digg

Join DiggAbout

How Chimp Chromosome #2 Proves Evolution watch!

godbegone.blogspot.com — In this interesting video Ken Miller explains how chimp chromosome #2 proves evolution and explains why humans have less chromosomes than the other great apes.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Zelixy, on 11/02/2007, -12/+104i agree... deceptive designer answer seems highly improbable..... great video... A MUST WATCH!
    • SuperJason, on 10/23/2007, -7/+5Yeah, that was the best part in my opinion.
    • jferrari, on 10/23/2007, -4/+23A deceptive designer & a crap one - the human body has so many flaws I don't know how anyone can say it was intelligently designed.
      • tyho, on 10/22/2007, -1/+6I agree. I mean who in their right mind puts something wet and runny, upside down over our mouths?

        Ludicrous!
      • RockinRoel, on 10/23/2007, -2/+4You haven't had much biology class, right? Because if you had, you'd see how amazing the human body is. I'm not saying we were intelligently designed, I'm just saying that what we've become is mind-boggling. We have flaws, sure. But that may just be because we're not genetically adapted to our new environment yet. We still have the genes of the hunter-seeker.
    • DiscoLando, on 11/02/2007, -3/+52What's ironic is that the man in the video is a Christian.

      Evolution != Atheism.
      • cranium, on 10/31/2007, -10/+8Evolution + Occam's Razor = Atheism.
        • DiscoLando, on 10/31/2007, -3/+8Wrong.

          Evolution + Occam's Razor = No Special Creation.

          If Special Creation was the only way to arrive at a conclusion of theism, you'd have a point. But you don't. You assume too much. :)
          • omnithought, on 10/22/2007, -1/+3Oh, please, don't ever use dialogue created by George Lucas again. That hurt.
        • JohnFrum, on 10/22/2007, -3/+3Ok, so it just rules out the three largest religions at the very least. All three assert a special creation (the same one in fact). Anyone who wants to make stuff up and say that god guides evolution is free to do so but there is no scriptural backing for it, so even from a religious point of view it's just made up stuff.
          • DiscoLando, on 10/22/2007, -3/+3Who says the Young-Earth-Special-Creation hypothesis is the only way to interpret Genesis? Theologians have been interpreting it different ways long before Charles Darwin hit the scene.

            I think you're letting your bias' get the best of you.
          • xutopia, on 10/22/2007, -2/+4Bah, we told people they were idiots when we showed them that static electricity, not Thor or Zeus made the sparks in the sky. Didn't stop them from moving on to their next deity.
          • Acolyte357, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1Yes, please alter the book you claim is the word of god. Gotta love it when these people get trapped in a corner, and instead of giving up they tell us that god meant something else when "he wrote" let there be light.
      • Acolyte357, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1That is not ironic.
        /sigh
    • jimktrains, on 10/23/2007, -1/+25I agree. That is a point I've been trying to tell some of my deeply religious friends: "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo
    • tyho, on 10/23/2007, -40/+8Wow the atheist movement has really found a home on Digg.
      I submit the theory that most of you atheists are not too bright. My proof? Simple facts escape you.
      Facts:
      Science is based on provable concepts.
      Religion is based on faith.
      People do not believe in God because someone proved it to them, nor will they stop because someone disproved it.

      Therefore - don't start sucking each others dicks just yet.
      • ubuwalker31, on 10/22/2007, -2/+16Bad analogy. Science is based upon observations, hypothesis, experimentation, testing and retesting. Religion is usually based upon a belief in supernatural beings, rituals, liturgy, worship, morality, and laws and a set of stories and sacred truths held in reverence or believed by adherents. They are two entirely different, (arguably) mutually exclusive, ways of looking at the world.
        People believe in religion for a variety of reasons, primarily because they are taught. Most people in the world are only slightly religiously observant, and lots of people are not theists. You are correct in your observation that religious people are unlikely to give up their beliefs.
        Therefore, I am gonna get some head from my gf. :-p
        • tyho, on 10/23/2007, -7/+4Excellent restatement of my bad analogy. +1 for sense of humor. =)
      • cranium, on 10/23/2007, -4/+13Faith = believing something in spite of a complete lack of evidence. And you're calling atheists stupid? LOL.
      • salmonmoose, on 10/22/2007, -5/+4Theory is a scientific construct, and to be fully proposed must offer some methods of testing.

        We do know, that nations of higher IQs tend to have less faith. We also know that if you take a group of professional thinkers, you will find the highest ratios of atheism.

        Neither of your facts have anything to do with how bright atheists are.

        Here's a similar example; I propose that oranges are in fact square.
        Facts:
        Apples grow on trees.
        Tomatoes are fruit.

        Therefore - it is you that is not too bright.
      • ninti, on 10/22/2007, -1/+3"People do not believe in God because someone proved it to them, nor will they stop because someone disproved it."

        Yeah, you are correct, most people are too stupid. But some are bright enough to realize the truth if proven to them enough times.
      • chubbybubba, on 10/22/2007, -4/+2Tyho, you are spot on! Atheists imagine there is some type of competition between them and Christians and there certainly isn't. Christianity/ spirituality is internal. Some will NEVER understand that and so they become arrogant and aggressive. Sad really.
    • blackinthmiddle, on 10/23/2007, -16/+9As a born again Christian who also has a degree in Mechanical Engineering (so I'm always interested in the scientific) my thought is that this is very interesting and might very well prove evolution. HOWEVER, I have to add, "So what"? Why do I say that? His argument that some would say, "Oh, God just did that to confuse us" is silly. What I as a Christian would argue is that, "Okay, this is just the mechanism God chose to create life on earth." I've ALWAYS thought, "Why couldn't God have used evolution to create life here on earth?"

      Look, I don't want to shove God down anyone's throats. Obviously, however, this video is raised with the broader question of, "Is there a God". If you have any scientific leanings, it's hard to explain the world today sans God. The first law of Thermo says that matter can not be created or destroyed. If you believe in the Big Bang Theory (the one that has the most scientific proof to back it up), how do you then explain the mass of the universe? You'd have to come up with the new theory, the theory that says that something can come from nothing.

      This is definitely not the forum to discuss this, although I love this topic. For anyone that wants a book that does a good job about showing the science behind God, read, "Show Me God". Check it out on Amazon. It's the one with Einstein on the cover. Gotta run!
      • DiscoLando, on 10/23/2007, -8/+4I'll second that book recommendation!
      • norsurfit, on 10/23/2007, -4/+21That is a typical fallacious argument.
        Just because science doesn't have a perfect answer for every question, doesn't suddenly elevate your *bad* theory -- "God did it" and make it good.

        *God* is simply a bad theory. It is no better than the theory"Gravity or the creation of matter is caused by Invisible Elves". What you've engaged in is called the shifting the burden fallacy. (http://theautonomist.com/aaphp/permanent/fallacies ...

        We can all recognize that the "invisible elves" theory is a bad one because it explains little, and is unprovable. So it clearly should not enter into the discussion to explain scientific puzzles.

        Just because there are currently limits on scientific theory in no way elevates your "invisible elves/God theory" as to the origin of the universe to the realm of plausible.
        • jebudas, on 11/01/2007, -4/+2What is more plausible than the God theory? I'm not saying that it is possible to prove the existence of God, but what is an alternative theory?
          • MacEnvy, on 10/23/2007, -1/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything
          • dilberter, on 10/23/2007, -1/+5Any theory is just as implosible as the God theory. I could argue, as norsurfit's did, that elves created the universe. Or little green men from another dimension.
            If all I have to do is write a book about it, gather some believers (and there are people who will believe such nonsense out there), wait a couple thousand years until those people pass it down to their generations... voila! You've got yourself a brand new creation theory. Don't believe me? Whatever happened to Zeus, Thor, Loki, Venus, etc. All myths created to explain some natural phenomena or to satisfy some need for understanding.
            To answer your question, anything else your or my mind can come up with is just as plausible as the God theory.
        • chadillak, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1holy *****. god is invisible elves? maybe we SHOULD all vote for Kucinich...
        • NeilJ, on 10/20/2007, -0/+2@norsurfit: Digg's wonderful comment system screwed your link up (has happened to me a few times). Here is the correct link: http://theautonomist.com/aaphp/permanent/fallacies ...
      • salmonmoose, on 10/22/2007, -1/+7You're right - sort of. In the highly unlikely event that there is a god there is no reason that it didn't use evolution to create life. However in that case much of what was said in Genesis was indeed false, and of course if Genesis is false which other parts of the Bible can't we be sure of?

        As for the big-bang theory, I believe that currently the suggestion is that the universe started out as pure energy, and under the right conditions energy and matter are interchangeable. Also I know that the initial stages of the big-bang fall into the same category as when you pass the event horizon in a black hole, and everything changes.

