Thread 17739282

Have you ever heard that two world leaders during Jesus’ lifetime actually investigated Him—and came away convinced He had divine power?

One was the Roman Emperor Tiberius. Based on reports—including from his own official Pontius Pilate—he concluded that Jesus had worked genuine miracles. Pilate sent word of these events to Rome, and Tiberius, far from dismissing them, responded: “We had already heard several persons relate these facts; Pilate has officially informed us of the miracles of Jesus.”

Even more striking is the case of King Abgar of Osroene (in Edessa, modern Turkey). Not only did he believe the reports, but he personally wrote to Jesus asking to be healed—and after the resurrection, one of the Apostles went and healed him. These letters were preserved in the official Edessan archives and later published by early historians.

Eusebius records the correspondence and its miraculous result: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250101.htm

And the royal Armenian historian Movses Khorenatsi confirms it in his own account: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0859.htm

That healing changed history. Armenia became the first Christian nation, and it all traces back to a miracle performed for its king by one of Christ’s Apostles.

Two governments investigated. Two rulers believed. And one was healed.

>>17739282 (OP)
Holy shit, OP has been spamming the same shit on reddit for NINE YEARS: https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/4qb0o8/apparently_the_evidence_for_jesus_miracles_at_the/

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Autistic cunt. Buy a razorblade and run a hot bath

>>17739297
I just shaved, and my bath runs cold

Spammed the same thread again award

>>17739301
10/10 beat me to it lol

>>17739333
Its been like a week. I think this is super fascinating and its the historical thing I would most like to talk about. If someone isn't interested can't they just scroll past? I've had spectacular, super in-depth historical discussions about it here so some people are clearly interested too

>>17739452
Yes. You waited a week to post the same shit you did the other week.

>>17739467
Did hiroyuki say he prefers us to wait two or something? P:

Sorry op, but we evolved from monkeys. Evolution is true, your zany creation myth is false.

>>17739487
This

>>17739487
>Sorry op, but we evolved from monkeys
This is impossible because of our chromosome count. Humans have 46 chromosomes and some other apes claimed to be our closest relatives have 48. Different chromosome count makes decent from something like them genetically impossible.

Unless there was a chromosome fusion, which evolutionists try to argue for but is simple to disprove. The site of the fusion is claimed to be on Chromosome 2.

Problem is, when you actually look at Chromosome 2, we don’t see what we would if there were a fusion. You can see the claimed site of the fusion by clicking here: http://genome.ucsc.edu/cgi-bin/hgTracks?position=chr2:114360507-114360538&db=hg19&ss=../trash/hgSs/hgSs_genome_4ac5_cc50.pslx+../trash/hgSs/hgSs_genome_4ac5_cc50.fa&hgsid=312102787. The second and third A’s are where the fusion site supposedly is.

Now, telomeres are the sequence CCCTAA (and its compliment, TTAGGG) repeated thousands of times. So to the right of the fusion site, we should see CCCTAA repeated over and over again. To the left, we should see TTAGGG repeated in the same way.

But we don’t. If you keep scrolling to the right, within 500 bases CCCTAA is never repeated more than twice in a row. And if you search within 64,000 bases (which is way longer than a telomere), its only there 136 times at all. Plus, unlike telomeres, the two sequences are jumbled together. You’ve got about 20 TTAGGG’s to the right of the fusion site, and about 20 CCTAAA’s to the left of it. So we don’t see anything at all like a telomere there.

There’s also another problem: there’s no extra centromere in Chromosome 2. If two chromosomes fused, you’d have an extra centromere as well as a telomere. But there’s nothing resembling an additional centromere in the chromosome.

Our mutation rate is not nearly enough to even come close to accounting for these changes if we descent from an apelike ancestor at the time evolution claims. So it is genetically impossible.

>>17739618
You're actually a fucking idiot. We directly see the chromosomal fusion site as it is two telomeres connected.
>Mutation rate isn't fast enough
Genuinely retarded. This was already explained several months ago.

>>17739618
>>17739623
We also directly see the extra centromere BTW
You subhuman liars are so disgusting it's unbelievable.

>>17739623
This guy has been shilling the same argument over and over and over again for the past decade. He has no life outside of this. If someone somehow convinced him he's wrong, he'd kill himself.
This is literally all he has.

>>17739288
Is he onestly insane? These letters are all known forgeries, what conoels to keep doing it?

>>17739627
He's literally repeating Tomkins and Bergmans lie from like 15 years ago

>>17739638
Who cares, he's an irreparably damaged freak.

>>17739618
>Our mutation rate is not nearly enough to even come close to accounting for these changes if we descent from an apelike ancestor at the time evolution claims.
This is what your entire creationist argument rests on here and you don't even try to defend it.

I guess every single organism on Earth sharing DNA proves nothing? The most conserved DNA (in both the nucleus and organelles) codes for functions essential to all life like respiration. That clearly suggests deep roots for the fundamentals of cell machinery and diversification in other functions, exactly what's expected in evolution with radiation of species. Tell me, faggot, if your creationist retardation was true, why can different species hybridise when they're supposedly not related in your view? Ah, now you'll bring in the idea of 'types', copy-pasted from Answers In Genesis. The biggest creationist cope ever conceived: admitting that evolution and speciation happens, but only within a 'type' which you refuse to define, just a vague idea that there's a 'cat type' therefore different felines can hybridise. "Oh yes, evolution happens, and mutations are super rapid when I want them to be after Noah's flood, but also there aren't enough mutations to explain X thing in evil atheist evolution, checkmate. Sure species adapt but don't look back any further in the evolutionary tree! Species can only be related back to a totally arbitrary point, there's no evolution before then!"

>>17739623
>We directly see the chromosomal fusion site as it is two telomeres connected
This was _directly_ refuted by what I posted. Click the link and you can see with your very own eyes. No telomere remants at the site.

>This was already explained several months ago.
You must have been speaking to someone else. How do you figure? Look at how many mutations you would need just in chromosome 2, just at these spots, to erase the telomere and centromere sequences. To say nothing of the fact that the sequences where these should be are, by all appearances, actual functional DNA and not functionless noise like you would see if that were the case.

>>17739659
>This is what your entire creationist argument rests on here and you don't even try to defend it.
Remember that character limits are pretty tight here. I'll now explain it in more detail since you're interested in it specifically.

Let’s assume the fusion occurred six million years ago. According to http://www.genetics.org/content/156/1/297.full, the human mutation rate is estimated to be “175 mutations per genome per generation” (their methods to reach that assume evolution is true so in reality that’s far too low, but we’ll grant it for the purpose of illustration). That would mean, if we assume an average time from parent to offspring of 15 years, there have been 400,000 mutations during that time.

Now, Chromosome 2 contains about 8% of the DNA in our cells, according to http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/chromosome/2. Assuming each base pair had a roughly equal chance of mutating, that would mean in that time span there have been 32,000 mutations on Chromosome 2.

The 64,000 base pair area that was searched for telomere remains is about 0.0003% of the base pairs on Chromosome 2. 0.0003% of 32,000 is 0.096.

So under the evolutionary model, in the past six million years that area is unlikely to have experienced even a single mutation. It has about a 1/10 chance of having one mutation in that time.

That, of course, isn’t anywhere near what you’d need to have in order to go from a telomere to what we see today.

>>17739678
>175 mutations per genome per generation
Retardbro... "Per genome" means that every single individual gets ~175 mutations. You get ~175 mutations, your brother gets a different ~175 mutations, your friend gets a different ~175 mutations etc.

>>17739688
Watch as OP never replies to this.

>>17739688
Correct! Some variance but that's the average, granting a favorable assumption of the rate for evolution. That's how the math there worked. So why say "Retardbro"? It wouldn't be a thrown stone in a glass house, would it? P:

>>17739662
>This was _directly_ refuted by what I posted. Click the link and you can see with your very own eyes. No telomere remants at the site
This was so refuted that it has been proven multiple times and has been accepted by the scientific comunity, you lost.

>>17739662
>This was _directly_ refuted by what I posted
No, it wasn't. I see the fusion in the link as well as the centromere. Sorry, but I directly see it.

>>17739711
Your math assumes 175 mutations in the entire generation, not 175 mutations in every member of a generation, with each having different mutations.
For instance, your assumption implies that there are only 175 new mutations in total among every single zoomer on the planet.

>>17739716
I usually don't like to cite Wikipedia but it has an exceptionally good and highly relevant example involving chromosomes at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Use_in_science

>>17739717
Which sequences? That site supports direct linking to locations like I did there, so could you show me what's looking like a telomere or a centromere to you and we can take a closer look?

>>17739724
The fact that something has been proven by multiple people isn't an argument from authority, you lost again.

>>17739711
Do you know what a population is anon? Every singld individual has an average of 175 mutations.

>>17739722
The matter in question is "how mutated would Chromosome 2 get in this amount of time?". And the answer is "probably not even once in that part". I don't see how everyone having different mutations is relevant to the point, could you elaborate?

>>17739678
The fusion didn't occur 6 million years ago.

