portions of the genome affected are mostly in the brain but also in the morphology of the chimp, the now degraded human genome that has become the Chimp species of primates.

We have never seen any improvements to the  human genome and we know for sure there are degredations takeing place because we can see them all over the human genome maps in all people.  We see defective genetics in every human.  We have mapped in the thousands of DNA coding sequences that show up in people with hundreds of diseases.

We now have women getting their ovaries and breasts removed to stop cancer because the “genes” for cancer are in the family and in particular women’s  DNA.  Women with the mother, dying from cancer and sisters dying of cancer are now having a look at their DNA and getting this surgery to stop this disease and it works.  It is crud because what needs to be done is to find a way to correct the DNA patters to that of a healthy woman.

If there was any form of “evolution” the human genome would be improving and magically removing the causes of these diseases.  There is no magic and there is no evolution, there is only a net degradation of the genome.

What about these “random mutations” shown in the DNA?

First of all there is no such thing as random. It is not a scientific phenomenon. There is only cause and effect or cause and result in the universe.  If a science tells you that it is better than physics, or chemistry and math, and it can perform miracles that violate the first law of science then it is not science, but is a pseudo science based on belief and faith.

What is shown in the DNA is “differences”. They can not be called “mutations” because “mutations” mean changed DNA.  If all we are actually seeing is a patter that repeats in the human species and especially in the ancestry of the offspring with these “differences” then they cannot be called ‘mutations” because they are not changes from any existing patterns that have already been used.   There is no such thing as Evolution, with magical causes. There are only causes that make scientific sense.

You cannot scramble DNA and have a creature live.  If one base pair can cause severe diseases and death, then scramble 100 to 150 and you have death for sure and if it is dead it can’t reproduce. There is no such thing as “random mutations” in any creature.  They all have causes and most are from the programming deep in the parents genome.

The other principle is that DNA is not the cause of itself.  Repeat that a few hundred times. DNA is the expression of a cause that is unknown. All matter is the expression of a cause. Just because these fools can’t see the cause, does not give them the audacity to not see that there is no such thing as random and there is nothing that is the cause of itself.

The only place where information comes from is from the existing coding in the ancestors passed down into the parents.
The place where screw ups happen are from drastic poisons in the environment or even in the womb, that cause base pairs to be disturbed and not be normal and all that I have seen so far are just a very few will cause this. That is why they are so hard to find in 3.2 billion base pairs. We are just beginning to see how messed up the human genome really is. How imperfect humans are. 

We also know that there is a “perfect” way for these patterns to show as indicated in the genome of people who do not have theses diseases. This indicates that the genome is degrading gradually over time and that the mixing of these patterns will keep them from all grouping into the entire human culture to cause extinction too soon.

This means that these defects are being reproduced in people who are breeding before the illness kills them.  Most of these diseases, like cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, sickle cell anemia, and the hundreds that we have mapped so far are being transmitted to the general population and over time they will be in more and more people as they propagate throughout the human species.

The only way to purify this is to kill off all the people with these genetic defects or sterilize them, or find a way to fix the defect.  Which do you prefer?

If scientists were to stop believing in archaic religious ideas like “Evolution” which is really “Evodelusion”, and just see what is actually shown in evidence that would be a good start. With that “brain fart” of wearing “Evodelusion glasses” on every experiment with DNA and messing with pure logic, it is retarding research into the fulfillment of the cure for these diseases.

The good coding is known. The process to make the bad DNA coding with the “cancer” gene to match the good coding of people who do not have cancer, like someone who has smoked for 40 years and has no cancer cells, would be a good start. This is the most obvious.  Killing off the cancer carriers is not going to work in a civilized society.  Hitler tried that and he only killed of a few thousand of the defective people, but never got rid of the genetics that produced them.

Ken Miller who is an "Evotard" (mentally retarded by faith and belief in Evodelusionism), has presented the best evidence for Chimps being the offspring of Human ancestors better than I could express it.  After you understand that the common ancestor of both humans and chimps is a human, you are on the way to freedom from this religious nonsense based on faith.
Listen carefully to this presentation realizing all that I just told you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbgenlSg198

This video is the most compelling evidence against evolution that I have ever seen.

Chimps are utter evidence of de-evolution and they started from the same superhuman ancestor as we did. This is obvious. Chimps are a result of isolation, living with limited resources and lots of toxins to destroy the advanced human characteristics of brain and cranium capacity. They are retarded humans and evidence of what evolution is really about. DE-EVOLUTION as the genome is degraded by bad living.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_s9oKio-fEU

There is no NET positive information for this Evodelusion to take place.

Thus we never see any form of Evolution taking place in any creature on this planet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A38pqCdIcUA


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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOrgOW9LnT4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NZo-KXFcSo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJFo3trMuD8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoKiTs67J4k

Do you understand?  Do you see how beliefs get in the way of what is obvious? Do you see how "scientists" are trained out of objective observation and stop tying obvious evidence together, because they belief in some human garbage religion of Evodelusionism?

3 of x

For example, the human genome has pseudogenes NANOGP3 and NANOGP11 on chromosome 6. If you align chimp chromosome 6 with the human one, then the chimp NANOGP3 and NANOGP11 pseudogenes are not only present but are also perfectly lined up across from the human versions. And this applies for all 9 shared NANOG pseudogenes, all of which are processed pseudogenes and could have been inserted just about anywhere in the genome.

DNAunion 16 hours ago.
Posted on youtube.

This data fits perfectly, with my conclusion that humans are the "common ancestor" of both chimps and modern humans.

Aught3 wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2010 at 8:36pm:

Quote: Unfortunately there is no science used in his presentation. His presentation is accurate science, there is no requirement for you to like it.

