I have already.
How about you start responding instead of adding nothing with every post?
Real Science Friday: New Island, Old Look Pt 2
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
How about you start responding instead of adding nothing with every post?
aharvey
New member
Well, if you haven't even seen this, I suggest you study it for a while first, absorb its implications. Maybe even read up on it a bit, because there are certain fascinating observations that aren't readily apparent from this image. For example, I hope you can see the general basis for the "conventional view" that the human chromosome 2 (lacking any direct homologues in chimps) is an evolutionary result of the fusion of the two short chimp chromosomes (lacking in humans): length of the corresponding pieces, banding patterns, etc.
Now the ends of chromosomes in general are marked by distinctive regions called telomeres. And there is a constricted region near the middle of each chromosome called the centromere, which has a special function during mitosis and meiosis. Can you work out what the conventional hypothesis concerning the origin of the human chromosome 2 would predict concerning telomeres and centromeres?
It's not that hard to find pictures of karyotypes on line, even though they seem to be of uneven graphical quality. I'm curious, what would you expect to see in other species? And why?
As Jukia noted, it is the conventional scientific view. It is rejected by folks like you without benefit of, as you yourself are demonstrating here, actually having any familiarity with the evidence. Thus, if it's a conventional atheist view, this represents nothing more than the fact that atheists have no a priori reason to reject this bit of conventional science.
Surely there are tons of creationist articles that satisfactorily explain the patterns of chromosomal similarities and differences across species within the constraints of a 4000-year post-Flood Earth and no evolution. Unless they're mysteriously mute on the subject, you can't seriously claim you've only been able to hear one side of the story (oh, wait, maybe you were referring to the creationist side!).
There is a great deal of literature making statistical comparisons of the genomes of different species. There's no such thing, however, as a "straight statistical comparison" when it comes to 1) comparing genomes 2) across multiple species. As has been observed already, mutations routinely involve more that the replacement of a single base by another single base. That simple reality invalidates the simplistic comparisons you seem to have in mind.
I've heard this spoken on. Can't remember the guys name ... Is this feature common to all apes because I know you don't believe we descended from chimps :chuckle:
I'm afraid I could read biology for a long time and not gain anything of value. You'll just have to tell me the answer.. :noid:
It would be interesting to look at the species represented graphically by their DNA. As long as there was some information on what that DNA did and one could make some sense of the information with respect to what we see on the macro scale. I suppose that's a lot of work that hasn't been done yet
The implication is that scientists who do not believe in evolution are not conventional. I will not believe that their set of accomplishments are undermined in any way by the terms you use.
If you replace 'conventional' with 'popular' or 'main stream' I have no problem with the statement.
I was referring to atheists. The atheist layman has many sources of mainstream media to back up his position.
I have something of a statistics background so this is the area that would interest me. The simplest idea would be to put the string of letters representing the genetic sequence of two species beside each other and to count the letters that are the same. I guess that would be fairly pointless because a single difference in size would offset the data. Such a study would probably show every species as 100% different (unless there is some genetic sequence shared by a major group at the start of the code).
So to make the study worthwhile some computer application would have to analyse similarities within strings of code. So if a string of certain length is found to match between two species then that information is given a 'weight' depending on how close a match it is and the relative separation there is between the two examples.
Add up all the "weights" and derive a standard by which all creatures are compared. I guess this is something like what has been done, but, as I say, the only access a layperson has is to the final analysis as presented by mainstream media.
I know there are creation websites that disagree with the mainstream media, but I'm not really concerned that we disagree with each other here, I'm more concerned that we argue without seeing what we are arguing about.
aharvey
New member
The chimp version is indeed found in other apes.
You don't need to be fluent in biology, just a logical thinker, to make these predictions.
GIVEN THAT the ends of chromosomes have a special configuration (called telomeres; observation),
IF human chromosome 2 was formed by the fusion of (the ancestral version of) the two smaller chromosomes (hypothesis),
THEN there should be evidence of telomeres in the middle of the human chromosome 2, specifically where the banding pattern and length comparisons suggest the two were merged.
Make sense? Now try it with the centromeres.