>>17739724
>Which sequences? That site supports direct linking to locations like I did there, so could you show me what's looking like a telomere or a centromere to you and we can take a closer look?
The telomere and centromere sequences. They're clearly discernable

>>17739732
Fuck yeah I can elaborate. Your math assumes 175 mutation in total per generation. In reality, there is 175 mutations multiplied by the number of individuals in the generation. In a population of 10, there is 1750 novel mutations per generation. In a population of 1000 it's 175000. Population of 1 million? 175 million mutations.
Of course not all of those are passed on, but this is sufficient to demonstrate that your math is garbage, your brain is goo and your arguments are laughable paper-thin nonsense.

>>17739742
*And by population here I mean number of individuals within the generation, just to be clear.

>>17739728
You didn't appeal to any specific proof, you appealed to a community believing something had been proven. These are two very different things.

>>17739731
Right...that's what I said. Apply that to each generation and we can get an estimate of the total number of mutations since then. Correct?

>>17739733
Correct - it didn't occur at all!

But even if you assume it was 60 million years ago, that gets you likely to have had one single mutation in the relevant spots. You need thousands.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12421751/
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.88.20.9051

>>17739745
>You didn't appeal to any specific proof, you appealed to a community believing something had been proven. These are two very different things.
I appealed to the fact this has been proven multiple times, third loss,

>>17739745
>Correct - it didn't occur at all!
Literal retard, we can directly see that the chromosome is a fused chromosome
I can directly see it.

>>17739741
Can I get a link or

>>17739742
I think I see the misunderstanding. What we're really doing is calculation the number of mutations in the family line from our supposed most recent common ancestor with apes who had this supposed fusion down to the donor(s) who gave the DNA for this portion of the human genome project. If evolution is true this would be a direct family line, so the mutations in those other lines wouldn't be of relevance here

>>17739751
>I appealed to the fact this has been proven multiple times
Are you saying someone has found these telomere and centromere sequences there? If so, can you link to them there in that tool that shows you the genome?

>>17739752
Gonna give me a link to the sequence or

>>17739756
>Can I get a link or
In your own link the telomere and centromere are discernable.

>>17739756
>If evolution is true this would be a direct family line, so the mutations in those other lines wouldn't be of relevance here
Uh anon... do you really think every generation since the chromosome fusion exclusively fucked their identical twins? Every single genome in the population in every generation has on average 175 mutations, that's a lot more than 175 mutations per generation. As the other anon said, not 100% is inherited but in a population of, say, 100,000 that's 17500000 mutations in the population.

>>17739756
>umm actually I'm retarded here's why hehe
Retardbro. Do you actually think your genome has contributions from only a single person from each generation? Remind me, how many grandparents you have?
...yeah. Oops, pretty embarrassing.

>>17739763
>Are you saying someone has found these telomere and centromere sequences there?
Every actual reaserch done on this has; you being willingly ignorant isn't an excuse, use the internet and get the relevant papers; fourth loss

>creationist argues against chromosome 2 fusion
Stop arguing with these creationist subhumans. They're not willing to accept reality. We're going to slaughter and torture every one of them with AI before the end of the decade, just ignore them in the meantime, they can't actually do anything but lie and speak impotent threats.

>>17739764
Can you elaborate? I explained, in detail, why this isn't so. You can screenshot or link to sequences. Unless you elaborate I'm inclined to think you're just bluffing, and will ignore subsequent replies like this unless they include an elaboration and demonstration.

>>17739782
No, you lied. I already posted sources and you ignored them, and I can directly see that there's a fused telomere and extra centromere

>>17739766
Remember that we're going from one individual (the supposed ape-like ancestor with a chromosomal fusion) to one individual (the donor), the total quantity of mutations that have taken place among all descendants isn't of relevance since we want to know how mutated a specific portion of DNA is likely to be in any given specific individual.

Insane how over 4 billion people believe in the fake Moses story

>>17739796
Anon, seriously, think about this. You're looking at human DNA millions of years after the chromosome fusion. Why are the mutations in the millions of years since the chromosome fusion not relevant?

What you just said is borderline gibberish in the context of what you're trying to defend.

>>17739767
You seem to be a bit confused. We're adding the number of mutations per generation and adding that number to a count, to see how many mutations any given descendant will have.

Think of it this way. Suppose instead of mutations, each generation was gaining 1 milimeter of height. We want to know how tall a descendant would be today. Would the total number of milimeters added to all descendants over all time be the way to calculate this, or would we do it by adding 1 mm per generation?

>>17739774
This. They are selectively gullible and are pretty much nonpersons.

>>17739768
Alright, so...where are the sequences? We can see them all right there and even search for them. You can link directly to specific sites. Where they be?

>>17739811
>Why are the mutations in the millions of years since the chromosome fusion not relevant?
They are and the whole point was to calculate how many there are.

Here, I think the best way to show is by doing. Can you run the math your way and see how much change there should be in one person today's Chromosome 2 from this ancestor 6 million years ago? I think you'll see what I mean quite quickly

>>17739829
This was already explained and a paper was linked showing this.

>>17739897
Links: 0
Screenshots: 0
If they're there, the place where you can see the genetic sequences themselves is right there. I linked directly to it. It even has a search function. Straight from the Human Genome Project. This is the original source, the raw data. If the sequences are in the chromosome they will be seen there. They are not.

>>17739837
Anon, your entire argument just brushes over the prevalence of ancestral telomere sequences with the entirely arbitrary metric of how many times in a row you see the exact sequence. How many repeats are there total and how many repeats are there that differ by only one or two single nucleotides? The portion you linked to shows numerous repeats.

Your arguments relies on your nonsensical proposal that every child is a clone of their parent and that there is no natural selection, therefore there's only 175 base pair changes per generation. But mutations in a useless centromere and useless telomere sections will not be selected against, if anything they'll be selected for since they're not affecting anything useful for fitness and may be deleting useless material (so it doesn't need to be copied) or changing it to something more useful. You would expect MORE change in this type of junk sequence. And across the whole population, there are many many more mutations than 175, and the ones that happen to be in the vestigal centromere and telomere sequences are more likely to be passed on (or, at the very least, not selected against) for the reasons I stated.

There is no such thing as a hermetically-sealed "single lineage", there are allele frequences within a population that change over time. Being a creationist, I'm sure you've heard from Ken Ham that evolution is "random", which you've uncritically accepted without thinking about it.

>>17739902
>links: 0
Blatant lie
>>17739749

>>17739282 (OP)
hey, it's Operation Broken Parrot all over again.

>>17739947
A) You didn't reply to any post with that
B) I meant to the sequence via http://genome.ucsc.edu/cgi-bin/hgTracks?position=chr2:114360507-114360538&db=hg19&ss=../trash/hgSs/hgSs_genome_4ac5_cc50.pslx+../trash/hgSs/hgSs_genome_4ac5_cc50.fa&hgsid=312102787. You can see it all right there and link directly to it. So where's the link to the sequences you claim are there?

>>17739944
Anon please do the math that I asked you to do. Do it your way. The way you're saying it should be done.

>But mutations in a useless centromere and useless telomere sections will not be selected against
This is not relevant. The math assumed the best case scenario for your position already: all mutations are kept, none are selected against and none are undone by a back mutation.

>>17739968
>Anon please do the math that I asked you to do. Do it your way. The way you're saying it should be done.
It's your proposal that it's a simple x*y calculation, which it isn't. I've explained why it's more complicated and is about allele frequencies, I'm beginning to suspect you don't understand what those are. That's not something you or I can calculate on the back on an envelope. How about YOU provide all the information of every single allele frequency in the region your talking about, and do your own calculation of these. Note, this is not "mutations*generations" in a "single lineage", I'm talking about allele frequencies and their change over time based on selection. Please provide them.

>This is not relevant. The math assumed the best case scenario for your position already: all mutations are kept, none are selected against and none are undone by a back mutation.
It's directly relevant. In a population, there are much, much more than 175 mutations per generation. So there are many more mutations, across the population, in the vestigal centromere and telomere sections than in your calculation (if it even deserves that name). Therefore, if they're selected for, the frequency of those mutations will increase with each generation. Each parent, on average, has multiple children. And these multiple lineages cross over, so a mutation becomes an allele that is selected for and increases its frequency *across the population*. If you don't understand, just say so, but if you just repeat "mutations multiplied by generations" I'll know you haven't understood.

>>17739959
I'll answer for that anon, even in just the part you linked to, it's nothing but repeats of the telomere sequence CCCTAA with some single base pair substitutions. QED

>>17739994
Ooh, OP's taking longer to respond this time, no doubt he's furiously googling and searching Answers In Genesis for some bullshit. OP, please know pre-emptively that I won't reply to whatever nonsense you're going to post. I've already shown the very stuff you're citing disproves your point.

>>17739994
Now anon, are you noticing you're unable to do it? Because what you've said isn't sensical. To get the total number of mutations its the simple average per generation multiplied by the number of generations. What % of those mutations effect this spot? The % of DNA that spot takes up.

Super simple.

>and is about allele frequencies
Mutations are what makes new alleles. There also aren't different alleles for telomere and centromere sequences so it doesn't matter what the change was, only that it has changed

>In a population, there are much, much more than 175 mutations per generation
Again this is like the growing 1 mm per generation example and you reply "the population as a whole gains milllions of milimeters. They are all giants in a few generations". This makes no sense if the question is how tall individuals are after a certain number of generations.

