Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[Star]

I get it. You don't have any evidence that evolution is true.

I for one have no problem believing that evolution is true. It seems to me to be a rather reasonable theory. If there should be evidence in existence that shows that evolution is true, I have not seen it. ...

You appear to be making contradictory statements. You claim there is no evidence that evolution is true, yet you also say it is a reasonable theory.

Let's clarify.
Are you saying there is no evidence to support the theory of evolution?

Are you saying there is a reasonable amount of evidence to support the theory of evolution, but it fails to prove evolution is 'true' absolutely?

Actually, I have not stated that there is no evidence that evolution is true. What I have stated is that "no evidence no belief" has not provided any evidence that evolution is true. All he has provided is claims of evidence that evolution is true. Claims are not evidence. I have even gone out on a limb and stated that "no evidence no belief" has never seen evidence that evolution is true, and that he accepts such a notion as true by faith.

I suggest that evolution is a reasonable theory because I have accepted by faith that scientists who claim to have evidence that genetic mutations can occur that can be passed from generation to generation are telling the truth. I have not seen their evidence. I personally would not go so far as to say that one species can be transformed into an entirely new species however. I could however accept that a species could evolve over time. That is not to say that a species becomes a new species, but that a species over time changes. It is scientists of evolution and biology who have set limits on what a species is. I do not accept their limits. Every generation of one kind of species is the same species as it's predecessor. My concept is rather more thoughtful and more reasonable than the notion that one species can become another species over time. We do not change into a new species over time, but a species may indeed change over time.

I am saying that I have faith that scientists are making observations. I have faith that they are recording their observations with some degree of accuracy. And so I have faith in the idea that a species can change over time. And so, if evolution is a gradual change in a species over time, I believe, by faith, that species do indeed change over time. But I have not seen any of this evidence. I have no idea if the evidence that supports evolution is overwhelming evidence or not. It sounds reasonable to me. It may indeed be reasonable. But I accept the idea by faith.

This is one of the longest arguments from ignorance I've ever seen.

Basically, what you're saying is, you don't understand it, you haven't become familiar with the science, and we can't explain it to you, therefore, it must be based entirely on faith.

[Sonofason]

And yet you, like "no evidence no belief", are incapable of providing any evidence that evolution is true. It seems you and I are in the same boat after-all.

You keep repeating this unsubstantiated claim, that there is no evidence evolution is true. This is a repeated unsubstantiated claim. You even acknowledge there is evidence supporting the theory. What you are really saying is that evolution has not been proved beyond even an unreasonable doubt.

You have refused to answer my point blank challenge to admit there is supporting evidence for the theory of evolution, and fall back on this 'true' phrase. To this you add the personalizing "you are incapable" despite the fact that even in this thread you have been shown that the great apes and homo sapiens had a common ancestor, thus refuting a prior creationist claim.

Again, I never claimed there is not evidence for evolution. I said, you haven't shown any. I said that "no evidence no belief" hasn't shown any either. You are the ones making the claims that evolution is true. I expect you to provide the evidence that what you claim is true.

[Sonofason]

I get it. You don't have any evidence that evolution is true.

I for one have no problem believing that evolution is true. It seems to me to be a rather reasonable theory. If there should be evidence in existence that shows that evolution is true, I have not seen it. ...

You appear to be making contradictory statements. You claim there is no evidence that evolution is true, yet you also say it is a reasonable theory.

Let's clarify.
Are you saying there is no evidence to support the theory of evolution?

Are you saying there is a reasonable amount of evidence to support the theory of evolution, but it fails to prove evolution is 'true' absolutely?

Actually, I have not stated that there is no evidence that evolution is true. What I have stated is that "no evidence no belief" has not provided any evidence that evolution is true. All he has provided is claims of evidence that evolution is true. Claims are not evidence. I have even gone out on a limb and stated that "no evidence no belief" has never seen evidence that evolution is true, and that he accepts such a notion as true by faith.