It is not a mater of not liking the DATA but the interpretation is all messed up by belief.

I love the data presented.

If a recent discovery made in an Israeli cave proves to be genuine, it changes everything which was believed about the first appearance and evolution of Homo sapiens. A Tel Aviv University team excavating a cave in central Israel says that teeth found in the cave are about 400,000 years old and resemble those of other remains of modern man. The earliest Homo sapiens remains found prior to this recent discovery have only been half as old.


Prevailing scientific theory is that Homo sapiens originated in Africa and then migrated out of the continent -- but if these remains are definitively linked to modern human's ancestors, it could mean that modern man in fact originated in what is now Israel.

Email
Print
Facebook
Delicous
MySpace
Twitter
Stumble
Digg
More Destinations

LOS ANGELES, CA (Catholic Online) - If a recent discovery made in an Israeli cave proves to be genuine, it changes everything which was believed about the first appearance and evolution of Homo sapiens. A Tel Aviv University team excavating a cave in central Israel says that teeth found in the cave are about 400,000 years old and resemble those of other remains of modern man. The earliest Homo sapiens remains found prior to this recent discovery have only been half as old.

"It's very exciting to come to this conclusion," archaeologist Avi Gopher says. Gopher's team examined the teeth with X-rays and CT scans and dated them according to the layers of earth where they were found.

Gopher stresses that further research is needed to solidify the claim. If it does, "this changes the whole picture of evolution," Gopher says.

Prevailing scientific theory is that Homo sapiens originated in Africa and then migrated out of the continent. Gopher says that if the remains are definitively linked to modern human's ancestors, it could mean that modern man in fact originated in what is now Israel.

Sir Paul Mellars, a prehistory expert at Cambridge University, says that the find is "important" because remains from that critical time period are scarce. He says it is premature to say the remains are human.

"Based on the evidence they've cited, it's a very tenuous and frankly rather remote possibility," Mellars said. He said the remains are more likely related to modern man's ancient relatives, the Neanderthals.

According to current scientific theories, modern humans and Neanderthals stemmed from a common ancestor who lived in Africa about 700,000 years ago. One group of descendants migrated to Europe and developed into Neanderthals, later becoming extinct. Another group stayed in Africa and evolved into Homo sapiens - modern humans.

Researchers say that teeth are often unreliable indicators of origin, and analyses of skull remains would more definitively identify the species found in the Israeli cave.

This video is more evidence that humans, before their chromosome fusion, split off from the predecessors of chimps, gorillas, and orangutans.
Keep in mind that there is only evidence of degradation in all creatures.  Chimps are definitely degraded from the original human, so are gorillas and orangutans.
If all the evidence we see in the human genome is gene loss, atavisms, and genetic diseases, then how does that show any form of this:

Evolution:  "that theory which sees inn the history of all things organic and inorganic a development from simplicity to complexity, a gradual advance from a simple or rudimentary condition to one that is more complex and of a higher character."  Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language. 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 30^th, 2011 at 7:02pm:

If a recent discovery made in an Israeli cave proves to be genuine, it changes everything which was believed about the first appearance and evolution of Homo sapiens. A Tel Aviv University team excavating a cave in central Israel says that teeth found in the cave are about 400,000 years old and resemble those of other remains of modern man. The earliest Homo sapiens remains found prior to this recent discovery have only been half as old. Prevailing scientific theory is that Homo sapiens originated in Africa and then migrated out of the continent -- but if these remains are definitively linked to modern human's ancestors, it could mean that modern man in fact originated in what is now Israel. Email Print Facebook Delicous MySpace Twitter Stumble Digg More Destinations LOS ANGELES, CA (Catholic Online) - If a recent discovery made in an Israeli cave proves to be genuine, it changes everything which was believed about the first appearance and evolution of Homo sapiens. A Tel Aviv University team excavating a cave in central Israel says that teeth found in the cave are about 400,000 years old and resemble those of other remains of modern man. The earliest Homo sapiens remains found prior to this recent discovery have only been half as old. "It's very exciting to come to this conclusion," archaeologist Avi Gopher says. Gopher's team examined the teeth with X-rays and CT scans and dated them according to the layers of earth where they were found. Gopher stresses that further research is needed to solidify the claim. If it does, "this changes the whole picture of evolution," Gopher says. Prevailing scientific theory is that Homo sapiens originated in Africa and then migrated out of the continent. Gopher says that if the remains are definitively linked to modern human's ancestors, it could mean that modern man in fact originated in what is now Israel. Sir Paul Mellars, a prehistory expert at Cambridge University, says that the find is "important" because remains from that critical time period are scarce. He says it is premature to say the remains are human. "Based on the evidence they've cited, it's a very tenuous and frankly rather remote possibility," Mellars said. He said the remains are more likely related to modern man's ancient relatives, the Neanderthals. According to current scientific theories, modern humans and Neanderthals stemmed from a common ancestor who lived in Africa about 700,000 years ago. One group of descendants migrated to Europe and developed into Neanderthals, later becoming extinct. Another group stayed in Africa and evolved into Homo sapiens - modern humans. Researchers say that teeth are often unreliable indicators of origin, and analyses of skull remains would more definitively identify the species found in the Israeli cave.

This story of modern humans at the exact time of the oldest chimp fossil negates the idea that this "magical" predecessor of humans and chimps was even remotely an ape. 
There is only degradation shown in all the DNA of humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans. 

If humans and great primates split off from some sort of great ape, then this fossil of human would and could not exist.
At the point of human chimp arrival at the same time would only point to the more complex human was the parent species of the chimp because there was no time for the human to evolve when separated from the chimp.
The chimp simple degraded rapidly over a few thousand years from radiation poisoning, my guess.  Radiation poisoning is the fastest way to degrade a genome, and the higher brain functions would be the first to go.

