Disclaimer: please do not think I'm attacking you personally or intentions to do so in any ways. If It seems in this ling post I aimed at you I apologize.
Understood, but as I read your comments further, you seem to hold a creationist view, which is something that is not falsifiable in science. It's virtually impossible to find a way to disprove that an intelligent being created us. First, we have to define what the "intelligent being" is. Is it aliens, is it God? Well, if it's aliens, in that case, aliens have to exist first in order for this to be tested, and it remains a fairy tale more than anything. Is it God? Well, by definition, the tools of science can never test God, since God is beyond creation, beyond science. It would be theologically blasphemous to call that a scientific theory, since that would limit God to creation, and not beyond it.
However, if you're like me, who is a creationist and an evolutionist, then I would see that God programmed in creation freedom and a sense of reaching a complexity to achieve communion with God through mankind. Proper theological understanding of God being ruler of the cosmos and of the logoi of the cosmos that He created in it, and the use of science to study the logoi of the cosmos, and thus understand the ingenuity of God. This is how I am able to study science and able to accept evolution, along with the fact that evolution is in fact a science that is falsifiable, that is it carries the possibility of being proven false.
Science is all about proving false an idea, not about proving correct an idea. In other words, scientists are filled with skeptics who want to debunk an idea. And so, it must go through rigorous observations and reproductions and debate, until the evidence becomes clear that most predictions evolution makes are in fact correct. One of those predictions are the common ancestry idea of humans and other apes confirmed through the study of genetics.
You mean homologous (or nearly identical) not identical right?
99% identical is practically identical. We can call it homologous, but then there's no homologous chromosome between two humans that's 100% identical either (not even between identical twins).
Let me point to a general thing you have complained against me. I never said that refuting a given argument refutes Darwinism. I know basic logic and I would not do that. When you bring an arguments that you try to show how it supports Darwinism and argument has problems, I do not says thus refuting you supportive argument Darwinism is refuted. But at the same time you also know that once your supporting argument is refuted you have to find new arguments supporting Darwinism and/or reconstruct refuted argument. Let's make this clear that any time there's a problem with supporting argument all I say is you can't use this argument any more as Darwinism's support.
But as I pointed out before, you're not refuting an argument, because the prediction was made correctly. The questions you ask only seek to understand an extra level of the already correct argument. Since I am happy you are a student of good logic, let's use good logic for your next part:
As to your question explanation is simple: God have done that the way it is. And no human ever will know how life originated, what life is. This is a mistery. Question like these will never be accessible to human intelligence and rational thinking. Knowledge about these can only be revealed. But as a hypothesis "God has created chromosome 22 from the start the way it is" is as good a hypothesis (if not better) as some type of random fusion and then some unintelligible way of inheritance of it.
Now, first off, the reason why I struck out some of your words here is that you are confusing abiogenesis with evolution, which is a common mistake exclusive creationists do. We're arguing about evolution, not abiogenesis. I'm not an expert in abiogenesis, so these lines have no bearing at all in this discussion.
As to the rest of your argument, "God has created chromosome 2 (not 22) from the start," as I explained to call that a hypothesis would be theological blasphemy, because now you have considered the possibility that God is a falsifiable hypothesis, in addition to a limitation of God to creation. On a logical side, there's a problem with this:
Do you know that we can use the same chromosomal analysis these evolutionists use to check how far in the family tree you and I go back? For instance, we have primary relatives (father, mother, sister, brother) and then we have secondary relatives (uncles, grandparents), and then we have tertiary (cousins, great grandparents), and so on and so forth. Well, if my cousin, my sister, and I were to have our chromosomes analyzed, it will be very clear that the analysis shows that my sister and I have chromosomes so close, that we have to be primary relatives, whereas my cousin's and I are fit to be a tertiary relative. Such an analysis has already been well established that they also showed how to figure out what race I am (an Egyptian friend of mine was found out to have some genes that indicate an Asian ancestry).
