Genetic proof of the Theory of Evolution

Here a video clip, showing one of the current items, that proof the theory of Evolution... and yes, I know, the word proof will set square with anybody using the scientific method... but I like the word ;=) I was a bit sick of people posting, shit about Darwin, and where pulling out their little half truths and religious assumptions from sources which based their guess work on theories, which have since then either been "disproven" or "improved". so here from 2005, I bring to you the connection between the human species and the apes. no not monkeys. Humans have 23 chromosome pairs, apes 24. so if they were related where did the extra chromosome pair go?... well the answer is, that it fused with another chromosome pair, the 2nd pair, that is why we can find the "fingerprint" in terms of several spots of telomeres and centromeres on that chromosome pair. but hey what do I know, maybe a god planted it there >_> Google the terms, do a little biology 101 before you come and spam thx Please leave a comment if you want, this is just to show what is out there... And before you go and spam, dl it watch it and make up your own mind... cheers the_phyrexian Commenter here you have a form of PROOF, there are others, mitrochondrial dna, the sharing of information between bakteria... well ;), if you spent a few min in a biology book which does not start, "in the beginning..." then you might, yeah you just might see the connections... -_-

udp://tracker.openbittorrent.com:80
udp://open.demonii.com:1337
udp://tracker.coppersurfer.tk:6969
udp://exodus.desync.com:6969

CorrosionX (2008-10-08)

So did molecular nanomachines that make cells work evolve too? From what? From what did DNA evolve?

Tamarind777 (2008-10-08)

You folks who say that this "ape gene" is "proof" of evolution should stop before you look even more unscientific. The only thing that you can "prove" is mathematics, and that's all. You cannot ?prove science.? You might have a theory, but it's always falsifiable. In addition, your gene could have disappeared for many different reasons we don?t know of yet, if that?s what happened. It could have What you find to be an anomaly could very well be easily explained in simpler terms when we learn more about it. Also, a lack of complete understanding of the thing you're trying to "prove" does NOT negate the other that you're trying to oppose. Ever heard of statistics? There is something called correlation, which does NOT imply causation. Just because something might be related, it does not mean one causes or is responsible for the other. There are many different features shared between man and animals, which means squat! So what? I have eyes, bugs have eyes, a car has the same feature, but we call it headlights. Why reinvent the wheel? A designer saw that these features work well and continued to use them. We did with the headlights on cars and wings on planes (designed after wings on birds). They all work for the same purpose, to aide in the animal?s survival.
Your argument is stupid and flawed. I could argue that the so-called ape gene is reversing. I could say that humans are slowly turning into apes, that instead of the ?fusion? you're talking about, instead, there's a splitting of the gene that's taking place, and the process is going the other way.
Let's face it, macro evolution is an eighteen-century religion designed and intended to replace the God of the Bible, who, by the way, calls each person to accountability, which your religion tries to elude. You people will not relent and just admit that you don't know everything and that science does not understand everything, and it will NEVER, despite what the priest of your religion, Richard Dawkins, say. What evolution does is that is hopes to repeat enough the lie that says there is no God and ultimately it will become true so you all can live the way you want without any judgment. Guess what? You, Dawkins, and Bill Maher are all wrong! I wonder what happened to your boy, George Carlin? Well, he lived as an atheist and made fun of God, now he has worms crawling through what used to be his eye balls, and some flowers are looking prettier because of him. Now, is he any better off for having been an atheist? He lived and died similar to all of you unbelievers who will also turn into worm food and fertilizer, with no hope at all. The thing he tried to avoid was a judgment, but, unfortunately for him and you all too, that day is unavoidable, and for him is now sealed. He can never change anything anymore. He is not in heaven or hell, but simply lying in a grave awaiting the second resurrection when God will call him to be judged, the same way we all will be judged.
Keep hoping, but the judgment won't go away. You can say you don't believe in cancer until you're blue in the face, but that won't change the fact that it exists. You don?t have to believe in cancer for it to kill you one day. You WILL die one day, so stop believing you?re modified apes and act like people created in the image of a loving God.

FSmonster (2009-04-20)

WOW . . .the complete lack of understanding of the scientific process here (from the creationist crew) is just mind-boggling . . . Still ya' just cant argue with someone who doesnt understand what a scientific theory is.
'Spose ya can... but theyre generally to busy saying nay and not doing any thinking for themselves whatsoever.
Still we should try otherwise were in for another Dark Age.
You god-types have allready done that, remember that couple of hundred years "you lot" spent burning midwives . . ?? Skewering and torturing folk who didnt agree with you.
Well gosh golly gee whiz , dincha learn a thing from that at all??
Not likely, thats the problem with religion - it has a closed end. God did it and thats the end of it huh ?
Science continally questions itself and activley seeks answers. Its part of the scientific process you see, trying to disprove a hypotheses with repeatable testing.
Dont see a lot of that in church now do we.

webapp (2009-05-20)

molecular nanomachines evolved too.
There is no conflict between science and religion, but there are plenty of conflicts between those who misunderstand both.
Read Genesis, the work of creation is evolution. Where else do you guys think Darwin got his inspiration from?
Darwin had 3 main inspiration sources:
1.) Anatomy, which he studies in Edinburgh University.
2.) Geology, which he was reading on his 5 years journey.
3.) The social theory of Malthus.
4.) The bible, yes Darwin was actually a graduated in theology!
To the blind religious fanatics above:
God should have no problem whatever with humans learning about nature and the nature laws, try reading Gensis again, he created nature for this purpose.
To the blind science fanatics above:
One can not believe in nature or science as a substitute for believing in God, its not a matter of God versus Science. Further more, the further one learns science and the development of the universe and I am talking about Quarks, the more one sees that science and religion are not that far from each other...
Most scientists today would tell you about 10 dimensions in which 3(4) are known, and others may be revealed by the Quarks... same thing you will here from theologists studying any ancient biblical book from Kabalah, Shamanism... Hinduism and others, they all say the same thing!

DeltaQuadric (2009-10-01)

Tamarind777... "Let's face it, macro evolution is an eighteen-century religion designed and intended to replace the God of the Bible, who, by the way, calls each person to accountability, which your religion tries to elude."
Let's face it, that statement is so far from truth as to be laughable! Evolution is an idea, not a religion. It was 'designed or intended' to explain the world in which we live; not to replace anything.
It's a very small step to 'know' or 'believe' (or at least think that it is possible) that God can be big enough to work THROUGH evolution.
Creationists very often ask... "Show me the proof ?". There are hundreds (thousands even) of sources that allude to evolution as a 'condition' of existence on earth.
What 'proof' is there for creationism ? To whit... only one source, of unknown origin, translated countless times. (Translated so that even the simple can understand it's 'ideas', obfuscating any 'facts' that the original text may have contained!)
Biblical literalism is as far from TRUTH as last week is from tomorrow. So, I guess if you're going to quote the bible, you'd better be speaking Phoenician and Ancient Greek. The Bible has 'EVOLVED' so that more of us may read it. Which, does not mean that those who do read the bible understand it, any more than those that know of evolution, understand it.
(BTW... I think it's fair to say that science is no closer to TRUTH.)
To say that I am a grown up ape, is not to say that God is not in me, just as there is no shadow without light.
A thinking person may understand and believe in balance and proportion reasonable only to themselves.