Before the next bit I really want to focus on this since we seem to be having a fundamental disconnect on what we're even looking for here

>>17740009
I'm not really sure how to explain this more simply. I considered apples in baskets but even that would be more complex than "1 mm per generation you add 1 mm each generation to get the height".

This is why I asked you to do the math, I'm perplexed at how this isn't self-evident. To everyone else I have spoken to about this it is

>>17739994
Anyway, to answer the third point:

>even in just the part you linked to, it's nothing but repeats of the telomere sequence CCCTAA with some single base pair substitutions
This place sorta kinda resembles a super messed up telomere a little bit, which is why it was selected as the putative fusion site. But keep scrolling. If you keep scrolling to the right, within 500 bases CCCTAA is never repeated more than twice in a row. And if you search within 64,000 bases (which is way longer than a telomere), its only there 136 times at all. Plus, unlike telomeres, the two sequences are jumbled together. You’ve got about 20 TTAGGG’s to the right of the fusion site, and about 20 CCTAAA’s to the left of it.

We're still working on identifying what each part of our chromosomes actually does with the genes it encodes, but this part of the DNA looks much more like one that does something than a degenerate telomere.

>>17740057
>>17740059
>>17740129
You were directly refuted you fucking retard. What happened you "people" to make you like this? You're actually a subhuman.

>>17740135
>You're actually a subhuman
According to you that just means I better resemble great grandad the gorilla ;D

>>17740137
No, because humans don't come from gorilla's nor chimps.

>>17740139
Always so pedantic >(ভ⤙ ভ ")<

>>17739994
>>17740129
Ah! In fact, it DOES have function! According to the paper at https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.05.09.491186v1.full, "the telomere-to-telomere fusion of the ancestral chromosome 2 at 2q14.1 results in an interstitial TAR1 repeat that has been coopted as a promoter for the gene DDX11L2".

So we even do know what this sequence does now according to that pretty fresh paper

>>17740162
You're actually retarded and don't understand what you're reading

>>17740166
Are you ever going to make a point besides "ur dumb"? ভ⤙ ভ
The author thinks it's a telomere fusion since he's an evolutionist, but it is not. As can clearly be seen from the fact it actually does something. It is functional as I said, not a degenerate telomere. (As a sane person would expect from the very sequences themselves)

>>17740173
I already have. Everything you're saying is taken straight from institute for creation research and answers in genesis.
We directly observe the telomere fusion and extra centromere,and the chromosome and all genes and ERVs on it exactly align with the genes and ERVS on chimp 2A and 2B along with the deactivated centromere aligning with 2B. That ends it. De novo activation of regulatory function (it doesnt code for RNA) does not contradict this and does not imply it's not a fused site.
"Evolutionist" isn't a thing, subhuman.

>>17740173
Anon, this supports evolution, mutations turned it into something useful, which was naturally selected. In fact this is EXACTLY what I was writing here >>17739994, a beneficial mutation is more likely to be selected and passed on, so you will see MORE mutations from the original telomere sequence than in a coding region, because the vestigal telomere by itself is useless. You inherit from both parents, so an offspring that inherits a beneficial mutation in that region from both parents will have two beneficial mutations and will have higher fitness and is more likely to pass on those mutations. Do you now understand how this means there can be more than 175 mutations per generations accumulating in a genome? Because of mating and natural selection (which causes evolution).

>>17740182
>Everything you're saying is taken straight from institute for creation research and answers in genesis
Oh wow I didn't realize they owned the Human Genome Project, impressive, surprised that isn't on their Linkedin

>We directly observe the telomere fusion and extra centromere
Gonna link me to where the sequence starts or

>and the chromosome and all genes and ERVs on it exactly align with the genes and ERVS on chimp 2A and 2B
What's your source for this?

>along with the deactivated centromere
Still waiting for you to show that sequence anon. Where is it?

>does not contradict this
It ABSOLUTELY does. Anon what function would a telomere degenerated by random mutations have?

You're also completely ignoring the mathematical impossibility of changing a telomere this much in the time alotted. You could give it ten times more and you would only be likely to get one change here

>>17740190
>mutations turned it into something useful
It is more probable to an absolutely cosmic degree that random mutations on a useless telomere make just a random jumble of DNA than a new useful molecular machine. You cannot even have enough mutations in the time to make what we see let alone the trillions of necessary combinations to have the faintest ghost of a chance of making a functional sequence. You're unlikely to even get one in this section of DNA in six million years. Changing it this way would take thousands and thousands of changes.

>Do you now understand how this means there can be more than 175 mutations per generations accumulating in a genome?
The estimate wasn't of how many mutations lastingly endure in the population, it was the number that happen at all.

>>17740210
>Oh wow I didn't realize they owned the Human Genome Project, impressive, surprised that isn't on their Linkedin
What?
>Gonna link me to where the sequence starts or
Already posted a paper outlining everything
>What's your source for this?
We directly observed it. Not just genes and ERVs, but nested noncoding regions (junk dna) align
>It ABSOLUTELY does. Anon what function would a telomere degenerated by random mutations have?
No, it quite literally doesn't. Explain how "telomere fusion developing de novo regulatory function for DDX11L2" contradicts telomere fusion. There's nothing about de novo activation that contracts this.
There is straight up no mathematically impossibility at all. Sorry, but making things up isn't an argument. Read the papers linked earlier.

>>17740230
>Already posted a paper outlining everything
And where did it say the sequence is anon?

>We directly observed it
And your source is...?

>Explain how "telomere fusion developing de novo regulatory function for DDX11L2" contradicts telomere fusion.
Do you understand how vastly, cosmically, unfathomably smaller the set of functional genetic sequences is to the set of possible genetic sequences? And that mutations are random? Doing this is like hitting random keys on your keyboard and typing out instructions for how to build a cold fusion reactor.

At the very least it will take many many many many many many many many many many many many more tries than getting random gibberish. Complex information is extremely hard to make with random changes to coding systems and the more complex it is the less likely random changes are to make it.

It is orders and orders of magnitude more likely this is an inherently functional sequence than that it is a degenerate telomere that against cosmic-level odds developed function. Especially when we looked at the math and its unlikely to even have one single mutation in the entire time since the supposed common ancestor lived

>There is straight up no mathematically impossibility at all.
Where did my math go wrong with the number of mutations? Point it out.

>>17740241
Links here OP, which you've ignored and then lied about nobody posting sources >>17739749

Lying is a sin you know.

>>17740244
That post wasn't in reply to any post, it didn't come up as being for anybody. Quote the relevant portion of the relevant paper

>>17740247
Are you not capable of reading? A scientific paper isn't one of your creationist articles that just has a few paragraphs aimed at gullible laymen, you need to read the whole thing. Now you tell us what's supposedly wrong with those papers.

>>17740241
>Do you understand how vastly, cosmically, unfathomably smaller the set of functional genetic sequences is to the set of possible genetic sequences
It's not. The vast majority of mutations are neutral
And now you're just blathering the standard creationist buzzwords
>complex specificied information
>printing random letters and getting a fusion reactor
>blah blah
I'm not interested. We directly see they are aligned and they are 99% identical. That's the end of it

>>17740249
When people cite papers, do they:
A) Say "something related in here is someplace lol good luck"
or
B) Identify the specific statement they are making that it supports

I know which way I've seen papers using papers. So yes, tell me what specifically you want to bring forward from which paper or I will disregard naked linkposting.

>>17740258
Ok I'll cite them as if this were a scientific paper:

Human chromosome 2 was formed by the head-to-head fusion of two ancestral chromosomes, resulting in a 46-chromosome genome in humans (Ijdo, at al. 1991; Fan, et al. 2001).

Going to read them now?

>>17740255
>The vast majority of mutations are neutral
That's exactly my point. If you have an inert telomere marooned inside of a chromosome virtually all changes to it are going to do absolutely nothing.

>We directly see they are aligned and they are 99% identical
Are you going to cite a source?

>>17740266
>Ijdo, at al. 1991
Fine. Let's look at this one. It's a non-argument. For its claim there’s the remains of a centromere, it gave as its source “(A.B., unpublished data)”. Without seeing the actual data that “suggest[s] that there is a remnant of an ancestral centromere”, there’s no way to evaluate the claim. How is this supposed to support anything?

>>17740295
Ahaha, ok so you didn't engage with the actual paper's findings, you went straight to the discussion and picked out a place where it mentioned unpublished findings which was only about a relic centromere. How are the paper's findings a "non-argument"? It's about the telomere-telomere fusion, come on, you're the one who spams questions when you think people aren't engaging with your stuff. Answer us what's actually wrong with this research.

And here's a more recent paper on the relic centromere if that's what's bothering you: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28333343/

>>17740322
At this point I highly doubt you're even reading any of these papers beyond the title and _maybe_ the abstract. I did just tell you why that paper is absolutely useless as evidence for your position. Did I miss some crucial argument hiding in there?

Going forward, actually make an argument from your links.

>And here's a more recent paper on the relic centromere if that's what's bothering you: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28333343/
What specifically does it say and what specifically is its evidence?

I expect you to actually use your sources. You are on a history board.

>>17739618
its more likely that humans are hybrids of primates and pigs

>>17740922
nothing is less likely. all the unlikely shit anyone could ever come up with is only as unlikely as this one.