English: Japanese Macaques (Macaca fuscata). Jigokudani Hot Spring, Nagano Prefecture, Japan. Monkeys taking a bath in those springs are famous. Image taken in February 14, 2005.
Français : Macaque japonais (Macaca fuscata). Sources chaudes de Jigokudani, Préfecture de Nagano, Japon. Ces sources sont connues pour les singes qui s'y baignent. Photo prise le 14 février 2005.
Date      
14 February 2005
Source      
Self-published work by Yosemite

Author      
Yosemite 11:21, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC).

Macaque japonais (Macaca fuscata) has DNA from human genetic lineages. These are demonstrating how they took hot baths in the mountain hot springs fed from volcanoes that produce uranium and other radioactive isotopes.

You can see in their DNA how degraded the human genome has become. Tell me you don't recognize your family.

---

Here are all the different types of "mutations".
According to the believers in evolution towards the better, (paradox), 70% of mutations are BAD, NEGATIVE, DETRIMENTAL, 29% are possible neutral,  and 1 % is Maybe positive. There exact words.  DNA genetics PHD's peer reviewed papers.

This is from the http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/mutationsanddisorders/possiblemutations

1/ "Missense mutation
This type of mutation is a change in one DNA base pair that results in the substitution of one amino acid for another in the protein made by a gene."

When you have an already existing cell that is healthy, it is harmed by changing it from the original function.  If one protean is stronger or weaker or cannot be used in this cell, over the other it causes diseases.

==============
2/  "Nonsense mutation (illustration)
A nonsense mutation is also a change in one DNA base pair. Instead of substituting one amino acid for another, however, the altered DNA sequence prematurely signals the cell to stop building a protein. This type of mutation results in a shortened protein that may function improperly or not at all."

You can see it is bad for this to happen.  If the cell is a lung cell, you can't breath very well.  Heart cell, you get short of breath, and can't run or just die.


3/ "Insertion
An insertion changes the number of DNA bases in a gene by adding a piece of DNA. As a result, the protein made by the gene may not function properly."

The gene will not function the same or it may just leak, not hold together well or is too hard to soft, but it will never be the same again.  This is the problem with mutations caused by toxins, radiation, bad foods and weak lifestyles transferring viruses etc. 

============
4/ "Deletion
A deletion changes the number of DNA bases by removing a piece of DNA. Small deletions may remove one or a few base pairs within a gene, while larger deletions can remove an entire gene or several neighboring genes. The deleted DNA may alter the function of the resulting protein(s)."



Oh boy don't you want to have your cells reproduce missing some parts?  Without this protean in the cell, it is 100% bad and weaker, sicker, and not able to be fit.

===============================


5/  "Duplication (illustration)
A duplication consists of a piece of DNA that is abnormally copied one or more times. This type of mutation may alter the function of the resulting protein."

Duplication adds a protean code to build extra protean into the cells and multiple duplication really sucks. You do not want your cells any worse than they are. 

=================================

6/ "Frameshift mutation
This type of mutation occurs when the addition or loss of DNA bases changes a gene’s reading frame. A reading frame consists of groups of 3 bases that each code for one amino acid. A frameshift mutation shifts the grouping of these bases and changes the code for amino acids. The resulting protein is usually nonfunctional. Insertions, deletions, and duplications can all be frameshift mutations."

Frameshift is always bad, on humans.  It completely screws up the gene expression.  All of the coding is off and it is really bad.  Frameshifts are always bad for cells in human beings.
In single celled creatures, like bacteria, it doesn't matter.  It will either survive or it will not. But it has lost old functions that will never return.

=======================

7/ "Repeat expansion
Nucleotide repeats are short DNA sequences that are repeated a number of times in a row. For example, a trinucleotide repeat is made up of 3-base-pair sequences, and a tetranucleotide repeat is made up of 4-base-pair sequences. A repeat expansion is a mutation that increases the number of times that the short DNA sequence is repeated. This type of mutation can cause the resulting protein to function improperly."

If you get too many proteans reproducing in an already well made cell, it screws it up badly.  The best you can hope for is that this cell is destroyed so it does not replace all the cells in your body with this bad overloaded protean cell. Much weaker or total atrophy of cell function as is so much the case with "mutations"..



There are no other types of magic mutations that fix things.

For every 70 mutations, only 1 is "MAYBE" good.  That means constant downgrading of complexity and fitness,  and is the cause of creatures going extinct.  When they can no longer reproduce they are done.

We have at lest 2000 of these listed in humans so far and counting.  We are degrading faster now than ever.

The only thing that will fix this is to have only healthy people reproduce, but there are none.  We are all dying of many new genetic weaknesses. 

So, we need the engineer who made us to come back and fix this.  You cannot have a car accident and expect the car to fix itself.

We were give free rein to do what we wanted, and this is what we wanted.
By not eating the foods we were intended to eat.
Not drinking the water we were intended to drink.
By radiation all day and night.
By toxins in the foods that we were supposed to eat.
By artificial toxins that destroy creatures and us. 

This fact of DNA is not refutable.  It is absolute evidence and is irrefutable that creatures can only de-evolve.


It is not a happy thought so, people will lie to themselves as long as they can until they destroy the whole of humanity.  By avoiding the obvious you are not helping the situation. You are supposed to be scientists, not religious fanatics trying to disprove God. 

If we don't preserve what is left of our good DNA, we are doomed to a life of stupidity and living from killing and eating raw meat, raw vegetables and having no cultivation when we can't use a plow any longer. The mind is the weakest link in humans and is fragile easy to mutate and destroy brain cell replication, especially from radiation, electromagnetic waveforms are everywhere, attacking brain cells.  It does not have to cause cancer to reduce brain function.