        What you are suggesting is a "god of the gaps" - which is flawed fundamentally, when you turn around and ask the age old question "where did God come from" - it is harder, but safer to just admit to not knowing some things.
      • quaxon, on 10/21/2007, -1/+9I think whether or not you are atheist, agnostic, or religious,it is besides the point. As much as i believe that there isnt an ultimate creator, i also believe that if there was such a thing, it would not have any vested interest in us humans and to think that it would is so arrogant of us. If you think about how huge the universe is and just the sheer amount of life on earth, it is so illogical to assume god has this great big plan for us and is always watching us and blah blah blah. Whether or not there is a god, religion is still just a bunch of stupid fairy tale stories that at one point, thousands of years ago, when humans were still mostly savage, they needed something to believe in, something to give them a code of morals or ethics. Now though we have (or at least should have) evolved way past that and realize what a croc of ***** religion is. The only reason it is still around is because of those in power who use it as a tool to control the masses, partly by keeping them uneducated.
      • ShadwDrgn, on 10/22/2007, -0/+3Actually the first law of thermodynamics does NOT state that matter can not be created or destroyed. This is a common misconception. The first law actually states:
        The change in internal energy of a system is equal to the heat added to the system minus the work done by the system
        I think you're referring to the law of conservation of mass, which states:
        The mass of a closed system will remain constant, regardless of the processes acting inside the system.
        However, the universe is not a closed system, thus the law of conservation of mass does not apply. This discounts your dismissal of the big bang theory.
    • redxii, on 10/22/2007, -0/+18The designer simply made a programming error, but the code had already been shipped out so it was too late to fix it.
      • xister, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1And we're STILL waiting for service pack 2...
    • grr74, on 10/22/2007, -4/+6I welcome these videos. Having said that, why is this even an issue. I come from monkeys! This is a non-issue. People who believe in creationism are welcome to their beliefs. Just keep those beliefs away from me. I choose to believe in science. (And I am catholic, but I discern the differences between the physical world and the faith I put in religion).
    • themastersb, on 10/20/2007, -0/+3I have short telomeres.
    • quaunaut, on 10/22/2007, -1/+3I have to ask something though: If two chromosomes fused, wouldn't we have 47, not 46 chromosomes?
      • dablitz, on 10/24/2007, -1/+6The gamete from each parent of a chimp contains 24 chromosomes. They fuse to make 48. Two of those 24 chromosomes fused and thus the gamete has 23 chromosomes. A person has 23 pairs of chromosomes = 46.
    • Pssdoff, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2"Grab a Kleenex for this one, 'cuz there is no God, and your foolish human ideals are laughable! (long evil laugh)"
      • FriskDown, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2Someday we're going to look back at this and laugh. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    • stoanhart, on 11/02/2007, -0/+1Why do people always talk about evolution and creation like they are incompatible?

      Personally, I am an atheist. However, if I believed that life was created by God and _didn't_ want to look like a knob for ignoring blatant evidence, I would probably adjust my beliefs to something along the lines of:

      "Hmm, maybe God didn't design humans. Maybe He designed a cell, and let it loose knowing evolution would occur."
  • BabyWookie, on 10/22/2007, -77/+13Enough with the Bush bashing already!
    • Namakemono, on 10/22/2007, -6/+53I always found it funny that Bush could deny evolution while looking like a transitional form himself!
      • BabyWookie, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1If you find it funny, whu didn't you digg up my comment? Did you think I was serious?
    • drakethegreat, on 10/20/2007, -3/+1I got news, you were the first to mention bush in the comments. So I think maybe you should go see a therapist cause only a psychopath says things like that and is actually serious.
      • rune420, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1I think you should read up on the exact DSM-IV checklist for diagnosing psycopathy/sociopathy. Being an ignorant douche != being a psychopath.
        • BabyWookie, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1Did you just call me an "ignorant douche"? Ouch.
          • rune420, on 10/21/2007, -0/+1Sorry about that, didn't realize you were sarcastic in your original post.
      • BabyWookie, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1I got news for you - I have a dry sense of humor. Plus, I'm always up to a good Bush bashing.
  • supertaliman, on 11/02/2007, -10/+88GG Creationists
    • pyrotix, on 10/22/2007, -1/+9i disagree, they cheated!
    • havesometea, on 10/20/2007, -3/+2Ah, the heady days of Quake online after rocket jumping off of some other player's head saying "GG".
    • AmICoolNow, on 10/31/2007, -9/+1Shut up, god works in mysterious ways.
      • dasdef, on 10/31/2007, -1/+6no, life is mysterious enough as it is without god intervening.
      • dasdef, on 10/21/2007, -2/+1**double post**
      • AmICoolNow, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2I guess I should've used tags for my sarcasm.
    • enginbeering, on 10/31/2007, -4/+2I don't really like this argument. Why does he humor them like that? "If we don't find that chromosome, evolution is in trouble." *****. The point isn't whether or not we descended from monkeys. Why did we let them turn it into that?
      • ozydingo, on 12/30/2007, -0/+1Yeah, I agree; it was a bit patronizing of him, if I'm using that word correctly which I think I'm not, to say "if we can't find it, evolution is wrong." Perhaps he meant to say "the theory that stems from evolution that we share ea common ancestor with apes is wrong." Eh, it was a bit of overstatement for dramatic effect, I won't hold it against him.
    • TsuruchiBrian, on 10/31/2007, -9/+4This guys arguments are not very scientific. No wonder he's a theist.

      Assumptions that seem to have no basis (Or at least none that he mentioned):
      1. The common ancestor of all 3 of the great apes he listed and humans had to have 48 chromosomes.
      2. If humans do not have ALL the same chromosomes as great apes we can't have a common ancestor.
      3. If humans and great apes don't have a common ancestor, then evolution is wrong.
      4. Humans could not have lost a chromosome.

      Why couldn't a common ancestor have 46 chromosomes? Maybe all 3 of the great apes he listed had a common ancestor that humans don't share, that somehow picked up an extra chromosome. We share common ancestors with dogs, fish, and bacteria if you go back far enough. Even if we didn't share a common ancestor (i.e. maybe some life came from another planet, or 2 separate abiogenesis events happened), that does not mean evolution is wrong.

      We have tons of genetic code that is inactive. For the same reasons that acquiring new chromosomes is sometimes beneficial, it doesn't seem unreasonable that under certain circumstances losing some chromosomes (especially ones that we may have "outgrown"), may be beneficial. Sometimes certain evolutionary traits that in the past helped us, may one day become a hindrance (Like having hair covering our entire bodies). It may very well be that if modern humans and great apes lost a chromosome it would be fatal. But he comes off a bit narrow minded they way he structures his arguments.
      • Acolyte357, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2psst, Actually watching the video would answer all your "issues" the whole video is MUCH longer.
    • Wiini, on 10/31/2007, -0/+3Oh Snap. You sure got "us".
  • Frejesal, on 10/22/2007, -105/+4Lies, I'm afraid. :(
    • fluoro, on 10/22/2007, -2/+32Right, we should take your word over his huh? I like that mountain of evidence you're presenting us here too. Way to go!
      • Frejesal, on 10/22/2007, -33/+1Lol, you think I care about trying to convince you 'tards?
        All I have to say is bear's did not turn into whales by opening their mouths a lot.
        Seriously, it's people just guessing about how certain animals came to be, like babies.
        • bruenig, on 10/20/2007, -1/+20strawmen are fun
        • fluoro, on 10/20/2007, -1/+24Nobody said bears turned into whales. What the ***** are you talking about?
        • bugsy187, on 10/20/2007, -1/+12Remember how the church persecuted astronomers? The world's not flat, it's not the center of the universe, and the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.
        • Abudiwa, on 10/20/2007, -0/+6you've got to be joking.
        • omnithought, on 10/20/2007, -0/+2Folks, this guy is either a troll or has no comprehension of how natural selection operates. Therefore, not worth getting worked up about.
    • cranium, on 10/22/2007, -0/+17That's exactly what the catholics thought when Galileo invited them to look through the telescope. They thought it was an instrument of the devil that would lie to their eyes.

