 | Predictions of the Theory of Evolution EDIT: The section entitled 'Mendelian Genetics' should read 'Non-dilution of traits' YouTube massacres some links so take care when copying them. Transitional fossils: (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html) Precambrian fossils: (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/97/13/6947.pdf) Origins of human chromosome number 2 Telomere duplication: (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/88/20/9051.pdf) Detailed analysis of human chromosome number 2: (http://www.bx.psu.edu/miller_lab/dist/chr2.4.pdf) Comparison of human DNA to primate DNA: (http://www.genome.org/cgi/reprint/12/11/1663.pdf) (http://www.genome.org/cgi/reprint/12/11/1651.pdf) Introduction to cell division and the role of the centromere: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/baby/divide.html 'Discovery' institute article containing quote: (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/intelligent_design_is_empirica.html) |
 | Strong proof of human evolution chromosomes 1 to 9. This video shows strong inference proof of evolutionary theory by showing the similarity between human and chimpanzee chomosomes 1 through 9, in a side by side chromosome count, chromosome size, middle scale architecture, gene ordering, and fine grain DNA code structures. Conversely, both species DNA do not resemble other species like horses, rabbits, mice, insects, plants, amoebas, bacteria, or virus DNA code architectures. Otherwise, what does this evidence indicate? When the primate DNA architecture resembles humans, and when primate/human DNA architectures doesn't resmble other species of life? ... That God so loved the primates, He designed man in ape's genetic image? All of this with very few edits to chromosomes, architecture, order, patterns, and base codes? Or God planned to make a close 98% identical derivative of man when making primates, to "test us", or as a joke? The God of men, as the author of deception in nature ... sounds alot like Satan, doesn't it? Kind arises from kind, the Bible says. This doesn't deny that God was like the monlith in the movie "2001" influencing natural evolution, or that evolution cannot happen over great time. But perhaps it shows that "man" teaches too many of their "own traditions", which is an abomination to God, Colossians 2:8, Mark 7:13, Proverbs 17:15, Proverbs 6:16-19. Lying to the flock, with 1000 year old ideas, about the "undeniable" proof of what God is truly involved with in science and biology, which is an abomination to God, "making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition", and the word of truth made void. Video (C) copyright 2008 rubbercraft/lonerubberdragon. Reference data may be copyright NCBI website, Entrez genome, FASTA genomic files from human and chimpanzee genome projects. Video Errata: no known errata to the production noted yet. [KW: evolution creation human chimpanzee primate chromosome God theory evidence proof] |
 | Zoom-Pan video of human and chimpanzee chromosome 1 to 9. This video shows strong inference proof of evolutionary theory by showing the similarity between human and chimpanzee chomosomes 1 through 9, in a side by side chromosome count, chromosome size, middle scale architecture, gene ordering, and fine grain DNA code structures. Conversely, both species DNA do not resemble other species like horses, rabbits, mice, insects, plants, amoebas, bacteria, or virus DNA code architectures. Otherwise, what does this evidence indicate? When the primate DNA architecture resembles humans, and when primate/human DNA architectures doesn't resmble other species of life? ... That God so loved the primates, He designed man in ape's genetic image? All of this with very few edits to chromosomes, architecture, order, patterns, and base codes? Or God planned to make a close 98% identical derivative of man when making primates, to "test us", or as a joke? The God of men, as the author of deception in nature ... sounds alot like Satan, doesn't it? Kind arises from kind, the Bible says. This doesn't deny that God was like the monlith in the movie "2001" influencing natural evolution, or that evolution cannot happen over great time. But perhaps it shows that "man" teaches too many of their "own traditions", which is an abomination to God, Colossians 2:8, Mark 7:13, Proverbs 17:15, Proverbs 6:16-19. Lying to the flock, with 1000 year old ideas, about the "undeniable" proof of what God is truly involved with in science and biology, which is an abomination to