This is the reality and the reason why our lifestyle on this planet is killing us and causing so many extinctions to animals and birds.

If we kill off the plankton in the sea, we will just die of oxygen deprivation and that means no ability to do much work at all.  Oxygen deprivation to cells is bad.

There is a reason why people hide from the Truth.  They deny the obvious because it is too horrible to imagine, just like denying your own death.  I think that death is unnatural. That our genome has degraded way too much already.

When you realize that our actions are ruining our posterity our children's children, and their children's children and so on, then you have to stop poisoning our genome, and the genome of all the other creatures who are de-evolving faster than ever.

There are no "magic mutations" that fix this. All of these scrambled mutations are destroying our genomes ability to reproduce strong cells.

Only God can help us.  People don't want to know the Truth.   They keep it out of the schools, and out of the churches.

While they argue back and forth about Creationism vs Evodelusonism we are all dying and getting shorter lifespans as these diseases will overwhelm us.

The US has the most expensive health care in the world.  Drugs are big business, so they are not going to stop this gold mine of people needing drugs that help the symptoms but hide the problem and these drugs cause more mutations.
They go around telling you that this is extending your life, but really all the people I know have all the side effects and then the MD.s give drugs to handle the side effects of the other drugs, and some people are on 7 different meds all patented and high priced.

Add some illegal drugs, meth,cocaine and reproduce and you screwed a thousand people in your family as time passes and your "seed" is passed down. You are literally "passing down the sins of the father" as they say.

We were the last generation without much diseases and I am now 62 with a genetic disease taking over that will shorten my life.  How many people do you know with cancer? How many with diabetes.  How may with lung problems, how many with auto immune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, Aids, and new weird diseases that were never here on earth before. We never had chronic fatigue before the 1960's, when it started to show up.

Breast cancer is on the rise, but we can cut, burn and destroy good cells and cause mutations while we cure it.

That is why I recommend using natural cures in my Diabetes video.  Follow what the body does to kill these mutated cells. By the way many of those listed mutations do cause cancer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrNez5EvcNg

I pray that you all understand this.  I hope there are still some with enough intelligence to understand.  I see in the US that we have high school graduates who can't read nor write proper English.  I come across that all the time.  You are the ones who have been affected by this the most.  You have lost brain functions already. Did you really not want to learn to read and write.  You probably can't read this. So I will make a video for youtube just for you.

I am finding that too many can't read, and can only learn from videos.  Wow!

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Mar 7^th, 2011 at 11:29pm:

I see in the US that we have high school graduates who can't read nor write proper English.  I come across that all the time.

Damn right! You just made up a word in that video; deterious. Try deleterious.  ;)

ElectricRussel wrote on Mar 8^th, 2011 at 8:30am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Mar 7th, 2011 at 11:29pm:  I see in the US that we have high school graduates who can't read nor write proper English.  I come across that all the time.  Damn right! You just made up a word in that video; deterious. Try deleterious.  ;)

I know that you have looked at the video then.  How do you think I know when people listen?

Do you understand that the human population is de-evolving from its own toxins. The natural toxins were not enough to do us in, so we had to help nature.

The human genome project is mapping more and more dysfunctional gene expressions as we speak.
Every day on PubMed is new data on the condition of these "magical" mutations that are destroying our species.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbgenlSg198

This video is very accurate to show that evolution is not possible.

The Chimp is from the same genetic lineage as humans. The parent of the species was far more complex and better fit. As time goes on gene losses, and reduction in fitness is what is really going on.
There is no magical mutations causing improvement.

Chimps obviously have degraded rapidly, most likely from radiation in the environment.  Volcanoes produce radioactive materials.

ElectricRussel wrote on Mar 8^th, 2011 at 8:30am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Mar 7th, 2011 at 11:29pm:  I see in the US that we have high school graduates who can't read nor write proper English.  I come across that all the time.  Damn right! You just made up a word in that video; deterious. Try deleterious.  ;)

ElectricRussel wrote on Mar 8^th, 2011 at 8:30am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Mar 7th, 2011 at 11:29pm:  I see in the US that we have high school graduates who can't read nor write proper English.  I come across that all the time.  Damn right! You just made up a word in that video; deterious. Try deleterious.  ;)

I have noticed that Evotards will always pick on gramatical errors as "evidence" for evolution.  They also argue Fundamental religious Christian Creationism against Evodelusionism. 
Neither are arguments of a scientific nature.  My work is real science. Read more:


"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
Albert Einstein Quotes.

Since all the evidence shown in DNA only supports a constant de-evolution from Genetically Engineered life forms, then the Genetic Engineer who made life on this earth used sophisticated machines/equipment.

I suspect that machine(s)/equipment was way beyond anything that humans could ever (even imagine) make and it used principles of taking matter, elements, and turning them into the building blocks of life.

Only a weak minded person would consider that this is some accident with no engineering behind it. It is obvious.

We know for a fact that the predecessor of modern humans Chimps,Gorilla,Orangutan,Macaqua,the "Herto", had a larger brain capacity and a better shaped head.  Most probably had stronger bones, and better skeletal structures.  Was more able to withstand radiation from the sun with better skin pigments...Had a much stronger immune system and all organs were fully functioning. This is a condition of more fitness than any human today.

Then when we examine the DNA of the Human and the primates we realize quicky that they have all de-evolved to various degrees.  The Macaqua monkey is the most "retarded" and de-evolved of all of them.

