Doubting Didymus

A quick response to Ipetrich to clear some things up, and we can get back to the chromosome challenge.

I do not know how to test for conciousness, but I am not saying that baboons possess a sense of self, or the ability to think from another beings perspective, which is another sure sign of complex intelligence.

I am only saying that I think babboons, and all mammals I can think of, probably think. Their thoughts might be primitve and not related to self awareness, but I just dont have any reason to suspect that the behavious of a dog, for example, is completely stimulus response automation. I think dogs have thoughts, as distinct from complex thought patterns nessesary for self awareness and empathy.

I don't think anyone here seriously doubts that dogs have a mind, do they? I would be interested in knowing why.

To address the out-of-context quotes, I strongly suspect that vanderzyden didn't know they were out of context when he posted them. I think he got them, already misquoted, from a creationist literature somewhere.

Vanderzyden

This is not a demonstration, but merely hypothesis. I've grown weary of such assertions found in introductory biology texts, which uncritically feed undemonstrable Darwinism to unwary young people.

Let me be clear: I have yet to see any convincing demonstration or argument that ANY kind of chromosome fusion occurs naturally. My understanding is that translocations are not necessarily fusions, but are fragmentation of genetic components.

Perhaps scigirl or others will bring this to light when they find time to reply.

Doubting Didymus

What do you want to see? We've shown you the theory of how it happens, we've shown you numerous examples of where we think it has happened, what more do you need?

Please don't tell me you want to watch while, under a microscope, we actually see it happen? INSIDE the testicle of a field mouse?

To believe that my car got into my garage because someone drove it there, I do not need to watch while it is driven in. I need a theory that shows it to be possible (the theory that cars drive), and the evidence that it is, in fact, there.

[ August 28, 2002: Message edited by: Doubting Didymus ]</p>

Mageth

My understanding is that translocations are not necessarily fusions, but are fragmentation of genetic components.

My understanding is that "fusion" is also used as a general term in genetics for "sticking together." A translocation is where a part of one chromosome breaks off and fuses to a different chromosome (an unbalanced translocation) or where parts of two different chromosomes break off, "switch places" and fuse to the "wrong" chromosomes (a balanced translocation).

So in a sense you can't have a translocation without at least one fusion!

The fusion being discussed in this thread (as defined by Futayama in Doubting Didymus' post) is a special case.

Automaton

Nice try at an evasion buddy, but no dice. If you think it's merely the same ol', common courtesy still mandates that you at least reply to me to point this out. Your apparent inability or refusal to do so speaks volumes.
All of your quotes that I could directly check were out-of-context or irrelevent. If you dispute this, please give specific examples. Or perhaps I will show you again:

• Your distortion: -- “...scientists started analyzing a variety of genes from different organisms and found that their relationships to each other contradicted the evolutionary tree of life derived from rRNA analysis alone." [James Lake, Ravi Jain, Maria Rivera, "Mix and Match in the Tree of Life", Science 283 (1999), pp. 2027.]
• In context: The clonal theory began to crumble a decade ago when scientists started analyzing a variety of genes from different organisms and found that their relationship to each other contradicted the evolutionary tree of life derived from rRNA analysis alone. To explain the differences between the evolutionary trees reconstructed from eukaryotic rRNAs and from proteins, Sogin (2) proposed a chimeric origin for eukaryotic genomes, with rRNA genes coming from one organism and genes encoding proteins coming from another. Analyses of DNA-dependent, RNA polymerases (3) and heat shock protein (hsp70) gene sequences from different organisms (4) supported theories of chimeric evolution(5-10).
• Analysis: You deliberately misquoted an article about the realisation of the importance of horizontal gene transfer in microbial evolution, in an effort to make it sound like it invalidated the entire field.
• Your distortion: -- "With more and more sequences available, it turned out that most protein phylogenies contradict each other as well as the rRNA tree." [Herve Phillipe and Patrick Fortrerre, "The Root of the Universal Tree of Life is not Reliable", Journal of Molecular Evolution 49 (1999) p. 510]
• Analysis: Irrelevent. This is talking about the root of the tree of life, an issue which is hotly debated and certainly not settled as phylogenetically untouchable by one paper.
• Your distortion: -- "No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced. Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its roots to the major branchings within and among the various [groups] to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves. " [Carl Woese, "The universal ancestor", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95 (1998), p. 6854]
• In context: No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced. Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves. Yet there is no consistent alternative to the rRNA phylogeny, and that phylogeny is supported by a number of fundamental genes.
• Analysis: This (expressing more of a minority view in science) article was actually supporting (apparently both SSU and LSU) rRNA phylogeny (probably due to this gene being highly conserved). In fact, most of the prominent experts see protein and morphological phylogeny to be just as extremely useful, and "incongrueties" are always to expected, (the fossil record is not perfect, and neither is the molecular one), but these are fixed using Bayesian analysis.
• Most of your other little quotes were out-of-date or hopelessly irrelevent. Please read my post for more details.

What do you think this post of yours I'm currently responding to is? A decesive, thorough, and well-thought out response to my rebuttal? No, it's just one big, pathetic, cop-out that it's merely the "same ol'" (When what is your stuff? Mostly just regurgitated ad nauseum from the likes of Wells.)
That's nice, now do what you didn't do in your other threads. Respond to the post made by me, right here, the one they call Automaton.
Chromosome fusion, or monosomy, is incredibly well-documented and is a cause of illnesses. In one particular case, it resulted in a spontaneous abortion:

• A.M. Joosten, S. De Vos, D. Van Opstal, H. Brandenburg, J.L. Gaillard, and C. Vermeij-Keers. 1997. Full monosomy 21, prenatally diagnosed by fluorescent in situ hybridization. Prenatal Diagnosis 17(3):271-5. [<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=911037 2&dopt=Abstract" target="_blank">abstract</a>]

I'm sure she is, but she is an actual life scientist, so her posting anything will naturally take a while due to time constraints.

Mageth

Here's a telomere-telomere fusion example:
<a href="http://www.faseb.org/genetics/ashg99/f2062.htm" target="_blank">Telomere-telomere fusion of chromosomes 7 and 22 </a>

Mageth

Chromosome fusion, or monosomy,...

Monosomy is defined as missing one chromosome (2N - 1), and is not the result of fusion (IIRC). Turner's Syndrome in humans is the result of monosomy X.

Skeptical

Ok, what exactly are you looking for? I am not a geneticist, but everything I've read that geneticists have written, including the links I gave you in my last post in this thread, agree that fusions occur. Some of the links even include specific examples of fusions. I'm not sure what exactly it is that you want more than this. If you provide a specific example of what your looking for maybe someone can supply the information.

Please look at the links I posted for you and see if any of the information there is what your looking for.

Starboy

GeoTheo,

Methinks thou doest protest too much. Has someone hit a nerve?

Starboy

Blinn

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> Why stop there Vanderzyden? No one here has demonstrated that chromosomes exist have they? Hell, if we don't demonstrate DNA replication, protein synthesis, photosynthesis, the Krebs cycle, meiosis, osmosis, imbibition, fermentation, mitosis, ovulation, the nitrogen cycle (shall I keep going?) or anything else, then why should you accept it? Those things certainly must be undemonstrable phenomena that us evil scientists are force feeding to unwary young people!

This is an evolution discussion forum. If you lack even basic knowledge of chemical and biological systems, then you need to be spending your time somewhere other than here. It's not our job to educate you on such simple matters.