God, "making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition", and the word of truth made void. Video (C) copyright 2008 rubbercraft/lonerubberdragon. Reference data may be copyright NCBI website, Entrez genome, FASTA genomic files from human and chimpanzee genome projects. Video Errata: (0) Apologies for sound quality. (1) One phrase describing zooming into Chr. 3 and 4 at [03:00], is actually zooming into Chr. 4 and 5. (2) One phrase calling the end of chromosome 9 the shortest chromosome at [06:55], is contextually, the shortest chromosome [of the first nine chromosomes under consideration in the comparison]. (3) at 08:08 I say "the two longest chromosomes of chimpanzees and humans, one and two, fused for chimps". I should have said "the two longest chromosomes [in this comparison] of chimpanzees and humans, one and two, [with chimp Chromosome 2a and Chromosome 2b merely laid end to end] for chimps". [KW: evolution creation human chimpanzee primate chromosome God theory evidence proof] |
 | ARK OF THE COVENANT BLOOD OF JESUS Ron Wyatt claimed that he found the Ark of the Covenant. He was never allowed to provide conclusive evidence. AS SOON AS THE DISCOVERY WAS DISCLOSED TO THE ISRAELI AUTHORITIES THE TRUTH WAS SUPPRESSED THE BLOOD OF JESUS WAS FOUND AND IS STILL THERE, UNLESS THEY HAVE REMOVED IT TO FURTHER THE SECRET. THE ARK OF THE COVENANT HAS THE BLOOD OF JESUS AND THE POST HOLE HAS A CRACK IN IT THAT SENT THE BLOOD DOWN TO THE MERCY SEAT OF THE ARK OF THE COVENANT PRAY THE LORDS WILL PROTECT THIS DIVINE ITEM UNTIL JESUS RETURNS For the full story on the Ark of the Covenant find please go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3o3wFDJBo0 A Scientist Analyzes Mr. Wyatt's Chromosome Theory Dr. Eugene Dunkley, Geneticist August 1999, England In regards to the statements made by Ron Wyatt and his chromosomal analysis: Re his findings-you must remember that Ron was NOT a scientist, he was an anesthetist. This is not to excuse mistakes in his details, but to understand more accurately where he was coming from. I sat with Ron and Derek at D's house in Oxford and Ron explained to me what was done. I filled in the details in my own mind, knowing that there were holes in what he said, but not done to deceive, just a lack of knowledge. Karyotypes are performed all the time. Ron was convinced that the blood of the altar was in fact the divine blood of Jesus because the chromosome count was 24. If Jesus was ONLY human we would expect 46. In fact, if he found 46 chromosomes I would have my doubts because the argument would be that it was simply the blood of a human being (except of course that the white blood cells were re-vitalized after almost 2000 years....). Russell is wrong about the frequency of chromosomal diseases in humans: a number of conditions involving either 47 or 45 chromosomes have been well characterized, besides Turner's, such as Klinefelters, Down's syndrome, Pateau's syndrome, Cri-de-Chat syndrome, XYY, XXY, etc. and in fact there was a case in which a young man was found alive with only 24 chromosomes. You must remember that Ron's inaccuracies in describing this finding are due to the fact that he did not personally do the experiments or prepare the cells, because it is not his field of expertise. He simply got the data and presented it with the understanding that he had. Russell may be correct about other aspects of the research (I am not an archaeologist), but he himself is not accurate about the cells and the chromosomes, and his critique suggests that he is being subjective. Of course, I only have the description of what Ron said to me, so I too have no hard data. However, if there is a need to explain this data I would be happy to do so in defense of the findings. In fact, there are several more experiments that could be done to further prove what Ron stated. However, I do not believe that they would be necessary, and in fact would cause a few problems (especially in this age of cloning, one would conceivably want to clone the divine chromosome and modify themselves). I do remember that Ron was reluctant to say anything about the finding, but he felt moved during his talk at our church, having met with me earlier, to say what he had found. He knew that I would have some knowledge of the field, and if in fact he thought it was dodgy he would NOT have said anything because he knew that I would be one of the few people able to pick it apart. He said it in his sermon knowing that I would understand it, and I feel to this day that God moved on him to do so that the finding would be spoken of and would stand the test. This convinces me that Ron is right.... this page courtesy anchorstone.com |
