Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vanderzyden · 09-05-2002, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth:


So now you want to make a point about two idiograms from different sources being slightly different, eh? There is nothing shady going on here.

Slightly different?! The upper part of the images seem quite different, especially the portion above the centromere. Not only are nearly all of the band thicknesses disproportionate, but there are substitutions!

What explains that?

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth:


I worked for 5 years developing cytogenetic workstations (e.g automated image capture of metaphase spreads, separation and classification of chromosomes into karyotypes). The application had a database of "common" idiograms that could be used for different banding levels, etc. There was also an idiogram modification function where researchers could modify/develop their own idiograms to fit their particular needs/preferences.

(Emphasis mine)

Perhaps you could explain the last sentence further. This "operator discretion" would appear to leave data collection open to very broad configuration and interpretation.

Vanderzyden

scigirl · 09-05-2002, 06:33 PM

Oh and in response to "why are you doing this?"

Mainly, to educate not just you but all the lurkers.

I do not see you as a willing student, as I would, say, a person who signed up for a biology class because they were interested in it and actually wanted to learn.

I see you as a religious person who rejects basic tenets of science because a musty old book tells you to. Sorry if that sounds mean, but that's how I see it.

YES criticism of science is needed - and in fact that's how it works! But usually, if you want to critique science you first have to learn what it is, and how it works! You continue to show your scientific illiteracy (not even understanding the basics of meiosis and mitosis - and from one of your recent posts, it is obvious that you still don't understand these things) yet you continue to arrogantly assert that you are right and that the dogmatic propagandizing scientists are wrong!!!!

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

How can you be so sure they are wrong, when you barely know what a chromosome is? Your presence here is clearly not to learn (although I'm sure you have learned plenty), but to assert your beliefs, and that is why we are hostile with you.

scigirl

Doubting Didymus · 09-05-2002, 06:36 PM

Vanderzygen.

I am making comments concerning quotes you made in this thread.

As a matter of fact, there is another thread that calls you to answer this. It is currently caled 'a thread vanderzygen may have missed'. Can we see you there anytime soon?

How do you expect us to have a rational debate with someone who may or may not be a deliberate liar?

Blinn · 09-05-2002, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
Does anyone have an explanation for the disparity between these G-banding diagrams of human chromsome #2?

Perhaps this is an example of different interpretations of chromosomal structures.

Sources, respectively:

<a href="http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/genome/thgtoc2.htm" target="_blank">http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/genome/thgtoc2.htm</a>

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

[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]

Vanderzyden,

There's no disparity. It's only a matter of resolution. Please read <a href="http://www.informatics.jax.org/silver/5.2.shtml" target="_blank">this</a>. Specifically, section 5.2.1.2.

Here, let me help:

Quote:

5.2.1.2 Idiograms and band names
As a mechanism for facilitating data presentation and for comparing results obtained by different investigators, the light and dark bands observed in a raw karyotype are usually converted into idiograms, which are black and white drawings of idealized chromosomes as shown in Figure 5.2. Autosomes are numbered from 1 to 19, in descending order of length. Major bands (alternating dark and light regions) within each autosome are designated with a capital letter starting from A at the centromere, and ascending in alphabetical order. With an increase in resolution, most major bands can be resolved into a series of smaller bands, which are numbered sequentially from 1 starting at the proximal � or centromeric � side of the major band and ending at the distal � or telomeric � side. Finally, when increased resolution allows the visualization of multiple minor bands within a single previously defined sub-band, these are designated with a number (in sequence from 1) demarcated with a decimal point. As an example of the use of this nomenclature, the designation 17E1.3 represents (in reverse order), the third minor band within the first sub-band within the fifth major band (all in order from the centromere) on the mouse chromosome ranked seventeenth in size (illustrated in Figure 7.1).

Then go back and take a closer look at your adjacent images.

Vanderzyden · 09-05-2002, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl:


...which of these statements are you denying?

1) Telomeres and centromeres have characteristic sequences.

2) Human chromosome 2 has sequences that are characteristic of telomeres and centromeres that are extra.

scigirl

What is leading you to believe I reject #1? I don't.

Your second option is the problem. It escapes me how I can make it more clear: I find no reason to believe that relic centromeres or telomeres are present in present in any human chromosome.