      Sad that we haven't seem to have come very far from there.
      • Kallahan, on 10/20/2007, -0/+3funny the catholics have though (Pro evolution, world is round, big bang ect.)
      • n0t0kayipr0mis3, on 10/20/2007, -0/+2Coffee was also a satan made drink until the Pope has some, he liked it so much that he had to "bless" it and make it a good Christian drink.
      • BattleChimp, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Actually dude you're mistaken. Most people believe the church dispersed Galileo's findings as heretical, but actually the church was very curious about the telescope, as neither they nor Galileo had any idea how they worked. Even when Galileo showed the Pope his satan-like drawing of how he viewed Saturn the church still wanted to know more. They were confused as to how what was observed through this magic trick was possible according to Aristotilian order.
        I'm an atheist and I despise christianity but fighting the good fight with the aid of fallacy is wrong.
    • Meccabilly, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1Please explain. Oh you can't, you are just calling it as lies on faith then? Ahhhh Faith, you do so much and ask so little - except for everything.
    • drakethegreat, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1Thats like me going in and telling a priest that sex with little kids is right, oh *****...
    • agilligan, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1Good. You should be afraid...
  • chesscat, on 10/22/2007, -18/+73I'm sure the religious nuts will find a way to debunk this and get back to their business of believing in Jesus horses.
    • hellokittyownsu, on 10/31/2007, -3/+25It's simple we just close our minds.
    • floridiot2, on 10/31/2007, -2/+28Jesus Horse: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/219/526893292_e95eb ...
    • wreckosaurus, on 10/22/2007, -0/+3Christian's guide to debating atheists:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG0CQxRULg0
    • Shantry99, on 10/20/2007, -1/+3Evolution doesn't disprove the existence of God. Keep in mind I'm not commiting myself to any religion...
      • tubeblender, on 10/20/2007, -0/+2Evolution doesn't have to disprove anything. Believers in god must do the proving.
        • breezyflight, on 10/21/2007, -6/+1If a miracle occurred five feet in front of you you still wouldn't believe it.
          • ElwoodHerring, on 10/20/2007, -0/+3"If a miracle occurred five feet in front of you you still wouldn't believe it."

            Let's have a think about that for a minute. If something happened "five feet in front" of me that I couldn't explain, does that mean it's a miracle? No, of course not. All it means is that *I* can't explain it. That doesn't mean that it has no explanation. Even if nobody can explain it that still doesn't mean it's a miracle. It just means that nobody can explain it *yet*.
      • fcukbush, on 10/20/2007, -0/+9Nobody is claiming evolution disproves god. We are saying evolution disproves the biblical account of creation.
    • AmICoolNow, on 10/20/2007, -2/+1"God works in mysterious ways".
      • ShadwDrgn, on 10/20/2007, -0/+2mysterious energy beings from the planet jlkywgya also work in mysterious ways. You see... jlkywgyans created earth.. and chimps... The jlkywgyan, Susej, died for our Nises, and we all know that when Natas, the fallen Legna from jlkywgya, is trying to corrupt our mind we have to turn to Susej's teachings in the book of jlkywgya. It was inspired by mysterious energy being #1 from the planet jlkywgya. You can't prove it's not true, and thus it IS TRUE!! If you accept Susej as your lord and savior you get lots of poon when you go to Nevaeh. It's awesome there. WE'RE ALL IMMORTAL!
    • Meccabilly, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1They can't debunk it - its in the DNA for all to see and verify. They can assimilate it into an ever growing convoluted explanation for how this supports creationism however.
  • Obzerva, on 10/21/2007, -10/+54Evolution FTW!!!
    • Pinhedd, on 10/20/2007, -3/+1but but but... God did it!

      /Athiest
    • RockJohny, on 10/20/2007, -1/+0NOT SO FAST JIMMY HAT!!
      God (with Michael- the prehuman Jesus) enjoyed evolving their designs just as any skilled artist or craftsman would........so what if he tinkered with this or that.....and of course he borrowed some basic design from Apes etc..........
  • digitalspeed, on 10/22/2007, -21/+69Evolution: 1
    Creation: 0
    • Frejesal, on 10/22/2007, -57/+1Yup.
      Now why don't you evolve a huge red hand with a number 1 on it to celebrate?
      Oops, wait a sec.
      Miracle at Fatima: Point for Creationists.
      • inhaler, on 10/31/2007, -1/+17Miracle? Explain? Bleeding statues? Stigmata...? Where are you going with this?
      • Mononuclear, on 10/31/2007, -2/+24Lets pretend that this actually happened.. How does this prove creationism? It might be shown as evidence of a God but has nothing to do with creationism. Many people believe in God but don't believe in Intelligent Design.
      • cxxfxxh, on 10/19/2007, -1/+2oh, wait...hasnt everyone with mary's "message" died? !!! you mean...theres no...proof???
      • unearth, on 10/31/2007, -1/+20An entire community in the south claimed to see a leprechaun, too.
      • pineutrino, on 10/22/2007, -0/+12Evolve a hand? Yes, because as everyone knows, evolution happens to individuals, not populations.

        Gah. Why don't you pick up a biology textbook once in a while?
      • petewiz, on 10/22/2007, -1/+6"Oops, wait a sec." A creationist trying to mock the theory of evolution through sarcasm. The definition of irony, ladies and gentlemen.
      • bugsy187, on 10/20/2007, -1/+14The Bible mentions that God never presents evidence of his existance, because faith is key... but miracles occur?
        • Mageling, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1but the miracles that god must have, but never created "exist" to prove he does exist...

          I just got a headache from circular thinking... Funny, though.. I had the same headaches in church..
    • LexMortis, on 10/31/2007, -9/+116More like:
      Evolution: 7321873021
      Creation: 0
    • Encablossa, on 10/22/2007, -2/+2You must be a troll, no one is that stupid.
    • handler, on 10/31/2007, -11/+3Monkeys were created to begin with.
      Evolution:0
      Creation:1000000000
      • dablitz, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2So were miniture poodles right?
      • Smills, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1Sarcasm?
        It isn't funny... Seems too much like something an idiot would say.
  • kushed, on 10/21/2007, -9/+32I use videos such as this as tool/weapon to fight of religious rights that come at me with pitch forks.
  • coolboy0286, on 10/31/2007, -12/+37Just waiting for the creationist bury squad now.
  • 8bit_Hero, on 10/21/2007, -5/+22...wow...i guess that settles it...right?
    • zengonzo, on 10/22/2007, -7/+12I'm sure the only thing that's been needed all this time is one more piece of scientific evidence..
    • fluoro, on 10/22/2007, -0/+6No, it really doesn't. Religion always adapts, and it only seems to be adapting slowly to evolution because we're able to witness things this time around.
      Religion and creationism are not mutually exclusive of evolution. I'm an atheist and I do believe in evolution, because I feel like I have every reason to, and I don't believe in God or creationism, because I feel like I have every reason not to. But it's really obvious to me how the two can fit together conceptually. It's clear that the guy in this video thinks the same thing, or something close to it. If God created the world and everything in it, it could evolve and adapt after that. The next religious theory is going to be, "Matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed... unless you are God."
    • DonCarcharo, on 10/31/2007, -1/+5I think it's great that science has been able to once again prove that evolution is the real deal. I guess I fail to see how however, how the existence of evolution disproves the existence of God. So we're related to chimps, that's great. Who's to say that's not by design? I guess I see no reason why religion and science cannot coexist.
      • bruenig, on 10/22/2007, -0/+5It depends on the religion. Genesis certainly cannot coexist with science. A mild nebulous deism could probably do it though.
        • breezyflight, on 10/20/2007, -1/+0Read as an allegory, Genesis is almost precisely a map from the big bang to Wrigley Field.
        • Kallahan, on 10/22/2007, -0/+4Genesis can't coexits with it's self, there are two incongruous creation stories in genesis
      • cranium, on 10/20/2007, -0/+2It doesn't disprove the existence of God, nothing can do so logically.
        Although, Occam's razor would seem to make God quite unlikely in a sense.
    • bobjrn2, on 10/20/2007, -0/+0This is one of those few moments in history when the church agrees with something the scientific community has been yelling out for years. (others include the heliocentric theory and the earth being round).
  • eburetto, on 10/22/2007, -10/+42Jesus ... what a trickster.
    • hellokittyownsu, on 10/22/2007, -1/+12"Wait a minute you.... you're supposed to be dead."
      "You got me, you got me."
      "You big ole' trickster."
    • bugsy187, on 10/22/2007, -0/+9So, what kind of god would plant a bunch of evidence around the world disproving his existance? On top of that, what kind of being would indefinitely torture meek creatures who didn't believe in him? Why would he be a man? What use does a single, omnipotent being have for a penis?
      • BrainInAJar, on 10/22/2007, -0/+7"What use does a single, omnipotent being have for a penis?"
        For *****... and peeing standing up...
  • Neiby, on 10/31/2007, -1/+88Correction: It's Human Chromosome #2, Chimp Chromosome #13. The title incorrectly says Chimp Chromosome #2.