I suggest that evolution is a reasonable theory because I have accepted by faith that scientists who claim to have evidence that genetic mutations can occur that can be passed from generation to generation are telling the truth. I have not seen their evidence. I personally would not go so far as to say that one species can be transformed into an entirely new species however. I could however accept that a species could evolve over time. That is not to say that a species becomes a new species, but that a species over time changes. It is scientists of evolution and biology who have set limits on what a species is. I do not accept their limits. Every generation of one kind of species is the same species as it's predecessor. My concept is rather more thoughtful and more reasonable than the notion that one species can become another species over time. We do not change into a new species over time, but a species may indeed change over time.

I am saying that I have faith that scientists are making observations. I have faith that they are recording their observations with some degree of accuracy. And so I have faith in the idea that a species can change over time. And so, if evolution is a gradual change in a species over time, I believe, by faith, that species do indeed change over time. But I have not seen any of this evidence. I have no idea if the evidence that supports evolution is overwhelming evidence or not. It sounds reasonable to me. It may indeed be reasonable. But I accept the idea by faith.

You're equivocating. There certainly is evidence for the validity of evolution. You do not deny this, but you like to claim you 'have not seen it.' It's there for you to see, but you apparently would prefer to say you take it on faith that it's reasonable, rather than admit the abundance of evidence.

Your motive is transparent. You want to place the overwhelming evidence for evolution in the same 'faith' category you put your belief in god so you can argue they are equivalent. They are obviously not equivalent. In the first there is tremendous evidence that you can examine if you want to. The result of that evidence is the conclusion evolution is valid based on simple logic and reason after observation of evidence.

This is completely distinct from faith in a god for whom you can produce no evidence, zero. All you can do is what you've done, claim you have personal unidentified, unverified, unrepeatable personal subjective 'data' you claim is evidence. To claim this faith scenario is the same as the scientific basis for evolution is preposterous.

And yet you, like "no evidence no belief", are incapable of providing any evidence that evolution is true. It seems you and I are in the same boat after-all.

Please man, stop this charade. Your attempt to draw an equivalency between the evidence for evolution and evidence for your fairy tales about talking donkeys failed miserably.

I offered you money, I offered you a first class trip with complimentary limo and 5 star hotel, for the opportunity to see empirical evidence for evolution which would require ZERO belief, and would just require direct observation of empirical objective data.

I applaud your effort, but seriously, stop.

Is this what Jesus would do? Stick his fingers in his ears and go "la la la la la, I can't hear you"?

Please, just provide the evidence. You claim that evolution is true. Now please, prove it. And if you can't prove it, just show some evidence. Anything.

[no evidence no belief]

And yet you, like "no evidence no belief", are incapable of providing any evidence that evolution is true. It seems you and I are in the same boat after-all.

You keep repeating this unsubstantiated claim, that there is no evidence evolution is true. This is a repeated unsubstantiated claim. You even acknowledge there is evidence supporting the theory. What you are really saying is that evolution has not been proved beyond even an unreasonable doubt.

You have refused to answer my point blank challenge to admit there is supporting evidence for the theory of evolution, and fall back on this 'true' phrase. To this you add the personalizing "you are incapable" despite the fact that even in this thread you have been shown that the great apes and homo sapiens had a common ancestor, thus refuting a prior creationist claim.

Again, I never claimed there is not evidence for evolution. I said, you haven't shown any. I said that "no evidence no belief" hasn't shown any either. You are the ones making the claims that evolution is true. I expect you to provide the evidence that what you claim is true.

Dude this is ridiculous!

The only tool I have to convey information to you is by typing on my computer. I would

[Danmark]

Read the New Testament. I would suggest, due to the gravity of the subject matter, that you read it leaving behind all bias, if that is at all possible for you. When I first read it, it seemed to me . . . .

OK:
We start at Matthew, chapter 1. Everything seems fine . . . and . . . then . . .

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. 20 But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

Mary and Joseph are betrothed and suddenly Mary is with child by the 'Holy Spirit.' Joseph sees this event as if 'by the Holy Spirit' is a euphemism for Mary has a boyfriend. But Joseph is overly kindly and fair, or else he knows HE is the culprit, so he wants to shut her up to avoid scandal. Then an angel flies in the window and tells him that no, in this case the 'Holy Spirit' is no euphemism, there really is a 'Holy Spirit' something that impregnates Earth girls and Joseph should be cool.

