Typical reply of a dummy like you when presented with facts you call it nonsense ; so let's talk about talking donkeys and serpents in the bible are they the 'facts' you prefer ?

Most Christian scientists also believe in Evolution and no they do not base their claims on faith , that's you again isn't it Jeffers ?

Evolution is ' campaigned ' in America and Europe?

What the fuck are you babbling about ?

Credible scientists in Germany ,China and Russia accept fact as fact , prove your claim that biology students in Germany prefer the Old Testament over science ?😂😂😂

Evolution is not politics and evolution did not cause the holocaust you dummy . I think you're insane Darwin was a terrorist 😂 Are you on drugs ?

Of course 93 per cent of scientists must be wrong because a Ghanaian Haf -wit says so 👌

It's obvious that you are not even familiar with the fundamentals of Evolution by your ignorant rhetoric. Macro evolution and Micro Evolution are not the same thing. When the small minded say "Evolution is a fact", those who know Biology role their eyes and sigh. That statement alone shows you have no idea what you are even talking about.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evoscales_01

Ok. So you are ignoring the lies and not even attempting to defend them. Why would a genuine theory lie? especially coming from darwin?

A moth changes colour due to environmental changes and you call it "darwinian Evolution"? Do you know anything about your stupid evolution theory at all? How many internal structures changed in the moth and like an ape becomes man according to theory, what did the entire moth transform/shapeshift into?

Have you heard of chameleons? or even seen one? So you think chameleons evolve everyday by changing colours to fit environmental changes? And is it the darwinian evolution? If not why do you think the moth's is?

Look i would rather be a catastrophist than a darwinian idiot....

(that no one knows who fabricated it),

Nonsense...absolute nonsense....

i won't go any further you have no dignity left in you.

It started off rooted in lies, How can it bear a truthful fruit?

The number of chromosomes an ape is hardly the "root" of darwinism? Is it? How can it be as Chromosomes were only discovered 1 year after darwins death.

And then again, making a mistake counting the number of chromosomes is not exactly a lie either.

Hell, science seems rather inherently truthful, because the only reason you know ANY of what you just posted in this debate is because scientists check, and discovered that previous scientists didn't have it correct.

Now, considering that the accusation itself is dishonests; this very much applies to your position. How many incorrect assertions and assumptions in your position do I have to reveal before you realize that if you're position is rooted in lies, it's probably not true?

Unless it was a mistake.....but was a lie... they had good experience in counting chromosomes

Not Prior to 1956. The chromosome count was based off one person, and simply copied (if you actually google it).

But of course; your inherently forgetting that it was the "dishonest scientists" that discovered the error and corrected it. It makes your point relatively incoherent.

With what i have written up there, it renders this bullshit..........

Counting chromosomes is the tiniest of scientific difficulties.....

Not at all:

- Your position is incoherent requiring Scientists to be both telling the truth and lieng at the same time.

- It relies on a number of assertions (unsupported as fact) and indeed refuted by reality including:

a.) That this is somehow the "root" of darwinism.

b.) That this was a major factor of darwinism.

c.) That many scientists were all involved in saying there were 24 chromosomes.

d.) That it's a trivial exercise to count.

e.) That it was all done on purpose as a lie for no particular reason.

If any one of those 5 things are wrong; your argument falls apart. Most of them are refuted by evidence, and you've not provided any evidence or even an argument to support any of them.

So by your own argument; your own position is rooted in lies, and so can't be true.

What right do you have to exclude that? right of convenience?

For scientific research; the question of evolution and origins had been settled for about 50 years; the analysis of cytochrome C residues was the positive proof: with much of everything else now simply supporting evolution.

So, the idea of comparing species to see how "similar" they are is not being done to prove, or disprove evolution (as you are using it) but as a measure to determine relative relatedness.