    Regardless, it's very interesting stuff.
    • DiggaDave, on 10/20/2007, -2/+4I was hoping someone beat me to that.
    • Rodman930, on 10/21/2007, -0/+6Maybe chimp chromosome # 2 and chimp chromosome # 13 joined to create human chromosome #2.
  • Sharpezor, on 10/21/2007, -4/+59This is part of a longer video, i remember watching the whole thing a wile ago. its not an end all thing that proves evolution. reality proves evolution. Creationists simply don't know enough about science to be making the arguments they are making. To go against evolution requires a stunning abundance ignorance and they have no place teaching kids that same nonsense.
    • outlaw1, on 10/31/2007, -25/+7"reality proves evolution"

      So is that why its still called a theory?
    • consoneo, on 10/20/2007, -1/+3Yeah, and the fact that evolution has been proven for a long damned time.. and everyone missuses the term "evolution" when they mean to say "speciation."
      • BrainInAJar, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1speciaton has been proved a long time as well, actually. Some lab lines of dropsophila melanogaster ( fruit flies ) that originated from a single colony had speciated and were unable to reproduce with each other
        • consoneo, on 10/21/2007, -0/+1That's some interesting stuff :) Thanks for the info!
    • DarkShroud, on 10/20/2007, -18/+5Actually evolution is not a theory, it doesn't even rate that high. By the scientific method evolution only rates at hypothesis.
    • mattbatt77, on 10/20/2007, -9/+4I'm glad to see evolution occurring everyday, right here in front of me. I'm glad we have the complete fossil record to prove evolution and our early ancestors. It makes me warm and fuzzy inside that none of our current laws of physics contradict evolution in anyway what-so-ever. I'm also happy that scientists never make mistakes nor try to cover up false-held-beliefs such as bones thought to be our early ancestors, then disproved through actual research. And of course, carbon dating is always accurate, another reason to rejoice.

      Man, we know so much, but it really doesn't matter does it? I mean, there is no purpose to life whatsoever. No meaning. No future. So even though I can rejoice in the absolute infallible word of evolution, in the end, I'm a random chance occurrence.
      • bruenig, on 10/20/2007, -2/+6Reality makes you sad. I'm sorry.
      • cranium, on 10/20/2007, -1/+10Getting your science education at church, I see. Did you know that religious kooks are the only ones who think we use carbon dating for fossils? The irony is that if the fossils were as young as the religious kooks claim, we *could* use carbon dating on them.
      • BlinderBomber, on 10/20/2007, -0/+4I love the fossil record argument. When we find a new fossil to 'patch' the hole in the record, the religious folk just say "look, now there are TWO gaps in the record where there was one before." Plus, if you believe evolution occurs right under your nose, you're an idiot to begin with. Our laws of physics don't contract evolution any more than your belief that we magically appeared here in a wonderful garden created by God does. While systems tend towards disorder, we can input energy to create order. That's what happens when you melt glass into sand, for instance.

        Honestly though, I'm really glad you're starting to understand what reality is about in your last paragraph. Life has no meaning. Believing that a man in the sky gave our lives meaning is stupid. That doesn't make life trivial. On the contrary, it makes life even more worth living and making your own because you're the one who must find meaning in it, not some made-up fantasy man who placed you here.
    • fluoro, on 10/20/2007, -3/+2http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.htm ...
      "Evolution is a Fact and a Theory"
    • metric7, on 10/20/2007, -7/+2"Creationists simply don't know enough about science to be making the arguments they are making"
      And you do, "reality proves evolution" yeah thats real scientific.
  • coredump0x01, on 10/22/2007, -1/+90So we're all mutant chimps..... Awesome, Now I finally have an excuse for flinging my poo at people.
  • rrmaclac, on 10/22/2007, -46/+6... and if you examine chromosome #7C you'll see "Designed by God in Heaven" :P
    • pilot3033, on 10/20/2007, -1/+16its a joke, i know, but its a pretty ***** one.
    • pintomp3, on 10/20/2007, -0/+3and on chromosome #7D you'll see "Made by children in China"
  • Namakemono, on 10/22/2007, -5/+54I wish these creationists would stop monkeying around. I mean, it's all so obvious a caveman could figure it out.
    • bobappleyard, on 10/22/2007, -6/+1Maybe NOW, but do not belittle the insight involved in formulating the theories.
      • consoneo, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1Insight? You mean Imagination, get your I's right :)
    • metric7, on 10/22/2007, -3/+1Why don't you give me a brief explanation then?
    • jhaks, on 10/22/2007, -6/+1"So obvious a caveman could figure it out."

      Reminds me of the Geico insurance caveman gay.
      • Gimpishi, on 10/22/2007, -3/+1I hate those guys! Every new commercial i see with those guys reminds me of their over priced insurance because of cavemen actors.
      • Gimpishi, on 10/22/2007, -3/+1I hate those guys! Every new commercial i see with those guys reminds me of their over priced insurance because of cavemen actors.
  • krnldmp, on 10/22/2007, -47/+8I'm still waiting for the the thing that proves there is no designer.
    • akula696969, on 10/22/2007, -4/+26Or the thing that proves there are no invisible unicorns breeding in my bathroom.......
    • ArchieAndrews, on 10/22/2007, -2/+10It is incumbent on those who believe in a designer to prove he exists, not the other way around. Until then, all we have is mountains of evidence supporting evolution and natural selection to indicate a "more supported" theory of our race through time.
    • hellokittyownsu, on 10/19/2007, -1/+1Here ya go, http://godbegone.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-chimp-ch ... I kid, I kid.
    • fmaxwell, on 10/22/2007, -0/+4Don't own a mirror, do you?

      Seriously, why is it our responsibility to disprove the existence of your imaginary, all-powerful, all-knowing, invisible friend?

      Prove to us that there is no tooth fairy, easter bunny, or Santa Claus. Oh, you can't? Then all of those children who believe in those things must have been right after all.
    • ed3r, on 10/22/2007, -2/+2I'm still waiting for the thing that proves there is.
  • Defuser, on 10/22/2007, -98/+12Oh for hell's sake. Enough with this crap already. If you want to think you're a hairless monkey, (a description that's fairly accurate for 90% of all Diggers), the go ahead and do it, but frankly, the Digg Atheist Brigade has become roughly 10,000% more shrill, annoying, and desperately insistent on ramming their beliefs down my throat than ANY fundie has ever been.
    • silencerar, on 10/22/2007, -2/+23You're a monkey.
    • geometry, on 10/22/2007, -2/+38Get the right wingers to stop pushing their religious beliefs into our government and we'll all be happy. Nobody is shoving anything down your throat, you read the title, you didn't have to open the article or comment! I don't drive by a Church and walk in and tell the preacher to stop preaching to me, I just keep on driving, why can't you do the same?
      • mlostracco, on 10/20/2007, -2/+9If fundies want to have their "scientific theory" credibility taken more seriously, they could start by not believing the Virgin Mary appeared on a slice of toast or that Jesus mysteriously manifested himself in an oil slick under a highway overpass.
      • DarkShroud, on 10/22/2007, -6/+3No body is pushing religious beliefs into the US government. Just because the President is open about his religious right doesn't mean anything. You should be more concerned with how he continues to get his way. Hmm maybe that is proof there is a God.
        • geometry, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2Yeah, your right. god hates Iraqis so he sent us there to kill them by the hundreds of thousands. god hates Iraqi children so he told Bush 1 to setup sanctions to stop medicine from entering their country. god hates the people that died in the 9/11 attacks. These are exactly the teaching of Jesus, if he didn't like something he went to war over it, oh wait Jesus was a pacifist. god hates you that's why you're filled with such hate.

          Crawl back into the dark cave you came out of. If there is a god he'll punish you worse for your hypocrisies. At least I let my morals lead me not some leader who pretends to be doing gods work.
    • akula696969, on 10/20/2007, -8/+20psssst.......There is no god, get over it.
    • zengonzo, on 10/22/2007, -2/+27Ramming beliefs? This is science. I think your real issue is with reality trying to ram its facts down your blabberhole.

      By the way, it's apes, not monkeys.
      • DarkShroud, on 10/22/2007, -3/+2Science can neither prove nor disprove God. All science is, is the gathering and application of data/knowledge.
        • bruenig, on 10/20/2007, -0/+5Sigh. Why do the religious hate evolution so much? Because it not only negates the three main religions, but also from a rational perspective indicates that if we assume god does exist, he clearly has no fixation or obsession with humans that all religions seem to think he does.
        • Chris63084, on 10/22/2007, -0/+5And all religion is, is making random ***** up to control people.
    • Trax91, on 10/20/2007, -4/+12I think religious nuts are the one who are "desperately insistent on ramming their beliefs down my throat than ANY fundie has ever been".
    • Godlike, on 10/22/2007, -1/+14If you watched the video you would see at the end that he states that he is a Roman Catholic and believes in a designer. There is more but you might actually have to watch the video before you slam people. I mean, hell, slam away, you're going to anyway, but watch the ***** video at least.
    • ThetaDot, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1I find it ironic your ID is "Defuser". heh
    • eclectro, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1Shrill. Thirteen. Year. Olds.
      Thery really don't get it. And I don't mean genetic selection either.
  • egyber, on 10/21/2007, -3/+28ahhh.. he was one of my professors at brown... *sigh* the good old days.
    • Neiby, on 10/22/2007, -0/+9I've never heard of him before, at least that I recall, but I really like him so far. He's an excellent speaker and I would imagine he is an excellent teacher.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1Was he teaching religious studies?
  • geometry, on 10/22/2007, -9/+159I didn't realize that Evolution was still up for debate.
    • Godlike, on 10/22/2007, -3/+30It's not. A bunch of very confused people that don't know .anything. about science seem to think that 'theory' implies unproven, which is hilariously not the case. Following their 'realization' that 'theory' doesn't mean 'law' (are you laughing your ass off yet?) they constantly make baseless arguments that are pretty much just mystical ***** to try to prove evolution wrong.

