Freethought & Rationalism Archive

scigirl · 07-15-2002, 08:15 AM

GeoTheo,

Well I've decided that this is the best piece of evidence for evolution mainly because
1) it deals with humans, and
2) I understand genetics!

So any time a creationist shows up, my only question to them now is this: How does the theory of YEC explain this phenomenon:

We have sequences that look like chimp telomeres (ends) in the middle of the chromosome that we believe is two fused ones.

<a href="http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html" target="_blank">http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html</a>

Chimps have 24 chromosomes in their sperm/eggs, we only have 23.

Quote:

There are two potential naturalistic explanations for the difference in chromosome numbers - either a fusion of two separate chromosomes occurred in the human line, or a fission of a chromosome occurred among the apes. The evidence favors a fusion event in the human line. One could imagine that the fusion is only an apparent artifact of the work of a designer or the work of nature (due to common ancestry). The common ancestry scenario presents two predictions. Since the chromosomes were apparently joined end to end, and the ends of chromosomes (called the telomere ) have a distinctive structure from the rest of the chromosome, there may be evidence of this structure in the middle of human chromosome 2 where the fusion apparently occurred. Also, since both of the chromosomes that hypothetically were fused had a centromere (the distinctive central part of the chromosome), we should see some evidence of two centromeres.

So, not only does evolutionary theory explain how we got 23 chromosomes from 24, it makes two testable predictions. Do the predictions come true? Yes indeed: (I cut out a bunch of this for brevity, but feel free to read it yourself - this page is great).

Quote:

The first prediction (evidence of a telomere at the fusion point) is shown to be true in reference 3 [...] When the vicinity of chromosome 2 where the fusion is expected to occur (based on comparison to chimp chromosomes 2p and 2q) is examined, we see first sequences that are characteristic of the pre-telomeric region, then a section of telomeric sequences, and then another section of pre-telomeric sequences. Furthermore, in the telomeric section, it is observed that there is a point where instead of being arranged head to tail, the telomeric repeats suddenly reverse direction - becoming (CCCTAA)3' instead of 5'(TTAGGG), and the second pre-telomeric section is also the reverse of the first telomeric section. This pattern is precisely as predicted by a telomere to telomere fusion of the chimpanzee (ancestor) 2p and 2q chromosomes, and in precisely the expected location.

The second prediction - remnants of the 2p and 2q centromeres is documented in reference 4. The normal centromere found on human chromosome 2 lines up with the 2p chimp chromosome, and the remnants of the 2q chromosome is found at the expected location based upon the banding pattern.
[...]
Now, the question has to be asked - if the similarities of the chromosomes are due only to common design rather than common ancestry, why are the remnants of a telomere and centromere (that should never have existed) found at exactly the positions predicted by a naturalistic fusion of the chimp ancestor chromosomes 2p and 2q?

Well, let's hear it, Geo! Impress us with your acumen.

scigirl

GeoTheo · 07-15-2002, 09:05 AM

It definately presents a very strong case for evolution as opposed to poofing. What I mean by that is:*poof* a chimp, *poof* a human, *poof* a frog etc.
Perhaps the firt person was created originally from a modified chimp. The chimp being an exemplar from which was made a copy that was then modified into a human being. For some reason those particular chromosomes needed to be fused.
Since DNA is designed also to continue making copies of itself through reproduction, this original modification from the chimp body plan or whatever is preserved to this day.
So We see that Man was made from the dust of the Earth, but in a slightly more removed fashion, more specifically He was made from chimps, which were in turn made from gibbons, which were made from monkeys etc. down to the simplest form of life that was originally made from the actuall dust. This is also why their appears to be a tree of life and not odd clusters of totally anatomically different creatures with no vestigal organs etc. This also why we see creatures halfway between a reptile and a bird but not creatures half way between a mammal and a fish. Reptiles were the exemplars for birds but mammals are not the exemplars of fish.
There how's that?

nogods4me · 07-15-2002, 09:07 AM

uh, if you are a YEC, then that generally means that you are a biblical literalist, correct? If that is true then you should believe that god made Adam from the dirt, not from some spare chimp parts he had laying about the garage.

GeoTheo · 07-15-2002, 09:10 AM

Can you look at it on its own merits?