Now, by your logic, what you are saying is that there's a possibility God has created all my chromosomes from the start, and I share no direct inheritance with my primary relatives, my parents or my sister. Such a logic would fail terribly for its inconsistency. For we can use this technology to confirm our relation with our families, but when it comes to other species, we decide to pick and choose a different explanation and call that a situation where we "can never intelligently understand."
I find myself believing that I carry half of an inheritance to my offspring, rather than all of it, that my "seed" is only half the seed, where a female does in fact have "seed" in her as well (as opposed to the ancient belief that man carried the full seed). On top of that, we also have reached levels of understanding embryonic growth and genes responsible for certain stages of embryonic growth beyond that which any ancient Church father has ever thought of achieving, where such a mystery of human growth in the womb was considered beyond human intelligence to understand. I agree that there's a beautiful mystery of the whole world and how consistent the world is, but I also believe that God's creation can be tested and understood, since we have the propensity to be like God, certainly God allows us to increase in the knowledge of His mysterious creation.
suppose I showed you 3 devices/equipments: A, B and C. C looks as if it's combination of A and B with some modification. Would you say that C was formed by a random fusion of A and B which afterwords underwent further random modifications? Or could you say that device C was not devised by an intelligent being from scratch not just fusing 2 parts of A and B? Answers to this questions makes it clear that even if we assume C looks like fused A and B, it does not mean that C was not designed as A and B connected to each other or was not designed from scratch without A and B connected to each other directly.
Please see my explanation above about the theological, scientific, and logical consequences of a scientific belief of an intelligent being.
Besides you are asking unfair thing to experimentally disprove Darwinism. It should be the other way round: one has to prove Darwinism to be possible in experiments/observations.
As I have explained earlier. Science is about disproving, not about proving. Science is about falsifiable experiments, and if we can't disprove, then we statistically analyze the chances of the positive being correct and devise more experiments to see if these can be disproven. The more an idea cannot be disproven, the more the chances of this idea actually being true. Evolution withstood the test of thousands (probably more by a large factor) of experiments trying to disprove it and it stands not disproven thus far.
In reality, even in experiments you can only provide certain environment and let the genetic material evolve by itself, which has not been done.
Yes that has been done by more simple organisms. Complex organisms take longer to evolve, but we can genetically measure the rate of change that occurs in more complex organisms, the same tool we use to measure the rate of change in simpler organisms.
There has been trials to increase mutation rates by certain mutagenic environment (such as X-rays) but nothing has ever come out of this.
In more simpler organisms, yes, this has been done. In more complex organisms, mutation must occur in germ cell lines, which in fact mutations have been shown to occur (that means that besides sharing half mommy and half daddy, some of my mommy and daddy genes have been mutated, making me not exactly 100% half mommy and half daddy), and over several generations. Mutagenic environments would work if the environment is affecting the germ cells, not your skin cells. And certainly the mutagenic environments would require that the source of mutagenesis not harmful to the point of killing off your organisms, but pushing the limits, comparable to giving someone a little resistance in weights for possibility of building up strength, rather than giving a large weight that can crush a persons bones.
For sure, there has never been any observ ation of new species formation in spite of very intensive selective "experiments" by humans.
Precisely because we're a very young species. For a new species to occur, we have to violate as much as possible the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium and wait.
And here come Darwinism's worst response to this argument: thousand of years are not enough. They effectively make this theory unprovable by this new ad hoc hypothesis. Later I'll give logical arguments that proves Darwinism's absurdity.
Well, thank God for measuring rates of change, because one can predict when change would occur if one can measure a rate.
On the other hand, if however our common ancestor had 23 chromosomes then chromosomal fusion is wrong. So, did we find this purported common ancestor and did we determine it had 24 chromosomes? If not how is this argument an argument supporting Darwinism?
First, if there were more common occurrences of fissions, then that idea would actually be considered. Second, the fact that you are thinking that our ancestor had 23 pairs of chromosomes requires the idea that you believe there is a common ancestor to begin with. So your argument is a moot point and does not remove the possibility of a common ancestor, but assumes it to ask that question.