      Man I wish I felt like typing, I could go on and on. Someone help me out here?
      • AmICoolNow, on 10/20/2007, -0/+6I'll help.
        The definition of theory is (as I understand it) "A hypothesis that is highly supported by many scientific bodies", people that don't know better think "hypothesis" and "theory" are the same thing; A guess based off of an observation, and they aren't. There isn't any debate, every time I meet a creationist I die a little inside.
        • Godlike, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1The point was raised (in a slightly less short-story way) in the full version of the video that it doesn't matter what rational argument you attempt to use, someone that wants to believe lies or false ideas will do so regardless of how much actual fact you present. Really it just comes down to what the fundies are best at: wanting to beleive in things that to begin with are factually baseless.

          It is no surprise then that their arguments over what they feel threatens them the most (actual non-***** proof of the origin of our species on earth) have no basis whatsoever in reality and are easily defeated by logic. Seriously, feel free to reply here with one of your I.D. "scientific" arguments; any of them; and I will be glad to debunk you as irrational.

          The schools are what they target because they are what really matters. Sr. Fundie realizes that someone who is well educated and mentally prepared against garbage logic is not going to go to church every Sunday and drop money in a basket.

          I end with Goodkind's "Wizards First Rule": People will believe any lie, either because they want to believe it is true, or because they are afraid that it is true. The second half of that is why so many of them are big on "hell".
    • mlostracco, on 10/22/2007, -2/+15It's not, rationally.
    • JaceFuse, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1It really more or less isn't, but that doesn't mean science shouldn't continue to find more and more proof. That is how science works, after all. Admit we're still ignorant about certain things, work hard to fill up all the gaps, and release YouTube videos to make superstitious weenies cry. :)
    • pintomp3, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1it's not really. but just like global warming deniers, holocaust deniers, and thruthers; there will always be some hold outs.
  • BobOrleans, on 10/20/2007, -2/+21I prefer Carl Sagan explaining evolution to me.
    • zengonzo, on 10/22/2007, -0/+19Carl Sagan could read the back of a cereal box to me and I'd be content.
      • HunterTV, on 10/22/2007, -0/+16"Billions and billions of nutrients per serving!"
    • bkrishnan, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1I started loving agent Smith after hearing Carl Sagan speak :)
  • theradical, on 10/22/2007, -13/+21I was totally with him, up until the bit about being a Roman Catholic. Come on, really? Why do scientists like him feel they must carry on that ancient and meaningless title?
    • krnldmp, on 10/22/2007, -2/+20That's what Roman Catholics do.
      • 0xception, on 10/20/2007, -1/+3zing!
      • Godlike, on 10/22/2007, -0/+10Shrug, at least he is being honest in all theaters. Less than I can say for anybody preaching ID.
      • asnider, on 10/22/2007, -1/+3It's true. A Catholic ex-girlfriend once told me that there is no such thing as an ex-Catholic. According to her, you are always a Catholic, you're just a non-practicing one. It's cultural, for a lot of people.
    • kalleanka, on 10/21/2007, -3/+24Dude, can't you respect the guy for both believing in a god and in evolution.
      Feel free to digg me down, but it certainly is possible to believe in evolution and still go to church and believe in a higher power.
      • cranium, on 10/22/2007, -8/+5It is axiomatic to science that nothing has a supernatural cause.
        It is axiomatic to religion that some things do.
        The man is a walking contradiction if he believes both.
        • ZenMojo, on 10/20/2007, -2/+2It is axiomatic to supernatural causes that any cause which does not have an explanation as of yet is supernatural.
          • cranium, on 10/22/2007, -1/+3I don't think you understand your own words.
      • theradical, on 10/20/2007, -3/+1As a matter of fact, I can not respect that no. On the one hand he is saying that evidence and fact is required before anything can be proven, and on the other he is saying screw evidence and fact, I know there is a God because I have faith. Some scientist.
        • Neiby, on 10/20/2007, -0/+2That's actually not what he said. All he said about his religious beliefs is that he is Roman Catholic. I'm sure if he had the time to explain, it might be very interesting to hear his ideas about God and the universe. He might have very legitimate reasons for believing in God or some sort of higher power. I don't know what they are, obviously, but you can't just assume they don't exist. He strikes me as a very intelligent and intellectually honest man. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt here.
      • bruenig, on 10/22/2007, -0/+3It is possible to believe anything. The coherency of the beliefs is another matter.
      • Epik, on 10/22/2007, -1/+2I believe in evolution.

        I'm open to the idea that there is a god.

        I'm certain it's not jesus/allah/thor/whatever our pathetic young species has thought up so far.
    • bingobongony, on 10/22/2007, -2/+5The fact that someone else's religious beleifs matter to you at all is a REALLY sad statement about your life.
  • rebotfc, on 10/31/2007, -0/+33The talk comes from an exceptional and highly informative talk on Science vs Intelligent Design at Browns University, the IDers were asked to turn up but they failed as they only like to debate infront of lay-audience members. So instead the guy in the video Ken Miller ( one of the pre-eminent living Biologists and educators) did an extended presentation , one of the best on general evolutionary principles.
    Btw the way Ken Miller is actually a Catholic so I doubt he would like to endorse Atheist News.

    the full presentation can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
    highly recommended
  • qevlhma93, on 10/20/2007, -9/+1nice.
  • egyber, on 10/31/2007, -1/+50For the record, he isn't an atheist. He believes in God.
    • Epik, on 10/21/2007, -1/+1But it's not the christian god, or the islam god, or the catholic god. It's a god in the broadest sense. I consider myself more atheist than religious but still wouldn't say that there is absolutely no god.

      In my opinion, taking an atheistic stand in today's society doesn't mean you don't believe in a higher power but that you believe the current mainstream religions are ridiculously outdated and illogical.
    • RockinRoel, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1So Epik, you're basically an agnost?
      I think this video is a little misplaced on an atheism blog. Evolution and religion can go perfectly together. Darwin was an agnost.
      " When asked about his religious views, he wrote that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." " - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin#Religi ...
      I'm an atheist myself.
  • chesscat, on 10/20/2007, -11/+5Embrace your inner chimp. Pass the bananas, please.
    • Loonacy, on 10/20/2007, -3/+2Ah, bananas. The evolutionist's nightmare.
    • unorginalityftw, on 10/20/2007, -1/+2Hey now, bananas kick some ass.
  • paulexander, on 10/22/2007, -41/+5Yes, but what about the trihydromethotol interface between the mellomere base pairs? When the chromosome has a overstat fusion like that, the result would undoubtedly bond the adenine to the gimble arm of the double helix's rotation point. This is basic chloro-bio-amino fusion mechanics; the tilomere duplications would be exponential, not cumulative.

    This guy has no idea what he is talking about.
    • SupaFurry, on 01/23/2008, -2/+11It's spelt "telomere"
    • gotterdammerung, on 10/22/2007, -1/+8It's 'telomere,' you pedant!
    • lowhauler, on 10/20/2007, -1/+5very droll.
    • consoneo, on 10/22/2007, -1/+8I'd have to flip that and say you have no idea what you're talking about, including the ability to spell the terms you used.
    • arcooke, on 10/20/2007, -1/+5I ate pizza today.
  • aurorous, on 10/22/2007, -15/+9I've heard about chromosome #2 before. Just by looking at DNA base pairs in a microscope you can easily tell chromosome #2 looks like two chromosomes fused together. The stickler is no where else in nature do we see 2 chromosomes magically fused together like this not in any other species. Some people point to this as evidence that the human race was genetically engineered. Genetically engineered by whom? Why would anyone need to genetically engineer a smarter primate?
    • gotterdammerung, on 10/22/2007, -0/+9Have you looked at sample karyotypes of every single species? Chromosomal abnormalities happen all the time. People with Down Syndrome have an extra copy of the 21st chromosome, and multiple copies of the X chromosome are not uncommon, but no one cites that as evidence that they are 'genetically engineered.'
    • Godel, on 10/22/2007, -0/+6Actually, this is found other places in nature. For example, the Indian Muntjac has 23 chromosome pairs, while the Chinese Muntjac has 6 chromosome pairs. However, they can interbreed to produce mules. Turns out, some event seems to have shattered the ancestral Muntjac's 6 large chromosomes into the Indian Muntjacs 23 tiny ones.

      This probably happens alot of other places in nature, but genetists haven't done the vast amount of required karyotyping to find this.