>>17741002
behold
http://www.macroevolution.net/human-origins.html

>>17740892
>I did just tell you why that paper is absolutely useless as evidence for your position. Did I miss some crucial argument hiding in there?
Uh, you picked out one citation which was in the discussion to complain about, and didn't engage with the actual research at all. The paper is about the telomere repeats at the head-to-head fusion point. You and I both know you're bluffing at this point, unless you're genuinely incapable of understanding what research is.

>What specifically does it say and what specifically is its evidence?
I mean you'll find that in the paper, but in short they identified Satellite III repeats at the previously identified ancestral centromere region, which were found at the A domain of 2qAC, and not in the B domain. Satellite III repeats are what's found at telomeres and centromeres. For your purposes, that indicates the A domain is not a normal coding region but a vestigal centromere. Having two centromeres is delterious for genetic replication, so when it occurs the second centromere is usually suppressed or excised (the paper cites examples of these). In this case, the length of the domain with Satellite III repeats is shorter than the corresponding full centromeres in the great apes, they propose an excision of the central part of the ancestral centromere to deactivate it. They also have some stuff about Orang-utan evolution but that's not directly relevant here.

So that's the simplified short version, now please read the paper and point out what your issues are with the materials and methodoly and results, since you seem to think it's all bunk but can't be bothered to read the actual research that you're so confident is wrong (aside from skipping to the end and complaining aout a single citation!)

how it started:
>jesus was investigated times 9001
how it's going
>zomg chromosomes!
did the notion of 'thread topic' end up being a relic of the past?

>>17740922
That ain't a pig eye wtf

>>17741012
I stand by what I said >>17741002

>>17741730
well you are wrong then
it explain almost everything

>>17739808
You don't consider our main ancient Egyptian historical source, Manetho himself, believing in Moses to be evidence for it?

>>17741090
See now we can have a real discussion! Posting naked links to full papers and wanting a full reply in 2000 characters or less is no way to go

Now for this paper, notice they're confessing what I've been saying: there is no centromere. One of its primary points is positing a potential method for the extra centromere to have been deleted. Now why would it need to be saying that if "We directly observe the telomere fusion and extra centromere", as you keep saying? Yet the paper argues "We hypothesize that the centromere inactivation was triggered by the full deletion of the active centromeric core and the significant reduction of the bulk of higher-ordered centromeric satellite DNA" and it talks about "centromere excision".
Why would they be saying this if we can directly see the centromere?

> in short they identified Satellite III repeats at the previously identified ancestral centromere region
They say the polar opposite! The paper says "no traces of satellite III DNA were identified in human 2qAC", 2qAC meaning the supposed centromere site. They even say "we hypothesize that, like the chromosome IIq centromere, the chromosome 15 centromere is more prone to inactivation because of the relatively low abundance of satellite III sequences". They're talking about the lack of these!

This paper is a giant testament to the total absence of a second centromere and the whole goal is to explain that away. They're essentially saying "it was removed because there weren't satellite III sequences".

Their model is:

Low (or absent) satellite III sequences centromere more susceptible to epigenetic suppression eventual physical excision. They're basically saying they see no satellite III sequenxes here so that's why the centromere is gone.

What it says about satellite III sequences is support for my model and a direct refutation of your "we can directly see it" idea.

>>17741090
>>17742945
4chan hates the arrow symbol apparently, that second to last paragraph should read:

Their model is:

Low (or absent) satellite III sequences--> centromere more susceptible to epigenetic suppression--> eventual physical excision.

>>17739487
If evolution is true then why hasn’t there been any observable examples of one species changing into another species due to the passing of traits? This supposed evolutionary process doesn’t factually occur within nature. The closest instance of one species biologically changing into another is through unnatural processes such as gene splicing and other forms of man made genetic modification. There are zero records in recorded history of animals biologically changing into completely separate species. Even changes within types of canines haven’t been drastic enough for the canine to eventually become a separate species entirely. No point in the entire science of dog breeding have the breeders managed to morph the canines into felines or rodents. The smallest of purse dogs are still genetic canines despite being miniscule. In order to be convinced of the theory of evolution you have to buy a conclusion regardless of evidence rather than forming a conclusion as a result of evidence. Evolution by definition is a natural process of passing of traits within species.
>ie, sand colored mice thrive in desert because black colored mice get eaten by predators due to lacking camouflage
By definition it requires a specific tangible circumstance through the environment. Proposing that humans evolved from apes illustrates no tangible environmental circumstance that would warrant such a drastic and unusual transformation that cannot be tested nor repeated in nature ever. What you’re proposing is inherently magical and unscientific.

>>17739282 (OP)
Thank you for spreading the Good word, especially to a place as depraved as this.

>>17742920
Manetho’s references to Moses, if that is what they are, were written in the third century BCE (or perhaps later), over a thousand years after Moses would have lived. Moreover, there are too few parallels between what Manetho wrote and the biblical narrative. Wikipedia says:

The story depicts Osarseph as a renegade Egyptian priest who leads an army of lepers and other unclean people against a pharaoh named Amenophis. The pharaoh is driven out of the country and the leper-army, in alliance with the Hyksos (whose story is also told by Manetho) ravage Egypt, committing many sacrileges against the gods, before Amenophis returns and expels them. Towards the end of the story Osarseph changes his name to Moses.

The story has been linked with anti-Jewish propaganda of the second and first centuries BCE as an inversion of the Exodus story, but an influential study by Egyptologist Jan Assmann has suggested that no single historical incident or person lies behind the legend, and that it represents instead a conflation of several historical traumas, notably the religious reforms of Akhenaten (Amenophis IV).

>>17742945
Fair enough, I miswrote, I meant alpha-satellite sequences, not satellite III. Substitute alpha-satellite in my post and it's exactly what is stated in the paper.

In point of fact, the paper found that satellite III was absent in IIq and homologues in Humans, Chimpanzees, and Gorillas, while it was found in Orang Utans.
>Based on these observations, we broadened the investigation of satellite III distribution to include the other great apes. Remarkably no traces were detected on gorilla, chimpanzee and human IIq homologs.
This proves you did not understand the paper.

The evidence for the excised contromere is the remains of alpha-satellite arrays,
>Focusing on our region, the fine characterization of the α-satellite elements spanned by probes #32-34, revealed the presence of a dramatically low amount of the α-satellite arrays (about 40 kbp) compared to the classical active human centromere ranging from 250 to 5,000 kbp
>Regardless of the IIq centromere excision mechanism timing (one-step or step-by-step), the detailed characterization of the α-satellite relicts revealed that the monomers length was constant (~171 bp), thereby suggesting that the removal process was not random.
There are relicts of the ancestral centromere, exactly what I said. You entire post is false.

>>17739282 (OP)
>>17739452
>>17739471
Eusebius was born 300 years after Jesus. Who was his source for this information? Why don't we hear it from them?

>>17743035
Similar point: have evolutionists ever noticed that there's never been any recorded instance where a new star appeared in the sky? We see stars die, but never form

>>17744203
>I meant alpha-satellite sequences, not satellite III. Substitute alpha-satellite in my post and it's exactly what is stated in the paper
This is an old argument based on the assumption "alpha-satellite = centromere". But alpha-satellite DNA is found all over our genes. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7719264/

is a good discussion of this. Of course the paper interprets the data within an evolutionary framework, but they go over "satellite repeats found dispersed in euchromatin, outside of centromere/pericentromere regions".

It states that these are some of the most variable DNA that there is, saying "The pattern of dispersion of satellite DNA repeats within euchromatin is very dynamic and differs among related species or even among strains of the same species, as shown for Drosophila and Tribolium castaneum satellite DNAs, respectively, suggesting that similar to transposable elements...".

Humans have plenty of these as well. As it says, "inaddition to their (peri)centromeric location, a bioinformatic search of the human genome revealed the presence of 133 blocks of alpha satellite located >5Mb from the centromere".

Bear mind that "AR" here is short for "alpha satellite repeats", it talks for instance about how the ones they analyze in their study consist of "32 euchromatic ARs which overlap with genes, all located in introns of 18 protein coding genes, two ncRNAs, and one pseudogene", and in addition they study "36 intergenic ARs". You can see the full table of ones they studied as well as their locations athttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7719264/table/evaa224-T1/.

These ARs on chromosome 2 are just further examples of these.

>There are relicts of the ancestral centromere
If ARs mean a centromere was once there then you could use every single instance in Table 1 from this paper that I just linked as """proof""" of a centromere.

>>17743035
>If evolution is true then why hasn’t there been any observable examples of one species changing into another species due to the passing of traits?
There has been

This moron is still going?
We directly observe the centromere. Mutliple analyses have been given showing the centromere. You're not going to stop this from being true.

>>17745604
>>17745466
Can you answer me? >>17744234

>>17739282 (OP)
I genuinely cannot believe you've been at this for 15 years, user Hello Hello. Give it up.

>>17745604
The alpha satellite block in chromosome 2 is much bigger than those found distributed throughout chromosomes, it's 40kbp and is found at the exact spot which is homologulous to the great ape IIq centromere.

Also, you never responded to the other papers posted, except to just complain about a single citation in one of them. It's clear you're copy pasting from some creationist website because when you try to respond yourself, you seem incapable of reading a paper. But a few hours later, when you've had time to search Answers In Genesis, suddenly you present yourself as an expert in genomics.