If we read this passage with no biases or preconceptions the neutral reader says, "Are you serious? I like sci-fi as much as the next guy, but I know it is fiction all the same."

Sorry, but your little test is absurd. You can only read this and not go away laughing if you have a bias going in that it is the absolute truth, despite the fact it contradicts every thing you know or have personally experienced.

How is this any different than the flying horse in the Quran or baby Kal-El leaving planet Krypton in a rocket ship to land on Earth with super powers?

Your 'gravity' of the subject matter only betrays the fact that you read this with your own bias built in. There's nothing 'grave' about this silliness. This is science fiction comic opera.

[Sonofason]

Read the New Testament. I would suggest, due to the gravity of the subject matter, that you read it leaving behind all bias, if that is at all possible for you. When I first read it, it seemed to me . . . .

OK:
We start at Matthew, chapter 1. Everything seems fine . . . and . . . then . . .

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. 20 But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

Mary and Joseph are betrothed and suddenly Mary is with child by the 'Holy Spirit.' Joseph sees this event as if 'by the Holy Spirit' is a euphemism for Mary has a boyfriend. But Joseph is overly kindly and fair, or else he knows HE is the culprit, so he wants to shut her up to avoid scandal. Then an angel flies in the window and tells him that no, in this case the 'Holy Spirit' is no euphemism, there really is a 'Holy Spirit' something that impregnates Earth girls and Joseph should be cool.

If we read this passage with no biases or preconceptions the neutral reader says, "Are you serious? I like sci-fi as much as the next guy, but I know it is fiction all the same."

Sorry, but your little test is absurd. You can only read this and not go away laughing if you have a bias going in that it is the absolute truth, despite the fact it contradicts every thing you know or have personally experienced.

How is this any different than the flying horse in the Quran or baby Kal-El leaving planet Krypton in a rocket ship to land on Earth with super powers?

Okay, so you believe that Joseph lied, and that Mary also lied. You suggest that because ever pregnancy that you know of was a result of two human beings engaging in coitus, that it is not possible, even for God, to cause a human being to become pregnant?

Okay, that's fine. At this point, being unbiased, what could you possibly think? It's either a miracle, or someone is lying. Objection noted.

Now please continue with an open mind. At this point you don't know if anyone is lying. You do see cause for someone to lie. But at this point you still don't know if anyone is lying. Please assume for the moment that Joseph and Mary might have been telling the truth. Remember, it was prophesied long ago that this would happen. Perhaps Mary and Joseph had that in mind, and so fabricated this great lie. But wow, talk about a cover up. They've now moved from an ill-conceived out of wedlock pregnancy to begetting the Son of God. It's quite a lie. Do you really think that was their motive? Or did the little white lie get out of hand?

[Danmark]

Read the New Testament. I would suggest, due to the gravity of the subject matter, that you read it leaving behind all bias, if that is at all possible for you. When I first read it, it seemed to me . . . .

OK:
We start at Matthew, chapter 1. Everything seems fine . . . and . . . then . . .

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. 20 But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

Mary and Joseph are betrothed and suddenly Mary is with child by the 'Holy Spirit.' Joseph sees this event as if 'by the Holy Spirit' is a euphemism for Mary has a boyfriend. But Joseph is overly kindly and fair, or else he knows HE is the culprit, so he wants to shut her up to avoid scandal. Then an angel flies in the window and tells him that no, in this case the 'Holy Spirit' is no euphemism, there really is a 'Holy Spirit' something that impregnates Earth girls and Joseph should be cool.

If we read this passage with no biases or preconceptions the neutral reader says, "Are you serious? I like sci-fi as much as the next guy, but I know it is fiction all the same."

Sorry, but your little test is absurd. You can only read this and not go away laughing if you have a bias going in that it is the absolute truth, despite the fact it contradicts every thing you know or have personally experienced.

How is this any different than the flying horse in the Quran or baby Kal-El leaving planet Krypton in a rocket ship to land on Earth with super powers?

Okay, so you believe that Joseph lied, and that Mary also lied.

