"Humanity" refers to an abstract concept: that which defines what it means to be a human. We were in fact close enough in definition that I was correct to be confused as to how "humanity" and "science" are two parts of a whole. That is like saying humanity and hammers are linked, but humans are the dominant of the two. Science is a tool, not a symbiotic organism... To express the relationship between humans and science in that way is nonsensical.

Dominant and recessive genes are opposing forces... In a strictly dominant/recessive relationship, only the phenotype of one gene manifests while the other doesn't appear. It is one or the other, so one must "win", so to speak. Thus, the phenotype to appear is that of the dominant gene. If they worked together, the genes would compound upon one another instead.

This kind of relationship makes absolutely no sense for science and humanity, for the same reasons as described above. Humanity is the controller. Science is the tool. It is a tool that is used by humans to achieve the very same goals they would have without it, just more effectively.

Not only is this "science" mythical: it is not science. Science, as I've described in many previous posts, is a policy for observers to build models of the world so that they can make confident guesses as to what will happen next in a particular context.

Science never has "told the truth". The only thing you get from science are guesses as to how observations all fit together. These guesses are tested against further observation to make sure they are consistent, but that is all you can show for them. Science has never claimed to be more than that, and if you are criticizing it for being more, it is your own fault, and perhaps the moronic "scientists" who convinced you it was.

Science is based on certain axioms, or prerequisite beliefs. If you do not have these beliefs, then science is useless to you, except in a purely hypothetical sense. These axioms are pretty much as simple as this: logic and observation. If you do not trust these, then go ahead and ignore science. If you do belief in these, but not science, then you've made a mistake somewhere, perhaps in understanding what science is.

I understand that this is meant to analog my refusal to google articles for you on chromosome count differentiation. They are not the analogous though.

First of all, I have logically deduced that God is inherently incapable of being proven by science, unless he manifests directly in the visible world, and so I am confident that the rumors you heard are incorrect or that you misheard. I do not care where you heard them. I am not asking where you heard them.

Now for your situation, you presented the fact that you were confused about an aspect of the theory of evolution. I told you that science has addressed it, that I had read an article about it a while back, and that, unfortunately, I don't recall which article it was. This of course is not meant to be any sort of evidence to support the theory of evolution. It was only meant as a notification that you can find such evidence online. It was never my intention to prove anything to you. However, today I'm feeling generous. I will look up an article for you.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives...1026.Ev.r.html

Finding that was as easy as googling for the keywords: chromosome number evolution.

This is of course merely a description of the process as reportedly observed by others. If you would like scientific journals covering particular experiments, you'll have to find them yourself, as I have nother bothered with them since they're too technical for my knowledge of the field. If you would like further confirmation, you can find more documents, and perhaps even ask experts who may have observed these processes themselves.