There are multiple ways of comparing two species: protein coding regions only (99% similarity), full comparison (95-96%), and core DNA without structural patterns like telomeres or centomeres: 98.5%

As science has a good idea how DNA operates, and how generational changes work just by analyzing parents and children humans: we know the structural differences are largely irrelevant: much like the copyright information and page numbers are irrelevant if you wanted to compare whether two books are the same or similar.

If you wanted to do something more clever and intellectually honest than simply calling me names; I can explain modern genetic comparisons and bioinformatics to you; but I suspect you are disinterested in facts.

So I'll ask you a particularly relevant question:

How would you go about comparing these two sentences:

Bioinformatics is an interdiscplinary interdisciplinary field that develops metods and software tools for understanding biological data.

*Bioinformatics is an interdisciplinary fied tht develops methods and Software tools for undestanding biological biological adata.

How different are they as a percentage? To get a true and fair valid comparison, you need to consider many potential issues and problems with that comparison. Simply asserting that the comparison is unfair because it doesn't give you the numbers you want, is relatively dishonest.

If you can give me an example of why you think the methods of comparison are invalid, and why (give me an example of the comparisons using sentences like I did above), I would be happy to explain the problems.

I suspect, that you are unable to describe, or defend how you feel genetic comparison should be done, and you are simply attacking biology out of ignorance.

Indeed, most of your objections are easily explained if you considered how you would determine genetic relatedness between a parent and a child with Down's syndrome, or Turner syndrome.

However, I suspect you're not interested in a discussion; and will simply call me names and/or ban me rather than engage in an adult discussion.

The comparison of Human and chimpanzees does not make sense when though the full human genome sequence has been available, only a tiny fraction of the chimpanzee's is available for the comparison.

That's an outright falsehood. The full chimpanzee genome is available and has been for a while.

The fact that you just said this shows you haven't done any googling or research into the subject; and you obviously don't know even a fragment of what you think you know.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee genomeproject

... it was completed in 2005, 12 years ago.

It's been on the public ensembl website (yes, you can actually look at and compare the genomes your self) for 6 years.

http://m.ensembl.org/index.html

Surprisingly, this claim is not just wrong. It's absurdly wrong and yet you happily accuse others of lying. Perhaps you should check your facts before you post.

And you conclude 98.5% similarities?

Even if so, for example 1.23% represents 35million differences do you know?

This is actually very disingenuous; ironic. Of course, 35 million differences sounds big: which is why a percentage is a better way of measuring.

You and another random human being are 99.5% identical. That works out at around 3-5 million bases depending on the types of difference.

Compared To your parents, the difference is less; at best a little over 99.75% (half the difference to one parent due to acquiring your genes from both).

So that means the absolute number of genetic differences between you and a chimpanzee, is only about 10x greater at most than you and the most distantly related human.

While you probably won't like that, that's what the actual data says.

This perspective is complicated if we take your assertions about indels: that they should be included.

Indels happen all the time, and they are trivially detected by sequence comparison: when large regions repeats either side of similar sections detected by sequence comparison: when large regions repeats either side of similar sections it's pretty clear that a DNA copy error has occurred. Just like that.

Now, you can rail against such things being included, or deletions, but this is so naive it borders on either ignorance or dishonesty:

For example, if someone had a child with Down's syndrome (or any other chromosomal or major duplication of insertion event), counting the number of base pairs inserted (many tens of millions), rather than their similarity to existing sections means that their parents would share more basepairs in common with a chimpanzee rather than their own child, and the child would show more similarity with others with Down syndrome than they do to their parents. So your suggestion for insertions is obviously wrong: you can only count dissimilarities in the copy, not simply the whole length of copy.

Likewise, when someone has a sex chromosome abnormality, say a single X chromosome instead of two; likewise counting each deleted base as a difference would make this child appear less related to their parents than they would a complete stranger with the same conditions.

While your objection to the way indels are counted is mostly understandable, it's based on a very naive interpretation of DNA comparison techniques, and the issues become self evident for those who decide to think critically about the problem.