[pelathais]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

What? What about my previous post would make you think I DIDN'T get those facts? LOL!!!!! Of course I get that.



Similar patterns do not show common descent necessarily.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/DNA.asp

"... by evolutionists themselves..." That's because "Creationists" have failed to contribute anything meaningful to the scientific discussion. And at the end of the article you cite - we still find scientists whose understanding of genetics leads them to conclude that chimpanzees and human beings are rather closely related and that they most certainly do share a common ancestor.

So, your link to AIG actually proves my point.

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Do you know how patently impossible it is for a species with 23 pairs of chromosomes to mutate or evolve from a species with 24? More importantly, do you have any data that supports any process similar to this miraculous claim being reproduced in a lab?

You are question framing here, apparently assuming humans evolved from chimpanzees. No one but Creationists make this assertion.

There are two main ways in which chromosome number have been observed to change during speciation - polyploidy and chromosome fusion. The result is either more or in the case of fusion, fewer chomosomes in the descendants.

The primary difference genetically between humans and chimps is a case of chromosomal fusion that took place somewhere along the hominid line. The result is that we have fewer chromosomes than our nearest "cousins."

As far as "in the lab" here's a short list:

Speciations Involving Polyploidy, Hybridization or Hybridization Followed by Polyploidization.
Plants
Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)
Tragopogon
Raphanobrassica
Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)

Animals
Housefly
Apple Maggot Fly
Gall Former Fly (Eurosta solidaginis)
Flour Beetles (Tribolium castaneum)
Lab Rat Worm, Nereis acuminata ... details are here.

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I never said that evolution=no God. I believe that evolution=a stupid theory that scientists have just accepted as true and go about all their research with that in mind. It creates a skewed result. Objectivity is good. Of course, I am not objective, because I view everything through the glass that God created the world.

I do believe that some evolutionary theories are false simply on the basis that they contradict scripture. It is possible to skew facts in such a way to support evolution, and in such a way that they contradict scripture, but if those facts were lined out simply and logically, they would do neither.

When you said: "THAT is playing a game of "just pretend." Just pretend God doesn't exist. Just pretend it isn't possible," you equated evolution with atheism.

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I'm not delusional. Did I blame a view on a 200 year old tradition of Bible Fundamentalism, or did you do that? You realize that evolution is a relatively new concept, too, right?

Natural Selection as an explanation for evolution is relatively recent. Evolution itself in one way or another actually goes back to the ancient Greeks.

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

And I didn't accuse anyone of impiety. I'm saying that if you don't accept scripture at face value, and I do, then our views can't help but be different, as well as our line of reasoning. Much like speaking to someone who doesn't believe in God. Unless you start with faith in a divinity at the very least, there is no good foundation for discussion.

So again, you make the mistake of equating evolution with atheism?

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Pelathais...tsk, tsk, tsk. Your first statement alone is unscientific in nature. It's known as a "universal negative." You cannot equivocally state that "every geneticist" does anything of the sort, because you simply have not read the studies of, nor observed or made contact with every geneticist.

I did generalize. However, the statement, though a generalization, does stand on its own merits. Hannah will not be able to continue her study of genetics past the secondary level without the tutelage of an evolutionary biologist.

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

How is the existence of DNA, which is basically just a set of instructions for each organism, "unmistakable proof" of the "fact" of biological evolution?

The DNA is a template for making proteins. When we take a step back and view an organism's genome as a set of instructions for the organism's development we see the differing degrees of relatedness and unrelatedness among the organisms on our planet. We see that all known organisms share a common descent from a common ancestor.

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

And there is NO personal risk for geneticists to support evolution. The personal risk is there for those who reject it.

People are shut out of their churches even today because they accept scientific conclusions to explain the natural world. My own experience follows this pattern.