>>17745466
Time for you to answer some questions. If stars are billions of light years away, how does the light reach us after only 6000 years? I'll rebut all your answers that you've already thought of as you read this:

>The universe was created with the appearance of age, like Adam was
So the universe looks EXACTLY like it's billions of years old and multiple lines of evidence show this, but it's actually 6000 years old? This is a nonsensical position and says we can't trust observable data whatsoever, in which case you're not allowed to cite any science for your position. It also makes God a liar which is impossible (Numbers 23:18)

>The light was created already en route to Earth
So God created billions of holograms to make it look like the light came from stars billions of light years away, but actually the light from the actual stars will never reach us. That's absurd and is like saying the sun actually rose eight minutes after I saw it rise because God created the light en route to me this morning. It also would mak God a liar (Numbers 23:19)

>There was time dilation or something to get the light here faster
There is zero evidence of this, no cosmologist proposes that there was universe-wide time dilation or inflation or whatever after all the visible stars were formed, this is just trying to fool people with sciencey-sounding terminology.

>>17745609
nope, the creationist canard is some currently existing species turing into another current
y existing species, dog to cat. it is not even worth replying to.

>>17746421
>The alpha satellite block in chromosome 2 is much bigger than those found distributed throughout chromosomes, it's 40kbp
In Table 1 - which, remember, are some alpha satellite repeats they're explicitly saying are not associated with modern or putative ancestral centromeres - lists several of this size and bigger. Look for instance at what they label as sat_723-25 which is 32kbp, sat_615 which is 49kbp, or sat_614 which is 67 kbp. If it weren't for this "your great-grandfather was an ape" myth this bit on Chromosome 2 would just be seen as yet another one of these.

What's more, on chromosome 2 this is not a solid block. Its four smaller separated ones. As your paper (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5722054/) said: "identified four α-satellite arrays, spanning about 40 kbp". There were "Indeed, the first block (11417bp, block A) was separated from the second (8446bp, block B) by a (TCTCCC)n simple repeat and three SVA elements, whereas L1PA3 (about 6 kbp) separated the second block from the third (11215bp)". So its actually four disconnected blocks that could have thousands of base pairs between them.

>>17746421
>and is found at the exact spot which is homologulous to the great ape IIq centromere
That's not possible since their argument is that the centromere is gone with nothing but tatters of a trace left. Tatters of the sort found all throughout our genome.

The two chimp chromosomes have their centromeres near this end so what you're saying here amounts to "its near the middle instead of the end", which tells us nearly nothing since that's true for most of Chromosome 2.

The whole point of the paper was trying to explain why the centromere is gone. I emphasize: they have to argue the centromere got cut fully out somehow.

They even talk about how badly the site of the centromeres of other primates fits with this theory: "a pericentric inversion in the Homininae ancestor and a centromere repositioning event are needed to explain marker order differences in the orangutan and macaque lineages, respectively". In other words, for chimps, humans, orangutangs, and macacques to all be related, you need:
-A human centromere to get completely erased,
-The orangutang's chromosome to be backwards,
-The macaque's inexplicably taken from one spot and moved to somewhere else

All without a shred of actual evidence beyond "well this would have to be what happened for evolution to be true".

>>17747031
In the paper you linked, size is the number of monomers, not kilo base pairs. The monomers are much smaller than 1000bp each.
>Note.—Size is expressed as number of monomers

You have again demonstrated that you don't understand these papers in the slightest, you keep pointing to information that proves you wrong because you don't know what it's saying. And you clearly don't understand what homology means.

At this point it's getting a bit sad to continue with you because it's just shooting fish in a barrel.

>>17746581
Evolution isn't that a dog turned into a cat or whatever. It's that the dog and cat populations descend from a common ancestors population that was neither dog nor cat.

>>17747160
>You have again demonstrated that you don't understand these papers in the slightest
Didn't you just mistake alpha satellite and satellite III? As you yourself have seen, its easy to mistake the terms here. You're correct, here they were giving the (unlabeled P:) size in terms of the number of monomers instead of the more usual kbp. So we actually need to convert from one unit to the other first.

Monomers are 171bp. The blocks of alpha satellite DNA on Chromosome 2 are given as being the following sizes by https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5722054/:

-"the first block (11417bp)". So 66 monomers.
-"the second (8446bp)". So 49 monomers.
-"the third (11215bp)". So 65 monomers
-"fourth (1901bp)" . So 11 monomers.

All of which, as we saw, are perfectly in line with what we find all over the place in our genes.

>sad
Hey even NASA once misunderstood what units were being used to disastrous results P: https://www.simscale.com/blog/nasa-mars-climate-orbiter-metric/ Bad table, gotta label those units clearly and not just put it in a footnote P:

>>17747031
>>17747035
>>17747223
You don't understand genetics nor how to read papers. Why are you pretending to despite being refuted multiple times in this thread?

>>17747223
>Didn't you just mistake alpha satellite and satellite III?
I wrote the wrong term, I was referring to alpha-satellites, and once you substitute in 'alpha-satellites' you can see exactly what I was saying.

You argument was that non-centromere alpha-satellite regions are LARGER than the 40kbp region which is the ancestral centromere relict. Once you substitute in 'monomers' for 'kbp', your post becomes nonsense because it's factually incorrect. Now you're forced to totally change your argument. Acknowledge that you have changed your argument after being proved wrong before we proceed or I can only conclude you're fundamentally dishonest.

>All of which, as we saw, are perfectly in line with what we find all over the place in our genes.
No, you don't find a 40kbp region which is 82% alpha-satellite with chunks separate by as little as 12 bp, and remember that this region is homologous to the great apes' IIq centromere so this is exactly the type of thing you'd expect to find here. Remember that in the paper I linked, they cited previous studies of medical cases of people who had fused chromosomes and the extra centromere was suppressed or deleted. This is a known medical fact, and we see direct evidence of it from the head-to-head telomeres, the centromere relicts, and the homology of human chromosome II to great ape chromosome IIp and IIq with an inversion, perfectly demonstrating that it was a head-to-head fusion.

>Bad table, gotta label those units clearly and not just put it in a footnote P:
No, you read the description of the table to know what it means, table descriptions are required by every decent scientific journal's style guide for this exact reason: so that non-retards know what it's saying P:

>>17747288
Oh I forgot to add, that paper you cite says that close clusters of alpha-satellite arrays shows an ancestral centromere, exactly what I've been saying:
>Considering the dispersion of clustered ARs within euchromatin, sat_614-618 clustered within intron of ANKRD30BL gene corresponds to the site of a relic, previously active centromere

>>17747206
I. KNOW. THAT.
learn to read.

>>17745890
He knows he's lying, so why would he bother answering you? It's Christcuck 101

>>17745614
>We directly observe the centromere
Tell me the _specific_ genetic structure you are identifying as "the centromere". Because we've read a paper explicitly saying its not there and trying to explain how it got removed.

>>17747288
>I wrote the wrong term, I was referring to alpha-satellites, and once you substitute in 'alpha-satellites' you can see
Similarly, when we convert to monomers, my argument stays the same too. These sorts of slipups happen all the time when similar yet distinct terms and units of measurement get used

>You argument was that non-centromere alpha-satellite regions are LARGER than the 40kbp
It isn't a single region, its split up into four blocks. And we find alpha-satellite sequences the same length elsewhere in our genes

>totally change your argument
Same argument, just converting for the different units of measurement. The question is: is there something unique about the sizes of these alpha-satellite repeats? And the answer is "nope, we find others of the same size elsewhere in places not associated with centromeres".

>you don't find a 40kbp region which is
Do you have an actual source for this being unique?Using available tools, there doesn’t look to be any special hit here. Let’s use https://genome.ucsc.edu/cgi-bin/hgBlat. The maximum search size there is 25,000 base pairs so let’s plug inhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/X07685, the alpha-satellite consensus sequence (which is an artificial construction and actual ones show a lot of divergence, but I disgress) into it. We’ll repeat it for about 20,000 characters. (19836) See https://genome.ucsc.edu/cgi-bin/hgc?hgsid=2654361904_8vBBYzhQaFFXRPSNZfw67W7eQiTQ&g=htcBigPslSequence&i=YourSeq&c=chr14&l=18223571&r=18245218&o=ct_blatYourSeq_5589&table=ct_blatYourSeq_5589

Looking at the results there’s nothing special on Chromosome 2. As you might expect this yields the centromere on lots of chromosomes. You get hits on Chromosome 2 as well, but its just its centromere. Shouldn’t we be seeing a unique hit on Chromosome 2 outside of the centromere with this tool if your notion is correct that this is a unique long centromere-like sequence? But the tool doesn’t even pick it up.

Is this proven to be an invention by Eusebius??

>>17748807
I'm not sure what new information you think this provides, I already said you don't find a 40kbp region that's 82% alpha-satellite monomers in the rest of the chromosome. The very paper you cited in response says clustered blocks of alpha-satellite repeats indicates an ancestral centromere
>Considering the dispersion of clustered ARs within euchromatin, sat_614-618 clustered within intron of ANKRD30BL gene corresponds to the site of a relic, previously active centromere
This cluster is also at a point that is homologous to the centromere on the great apes chromosome IIq, so this is exactly the type of thing you'd expect to find there.