Go look at the kayotype of each and read the DNA studies on all of them.  All have chromosomes with losses, some show chromosome fusions,some have missing coding for the brain and skull, some (chimp, gorilla) still retain muscle strength, others (humans) don't.

In all cases we see "defects" from a far more fit genetic engineering. 

In humans all we see are gene losses, pseudo genes, atavisms, weak cell replication with poor genetic coding from the original, and just plain lost features, and many diseases.

Over 4000 genetic dysfunctional DNA protean codings, have been identified so far and we are just starting.

The chimp is a direct descendant from the same lineage as us.  It was human at one time but, has severe genetic degradation and is now nearly extinct. There is your clue where we are heading if we don't stop the genetic degradation and salvage what is left of our "genetic engineering".

Evolution is fraud. It is just an archaic remnant of wishful thinking mythology.  There is no advancement towards more fit, nor nor intelligent, nor more advanced.

DNA is absolutely irrefutable physical evidence of de-evolution or anti-evolution ONLY.

70% of the mutations are deleterious to fitness. 1% is considered to be good. That is 70 to 1 against any positive advancement making any creature better, more advanced or more intelligent.

The "Herto" is not talked about much by Evotards, because it is totally against any form of evolution.

It has a cranial capacity larger than any human today. 1450 CC. 

Herto skull is slightly larger than those of modern humans ( 1 450 cubic centimetres, compared with a modern human's average of between 1 350 and 1 400 cc), they are classified (by me) as a superspecies, Homo sapiens.  Radioisotopes (argon/argon dating method) in the soil (in volcanic sediment) containing the fossils allowed them to be reliably dated.150 to 165 thousand years old.

We all know that this method of dating fossils is full of huge assumptions and errors.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s2U7EsJ1QQ
DNA evidence is far more accurate because it is a "language" of life.

The Herto is really a far more advanced human super species, before genetic degradation.

---

The fact that when you look at human and chimpazee dna you can easily see the remnants of chimps humanness, is evidence that chimps are an example of where humans are heading if they don't stop the genetic degradation.
We already have over 4500 genetic defects that cause various genetic diseases.  There are only 4 net positive mutations and 4500 net negative genetic degradation mutations.
That means that evolution is human garbage ideological nonsense.  And humans are degrading faster than ever.
Chimps are abosolute evidence of what happens when your DNA is degraded to the point of extinction.  Humans and Chimps come from the same exact parent of a genus.  We are the same DNA but Chimps are humans that have degraded to the point of near extinction.

The are a message from God about what happens when you disregard the "rule book" for genetic preservation.

Rule one, if you want sex get married and don't screw around.  The more you screw around the more you mutate virus that can kill us.

Don't keep chickens and pigs in the same farm, and don't eat pigs, they are filthy.

Don't have anal sex, because bacteria and virus will "learn" to like to eat human flesh. Sperm is easy to eat for bacteria and easy for them to mutate and like to eat human flesh.

This video finishes this Evodelusionism crap once and for all time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emPINOUlfnE&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

This destroys it more.  There is nothing but crap Evodelusional religious ideology in this "theroy of evolution".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spuZtAa80qI&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

This finishes the Radiometric dating of fossils, completely.  It shows that this is also a religious pile or mythology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JntCa6FssRQ&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

Flap Over Flight Evolution


Birds flap their wings when they run up ramps. It takes less energy than flying. This is uncontroversial; it is observable, and science can measure the energy cost. But for at least eight years now, Ken Dial at the University of Montana has been claiming that this behavior explains the origin of flight in birds (01/16/2003, 12/22/2003). When he first came out with this hypothesis in 2003, Elisabeth Pennisi in the journal Science said, "I imagine people will continue to argue about the origin of bird flight for a long time." There's been very little argument in the media over the years, though (05/01/2006, 9/22/2007, 1/25/2008); in fact, the BBC News just gave another plug for Dial's hypothesis with no criticism at all.

In her article "Flap-running in birds is key to flight evolution," reporter Victoria Gill cheerfully quoted Dial's colleague Brandon Jackson explaining the origin of flight:

"Flap running... lets young birds that cannot yet fly -- because of small muscles, small wings, weak feathers, etc -- get off the ground and away from some predators," Dr Jackson told BBC Nature."And if baby birds can perform these behaviours, benefit from them, and transition gradually to flight in their life-time, we think it's probable that dinosaurs with (similarly small wings) could have performed these behaviours, benefited from them, and transitioned towards flight over evolutionary time."
So watching birds learn to fly could allow us a glimpse of the stages of flight's evolution.
On the surface, this hypothesis sounds Lamarckian. Presumably it could be incorporated into neo-Darwinism this way: a mutation occurred that made a young dinosaur hold out its forelegs as it ran up a hill escaping a predator. All the other siblings were eaten. This dinosaur one day found a mate with the same mutation, and the trait spread through the population. It's a small start; were any other traits required after that to produce hummingbirds, eagles, ostriches, and great snipes flying 4,200 miles in 4 days?

Dr Jackson concluded: "Very small wings powered by small muscles had aerodynamic function and survival benefits when they were flapped."No more major steps were required after that, just gradual but beneficial steps. And we can actually observe [those steps] in developing birds today."
Now the explanation sounds Haeckelian. Jackson seems to be saying that chicks replay their evolutionary history. Not only that, he and Ken Dial overlooked a host of precision mechanisms needed to allow a dinosaur to become airborne with controlled flapping flight.