Well, your analogy is fallacious. These two examples are so different from each other and these differences are so important that you do not accomplish anything with this analogy. In the murder case, we certainly know by direct observation that people can be killed by homicide or suicide. Homicide or suicide is not some hypothetical event that we have not observed. On the other hand we have never observed species origin either through evolution or through creation (though we know certainly that new species can be "designed" through intelligent genetic manipulation). If we knew by observation or experiment that new species can be produced by random mutations and selection and I said that still doesn't prove how it originated in the past (though technically true) in this case your example would qualify as a valid analogy. Here it serves no purpose.
I don't believe that was a fallacious argument. We have indeed seen speciation occur as I've mentioned earlier, and as has been mentioned through this whole thread.
So since we see murder occur, and then we see a dead body on the floor with stab wounds, then we can conclude a murder occurred in this particular person. I wasn't there to witness that particular murder, but the clues we have leave us with that impression.
Similarly, if we used genetic analysis to see if how far back I relate to a person, and we see that these analyses work since we see such relations occur in front of us, then what would happen if we use this same genetic analysis with other species. Voila! A valid calculation of how far back we relate seeing the amazing similarities we have.
But by your argument, since in fact you believe God created our chromosome from the start, which happened to have at least 99% similarity to the two chimp acrocentric chromosomes, that would be analogous to stab wounds on a chimpanzee (or pick any animal we haven't observed being stabbed) being craftily created by the hands of a higher species and staining the blood stains on the stabbing apparatus that has the same size and shape as the wound made.
Second, you have actually provided some rational though hypothetical explanation why the random chromosomal fusion can't be the cause of appearance of chromosome 22. If your hypothetical causes does not allow the appearance of group of humans with 22 pairs of chromosome why would same things allow formation of 23 pairs of chromosome out of 24? Or what could have been different in the past that would allow this to happen? Give me any rational explanation and hard facts that backup your claims and explanations that would explain non-observance of the reduction in chromosomal diploidy. We have millions of species with hundreds of thousand of them having some common ancestor with difference in their chromosomal numbers. Do we have any species where there's such reduction observed (and at the same time these reductions are not part of the special mechanisms but originate completely randomly?
What could possibly be different is ostracization, which is common in the animal world where they find a mate that is quite different. Even among aboriginal peoples, if certain peoples are in danger of being killed by their group for their differences, this may lead to a bottlenecking or a migration where those with differences in that community may find one another and mate. In addition, random mating may have occurred more commonly, which increases the chances of bringing Robertsonian apes together. We see many times an alpha male in a given species can have a harem of female mates.
In today's society, because stillborn children and Down's syndrome children tend to have an emotional effect on parents questioning whether they should give any more children, rather than keep trying and throwing away the unfit as other animals do. In addition, being faithful to one mate, rather than throw your seed to multiple mates as does occur in other animals, decreases the chances. It seems that the Image of God in us have slowed down our evolution to such an incredibly slow rate, that it shows how complex not only our biochemistry is, but also our behaviors, which we believe are defined by divine guidance.
I'm sorry to say this (and I don't meant at all to belittle you logic) but arguments of supporters of Darwinism always are same: there's only hypothesis and no actual evidence to support hypothesis. If a counterargument refutes your hypothesis, you'll find another unsubstantiated hypothesis and this goes on and on. Any time you give me possible explanation of something not being observed or being observed but going against Dawrinism you should also provide us with hard proofs and observable results. That's what science is about. The way you make science out of Darwinian hypothesis I can make science of any nonsensical hypothesis.