Why would it matter what the DNA did (and by this I assume you mean the specific products of each gene)?It would be interesting to look at the species represented graphically by their DNA. As long as there was some information on what that DNA did and one could make some sense of the information with respect to what we see on the macro scale. I suppose that's a lot of work that hasn't been done yet
Sorry, but whether you personally believe in evolution or not, indeed, whether evolution even occurs or not, evolutionary theory does represent the conventional viewpoint of the scientific community, particularly in those scientific disciplines where it actually matters, namely biology and geology. Most scientists do not have a problem with evolutionary theory; most scientists who do not believe in evolution are neither biologists nor geologists, and you can make of that what you will, but the point is that very very few biologists or geologists reject evolutionary theory. I would even point out that IDers who have no problem with new species, genera, family, etc. arising through these processes but insist that life itself is "too complicated" to have happened without help are not rejecting evolutionary theory, since it doesn't deal with the origin of life!
If you replace 'conventional' with 'popular' or 'main stream' I have no problem with the statement.
Yes, but the creationists' are much louder. And after all this time, you still don't realize that you don't need some authority ("mainstream media," for example) to back up your position, you just need data and a rational chain of logic?
To some extent you're describing how genomes, or usually only parts of genomes, are compared (though there is no universal standard by which all creatures are compared, and to my knowledge longer identical strings do not carry more "weight" than do shorter strings when calculating similarity indices). If you are truly interested in this, there is a vast literature on the subject to which I couldn't hope to do justice here. Yes, it's scientific literature, but you should be able to access it at any library. You could use the web to get an idea for which books are good introductory texts (sorry I can't be more help here, but I got my basic genetics training a few decades ago and I'm sure the introductory texts have changed since then!).
Again, you need to keep a clear head on this: creationist websites disagree with the mainstream scientific community, not just the mainstream media, which is after all reporting what the mainstream scientific community is doing. The mainstream media/scientific community does not keep its data secret (unlike the ID folks!), so there's no reason creationists couldn't come up with defensible models that explain the patterns whose conventional explanations they find offensive. And frankly, here I'm not even sure what we are arguing about.
Yup. That's the evidence I saw presented.
Right. Because biology terms means very little to me. It would be of great insight if certain parts of DNA were known to build this and how those things change between species. I understand this sort of knowledge is far from complete.
I wasn't talking about me. I was talking about atheists.
We are in disagreement that apes turned into people. You say they did. I say they did not.
aharvey
New member
If so, then perhaps you remember the punch lines: there are in fact telomere and centromere fragments in exactly the places predicted by the fusion hypothesis. And the creationist explanation is ... ?
It's also far from non-existent! Since when must we know everything before we can infer anything? And why doesn't this apply to you? Well, okay, there is one way I know of to justify rejecting with such certainty something you admit you know little about, that little thing called presupposition. And I do get the idea that if the Bible is literal and inerrant, and if you believe your understanding of it is inerrant, then you don't need to understand any supposed evidence that contradicts any part of it to know that the evidence must be in error. However, it seems a bit deceptive to then pretend that this is not your position, that in fact your rejection of this evidence is somehow science-based.
Well, no, you were talking about "the layperson," unless by "layperson" you mean "atheist"!
Well, technically, no, I wouldn't assume apes turned into people; the common ancestor of apes and people might have been neither. And although you flat out say "they did not," I do not flat out say "they did." I say "there is a great deal of evidence that suggests this." I'd say that the mass of evidence has reached the point that it's hard for me to imagine a very different scenario, but I'm always aware that my imagination is not unlimited! So I'm always interested in exactly how creationists would explain the data that otherwise seems to support evolutionary theory. Particularly regarding the human-ape connection, I'd have to note that so far "scientific creationists" have been utterly helpless at explaining ANY of the data brought to bear on these issues.
i didn't have a response. but i am forced to rely on the presentation as an accurate representation of what is happening.
you can infer anything you like.
i haven't heard good explanations for some of the serious challenges evolution has to answer. i've also yet to see a prediction (telomeres aside) stated and shown. presupposition might have a role to play in how i see things, but i'm not beyond ceding to fact.