When you start with two blatant misstatements of what I wrote, I refuse to read further. I never said either lied. I simply took the NT as you suggested, but could not get past the first chapter without reading utter fairytale nonsense. When one encounters such silliness, why even assume that Mary and Joseph are real people, are anything other than characters in a sci fi story? No I don't believe they lied. I see no reason to believe they even exist. Admit it. You have no evidence to suggest they are anything other than characters in a book. The evidence supporting the theory of evolution is much greater than the theory that Mary and Joseph are more than characters in a book.

And please, do not make false claims about what I write.

[AdHoc]

The evidence itself for each event should be held to the same standard. Otherwise we are discriminating against the evidence on the basis the claim disagrees with our world view. Each event should then either pass or fail on its own merits. Whether or not one is more extraordinary than the other should be irrelevant at the outset.

That's not how it works for anything except conspiracy theory and theist apologetics.

Criminal and civil courts have much different standards of evidence. Criminal is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and civil is based on the preponderance of the evidence. And for good reason.

Evolution has a tremendous amount of evidence from various disciplines showing us that it does in fact happen. In contrast, a biologist wouldn't have to collect the same amount evidence on the duckbill platypus' mating habits to tell us they reproduce sexually.

Likewise, there's enough evidence to suggest Caesar was a real man who was stabbed to death. It doesn't conflict with the laws of physics and is consistent with real evidence. Anthropologists and archaeologists (scientists) have objective methodologies which theologians and apologists lack.

Carl Sagan popularized the saying, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

This basically means that the more unlikely, important, or seemingly impossible the claim (eg, resurrection by truly dead people), the higher the standard of evidence. I don't even believe video of alleged supernatural events. I invite you to do some critical thinking of your own and consider this information.

You haven't presented sufficient evidence to convince us that Jesus rose from the dead. In fact, you haven't even presented sufficient evidence he actually existed.

Why do so many atheists insist that there is an abundance of evidence for evolution, but they never provide any evidence? So please show me evidence. I don't want to see some book of fiction written by some scientist with a social agenda. I want to see real evidence of evolution. If eye witness accounts of Biblical authors are not admissible evidence for the existence of God, then your eye witness accounts in your science text books are also inadmissible evidence for the existence of evolution. Show me evidence of evolution. I don't want your personal opinions. I want proof. I don't want your textbook myths. I want proof. So, now, prove that evolution is a reality.

Dude, the evidence for evolution is conclusive. The fact that the subject matter is too complicated for you to understand, doesn't mean that the evidence isn't there.

I could give you very strong evidence right now, but I would have to use a bunch of words you don't understand.

Eh, I'll try. Here's the simplest piece of evidence for evolution I can think of: A second inactive centomere and a centrally located talomere are present in human chromosome 2.

There you go. Did nothing for you, right? I promise, once you hit 8th grade it will all make sense.

Because an extraneous centromere and an apparently misplaced telomere exist you believe this is evidence for evolution?

Yes. It's not just my belief.

I'll gladly pay you $10,000 for every biologist you can find who doesn't think this constitutes evidence for evolution, if in turn you agree to give me $1 for every one I can find who does. I promise you I'd end up with WAAAAAY more money than you. In the scientific community the fusion of chromosomes 2a and 2b in ancestors we share with modern apes is accepted as evidence for evolution at about the same rate as the acceptance for the earth being a globe.

I'm not willing to bet my future on evolution.

Are wisdom teeth, tonsils and adipose fins also evidence for evolution in your eyes?

Of course. Vestigial organs are very strong evidence for evolution.

So you don't believe any of those items have a use?

Its possible I don't correctly understand your argument. Please explain it for me in more simple terms, id est, use small words so I can understand.

I'm sorry man, I absolutely do NOT mean as a diss or anything, but if you lack the basic scientific education to figure it out by yourself, then I honestly doubt that I'll be able to convey this to you in a simple enough way that you'll understand it.

The best I can do is direct you to a video that explains EXACTLY this subject. Hopefully you can follow it. It's only 4 minute long.

Here is it:

Let me know your thoughts

Interesting video thanks for sharing it.