This just-so story is so lame, it should be a huge embarrassment to the Darwin Party. These guys don't understand evolutionary theory at all. You can't draw analogies between chick development to adult bird in a year, and say a similar transition occurs in evolutionary time over millions of years. Chick development is encoded in DNA and in numerous epigenetic regulatory codes, and is observable in the present. Are they believers in some mystical meta-Gaia belief, that the history of the life on Earth develops from embryo to adult? This hypothesis is a cross between Lamarckism and recapitulation theory, both of which have been tossed into the dustbin of history. Two wrongs don't make a right.
We laughed this hypothesis off the stage when it first appeared (01/16/2003), and even evolutionist Pennisi had her doubts. Now, eight years have gone by and Dial and Jackson are still promoting it. To make any progress toward sense in evolutionary circles, critics will have to at least get them to be consistent with their own belief system. Give us your suggestions for giving Jackson and Dial a much-needed red face. Reading them our 12/22/2003 commentary might be a start. If they are men of integrity, their faces will turn red with shame. If not, their faces will turn red with rage. (Note: federal funding, tenure, and media fame can have the unintended consequence of reducing integrity.)

Biology, Fossils, Humanity, Human Body, Mind and Brain, Origins, Darwin and Evolution, Early Man

Avoid Confusion: Disbelieve Paleoanthropologists

If you care about the true history of the human race, don't believe paleoanthropologists. They are clueless and confused. Every solution they come up with creates new problems, and their boastful announcements are likely to be overturned. That's the gist of a commentary in PNAS by Bernard Wood,1 who wrote, "The origin of our own genus remains frustratingly unclear." He ought to know; he's an eminent paleoanthropologist himself (see his comments in prior entries from 03/25/2011 bullet 5, 02/16/2011, 04/27/2006, 07/11/2002, 02/15/2002).

For decades, paleoanthropologists have declared to the world that human beings originated in Africa and migrated out to colonize Europe and Asia. Prepare for a surprise. Dr. Wood said:

Although many of my colleagues are agreed regarding the "what" with respect to Homo, there is no consensus as to the "how" and "when" questions. Until relatively recently, most paleoanthropologists (including the writer) assumed Africa was the answer to the "where" question, but in a little more than a decade discoveries at two sites beyond Africa, one at Dmanisi in Georgia and the other at Liang Bua on the island of Flores, have called this assumption into question. The results of recent excavations at Dmanisi reported in PNAS , which suggest that hominins visited that site on several occasions between ca. 1.85 and ca. 1.77 Ma, together with recent reassessments of the affinities of Homo habilis, are further reasons for questioning the assumption that Homo originated in Africa.

Wood continued by showing how the Dmanisi specimens are hard to classify (along with Homo erectus), but if they are H. erectus, they appear contemporaneous with African specimens. Then there are the Liang Bua specimens dubbed Homo floresiensis, that seem primitive yet overlap substantially with modern humans (dated between 17,000 and 74,000 years old by evolutionary methods). These miniature humans remain bewildering to paleoanthropologists.

As for "where" questions, Wood showed that the evidence could support opposite views: that our ancestors migrated either out of Africa or into Africa. He offered "scenarios" but admitted, "it would be misleading to claim that any of the scenarios are supported by that meager evidence." Then he moaned, "Another stumbling block for an ancestor-descendant relationship between H. habilis and H. erectus sensu stricto within Africa is that both the ancestor and the descendant overlap in time in East Africa for several hundred thousand years." Ann Gibbons wrote about the debates surrounding H. habilis in Science,2 leaving it unclear whether it should be considered inside Homo or outside; "The problem is that there are precious few fossils of either H. habilis or H. rudolfensis, especially from the neck down."

What is the lesson of this confusion? Wood hoped for more bones like those at Dmanisi, but ended with a worse admission of ignorance that extends beyond Homo erectus issues:

In the meantime we need to be realistic about what can, and what cannot, be deduced about hominin evolutionary history. It is sobering to realize that even in the case of a taxon such as Homo neanderthalensis that has an order of magnitude better fossil record than for early Homo, we still have much to learn about its origin and evolution.

That the problems are not merely the opinions of one paleoanthropologist can be seen by other recent early-man stories. Science Daily echoed the confusion, stating on June 22,

Africa is regarded as the center of evolution of humans and their precursors. Yet long before modern humans left Africa some 125,000 years ago, their antecedents migrated from Africa to Eurasia many times, as is documented in the fossil record. How often, when and why hominoids went "out of Africa" is still a hotly debated field of intense research.

The article proceeded to describe a tooth from another "hominoid" that appears to have migrated into Swabia 17 million years ago, nearly ten times earlier than the conventional "out of Africa" hypothesis. To fit it into evolutionary timelines, they had to conclude that the line of this tooth was a dead end.

A BBC News article asked an obvious question, "Why is there only one human species?" All humans today are interfertile and clearly of one blood. Michael Mosley pondered, "Not so very long ago, we shared this planet with several other species of human, all of them clever, resourceful and excellent hunters, so why did only Homo sapiens survive?" Chris Stringer was quoted puzzling over the same question: "Even 100,000 years ago, we've still got several human species on Earth and that's strange for us. We're the only survivors of all of those great evolutionary experiments in how to be human."

Those "evolutionary experiments" included Homo ergaster, who made tools, hunted skillfully, and "would have been a powerful runner, capable of speeds that would rival a modern Olympic athlete." Moreover, this Homo was hairless and capable of dealing with heat like a modern beach bum. What's the difference if "they're very like us in terms of their overall body shape and body build"? And these were predecessors of Homo erectus in the evolutionary story.

Mosley was clearly just storytelling as he described groups of Homo responding to droughts and volcanoes, putting dates on events no paleoanthropologist ever witnessed. The only difference he could allege between the various Homo beings was brain size, a theory-laden measurement fraught with interpretation. Bigger is not always better (as with computers, comparing 1950 and 2010 models). Maybe smaller-brained individuals packed more power in less space. An article on PhysOrg about a Chinese scientist who measures skull capacities of Homo erectus fossils noted quite a bit of metrical diversity in brain size, "not unexpected given the temporal and geographical range of the species."