As you've demonstrated repeatedly, you don't understand these papers and you don't understand what I'm saying to you.

>>17748827
Probably an Edessan forgery made as Christian propanda. The first person to mention it is Eusebius who translated it from Syriac.

So it first shows up in the early 300s, in a Christian city, with no indication it's genuine. It's also not just the letters but includes a prose narrative about Jesus' disciple "Addai" travelling to Edessa and performing miraculous healings, exactly the type of thing you find in apocryphal acts like the Acts of Peter, Paul, John, Andrew, Thomas, etc. And of course there are lots of other forged Christian letters like the correspondence of Paul and Seneca. So it fits perfectly into the period of 3rd-4th century forgeries.

Another crucial detail is that the disciple 'Addai' is nowhere else attested to as one of the seventy disciples, which is why Eusebius translated it as 'Thaddeus' despite that not being the way Addai is transliterated in other Greek texts. But there WAS an Addai who was a disciple of the prophet Mani who was active in the area and purportedly had miraculous healing powers. The Manicheans also claimed to have letters from Jesus (Augustine, Contra Faustum 28.4, Jerome, Commentary on Ezekiel 44.29), and they had a letter from Mani himself, addressed to Edessa. The letters of Christ and Abgar are a clear attempt to counter Manichean stories and bolster a local Edessene Christian identity (Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, vol 1, p. 494).

OP has a truly batshit argument for its gennuiness which rests on the claim that the archive where Eusebius found it was the most secure site in the Roman world for the entire 300 year span since Jesus, so it's impossible for a spurious document to get in there. I don't know how you'd go about trying to prove something so dumb, but OP hasn't even tried. We find spurious documents made for propaganda in other Christian archives, like the Donation of Constantine in the Vatican archives.

>>17749028
>which rests on the claim that the archive where Eusebius found it was the most secure site in the Roman world for the entire 300 year span since Jesus, so it's impossible for a spurious document to get in there. I don't know how you'd go about trying to prove something so dumb, but OP hasn't even tried.
Ultimately, any non-inspired documents are subject to the typical causes for doubt one might have like the possibility of the document being forged or altered by others later. There is no reason to think that words authored by men would receive the same protection against loss for future generations as the inspired word of God would. So these kinds of documents are at most incidental. They might be referred to argue for the likely terminus a quo and terminus ad quem for certain ideas, but this will never become a point necessary to defend the faith and indeed inherently lacks the same certainty as would be required to truly establish a point of faith.

>We find spurious documents made for propaganda in other Christian archives, like the Donation of Constantine in the Vatican archives.
This isn't really in the same class of arguments as what OP is describing. The pseudo-Isidorean Decretals were about fourth century history, specifically anachronistic claims that Constantine allegedly gave territory to entities that didn't actually exist at the time. That's essentially a political document and claim about a political action in the 4th century. Even if it were actually true (it's not), many people would argue such an event would have nothing to do with authentic Christianity in the first place. As such, the "Donation of Constantine" is not really in the same class as what OP is talking about. OP's argument is an attempt to establish authentic 1st century history of Christianity.

I would argue that you have to start with the Bible to really start establishing things, based if for no other reason on the epistemology given in the Bible itself.

>>17748986
>I already said you don't find a 40kbp region that's 82% alpha-satellite monomers in the rest of the chromosome

We're putting to the test whether this area authentically, in a unique way, has a connection to 20,000 base pairs (about what the tool can handle, otherwise we'd go 40,000) of the consensus alpha satellite sequence. We're using a tool whose entire purpose is to find similar genetic sequences without agenda or bias. It has no problem finding centromeres when we use it for this, including those on Chromosome 2. But this region does not come up as a match. This means that, objectively, to this unbiased tool, this region does not uniquely resemble a centromere.

>within intron of ANKRD30BL
Ah you're right, looks like they snuck bits from Chromosome 2 in despite promising they were looking at parts (from their perspective) not associated with centromeres P: Man, that table sure wasn't well-labeled; Definitely scratch those examples! Look instead at some other comparably sized ones like sat_723-25 (32 monomers), sat_726 (31 monomers), sat_653 (27 monomers)

>>17749346
>We're putting to the test whether this area authentically, in a unique way, has a connection to 20,000 base pairs
No that's only you, you've decided on this metric and not based on the papers. It's a 40kbp region unusually rich in alpha-satellite sequences, 82% of it is nothing but alpha-satellite sequences. As both the paper I cited, and the one YOU cited, say: this is evidence for an ancestral centromere (i.e. we're related to great apes who have a centromere there).

We have direct medical evidence of centromere deletion in patients who have suffered from chromosome fusion. It's a fact that this happens, and we have evidence of it right here: these centromere remains are at the place on human chromosome II that corresponds to the site of the IIq centromere in great apes, i.e. it's direct evidence of our relation to them.

You're conveniently laser-focused on this one line of evidence (although you keep citing information that proves you wrong). How about the papers showing the head-to-head telomere fusion?

When multiple lines of evidence point to our relation to the great apes, what do we conclude?

>Man, that table sure wasn't well-labeled; Definitely scratch those examples!
No, you just can't read table descriptions nor scientific papers P:

>Look instead at some other comparably sized ones like sat_723-25 (32 monomers), sat_726 (31 monomers), sat_653 (27 monomers)
If I'm reading your post right, you're now reduced to citing chunks HALF the size of some of the ones in the ancestral centromere region >>17747223. I don't trust that you've read the chart correctly on this (third?) attempt, but if you have, you've just proven my point.

You DON'T find clusters of big chunks of alpha-satellite DNA all over the genome, but you DO at sites of ancestral centromeres as the paper says.

>>17749377
>You're conveniently laser-focused on this one line of evidence
This is the most interesting one! My field has been history so its interesting to branch out and get a chance to take a deep dive into biology, which I haven't really been able to do since college. Few bumps in the road as I refamiliarize myself but I've learned a lot so far. Its a rare chance to take a look at a truly new issue and get some feedback and pushback on it.

I think I've gotten to the bottom of things: alpha satellite DNA actually didn't finish getting sequenced and properly inserted into our model of the human genome until 2022, surprisingly: I had thought it was all finished with the original human genome project but turns out this is exactly the sort of thing there were gaps on until just 3 years ago, so our papers from 2017 and 2020 are already way outdated. Short on time at the moment but I'm going to take a look and see if anything relevant came up once they were all fully sequenced and put in their proper places in the genome

>>17746421
Quick point for this one:

>If stars are billions of light years away, how does the light reach us after only 6000 years?
You're basing your math on the two-way speed of light. An extremely odd result of the equations, akin to relativity, is that light's one-way speed mathematically works as being any speed. Its really fascinating, take a read on it:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light

So far as the equations goes, just like the fascinating results you get with relativity, from the light's perspective in a way it arrives from its source to here on Earth instantly. Light and time are strange!

>>17739633
>all known forgeries
And how is that known?

>>17751144
See here >>17749028

No historical scholar validates these as legitimate lol. We simply do not have first hand accounts of rabbi yeshua

>>17739627
He's an abrahamic golem. They're all like this. They exist to trick you to worship the demiurge.

>>17749028
>which is why Eusebius translated it as 'Thaddeus' despite that not being the way Addai is transliterated in other Greek texts
How do others transliterate it?

So was Eusebius lying, or did the church forge his writings like they did Ignatius?

>>17752486
Addas, Addaois, or Addai

>>17752498
What specifically are you asking? Eusebius probably did read a Syriac document which he translated, it's the Syriac document that was the forgery, Eusebius was just gullible.

>>17752615
>Addas, Addaois, or Addai
Which documents render it this way?

>>17752631
Multiple inscriptions and papyri, source here: https://archive.org/details/Wuthnow1930/page/n6/mode/1up

You can identify which are transliterations of Addai where it has the name in hebrew letters: אד״

>>17752615
Promoting a forgery is the same as forging.

>>17752752
Wait...I thought you were saying "most Greek texts don't render it Thaddeus, that is not standard practice". But this looks to just say "occasionally you can find papyri that render it phonetically"?

>>17753281
Why did you put that in quotes if it's not what I said?

Here's a lexicon of Jewish names in the region of Palestine 200 BC - 200 AD (Tal Ilan, 2002), the Hebrew Adi (same name as the Syriac Addai) is only transliterated as Adaios, Addan, and Adas in Greek, and Addaios in Coptic. Not as Thaddeus.

Where is your evidence that Thaddeus was the "standard" transliteration? You're the only one here not providing evidence.

>>17739288
He's been spamming this shit on this board for over 5.

Based on the record of the Christians, especially the early ones, we need a lot of supporting evidence for any given document.

>>17753908
*Aramaic Adi

>>17753908
Wait so there isn't an actual source that directly says this is atypical, this is what you're personally surmising from how a similar Hebrew name is transcribed? Not challenging with that, just looking to get the claim

>>17739282 (OP)
>Hey lord, it seems there was a man in judea who healed the sick and performed miracles.
>oh wow he truly must have been a great sorcerer, forsooth.