I was referring to atheists who weren't trained in the sciences.
might i suggest that each side should have genuine challenges for the other.
Stipe, do you want me to get you some papers on genomic analysis and comparisons? They're typically very heavily laced with statistics and genetics (obviously), but if you can often infer what was done and what the results were even if you can't follow each step of the statistical analysis.
Wow. That is rather overwhelming! I need a little button that says What this is and how it disproves evolution. :chuckle:
I don't know the case, fool.
If you are asking if I trust DNA to follow the laws of science and logic then you could just ask that.
How's the statistical analysis comeing?
I need some vodka.
What I'm asking is more about what you perception of the knowledge is.
Would you believe the expert that the defendent is the only person who could have left the DNA there but not believe the expert when he says that humans and bannanas are 40% the same?
Obviously I'd want to understand, at least in principle, how he arrived at each conclusion. It helps that I have some understanding of how to compare and analyse data, but to the layperson it comes down to whether or not they trust the people telling them the stories.
If I understand correctly then the proof available that a certain person left behind a certain piece of DNA is far more certain than the fact that apes are a certain percentage like humans.
...
Are bananas really 40% human? :noid:
One thing I don't understand how genetic difference between humans is leveled out in order to compare them to other species. If each human and chimp (ignoring twins and clones) has unique DNA then how are the two compared? Is there an average taken. Is there a broad pattern that hides individuality? Are the differences made based on the basis of genome length and count rather than their components?
aharvey
New member
Well, that does always give you an "out," doesn't it? Yes, this data does appear to be compelling, but how do I know it's been presented accurately?
Thank you. I notice you left out the rest of this paragraph: "And I do get the idea that if the Bible is literal and inerrant, and if you believe your understanding of it is inerrant, then you don't need to understand any supposed evidence that contradicts any part of it to know that the evidence must be in error. However, it seems a bit deceptive to then pretend that this is not your position, that in fact your rejection of this evidence is somehow science-based." What's your take on this (re: yourself in particular, creationists in general)?
I have indeed seen you acknowledge a problem, at least for a while, but you so far have always eventually backed off without any obvious explanation, or as in the Grand / Martian Canyon thread, you seem to be simultaneously carrying directly contradictory positions without realizing it. But I'll let you in on a little secret: you won't ever find evolutionary "predictions stated and shown" in creationist web sites. Nor will you find "good explanations for some of the serious challenges evolution has to answer" there, nor, frankly, are those sites even capable of identifying said serious challenges. You can deny that these are your only sources, but your "telomere aside" tells me you can't have been looking anywhere you would expect to find these things!
Sure! From my very first post, all I've wanted from TOL are honest discussions of the perceived problems with evolutionary theory and of the perceived scientific basis for creationist alternatives. I'd suggest that the human-chimp chromosomal comparisons do represent a genuine challenge for creationists, and let me offer three bits of evidence to support this: 1) your own response above, which was to question the legitimacy of the data (always a last resort if you have no reason to suspect problems); 2) the rather conspicuous lack of creationist web pages dedicated to attacking this "evidence;" 3) creationist Todd Wood's recent article (check the bryancore web site) in which he both a priori rejects the evidence but points out that creationists currently don't have any scientific basis for doing so.
I've started a number of threads with what I would consider "genuine challenges" to creationism, at least young earth creationism (since this is the noisy variety that tries to force its way into the scientific realm through political means). Here's a question I haven't asked before, that might fit the bill as well: What is the YEC explanation for the observations that 1) fossils in the most recently deposited sedimentary layers are virtually always* the same or nearly the same as a currently existing species, and 2) the older (deeper) the sedimentary layer, the more and more different are the fossils from modern species?
(*scientific cautious phrasing, as I don't know of any exceptions but that doesn't mean there aren't any)
Need a really long piece of plastic to print the two out on and then just lay one on top of the other.
We could use grey for the printouts and when you laid them on top of each other count up the black portions as hits and the greys as misses.
IF that's how it works.
I guess we need one of the smart people to tell us if that's how it works now.
Help
- Status