Well, I'm sorry also that this is what you believe. It seems like both of us will not get anywhere if we both stubbornly stick to our beliefs. For also, I stereotypically think of creationists as making the same arguments and in my understanding, it seems creationists really don't have a full understanding or grasp of the actual science to engage in the discussion properly. I feel that many creationists pick and choose scientific advances as long as it pleases their personal theological beliefs, and not actually take and engage with the research and the technological implications of the research seriously. Your next post for instance has the same arguments creationists make and not the new and quite engaging questions as I heard from you earlier:
1) By random mutation and natural selection we do not expect formation of species from simplest to more complex. We should have evolution along involution. Reasoning is simple and facts that Darwinism wants to use to support evolution theory supports involution too. Lets say we have clearly defined based on some criteria what simple species "A" is and what more complex species "B" is. Let's say From A during evolution B was evolved and the A went though the series of mutation M1, M2, ...M(N). For every mutation M(j) we have its reverse mutation M(-1, j) ("M(-1, j)" is just a notation for reverse mutation). Say if from genome A we get genome B by insertion of base pair, then from genome B we can get genome A by reverse mutation of deleting same base pair in B. Thus is as possible to get species A from species B by following reverse mutations: M(-1N), ... (M-1, 2), M(-1, 1). We know for the fact that for every mutation there's its reverse one and no restrictions apply here. We also know for the fact that simple organisms are as well fitted (and actually bacterias are "better fitted" by having all the extremophiles) to their environment as complex ones are. These 2 fact make involution as possible as evolution is possible. Does fossil record support involution and evolution being possible at the same time?
When a species become "better fit" in a certain environment, "devolution" would not be possible because of natural selection. One can only progress, not regress, unless one goes back to an original environment, where one must evolve back into that environment.
As has been argued before, the factors of selection, naturally or behaviorally, will affect the fitness of an organism, and if an organism is better fit in an environment or moves to a different environment, it may evolve into something a lot more different.
2) Abiogenesis is impossible. What really amazes me is argument for this is simplest but scientists engage in "proving" this hypothesis, devoting years and almost all of their life until they finally realize it is not possible. One can make variations on this argument, but I'll offer you one. For any cell it is necessary that it's ancestor was a cell. If a cell's ancestor lacks any of the characteristics of cellular life, it can't live and produce generation. In order for any proto-cell to give generation it has to have several processes in order including but not limited to metabolism, ability to renew all the proteins, ability to translate and transcribe genetic material, ability to replicate DNA, plus all this functions are supported by directed use of energy and this letter have to be realized by prior functions and characteristic. We know for certain you block any of this function and the cell is dead. Antibiotics and chemo agents are nothing but substances that turn off this chemical function. How would you expect (even in theory) anything that lacks several of these characteristics giving rise to a complete cell while something where only one function (and sometimes even only 1 protein) blocked is dead and can't produce any more cells? That's what amazes me. There's going to be no answer here. Abiogenesis is clearly wrong hypothesis. I'll give you even much less difficult task and if you give me just reasonable theoretical explanation, I'll shut up (I guess it's time anywhays I did it ). Every DNA has code for exact same proteins that are necessary to serve DNA related functions (transcription, replication, proofreading and so on). We have here effective chicken-egg problem. If we say this proteins that serve DNA were formed first then what was it used for and how did it get multiplied? If we say DNA was formed first then how was its function realized without proteins and how was it multiplied? Give me one explanation that not posits simlutaneous appearance of both DNA and exactly same proteins that serve this DNA and are encoded by the same DNA. You do this and I will surrender. If your clearly accept impossibility of abiogenesis (and I see no reason why you should not) then not much is left to throw Darwinism in the garbage.
As I said before, abiogenesis is not evolution. And this point has been hammered so much this thread, I even was tempted not to read this whole paragraph. This is the same argument made by creationists.
However, there's plenty of opportunity to disprove the many hypotheses from this particular concept of abiogenesis that I'm sure many scientists are excited about engaging in. If it has been proven that we can't create a proto-cell at all, then that would be quite a scientific breakthrough. But alas that has nothing to do with evolution, since evolution requires that life already exists, not to create life.
Thank you for your prayers. I also hope I have not offended, but if I did, I ask for your sincere apologies. Continue to keep me in your prayers.