>>17754978
I already cited the source >>17749028

Wilhelm Schneemelcher (ed.) (1991) New Testament Apocrypha. Volume 1. London: Westminster John Knox Press, p. 494

>>17755200
(Same anon)
Also, I note you've become disingenuous. First you kept asking for "Which documents render it this way?" which I provided in abundance. I assume you were hoping I couldn't provide primary sources. Then when I called your bluff and provided the primary sources, you pretended you were actually asking for an academic source, but I'd already provided one.

I predict more ploys from you in response. Maybe "Oh but I actually wanted a source that uses this exact wording that I just made up". Or "Well what I actually wanted was a complete census of every man in the middle east," or something equally silly.

The documents are forged. You haven't even provided a counter-argument nor disproved any of the provides sources.

>>17755200
>>17755265
I'm trying to see where exactly this is coming from since I haven't seen anyone else saying this is strange. That German guy's argument seems to be "we find the name rendered other ways", which seems somewhat like saying "that can't be a reference to Muhammad, we frequently see that name rendered Mohammed".

No other source sees any problem here that I've ever seen. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.31826/hug-2011-090104/pdf, a paper dedicated to seeing what's historical or not in the Doctrine of Addai, brings up 0 issue with this rendering and says "Thaddeus (= Addai)". https://referenceworks.brill.com/display/entries/EECO/SIM-00000050.xml has no issue with it, saying "His name seems to be the Syriac form of Greek Θαδδαῖος and Latin Thaddaeus."

Just from the bare phonetics of them they clearly sound very similar. Names very frequently get the -us/-os suffix when translated by Greco-Romans at the time, as your own page says with it being rendered Addaios. Eusebius just has a Θ at the beginning.

>>17755200
>>17755265
The argument for a connection to Manichean ideas is paper-thin and based exclusively on two people both sharing a common name. Honestly, I find arguments like these are almost always incredibly thin compared to obviously false counterexamples you can easily make.

Like let's say future historians wanted to argue that modern America had legends of a certain mythical folk hero named MJ, whose myth became both Michael Jackson and Michael Jordan. They could say:

"Michael Jordan and Michael Jackson were both African-American performers with the initials MJJ who grew up near major cities from humble backgrounds who grew to be the greatest in their entertainment fields alongside their legendary articles of clothing. This is verified further by the Coon Tradition. Michael Jordan was said to be a 'coon', an African-American in league with Whites, in the ballad 'C00N II' by Willie D. In the Jackson branch of the tradition this manifests as the legend of him literally transforming into a white man. Modern scholarship continues to peel back the layers of evolution of the MJ figure in American mythology."

>>17755775
Kek you nailed anthropologist speak

>>17749028
>>17755200
>>17755773
>The argument for a connection to Manichean ideas is paper-thin and based exclusively on two people both sharing a common name
No it's not exclusively based on that, you either didn't read the post and page, or you weren't able to understand them. Read them again >>17749028, >>17755200. You're the one who hyperfixated on the Thaddeus/Addai angle for some and kept asking for more sources (which I provided). Now you've made some non-sequitor "rebuttals" of arguments that nobody made. Your first non-rebuttal is that two named individuals can be the same person but with differently spelled names (uh ok, nobody argued Thaddeus and Addai are different people). Your next non-rebuttal is that two people with the same initials aren't the same person. Right... I'll again direct you to the actual argument which doesn't solely hinge on their names being the same.

Schneemelcher says that Eusebius hadn't heard of a disciple called Addai and rendered it as the more familiar Thaddeus, a name of one of the 12 biblical disciples, that's it. That's not even central to the main argument anyway.

And it's funny that you seem totally unfamiliar with this argument related to Manichaeism because it's in the very paper you cited in this post. You don't even read your own sources.
>His historicity, at least in its ground, is accepted by Segal and challenged by Desreumaux and by Drijvers, who thinks that this legend arose at the end of the third cent. for anti-Manichaean purposes
>Another interesting point is the author’s concern to refute the claims of the Manichaeans in Edessa: it corresponds to Ephrem’s polemic in the late fourth cent. in this city,

>>17755968
(cont.)
The onus is still on you to prove that a 4th century document is 1st century. Some nonsense about the archive of Edessa being hermetically sealed against incorrect documents is laughable, and that same paper you cited says the Doctrina Addai is a 4th or 5th century forgery that was kept in the archive, so your scholar doesn't agree.

>>17739282 (OP)
I don't think these things happened. Emperor Tiberius was so debauched that he rarely left Capri, and Jews were beneath his notice. These other two are so obscure no one ever heard of them, and you can bet your bottom Shekel the Church would have been rapturous about getting these accounts! Crickets...

>>17739282 (OP)
Jesus couldn't read so I doubt a king sent him a letter.

This OP is basically the new JW poster but at least they made different threads instead of the same one over and over again

>>17756616
>Jesus couldn't read
What are you on about, anon?

"This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not."
- John 8:6

"And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him."
(Luke 4:17-20)

>>17755968
>You're the one who hyperfixated on the Thaddeus/Addai angle
It's a new one I haven't heard before. The rest is kinda typical stuff that it sounds like either we already talked about or you read me talking about but this point is fresh and therefore the most interesting

>Your first non-rebuttal is that two named individuals can be the same person but with differently spelled names (uh ok, nobody argued Thaddeus and Addai are different people)
My point there was more that I think your German guy is the only one with an impression that this is strange. Other sources I've seen find nothing odd about this at all.

Especially since the Bible, which obviously pre-dates Eusebius, already talks about someone named Thaddaeus in the Apostolic circle. Look at Matthew 10:3 - "Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus;" as well as Mark 3:18 - "Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus...".

This was a pretty common name. Of the seventy disciples is it somehow odd there was another Thaddeus? Not much different from how today in a group of close to 100 people finding two guys everyone calls Thad.

You even showed the name sometimes being rendered "Addaios". There's just a Θ here, which I haven't seen anyone else remark as strange.

>Schneemelcher says that Eusebius hadn't heard of a disciple called Addai and rendered it as the more familiar Thaddeus
Does anyone actually agree with him that having a Θ at the beginning is odd, or that this is somehow an illegitimate rendering? This is sounding like "Eusebius is wrong, his name is Yeshua not Jesus"

>you seem totally unfamiliar with this argument related to Manichaeism
I'm familiar with it. But it's a trash argument for the reasons given. Sounds exactly like the "Jesus didn't exist, he's actually Dionysus because both were gods with power over wine who were put on trial by humans who didn't know they were gods" argument.

>>17755971
In this case an argument against it was "the apostle in question didn't exist, it's taken from Manichaean ideas". This was based on two things:
1. The same person being called Thaddeus in Greek (Eusebius) and Addai in Aramaic (The Doctrine of Addai). But these are just the Greek or Aramaic versions of the same name, no different from Jesus (Greek...well, Anglicized Greek) and Yeshua (Aramaic)
2. The purported similarity that there are two figures with this name who serve a religious teacher and can heal. But once again this sort of argument could have us believing that Michael Jordan and Michael Jackson don't exist, or that Jesus didn't exist and is just a borrowed Dionysus. You actually see some people argue for the latter in this exact way, check out https://www.tektonics.org/copycat/dionysus.php.

And so this counterargument doesn't even get off the ground.

>>17757351
Yeah, you still didn't engage with the whole argument. Need I remind you that you said
>The argument for a connection to Manichean ideas is paper-thin and based exclusively on two people both sharing a common name
Which was either a bold-faced lie, or you actually aren't capable of reading a few pages (the latter is a distinct possibility based on your record).

Let's break it down
1. The supposed letters between Jesus and Abgar are first recorded in the 300s AD
2. The expanded version of the legend is first recorded in the 400s AD
3. They're obvious Christian propaganda, in line with the numerous Christian forgeries and legends of the 200s-400s AD
4. There's parallels with Manichean texts and Christian polemics against Manicheanism, suggesting they're anti-Manichean propaganda to boot

In response, you invent some pure fiction about a magical archive that was sealed under lock and key so that no incorrect document could ever enter cross its threshold. You are plain wrong and these documents are obvious forgeries.

>>17758045
>you still didn't engage with the whole argument
I'm talking specifically about the allegation that this has something to do with Manichaeism. It sounds like we've already talked about the rest before. That's the argument I want to discuss since it's something we haven't spoken about before.

Items 1-3 aren't of direct relevance to that, only item 4 would be of direct relevance. You say "There's parallels with Manichean texts and Christian polemics against Manicheanism, suggesting they're anti-Manichean propaganda". Please present these supposed parallels.

>>17739789
Also are you ever going to actually show these that you can supposedly directly see?

>>17758434
>I'm talking specifically about the allegation that this has something to do with Manichaeism
Exactly and you didn't engage with the whole argument

>t sounds like we've already talked about the rest before
Maybe to you, because you've shown you can't read more than a single paragraph at a time, but no you haven't: >>17749028 >>17755200

And in your very post, you prove that you neither read nor engage with opposing arguments by saying the following
>Please present these supposed parallels.
These were presented, quite literally, several days ago. You are simply unable to engage or understand information that contradicts your nonsensical position. Again, here >>17749028
>>17755200

Maybe you're actually mentally subnormal and need to be spoonfed stuff you've been spoonfed multiple times already.

>Items 1-3 aren't of direct relevance to that
Oh, now you're scared of actually defending the authenticity of these "Jesus was investigated!1!!1" documents? I thought that was the whole point of the thread? Your tactic of trying to hyper focus on one aspect and googling papers that you didn't read to """refute""" a single aspect keeps failing and the stuff you cite keeps proving you wrong.