I wonder if that is the only possible explanation for this observation? I'm glad the evolutionists have an answer for why we have fewer chromosomes than the apes now. That always seemed a bit of an awkward fact.

I guess its fairly likely that our two common human ancestors both had a fused 2nd and 3rd chromosome. Makes me wonder about all the other life on the planet... If we all share a common ancestor then I guess there's been a lot of fusion of chromosomes thats been happening... What are the odds?

Glad I'm not a betting man.

[no evidence no belief]

I get it. You don't have any evidence that evolution is true.

I for one have no problem believing that evolution is true. It seems to me to be a rather reasonable theory. If there should be evidence in existence that shows that evolution is true, I have not seen it. ...

You appear to be making contradictory statements. You claim there is no evidence that evolution is true, yet you also say it is a reasonable theory.

Let's clarify.
Are you saying there is no evidence to support the theory of evolution?

Are you saying there is a reasonable amount of evidence to support the theory of evolution, but it fails to prove evolution is 'true' absolutely?

Actually, I have not stated that there is no evidence that evolution is true. What I have stated is that "no evidence no belief" has not provided any evidence that evolution is true. All he has provided is claims of evidence that evolution is true. Claims are not evidence. I have even gone out on a limb and stated that "no evidence no belief" has never seen evidence that evolution is true, and that he accepts such a notion as true by faith.

I suggest that evolution is a reasonable theory because I have accepted by faith that scientists who claim to have evidence that genetic mutations can occur that can be passed from generation to generation are telling the truth. I have not seen their evidence. I personally would not go so far as to say that one species can be transformed into an entirely new species however. I could however accept that a species could evolve over time. That is not to say that a species becomes a new species, but that a species over time changes. It is scientists of evolution and biology who have set limits on what a species is. I do not accept their limits. Every generation of one kind of species is the same species as it's predecessor. My concept is rather more thoughtful and more reasonable than the notion that one species can become another species over time. We do not change into a new species over time, but a species may indeed change over time.

I am saying that I have faith that scientists are making observations. I have faith that they are recording their observations with some degree of accuracy. And so I have faith in the idea that a species can change over time. And so, if evolution is a gradual change in a species over time, I believe, by faith, that species do indeed change over time. But I have not seen any of this evidence. I have no idea if the evidence that supports evolution is overwhelming evidence or not. It sounds reasonable to me. It may indeed be reasonable. But I accept the idea by faith.

You're equivocating. There certainly is evidence for the validity of evolution. You do not deny this, but you like to claim you 'have not seen it.' It's there for you to see, but you apparently would prefer to say you take it on faith that it's reasonable, rather than admit the abundance of evidence.

Your motive is transparent. You want to place the overwhelming evidence for evolution in the same 'faith' category you put your belief in god so you can argue they are equivalent. They are obviously not equivalent. In the first there is tremendous evidence that you can examine if you want to. The result of that evidence is the conclusion evolution is valid based on simple logic and reason after observation of evidence.

This is completely distinct from faith in a god for whom you can produce no evidence, zero. All you can do is what you've done, claim you have personal unidentified, unverified, unrepeatable personal subjective 'data' you claim is evidence. To claim this faith scenario is the same as the scientific basis for evolution is preposterous.

And yet you, like "no evidence no belief", are incapable of providing any evidence that evolution is true. It seems you and I are in the same boat after-all.

Please man, stop this charade. Your attempt to draw an equivalency between the evidence for evolution and evidence for your fairy tales about talking donkeys failed miserably.

I offered you money, I offered you a first class trip with complimentary limo and 5 star hotel, for the opportunity to see empirical evidence for evolution which would require ZERO belief, and would just require direct observation of empirical objective data.

I applaud your effort, but seriously, stop.

Is this what Jesus would do? Stick his fingers in his ears and go "la la la la la, I can't hear you"?

Please, just provide the evidence. You claim that evolution is true. Now please, prove it. And if you can't prove it, just show some evidence. Anything.

I gave you the evidence. A central telomere in human chromosome 2.