 | Human Chromosome 2- Evidence or not? This video shows why the observed fusion in human chromosome 2 is evidence for the General Theory of Evolution. Articles about human chromosome 2: Genetics: http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dghqn9k9_5d29kxsg5 Conditional probability: http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dghqn9k9_16dtn98vf3 |
 | Re: Satan invented the theory of evolution The video referred to here is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvyQRdlKiwI&feature=related As to your remarks (at least three times in your video) that sound as if you think evolutionists say humans evolved from apes; you were very careful not to say yourself that you thought this was true. You said to your audience "if you think you came from monkeys" or words to that effect, and then attempted to refute evolution, letting your audience think YOU thought evolutionary theory made that claim. One of two things is true here. 1) Either you yourself think evolution claims man evolved from apes and monkeys, or 2) you know better but put up the fallacious straw man so you could heroically knock it down for your gullible audience. In the first case you are ignorant: no evolutionary scientists claims that man came from apes -- they claim that man and apes have a common ancestor. That is not the same thing. In the second case, you are simply lying. Just in case it is case #1, just ignorance, let me inform you. Check out these sources: http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/articles/chimp_chromosome.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M These sources all give evidence (not proof) that man and apes have a common ancestor. I should not have said "proof" in y video. I admit it's possible that you never heard of human chromosome #2. But given the fact of your obvious intelligence, and that you clearly have done at least some homework on your topics, I'm betting that you have heard of it, know a great deal about it, and hide that fact from your viewers. See, I don't think you are ignorant. I think you are a liar. Updated 3/3/08: Most of the visual stuff here is from Kent Hovind. The "giant" pictures are Photoshop hoaxes long since exposed. As of today it has had 157,603 views but displays only 85 comments. Do you believe that ALL the other comments were full of vile language, hate and threats? That's what this pisher says they were. He also got a couple of early 5-star ratings and then disabled ratings. It's typical. |
 | Is human chromosome 2 evidence for the GTE? Article showing why the fusion event is evidence for the GTE: http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dghqn9k9_16dtn98vf3 |
 | Ken Miller Human Chromosome 2 Genome The phases through which chromosomes replicate, divide, shuffle, and recombine are imperfect, as DNA is subject to random mutations. Mutations do not always produce harmful outcomes. In fact, many mutations are thought to be neutral, and some even give rise to beneficial traits. To corroborate Darwin's theory, scientists would need to find a valid explanation for why a chromosome pair is missing in humans that is present in apes. |
 | Evolution: the fact and the theory I have once again been asked to explain what I mean by the fact of evolution and the demarcation between that fact and evolutionary theory, which is not a fact. I realize most people, perhaps, are not aware of the demarcation so I figured this video is worth the time and effort. Stephen J. Gould did a far better job than I ever could: one may find his essay on the subject, titled, "Evolution as fact and theory," on the internet via a Google search. Evolution is defined by scientists as a change in a living population's genome; that is, a collection of individuals, as a species, have their collective gene pool changed. This happens at the birth of a living and viable new member of the species; it also happens at the death of a fertile member. Evolution is therefore at its most basic an allo-morphic change: genes that occupy a specific position on a specific chromosome are shuffled by gamete fusing between male and female cells. |
 | Fusion in human chromosome 2 Am I begging the question? No, don't think so. I actually can't see the problem... |
العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
Español
![Daily flights from NYC to Mont Tremblant\](images/articles/thumbs/nytremblantthumb.jpg "Daily flights from NYC to Mont Tremblant\")