Mageth · 07-15-2002, 09:23 AM

It has equally as much merit as any other magickal creation myth, I suppose. Not unlike some African tribal myths that say, for example, the wildebeast was the last animal created, and was created from spare parts left over from other animals.

[ July 15, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

GeoTheo · 07-15-2002, 09:31 AM

disprove it.

Mageth · 07-15-2002, 09:38 AM

I don't think it can be disproved. Magickal explanations are like that. That's why it's not a valid scientific theory.

Mageth · 07-15-2002, 09:39 AM

Besides that, the onus is on you to prove it, not on me to disprove it.

GeoTheo · 07-15-2002, 09:43 AM

You just created a semantical problem so that no debate can actually take place. Was that your intention?

Mageth · 07-15-2002, 09:56 AM

Huh?

So far all you've done is pose a rather ill-defined magickal explanation. I'm saying I can't disprove your ill-defined magickal explanation. I could ask you to explain the intermediate species between chimps and humans that are in the fossil record, but you can always posit more magick to explain those. The same is true for any evidence I or others might suggest.

Once again, the onus is on you. can you prove it? What predictive power does it have? What evidence of such occurrences should you look for? How does your theory better match/explain the evidence scigirl posted than current evolutionary theory?

Essentially, magick doesn't serve any scientific purpose. Because it can be used to explain anything and everything, it is useless in science as an explanation.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-15-2002, 09:05 AM	#2
GeoTheo Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Bemidji Posts: 1,197	It definately presents a very strong case for evolution as opposed to poofing. What I mean by that is:poof a chimp, poof a human, poof a frog etc. Perhaps the firt person was created originally from a modified chimp. The chimp being an exemplar from which was made a copy that was then modified into a human being. For some reason those particular chromosomes needed to be fused. Since DNA is designed also to continue making copies of itself through reproduction, this original modification from the chimp body plan or whatever is preserved to this day. So We see that Man was made from the dust of the Earth, but in a slightly more removed fashion, more specifically He was made from chimps, which were in turn made from gibbons, which were made from monkeys etc. down to the simplest form of life that was originally made from the actuall dust. This is also why their appears to be a tree of life and not odd clusters of totally anatomically different creatures with no vestigal organs etc. This also why we see creatures halfway between a reptile and a bird but not creatures half way between a mammal and a fish. Reptiles were the exemplars for birds but mammals are not the exemplars of fish. There how's that?

07-15-2002, 09:07 AM	#3
nogods4me Contributor Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Baltimore, MD USA Posts: 17,432	uh, if you are a YEC, then that generally means that you are a biblical literalist, correct? If that is true then you should believe that god made Adam from the dirt, not from some spare chimp parts he had laying about the garage.

07-15-2002, 09:10 AM	#4
GeoTheo Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Bemidji Posts: 1,197	Can you look at it on its own merits?

07-15-2002, 09:23 AM	#5
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	It has equally as much merit as any other magickal creation myth, I suppose. Not unlike some African tribal myths that say, for example, the wildebeast was the last animal created, and was created from spare parts left over from other animals. [ July 15, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

07-15-2002, 09:31 AM	#6
GeoTheo Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Bemidji Posts: 1,197	disprove it.

07-15-2002, 09:38 AM	#7
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I don't think it can be disproved. Magickal explanations are like that. That's why it's not a valid scientific theory.

07-15-2002, 09:39 AM	#8
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Besides that, the onus is on you to prove it, not on me to disprove it.

07-15-2002, 09:43 AM	#9
GeoTheo Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Bemidji Posts: 1,197	You just created a semantical problem so that no debate can actually take place. Was that your intention?

07-15-2002, 09:56 AM	#10
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Huh? So far all you've done is pose a rather ill-defined magickal explanation. I'm saying I can't disprove your ill-defined magickal explanation. I could ask you to explain the intermediate species between chimps and humans that are in the fossil record, but you can always posit more magick to explain those. The same is true for any evidence I or others might suggest. Once again, the onus is on you. can you prove it? What predictive power does it have? What evidence of such occurrences should you look for? How does your theory better match/explain the evidence scigirl posted than current evolutionary theory? Essentially, magick doesn't serve any scientific purpose. Because it can be used to explain anything and everything, it is useless in science as an explanation.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.