      And, that theory about humans being genetically engineered is retarded.
    • jferrari, on 10/20/2007, -0/+6Aliens.
    • cranium, on 10/22/2007, -0/+5So if something happens only once, it has a supernatural origin? Are you really that ***** stupid?
    • ZenMojo, on 10/22/2007, -4/+3If we can't prove a scientific theory, it's in debate. If you can't prove a religious theory, it's nonexistent.
      Oookay.
      • cranium, on 10/22/2007, -1/+3If you don't understand the basics of what it means to be a scientific theory, you're a ***** idiot.
      • S1ngular1ty1, on 10/22/2007, -1/+3You fail at knowledge.
      • Acolyte357, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1Please provide your religious theory. Remember to include:
        Characterization from experience and observation
        Hypothesis: a proposed explanation
        Deduction: prediction from the hypothesis
        Experiments, don't forget evaluation and iteration (I gotta hear this)
        Just let me and ...well the rest of the rational world know when you are done.
  • dudefather, on 10/22/2007, -3/+34you guys know nothing, bananas are easy to eat and you don't find new life in jars of peanut butter, therefore evolution is wrong
    • fantasticFlan, on 10/22/2007, -0/+5Could someone please explain how to easily eat a banana. This is urgent.
      • FLaw, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1Place banana in hand.
        Open mouth.
        Place banana in mouth.
        Close mouth.
        Chew.
        Swallow.
        • Wavicle, on 10/22/2007, -0/+7Eeeech! The middle tastes okay but the peel is awful!

          I think you you missed a step. Putting the banana in the box, or making her open the box or something.
        • pintomp3, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2i guess it's not so easy. most people peel their banana first.
      • aluminumpork, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1And you call yourself a monkey!
  • NoxAeternus, on 10/22/2007, -21/+8I don't see why intelligent design and evolution are mutually exclusive. If there is an intelligent designer, could it not work through evolution?
    • fcukbush, on 10/20/2007, -1/+10Not according to creation. The bible is very clear about the methods god used to create man, and later on man 2.0 (or what we call 'woman')
      • mlostracco, on 10/20/2007, -2/+4The earth is also flat, according to the Bible.
        • ZenMojo, on 10/20/2007, -0/+4It's flat and a circle and a sphere. Not necessarily in that order. Or in the original language it was translated from.
        • Kamill85, on 10/20/2007, -2/+1@fcukbush: 2.0 implies a better version, when we really carry the same genes - next time find some better nerdish analogy :)
    • rebotfc, on 10/20/2007, -2/+12you are talking about intelligent design with small 'i' and 'd' , which is simply another name for god or gods. This is not what the movement of "Intelligent Design" is about, the movement is a political attack on science to advance fundamentalist and extreme right wing Christian ideals. They're method is to undermine science and at the same time promote their political & cultural viewpoint.

      This is why they are so dangerous, their mission statement is to destroy Scientific Education.
    • unearth, on 10/22/2007, -2/+3Occam's Razor modified: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."

      1) Evolution is true
      2) Evolution is true, and magic man done it
    • cranium, on 10/20/2007, -1/+1Obviously not. Do you even know what natural selection is about?
    • desqjockey, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1Yes, that is kind of the Catholic position by some accounts: god is all knowing and infinitely intelligent so by setting it all in motion, beginning with the big bang, he could have foreseen and intended the result we have here, just by establishing the conditions at the beginning perfectly.
      Natural selection isnt affected, god just already knew what the results would be. Then there is this whole bit about humans being special and made in his image, etc. so it also means that the entire point of his creating the universe is to eventually have it create us (yay humans!).
      One day Aliens will call us racists. Mark my words.
  • SiNN4R, on 10/22/2007, -12/+9I find it funny its called atheist news even though religious people believe in evolution too. Thats right, I said it.
    • mashw, on 10/22/2007, -7/+4Only wishy washy, unwilling to completely let go of the nice God idea, type of religious people believe in evolution.

      Euthyphro.
    • bingobongony, on 10/20/2007, -1/+6Yeah...considering THIS GUY BELIEVES IN GOD.
      • SiNN4R, on 10/22/2007, -2/+2I spit in the face of logic and leave a steaming load on the chest of rational thought.
    • cranium, on 10/20/2007, -1/+3Duh. Ya know, it's pretty tough to find an atheist creationist.
  • kalleanka, on 10/22/2007, -12/+2If someone after watching this is so stupid that he refuses to believe in evolution, he would be so stupid that he would probably be related to the apes...
    • fantasticFlan, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1Stupid or not, your hypothetical guy is an ape just like rest of us.
  • EdgarAllenPwn, on 10/22/2007, -4/+19How a banana proves creationism.... it um.... it fits our hands! Yeah now what can you say?!
  • Soofi, on 10/22/2007, -30/+10From the site: "It was an amazing discovery and a discovery which, Even now, Has never been refuted by anyone arguing for intelligent design."

    Video has a flawed logic as it assumes that evolution somehow disproves God's existence or Intelligent Design. Atheist propaganda.

    Just as the fools are blind to the wise, intelligence can recognize intelligence - and it is not hard to see the intelligent design process when a little sperm cell and a tiny cellular egg merge into one and grow into a full grown complex human being - forgetting his own origin and yet he becomes an open disputer about God!

    These complex processes have a high degree of co-ordination between cells which is difficult to explain away. Sure each set of cells has instructions in it's core makeup on what to do, but who put those instructions there?

    When scientists are running medical simulations on super-computers, ask them if they ever were able to do it without first inputting the instructions and behaviour for each cell - software doesn't run or do anything unless you program it to.. and the premise is the same with our reality, every little thing and process has some instructions embedded somewhere, and clearly someone smart had to put it there.
    • OutThisLife, on 10/22/2007, -1/+15For the record, he isn't an atheist. He believes in God.
    • rebotfc, on 10/20/2007, -1/+11No you are wrong, the guy giving the video is Roman Catholic , he believes in God.

      Looks like your the one trying to spread FUD and propaganda.
      • Soofi, on 10/20/2007, -4/+2I saw the video and I heard him when he professed his faith, though I found it strange he would argue against intelligent design in the same breath.

        The site is called 'godbegone', and the statement I quoted about it never being refuted by anyone arguing for intelligent design is simply from the athiest source/website.

        I am not against evolution, nor do I argue for it on a 'monkey becomes human' level. I am open to evidence and reason.. I believe that micro-evolution, within the same species is indeed possible and has been observed, but there needs to be more conclusive evidence that one species can evolve into another - which is yet to be seen.

        Either way, it does not disprove God, but only points to the fact that there is some incredibly complex creative processes going on that most humans are oblivious to.
        • BlinderBomber, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2I hate people and their opinions. I seriously don't care what you believe because what you believe denies facts. When you deny facts you either have a hidden agenda or are an idiot. Either way, your opinion isn't important. You have two courses of action - get an education and learn about science, or shut up. I don't really care which one it is, but I'm sick and tired of people talking about their opinions.

          I'll say it again, evolution is not something you have an opinion about. It's a fact.
          • Soofi, on 10/22/2007, -1/+1If you really didn't care for my opinion you wouldn't have bothered to respond. Clearly I hit a nerve that it warranted a response.

            Evolution is not fact, but a theory to explain the emergence of varying species. A fact is something that can be conclusively confirmed, for example, if someone argues the the earth is flat, this can be disproven - fly up into space high enough and you can prove the spherical shape of the Earth. That is undeniable fact. However there is no similar 'yardstick' for proving evolution - that's why it's called a theory. Sure there is alot of data that has been used to corroborate the theory of evolution, but in the end, it is ultimately an 'interpretation of the evidence' which changes along the way.
          • Acolyte357, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1***** STICK
            In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.
            Get a GOD DAMN EDUCATION
    • Gndoab, on 10/19/2007, -1/+2god...no god...

      Im more intersted in suffering
    • brstilson, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1The professor presenting this video is a Roman Catholic theist. Pretty hard to be Atheist propaganda.
    • vr6stress, on 10/20/2007, -1/+4holy crap!
      i've been saying this for some time now, the entire gestation period is nothing more then a mini evolutionary process. single cell into multi-cell organism how is that not evolution?
      also i feel that there is a perfect harmony between science and god, why wouldn't there be as he's the greatest scientist of them all - it's just we don't know everything yet. i could go on, but personally i don't think evolution is such a bad word as some religious people think...
      • gotterdammerung, on 10/20/2007, -0/+3Ontology does not recapitulate phylogeny.
  • pnmoore, on 10/22/2007, -5/+7I am know nothing about genetics, but if two chromosomes fused to form a single one, and we were going from 48 to a lower number due to this, wouldn't that give us 47? Because he says that if they just went away it would be fatal for the primate in question...
    I am a very open minded person (and a Christian), so if anyone has a serious response please throw it out there. I think most fundamentalist Christians (and other religions too) are touched in the head with their militant views...just wanted to throw that opinion out there to make sure you know where I am coming from.
    • SpaceParanoids, on 10/20/2007, -1/+6On our particular branch of the tree of life, chromosomes come in pairs. You get one set from each parent. So it looks like our ancestors had 24 pairs, but at some point a mutation fused two chromosomes together, leaving us with 23 pairs.
    • Neiby, on 10/20/2007, -1/+3No. We get half of our chromosomes from each parent: 23 from one and 23 from the other. The great apes get 24 from each parent.
      • Neiby, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1I just noticed that I should have said 23 *pairs* of chromosomes from each parent. That's what I get for typing faster than I'm thinking.
    • Intrepion, on 10/20/2007, -1/+32 pairs fused to become a single pair... so 24 pairs became 23 pairs
    • cranium, on 10/20/2007, -1/+7Chromosomes come in pairs. The primate pairs 13 and 2 fused into the human pair 2, thus resulting in one less pair, or two less chromosomes.
    • ctg120, on 10/20/2007, -0/+0I got confused by looking at the total number 48 first as well, but posters above are correct that 24 became 23 - a net decrease of 1 pair. So, if I understand correctly when you look at the human chromosome pair at #2 you would find two individual chromosomes which have mutation - one from mom, and one from dad.
    • Wavicle, on 10/20/2007, -1/+0For a while, some did have 47 chromosomes. The fusion event would not have occurred in everyone at the same time. Some people would be getting 24 chromosomes from one parent and 23 from the other. Over time the fusion trait became the predominant trait in the population until, eventually, no split version of chromosome 2 was passed on. This usually happens because the fused chromosome had some adaptive advantage over 24.
    • thejoestory, on 10/20/2007, -1/+0thanks for clearing that up...i think
  • natmaster, on 10/22/2007, -7/+1if is not equivalent to equivalence.