[no evidence no belief]

The evidence itself for each event should be held to the same standard. Otherwise we are discriminating against the evidence on the basis the claim disagrees with our world view. Each event should then either pass or fail on its own merits. Whether or not one is more extraordinary than the other should be irrelevant at the outset.

That's not how it works for anything except conspiracy theory and theist apologetics.

Criminal and civil courts have much different standards of evidence. Criminal is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and civil is based on the preponderance of the evidence. And for good reason.

Evolution has a tremendous amount of evidence from various disciplines showing us that it does in fact happen. In contrast, a biologist wouldn't have to collect the same amount evidence on the duckbill platypus' mating habits to tell us they reproduce sexually.

Likewise, there's enough evidence to suggest Caesar was a real man who was stabbed to death. It doesn't conflict with the laws of physics and is consistent with real evidence. Anthropologists and archaeologists (scientists) have objective methodologies which theologians and apologists lack.

Carl Sagan popularized the saying, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

This basically means that the more unlikely, important, or seemingly impossible the claim (eg, resurrection by truly dead people), the higher the standard of evidence. I don't even believe video of alleged supernatural events. I invite you to do some critical thinking of your own and consider this information.

You haven't presented sufficient evidence to convince us that Jesus rose from the dead. In fact, you haven't even presented sufficient evidence he actually existed.

Why do so many atheists insist that there is an abundance of evidence for evolution, but they never provide any evidence? So please show me evidence. I don't want to see some book of fiction written by some scientist with a social agenda. I want to see real evidence of evolution. If eye witness accounts of Biblical authors are not admissible evidence for the existence of God, then your eye witness accounts in your science text books are also inadmissible evidence for the existence of evolution. Show me evidence of evolution. I don't want your personal opinions. I want proof. I don't want your textbook myths. I want proof. So, now, prove that evolution is a reality.

Dude, the evidence for evolution is conclusive. The fact that the subject matter is too complicated for you to understand, doesn't mean that the evidence isn't there.

I could give you very strong evidence right now, but I would have to use a bunch of words you don't understand.

Eh, I'll try. Here's the simplest piece of evidence for evolution I can think of: A second inactive centomere and a centrally located talomere are present in human chromosome 2.

There you go. Did nothing for you, right? I promise, once you hit 8th grade it will all make sense.

Because an extraneous centromere and an apparently misplaced telomere exist you believe this is evidence for evolution?

Yes. It's not just my belief.

I'll gladly pay you $10,000 for every biologist you can find who doesn't think this constitutes evidence for evolution, if in turn you agree to give me $1 for every one I can find who does. I promise you I'd end up with WAAAAAY more money than you. In the scientific community the fusion of chromosomes 2a and 2b in ancestors we share with modern apes is accepted as evidence for evolution at about the same rate as the acceptance for the earth being a globe.

I'm not willing to bet my future on evolution.

I'm sorry, what's that supposed to mean? I don't understand what you're saying.

Are wisdom teeth, tonsils and adipose fins also evidence for evolution in your eyes?

Of course. Vestigial organs are very strong evidence for evolution.

So you don't believe any of those items have a use?

They used to. But no longer do. Look, I can't explain the whole concept of vestigial organs to you. Please just look it up.

Its possible I don't correctly understand your argument. Please explain it for me in more simple terms, id est, use small words so I can understand.

I'm sorry man, I absolutely do NOT mean as a diss or anything, but if you lack the basic scientific education to figure it out by yourself, then I honestly doubt that I'll be able to convey this to you in a simple enough way that you'll understand it.

The best I can do is direct you to a video that explains EXACTLY this subject. Hopefully you can follow it. It's only 4 minute long.

Here is it:

Let me know your thoughts

Interesting video thanks for sharing it.

I wonder if that is the only possible explanation for this observation? I'm glad the evolutionists have an answer for why we have fewer chromosomes than the apes now. That always seemed a bit of an awkward fact.

I guess its fairly likely that our two common human ancestors both had a fused 2nd and 3rd chromosome. Makes me wonder about all the other life on the planet... If we all share a common ancestor then I guess there's been a lot of fusion of chromosomes thats been happening... What are the odds?

Glad I'm not a betting man.

No, chromosome fusing is very rare.