Despite admitting that "Huge debates rage about human origins," Mosley proceeded to write like an eyewitness reporter, presenting the standard out-of-Africa view as a "broad consensus among scientists" (contradicting Bernard Wood, and begging questions about how valid any consensus is among raging debaters). Sometimes, though, the questions are more interesting than the claims. Mosley quoted John Shea, professor of palaeoanthropology at Stony Brook University in New York, making a remark that casts doubt on the whole evolutionary story: "There's such a huge gulf between ourselves and our nearest primate relatives, gorillas, chimpanzees and bonobos," he said, putting his faith in a big IF: "If that gap were populated by other hominids, we'd see that gap as not so much a gulf but rather a continuum with steps on the way." Too bad all the species of Homo that Mosley discussed in his article appear just as equidistant from chimpanzees as the rest of us. If he had read Wood's depressing commentary first, his claims might have been much less confident.

Now read Lund University's press release on PhysOrg and see if the triumphant claim that "Cutting edge training developed the human brain 80,000 years ago" fits with what Bernard Wood said, besides begging questions about whether training developed the brain, or the brain developed training. The paleoanthropologists who inferred brain evolution from some spear points in an African cave failed to describe what mutation began a "period of transformation" that led to Homo sapiens, "man the wise". Wise men learn to disbelieve scientists who, claiming to be wise, speak beyond the evidence.

1.Bernard Wood, Did early Homo migrate "out of " or "in to" Africa?, PNAS, 2011 ; published ahead of print June 15, 2011, doi:10.1073/pnas.1107724108.

2. Ann Gibbons, Who Was Homo Habilis -- and Was It Really Homo?, Science, 17 June 2011: Vol. 332 no. 6036 pp. 1370-1371, DOI: 10.1126/science.332.6036.1370.

Don't be alarmed by any of this. It's not a problem. Science is a self-correcting process. We are just watching science correct itself on its march toward Truth. Sooner or later, this long detour down the Darwin primrose path, with all its confusion, dead ends, just-so storytelling, contradictions, begged questions, fables masquerading as knowledge, paradigm shifts, raging debates, champion upsets, consensus overturns and pity parties will be swept away into the dustbin of failed theories, and science will once again acknowledge the Creator. (In this life or the next.)

Re: Re:Humans Are Devolving
Demystifying the Debate with PZ Myers' Over Evolution and Embryolog


Previously, I discussed how PZ Myers commonly attempts to shout down his opposition through name-calling and incendiary rhetoric. PZ's use of this methodology has become so extreme that he's shocked authors in mainstream scientific journals and left-leaning pro-evolution media outlets like the NY Times. Recently, PZ tried to use this method when attacking pro-intelligent design undergraduate student Jonathan M. at a talk before a skeptics group in Glasgow, Scotland.

Why does PZ resort to character assassination rather than simply allowing civil dialogue? I think the answer lies in the fact that the empirical evidence is not as clearly on PZ's side as he'd like it to be. He deflects from evidential weaknesses by turning up the volume via extensive name-calling and personal attacks.

And in the case of PZ's recent debate with Jonathan M., we're not just talking about any evidence. We're talking about evidence that is near and dear to PZ's heart because it pertains to the very existence of concept after which he chose to name his blog: the pharyngula.

Another tactic PZ commonly uses when debating embryology is to distort the arguments of intelligent design (ID) proponents by constantly claiming that they are simply attacking Haeckelian recapitulation theory. Recapitulation theory is the idea that as organisms develop, they replay their evolutionary history. Thus we have Haeckel's famous dictum, ontogeny [i.e. development] recapitulates [i.e. replays] phylogeny [i.e. evolutionary history] - a concept which has long been known to be false.

Since modern evolutionary biology has rejected Haeckel's recapitulation theory, PZ claims that ID proponents are only knocking down a straw man argument. The problem with PZ's rebuttal is that we're not attacking recapitulation theory, but rather the argument for common ancestry based upon shared similarities in development--an argument which appears in virtually every mainstream biology textbook, and one which PZ is known to make in various forms. (I realize PZ denies making this argument, but as we'll see throughout this series, he nonetheless makes it.) Though PZ accuses us of attacking a straw man, by misconstruing our arguments and wrongly claiming that our they only entail an attack on Haeckel's recapitulation theory, it is PZ who is promoting the straw man.

To summarize this debate, let's briefly review some of the main arguments on both sides:

Our Point (1): We are NOT arguing that modern evolution biology or embryology is based upon Haeckel's recapitulation theory. Although we do argue that textbooks should not use Haeckel's inaccurate drawings, which overstate the degree of similarity between vertebrate embryos, we recognize that the case for common ancestry no longer depends upon recapitulation theory. As Jonathan M. explains, "For those who want the bottom line, here it is. Myers thinks I'm worried about Haeckelian recapitulation. But that's completely wrong."
Our Point (2): Leading lights of evolutionary biology (in particular, mainstream biology textbooks) commonly claim that vertebrate embryos have a high degree of similarity in their early stages, and that this demonstrates their common ancestry. (If you doubt what I'm saying, all this will be amply documented in this series of articles.) We reply by observing that these claims are inaccurate since vertebrate embryos show many differences, including significant differences from their earliest stages of development to the later stages. Sometimes we point out that evolutionary biology has difficulty explaining supposedly homologous structures which are produced by non-homologous developmental pathways or supposedly homologous developmental pathways that produce widely divergent (even non-homologous) structures.
Our Point (3): Many textbooks and evolutionary authorities claim that one particular stage during vertebrate development is highly similar (or "conserved")--the pharyngular stage--and this provides good evidence that vertebrates do in fact share a common ancestor. We respond by noting that over the past decade or so, some extremely prominent evolutionary developmental biologists have published scientific papers finding that vertebrate development is so divergent that it's doubtful that a conserved "pharyngular stage" even exists.
It's worth reiterating the last sentence in point 3: Not only do vertebrate embryos show many differences early in development, but some leading embryologists argue that vertebrate embryos develop so differently that the pharyngular (also called "phylotypic" or "tailbud") stage may not exist.