>>17758655
So wait, are these "parallels" solely two guys sharing a common name and both claiming to have received the only means of long-distance travel in existence at the time from Jesus? That's hardly unique, haven't you read the beginning of Revelation where Jesus sends out seven letters?

>now you're scared of actually defending
Didn't you say we'd already discussed it before? The supposed association to Manichean teachings would be something new we haven't discussed before

>and googling papers
Are you the same guy talking about evolution? Any response to how the satellite DNA was only just sequenced in 2022?

>>17758694
Yet again proving you can't understand arguments that disprove your position. No it's not just that they have the same name or sent a letter, you're being retarded again.

>Didn't you say we'd already discussed it before?
As a matter of fact I didn't, I presented the information and you failed to respond to it repeatedly.

>Are you the same guy talking about evolution?
No, I was referring to your citation of that paper on the letters of Christ and Abgar that described (and seemed to agree with) the proposal that they're anti-Manichean propaganda. You acted as if you'd never heard of the argument before so you clearly didn't read the paper.

The facts of forgery remain:
1. The supposed letters between Jesus and Abgar are first recorded in the 300s AD
2. The expanded version of the legend is first recorded in the 400s AD
3. They're obvious Christian propaganda, in line with the numerous Christian forgeries and legends of the 200s-400s AD
4. There's parallels with Manichean texts and Christian polemics against Manicheanism, suggesting they're anti-Manichean propaganda to boot (Manicheanism first appeared in the late 3rd century)

>>17758752
>No it's not just that they have the same name or sent a letter
So the other parallel is:____________

>There's parallels with Manichean texts and Christian polemics against Manicheanism, suggesting they're anti-Manichean propaganda to boot
And what are these?

>>17758844
Jesus Christ dude, do I need to spoonfeed you stuff that I already said to you and provided in this very thread? Very well. In additon to having a close disciple called Addai (totally unattested for Jesus before Eusebius - note, the Addai/Thaddeus who's one of the 70):

>The Manichean Addai was active in the province of Syria (check a map of Roman provinces, Edessa was just a few miles from Samosata in Syria)
>The Manichean Addai performed healing miracles in the area
>The Manicheans had letters supposedly written by Jesus
>The Manicheans had a letter of Mani sent to Edessa

This is all DIRECTLY STATED in the posts I linked you to multiple times. Are you genuinely retarded, because you're not capable of clicking on a link and reading what I already wrote to you?

Please just admit this is a tacit, or I have to assume you have genuine mental problems. I keep provide primary sources and scholarship that disprove what you're saying, I even summarise them for you because you can't read academic papers, and you still aren't able to read what I'm posting.

Please realise you are not defending your position, you are trying to distract and obfuscate because your rote apologetic responses aren't working any more, after at least 9 years >>17739288 of spamming and repeating, convinced what your posting makes any sense. But I've proved it doesn't.

>>17758911
>The Manichean Addai was active in the province of Syria
"Michael Jordan and Michael Jackson were both active in America"

>The Manichean Addai performed healing miracles in the area
"Michael Jordan and Michael Jackson were both said to be the top entertainers in their field, bolstered by the legendary article of clothing on their extremities"

>The Manicheans had letters supposedly written by Jesus
Have you ever read the beginning of Revelation? Jesus did dictate letters. At the time it was the only way to communicate long-distance. Basically everyone claimed "no Jesus was really on OUR side".

>The Manicheans had a letter of Mani sent to Edessa
Wow, he made use of the postal service to write to major cities like everybody else! What a powerful parallel! You might as well say "Both Michael Jackson and Michael Jordan are said to have performed in Chicago".

You could make anyone or anything look like legends this way. These parallels are nothing compared to the American MJ Mythos

Also
>totally unattested for Jesus before Eusebius
Clearly not since the records in Edessa talked about him, and they obviously must predate Eusebius.

>>17758952
>"Michael Jordan and Michael Jackson were both active in America"
The Roman province of Syria was far, far smaller than America.
>"Michael Jordan and Michael Jackson were both said to be the top entertainers in their field, bolstered by the legendary article of clothing on their extremities"
This isn't even a close analogy. Both Addais were immediate disciples of charismatic prophets who had been sent by God to reveal new revelations which were the final culmination of divine law. They were granted the same healing powers as their master, this ultimate prophet, they went to the province of Syria and performed healings there. Their masters sent letters to Edessa, and the Manicheans had letters of Jesus.

Let's flip your argument on its head, in your view it's impossible to ever find any influence between two people because you'll just bring up your dumb Michael Jordan and Michael Jackson example. It's more like someone writing about a guy who lived in the 1700s called Elvis who was a famous rock star who started in the deep south, was influenced by blues and gospel music, and died due to drug use, and their only evidence for this is a single typescript in the archive of Jackson, Mississippi

>Have you ever read the beginning of Revelation? Jesus did dictate letters
When was Revelation written? Before or after Jesus had died? A psychadelic apocalyptic vision of Jesus is clearly nothing like Jesus dictating a letter while he was live.

>You could make anyone or anything look like legends this way.
OK provide another person who fulfills all these parallels

>Clearly not since the records in Edessa talked about him
Yeah back to your nonsensical argument. Our earliest source is Eusebius, he is literally our first attestation. I'm guessing now that you don't understand what attestation means, but let's grant that you're just ignorant. Eusebius read a manuscript in the 300s AD. It could have been written any time before Eusebius, including in the late 3rd century

>>17759031
>The Roman province of Syria was far, far smaller than America
It was one of their major provinces. And Thaddeus didn't even go there for this, you're just pointing out that it's near where he went! You might as well be saying "both traveled", which is what every missionary for any religion does.

>This isn't even a close analogy
You're pointing to them being said to have similar abilities and being in the same line of work. It's precisely the same logic.

And what's the primary source that actually reports the Manichean Addai doing healings?

>Both Addais
Since you've been describing the smallest nuances of names as important, I'm seeing the Manichean one's name apparently usually being given as Addā at https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/manicheism-iv-missionary-activity-and-technique/, and it presents "If that Addai is the same person as the Addā of the Manichean history" as something of an open question.

>It's more like someone writing about a guy who lived in the 1700s called Elvis who was a famous rock star who started in the deep south, was influenced by blues and gospel music, and died due to drug use, and their only evidence for this is a single typescript in the archive of Jackson, Mississippi
Those would be some interesting specifics. So far you've exclusively spoken about extreme generalities like "they wrote letters" and "they were somewhere around Syria" which would apply to nearly anybody doing this sort of thing.

>When was Revelation written?
That's actually not my point. My point is that "Jesus wrote letters" isn't something at all unique here. It's already firmly in the Bible. Anyone inspired by the Bible, like Mane obviously was, can't miss the idea.

>OK provide another person who fulfills all these parallels
Didn't you read earlier about the people who argue Jesus didn't exist based on this exact sort of reasoning applies to Dionysus? People do this all the time. Even the Lincoln and Kennedy assassinations.

>>17759031
>Our earliest source is Eusebius
Eusebius, as he writes, is transcribing these directly from this archive. These records are our earliest source and they plainly must pre-date Eusebius. Eusebius himself barely post-dates Mani. Mani died in the 270's AD, after Eusebius was already born. The timeline doesn't work here.

>>17759095
>interesting parallels
lmao, even in my purposefully nonsense example you can't bring yourself to admit that everyone would think it's a forgery.

Thread is about to hit bump limit, just know that I've provided the specific commonalities multiple times now and you just blatantly lie and say "Uhh, it's just a name and they had letters, that's the only thing in common!" Which you know is false.

>>17759106
>even in my purposefully nonsense example you can't bring yourself to admit that everyone would think it's a forgery
Hm? No it plainly would be. My point was that, in contrast, what we see between Addā and Addai are not interesting. It amounts both being Middle Eastern missionaries and letters are involved somehow.

It's no different from the silliness about the Kennedy assassination you read all the time. Stuff like:
"Kennedy was actively seeking re-election.
Lincoln had just achieved re-election.

Kennedy received warnings not to visit Dallas.
Lincoln received warnings not to visit the theater.

Both men were aware of the danger but proceeded with their plans.

Kennedy visited Dallas just before Thanksgiving, on a Friday.
Lincoln went to the theater just before Easter, also on a Friday.

Kennedy declined a bulletproof car top.
Lincoln declined additional security.

Kennedy rode in a Ford vehicle.
Lincoln was shot in Ford's Theater.

Kennedy was accompanied by his wife and another couple, the Connallys.
Lincoln was accompanied by his wife and another couple, the Rathbones.

Both presidents were shot in the back of the head.
Both first ladies were present and wept beside them.

A bystander was also injured: Connally survived Kennedy’s shooting; Major Rathbone survived Lincoln’s.

Both assassins were members of militant groups hostile to the government.

Both assassins entered their positions without resistance and acted in public view.

Both of their wives insisted on staying with them.

Kennedy died within half an hour; Lincoln died after several hours.

Both assassins were killed by individuals loyal to the president.

In both cases, the vice president—Lyndon Johnson and Andrew Johnson—was implicated in a wider fear of coordinated attacks on leadership."