    Why does everyone have such trouble with this basic logical construct?
  • coolian, on 10/25/2007, -6/+31I am embarrassed to be part of a generation where so many people still believe in this ***** "intelligent design" nonsense. Just like how I look back and laugh at the people who burned women at the stake not too many generations ago for being witches, the fellas from the future are going to look back at us and say, "Damn...what morons..."

    *****.
    • akula696969, on 10/22/2007, -0/+11The worst thing is the people that thought the Earth was flat are going to look like geniuses compared to us, at least they had some visual evidence for there ludicrous conclusions........
    • bingobongony, on 10/22/2007, -6/+3The generation is embarrassed that you consider yourself part of it.
    • metric7, on 10/22/2007, -6/+3Maybe future generations will look back and laugh at your beliefs.
      • Wade, on 10/22/2007, -0/+3Future generations tend to progress, you pessimist.
  • had3l, on 10/25/2007, -8/+40Sorry, I don't live in the US, so I don't get this. When did we need to start re-proving evolution all over again? I thought Darwin proved it back in 1859.
    • fcukbush, on 10/22/2007, -5/+16Unfortunately the religious are stuck in a time pre-dating 1859.
      • tyywebb, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1They don't have enough Jiggawatts!!!!
    • NeoNightmareX, on 10/22/2007, -13/+3It wasn't proved in 1859 because it's called the THEORY of evolution.
    • dablitz, on 10/20/2007, -0/+2Because the US says to have a separation of church and state but that isn't literal at this date. Even presidents have stated that the US was found on religion, which it clearly wasn't as most of the founding fathers were not even theists.
    • ATMmachine, on 10/20/2007, -1/+1Religion is not a US thing. Think of how many other states (and by state I mean countries) have a dominant religious culture... Latin America, the Middle East, Spain, Italy, Greece, India, China, etc.
  • AAjax, on 10/22/2007, -31/+3Yawn, Creationists, Evolutionists..... when are they gonna learn they are both right? Just two different perspectives to the same equation.
    • mashw, on 10/22/2007, -1/+7Yawn, no it isn't. Condescending moron.
    • cranium, on 10/20/2007, -1/+3No so. Superstition is stupid, try to keep up, okay dear?
  • poptones, on 10/22/2007, -10/+13God put it there to test our faith.
    • atk124, on 10/21/2007, -0/+7I hope you're joking.
    • skyfire1, on 10/20/2007, -1/+2When we finally develop telescopes that travel faster than the speed of light and view the world from 5 billion years ago people will claim that satan created the false image on the telescopes.
    • mrFREEZE, on 10/22/2007, -1/+2Was that a Doug Stanhope reference or are you just being a troll?
    • ToastyMallows, on 10/20/2007, -1/+1/irony?
    • dablitz, on 10/20/2007, -1/+0"I hope you're joking."
    • scojerroc, on 10/22/2007, -0/+3so your god is constantly "testing" our faith so he has more opportunities to send people to hell. god is quite a ***** *****
  • Gndoab, on 10/20/2007, -11/+3One Cannot "PROVE" a theory. It is suffice to say that the #2 chromosome shows the theory of evolution in practice, but a theory cannot be proven.

    That is not to say that a scientific theory is on the same level as guesswork. Facts can be proven. I.E. Galaxies are moving away from each other. Theories on the other hand, can only predict what is going to happen, but can not be made into FACT

    • imakecomments, on 10/19/2007, -0/+0You are *this* close to being correct...
    • kingrooster, on 10/20/2007, -0/+7The "fact" that chimps and humans share a common ancestor is not a theory. It is a conclusion based on a ***** load of evidence like what is presented here. There is a difference between the theory of evolution (which attempts to explain how it works biologically) and the logical conclusion that all species on earth have a common ancestor.
    • Neiby, on 10/20/2007, -0/+4But theories make predictions and predictions can be tested. This particular fusion of a chromosomes is predicted by the theory of evolution but would not be prediction by the "theory" of intelligent design. Reasonable people would conclude that this evidence heavily supports evolution.
    • mashw, on 10/20/2007, -0/+3You're trying very hard to sound like you know what you're talking about but fail.

      The problem of induction goes for ALL knowledge about the universe including your 'fact' about galaxies moving away from each other.

      If we reject inductive inferences then reject all knowledge. Because we DO accept it as there is no better system, evolution is as valid as any other theory including the theory of gravity; something is observed and a general theory is formed that is based on 'true' premises.

      People really really need to stop abusing the term theory.
      • iamteamc, on 10/24/2007, -2/+0Which "theory of gravity" is the best choice. Are we supposed to just subscribe to the latest one. I'm inclined to pick TeVeS cause it's from 2004 and it has the coolest looking acronym.

        Brans-Dicke theory of gravity (1961)
        Induced gravity (1967)
        Rosen bi-metric theory of gravity In the modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) (1981)
        The self-creation cosmology theory of gravity (1982)
        Nonsymmetric gravitational theory (NGT) (1994)
        Tensor-vector-scalar gravity (TeVeS) (2004)
        Aristotelian theory of gravity Le Sage's theory of gravitation (1784)
        Nordström's theory of gravitation (1912, 1913)
        Whitehead's theory of gravitation (1922)

        (i admit i wikipedia'd this so it could be inaccurate)

        Everyone using the "theory of gravity" to infer that scientific theories are just accepted as correct is misusing the term I agree. I also think the theory of gravity is much more easily observed than something that moves so slowly, such as evolution. I kinda feel like science is best used when its for the progression of society and the evolution of technology and not history, i feel like its a waste of time, but thats my opinion and I'm ok if anyone disagrees with me.
        • cranium, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3Evolution is an observable phenomenon, we can see it through fossil and dna relationships.
          Gravitation is an observable phenomenon.
          The above competing theories are about the mechanism of gravity.
          Evolution has competing theories about its mechanism (natural selection, sexual selection, etc.).

          Seems like a suitable analogy to me.
  • Puppyfam, on 10/23/2007, -14/+3There is a response: one Creationist website says that chromosome #2 has unique information on it, not found on an ape chromosome. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/1109mille ...
    • WolvenASE, on 10/23/2007, -7/+1Very good find. :)
    • cranium, on 10/22/2007, -0/+9Which is further evidence of evolution, since the whole process is based on genetic mutation.
    • MASTERPL, on 10/22/2007, -4/+1The part of the text: Another “evidence” for evolution Miller gave is the alleged merger of two ape chromosomes during evolution to form human chromosome 2. But Miller didn’t mention that chromosome 2 contains unique information not on ape chromosomes—and evolutionists have never shown how such information can originate by chance.
      • sadowspear, on 10/22/2007, -0/+4Yes and additional information can be added either through a duplication event or mispairing of bases during replication or a transposable element from a virus. That data suggest that the split between apes and "man" occurred millions of years ago and during that time such an event could have occurred.
  • paperfrog, on 10/21/2007, -1/+15The end of the line for Intelligent Design. Doesn't necessarily disprove the existence of God (or the Easter Bunny), but it sure locks down our common ancestry with apes.
  • norsurfit, on 10/31/2007, -3/+8How is it that a guy this smart believes in god? Must be deep family/personal reasons...
    Anyway, great presentation...
    • akula696969, on 10/20/2007, -1/+2Hell is a big detrmannt for many. When it has been ingrained into your head all your life, it tends to be a hard thing to let go.....
      • norsurfit, on 10/31/2007, -0/+5Good point -- although I grew up in a deeply religious household - went to religious school, etc., and it only took me until I was about 10 years old before I realized that religion/god/hell was all a crock of crap.