For PZ, Point 3 is very problematic. Dr. Myers named his blog "Pharyngula," suggesting this concept is of great persuasive importance to him when it comes to the evidence for evolution. Thus, it comes as little surprise that whenever one debates embryology with PZ, he quickly descends into extensive public name-calling, incendiary rhetoric, and distortion of our arguments in order to avoid debating that last point. PZ's responses to our 3 points thus usually go something like the following:

PZ's Response to Point (1): PZ typically denies that we are making Point (1), and instead argues we are arguing precisely the opposite of Point 1, setting up Haeckelian recapitulation theory as the bedrock of modern evolutionary biology. On this point, he simply ignores our actual arguments. Extensive name-calling usually follows. As PZ wrote while misconstruing Jonathan M's arguments, "Evolution does not predict that development will conserve the evolutionary history of an organism, therefore your question is stupid." Even after Jonathan M. made it clear that this is not what he's arguing, PZ replied by misconstruing it as such, claiming that Jonathan M. is "completely ineducable."
PZ's Response to Point (2): Frankly, usually PZ raises such a ruckus in response to Point 1 that he doesn't often get around to addressing our Point 2. And depending on which day you catch PZ on, you might get a different answer. In the past PZ has responded to our Point 2 by denying that early stages of embryos show wide variation, and instead claiming that the differences between early stages of vertebrate embryos are merely "superficial." But in his recent response to Jonathan M., PZ changed his tune. He admitted that the early stages of development can "vary greatly" and even show "wide variation." PZ's more recent admission about greater variance among early vertebrate embryos also led him to explicitly take a weak stance on whether evolutionary biology predicts we should find similarities when comparing vertebrate embryos. Thus, another success of Jonathan M.'s recent debate with PZ before the Glasgow Skeptics was that Jonathan M. forced PZ to reply squarely to our Point 2. Here was PZ's reply: "I wish I could get that one thought into these guys heads: evolutionary theory predicts differences as well as similarities." This is rich: If PZ is right, and evolutionary biology predicts both similarities and differences between vertebrate embryos, then it would seem that evolutionary biology really predicts nothing at all about development and is unfalsifiable regarding the evidence from vertebrate development. According to PZ, evolutionary theory predicts whatever it predicts, conserves whatever it conserves, and modifies whatever it modifies. Some theory.
PZ's Response to Point (3): In light of PZ's response to our Point 2 (that "evolutionary theory predicts differences as well as similarities" in vertebrate embryos), one might reasonably presume PZ views evolutionary processes as so plastic and unpredictable that one cannot really make an argument for, or (lucky for him) against, common ancestry based upon the similarities (or differences) between vertebrate embryos. But this is wrong. In what appears to be another contradiction, in response to Point 3 PZ has argued that "substantial similarities" between vertebrate embryos during the pharyngula stage "are evidence of common descent." He has asserted these "substantial similarities" are "a fact," and levied his fury towards those who would cite scientific papers questioning the existence of the pharyngular stage. To my knowledge, PZ has yet to address the papers we've cited which challenge the existence of a pharyngular stage. PZ's use of incendiary rhetoric while avoiding our scientific arguments might indicate that our Point 3 hits close to home. Clearly, the evidence for the pharyngula is very important to PZ.
In some subsequent articles, I'll elaborate on the evidence regarding each of these 3 points.

This video is excellent against evolution. If these Evolutionists believe that the chimp is our cousin. if you study the DNA of this cousin and all the diseases it has and the fact that it is nearly extinct, show that the end result of "evolution" is only extinction. Chimps have at minimum 160,000 found so far negative mutations. There are 18 negative mutations just in the HAR-1 gene any more it would be extinct now. Humans have 50,000 found so far and zero positive mutations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbgenlSg198

1/X A real scientist looks for is the obvious, from objective science, no assumptions. If the only "evidence" you have is someone's opinions based on what they think they see, & it is full of ambiguity, then it is not accepted as evidence, but just seen for what it is. The chronology is a mess, because there is no way to date fossils directly from any tissue or even original minerals. We have DNA now. It is irrefutable evidence. It only shows genetic degradation in all complex creatures.

2/X A real scientist waits for evidence that cannot be seen in any other way before making conclusions about all the evidence. In real science all the evidence only supports the irrefutable obvious evidence. A real scientist realizes that humans are prone to myths and want answers so bad that fits their beliefs, all humans are this way. When thousands or millions of them believe the same thing with no absolutely irrefutable physical evidence, it is a religion.

3/X I realized at a very young age that people are full of emotional issues and needs to fulfill, and that those ideas are almost never real or they contain a tiny bit of truth, mixed in with a lot of HEMG; human emotional mental garbage. It is everywhere, and in everyone. If you want a good goal for your life then get rid of all beliefs and only seek what is true.

4/X Now that we have DNA and it tells the real story, then all the hominids are degenerated humans that died out, just like the modern one on "evolutionforum.info".
The chimp, and all the apes are degenerated that did not degenerate to the point of extinction until now.
There is no possible evolution from simple life into complex. It has no evidence to support it. It only has faith and beliefs.