        I remember that day in school clearly, looking at my religious instructor, and thinking, wow, she is just completely making stuff up (as she gave a lame response to a cheeky question I asked about heaven).

        However, I do recognize -- for family social reasons -- the cognitive dissonance that can occur when your rational beliefs collide with the norms/beliefs of your community and family.

        It was a very hard day for me realizing that my religious parents fervently believed in utter nonsense, and the deep sense of dissonance caused me to want to believe in God to make the discord go away. (Fortunately, the critical thinking side of my brain won the day....)
    • salmonmoose, on 10/22/2007, -1/+1Conscious thought isn't connected to emotions;

      I have an uncle who is a geologist who can go from telling me about how certain rock formations take millions of years to occur, to the Earth being created in a few days 7000 years ago. I
  • supercat, on 10/22/2007, -4/+1This is no longer news, hasn't been for over a century! Oh, I just heard that gravity was discovered too! Great vid btw.
    • JohnFrum, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1You miss the point. We just recently sequenced the dna from both species and were able to confirm the theory. To address your gravity comment; yes, we know there is gravity. If someone were to figure out exactly how it works that would be huge.
  • OUChevelleSS, on 10/22/2007, -12/+348-2=46. That means two completely disappear. However, the two become one, so it is 48-1=47 (net 'loss' of one). So one more had to have 'fused' for us to have 46 and therefore one more chromosome of similar circumstances and composition has to be shown to make this valid.
    • Neiby, on 10/20/2007, -1/+3I think you need to keep watching the video until you understand it.
    • akula696969, on 10/22/2007, -1/+3Other than the fact they come in pairs you would be correct, but they do so you are wrong. BTW I have some magical invisible unicorns for sale....wanna buy a couple?
      • iamteamc, on 10/19/2007, -0/+0I DO! but only if you can prove to me they are there.
    • robofunk, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1You missed the part where he says chromosomes come in pairs (one from the father's side, one from the mother's), so it's really four chromosomes fusing into two. father1+father2 = father3, mother1+mother2 = mother3
    • ctg120, on 10/22/2007, -2/+0Wait, is he right?

      The idea of Intelligent Design, god etc seems ludicrous, but can somebody clarify the math on merging chromosomes correctly? I don't believe it has been shown correctly yet. I'm looking at a figure representing the 23 paired human chromosomes here:

      http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/VL/GG/human.htm ...

      Let's say you merge PAIR 23 with PAIR 22. That means you have the first 21 pairs plus what? Does that not now equal 22 total PAIRS - a decrease of just one pair?
      • ctg120, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1Never mind, I figured it out. It is a decrease of just one pair from 24 to 23.
  • ZenMojo, on 10/22/2007, -1/+7To those who are still confused about evolution, we didn't evolve from chimps, chimps, bonobos, and humans evolved from a separate common ancestor. If you're curious/confused about fused genes, just keep that in mind.
    • akula696969, on 10/21/2007, -3/+3They are not confused, the smarter bible bashers use that as propaganda tools to keep the dumber ones in line.
    • Cerebron, on 10/22/2007, -5/+0where is this 'common ancestor'? is it the easter bunny?
      • mrFREEZE, on 10/22/2007, -1/+3Is it a cosmic Jewish zombie that people say existed yet whose "miracles" never appear in the historical record and only exist in some book that also tells me that someone rounded up all the dinosaurs and put them into one boat? ;p
  • trigatupp, on 10/22/2007, -24/+7When most people hear the word EVOLUTION they think of the "man from lower life" concept through chance and accident. Actually it simply means change. In this sense evolution is true because there is change going on constantly. But it is the Darwinian evolution people usually consider.
    Evolutionists have tried for years on end to find something to sustain their absurd theories. They grieve over not being able to dismiss the reality of God. But they keep trying. In reality they are constantly evolving, changing, from one "argument" to another trying to prop up their foolishness. What some "scientist" proclaims are "facts" today are overturned tomorrow by another "scientist." They are ever changing their position.

    But the Word of God remains the same, remains true, remains accurate, remains Biblically and scientifically precise, remains the stumbling block to atheists, and remains the correct guide for man. So it will ever be.
    • Neiby, on 10/22/2007, -2/+8It frightens me to know that you really mean that.
    • akula696969, on 10/22/2007, -1/+8So believing in a magical man with no proof other than your own faith is less absurd to you than a mountain of provable evidence? And the reason for that is because science evolves it's theory accordingly when more proof comes in, and god is been the same for as long as you can remember? And you are OK with this incredibly ludicrous logic of yours?
      • Cerebron, on 10/22/2007, -5/+0what about that 'common ancestor'? isn't that a 'magical man'?
    • gotterdammerung, on 10/20/2007, -1/+4The Word of God remains the same? Uh, what about all the religious texts that preceded the Bible? I can think of a few differences there.
      • Cerebron, on 10/22/2007, -2/+0The Word (capital W) isn't merely a book, but also a man.
        • BlinderBomber, on 10/22/2007, -0/+3Do you realize that the bible you worship wasn't even written in the time of Jesus? You realize it was collected over a period of about 400 years. You realize there are lots of different authors for each book. You realize there are books that aren't in the Bible for no reason other than they weren't selected. You realize this, right?
    • erkokite, on 10/20/2007, -0/+3Worldwide flood that wiped everyone but Noah and his family? Earth is 6000 years old? All humans descended from just two people? These don't strike me as scientifically accurate or possible. You have no idea what you are talking about.
      • Cerebron, on 10/21/2007, -5/+0Grand Canyon is evidence of a flood, as could be Pangea. But then, all humans descending from rocks is even dumber. You have no idea what you are taking about.
        • BlinderBomber, on 10/20/2007, -0/+2Nowhere does evolution state we evolved from rocks. Nowhere.

          The bible, however, does state that we were created in a magical garden, that the earth is 6,000 years old, and that the son of God was born to a virgin. Which parts of the last sentence are we still supposed to believe again?
      • kingrooster, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1Don't forget men that live for hundreds of years. Must be that water canopy...
    • kingrooster, on 10/20/2007, -0/+3First of all, evolution has nothing to do with accident. Second, evolution means a change in allele frequency over time. It is fact in this definition. The theory of evolution is the biological theory for the explanation of the FACT that all species on earth share a common ancestor. It was originally posed by Charles Darwin who had almost none of the understanding of DNA and the large amount of fossils (that line up in the geological strata almost exactly how evolution would predict) that we have today. It has changed only very slightly. There is mountains of evidence for this conclusion and you choosing to ignore it and not use your brain is your own fault.

      Next, I certainly do not grieve over not being able to dismiss God. I stopped believing in mythical creatures when I was 7 years old. God is simply a Santa Claus for adults. Makes them behave in order to receive some kind of reward at the end of a seemingly long journey. It's really quite sad that in this day and age, people are so eager to judge others for believing in the wrong mythical creature or for believing in no mythical creature whatsoever. I laugh at you for believing in your God the same way I would any mentally sound adult who believed in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny... there is no difference.
      • Cerebron, on 10/20/2007, -1/+0Yet you still believe in 'common ancestors'. What a fairy tale. First, where did the 'original common ancestor' come from? Outer Space? Sponaneous Conception? Darwin's theory is devoid of all sense in this regard.
        • kingrooster, on 10/20/2007, -0/+2Different topic which has nothing to do with evolution. But is it really that difficult to swallow that a simple self-replicating carbon-based molecule that has a far less than perfect copying mechanism may have come together without having to invent mythical man in the sky? Now if you want to talk origins of the universe, that may be entertaining but scientific it will not be. I am of the opinion that any being that would create the universe in its mind numbing, seemingly infinite vastness and the laws of which the universe must abide (I'm speaking of physical laws, not your lame moral ones), he didn't carve out a little area of paradise for a upright walking primate on a planet that exists in a solar system of which there are an uncountable number of. It's just stupid and arrogant to think otherwise. Where is this God and why the hell does he give a ***** about me? Why doesn't he give a ***** about the Buddhist monks that are getting slaughtered by a bunch of psychopaths who care only about their own ideology? And if that God does exist, I would rather burn in hell than worship him that created man who would so willingly cause the painful suffering of others without remorse. Why the ***** did he bother?
        • BlinderBomber, on 10/20/2007, -0/+2Evolution does not address how life began.
    • spectecjr, on 10/22/2007, -1/+0My God is more powerful than your God.

      My God can see the whole of space and time, and doesn't need to micromanage the evolution of humans. He just sets up the rules and initial conditions at the start of time, and sees if he likes what he gets. If he doesn't, he just changes it, until he ends up with human beings.

      Your God actually has to go in and mess around with genes and stuff like that? Pitiful.
    • LBobRife, on 10/20/2007, -0/+0You do realize that the words and books of the bible have been changed many times since it's original collaboration? Combined with translation difficulties, the "word of god" of your religion has changed many times.
      • Shantry99, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1Do you realize throughout hisotry science has changed and is still changing...