I am willing to examine more research papers that report on attempts to discover these supposed relics. However, the one we have been reviewing is unconvincing.

Now, let me ask you some direct questions. Do you have an explanations for the following:

1. Can you address the concerns I raised at the top of <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001305&p=9" target="_blank">page 9</a> regarding "orphaned" chromosomes?

2. What about the example of G-banding disparity (the graphics I posted on page 10)?

Vanderzyden

Vanderzyden · 09-05-2002, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl:
Oh and in response to "why are you doing this?"

Mainly, to educate not just you but all the lurkers.

I do not see you as a willing student, as I would, say, a person who signed up for a biology class because they were interested in it and actually wanted to learn.

I see you as a religious person who rejects basic tenets of science because a musty old book tells you to. Sorry if that sounds mean, but that's how I see it.

YES criticism of science is needed - and in fact that's how it works! But usually, if you want to critique science you first have to learn what it is, and how it works! You continue to show your scientific illiteracy (not even understanding the basics of meiosis and mitosis - and from one of your recent posts, it is obvious that you still don't understand these things) yet you continue to arrogantly assert that you are right and that the dogmatic propagandizing scientists are wrong!!!!

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

How can you be so sure they are wrong, when you barely know what a chromosome is? Your presence here is clearly not to learn (although I'm sure you have learned plenty), but to assert your beliefs, and that is why we are hostile with you.

scigirl

I think you've made a mistake here, scigirl.

The question, asked by Starboy, was directed at me.

Alas, I see that you continue to hold "hostile" biases towards me. Until you drop them, our dialogue will be less than fruitful, I'm afraid.

Vanderzyden

Blinn · 09-05-2002, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:


What is leading you to believe I reject #1? I don't.

Your second option is the problem. It escapes me how I can make it more clear: I find no reason to believe that relic centromeres or telomeres are present in present in any human chromosome.

I am willing to examine more research papers that report on attempts to discover these supposed relics. However, the one we have been reviewing is unconvincing.

Now, let me ask you some direct questions. Do you have an explanations for the following:

1. Can you address the concerns I raised at the top of <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001305&p=9" target="_blank">page 9</a> regarding "orphaned" chromosomes?

2. What about the example of G-banding disparity (the graphics I posted on page 10)?

Vanderzyden

Hey Vanderzyden, I addressed both of your "concerns" and shot them both down - simply by pointing you to already known material posted on the web. Why do you keep ignoring everyone except scigirl? Hoping to wear down the med student that probably has 50 more important things to do than beat her head on her desk trying to educate an ineducable cretinist?

Vanderzyden · 09-05-2002, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zetek:


There's no disparity. It's only a matter of resolution. Please read this. Specifically, section 5.2.1.2.

Hmm....this merely describes the details behind the imagery, not the disparities between the two I'm presenting. Perhaps you could elaborate on what you intend for me to see.

Vanderzyden

scigirl · 09-05-2002, 06:51 PM

Vanderzyden,

The chromosomes are not orphaned. The other chromosomes would have to fuse after fertilization.

It helps to draw out pictures.

About the G banding - not sure, I'll have to look that up. (note I won't be looking it up for a while - see below). I do want to point out here that G-banding is from staining - which can vary from experiment to experiment. G banding patterns are only used to look at overall similarity (and both your and my picture still look remarkably similar, if you ask me, which well you did ask me!)

However, sequence data is much less ambiguous.

So are you now saying that the evidence was either faked, or misinterpreted from the beginning?

I like how you keep changing which part of the fusion you disagree with!

My suggestion - take a statistics course.

I will not have much time to post on this thread anymore, since I feel like I am wasting my time (and anatomy class is kicking my ass right now). So I guess I have to say - Vander, thanks for challenging my science skills, I think I improved my ability to explain data. Plus you gave me an excuse to read that paper in full.

My suggestion - before you try to argue against basic principles of science, try to learn them first! And. . .think about why you disagree with the science papers.

Is it because of the actual science? You may say, "yes," but then you have to be against a whole lot of other science papers too (did you know that the same inferences about centromere- and telomere-like sequences are also used in cancer research? Do you dispute the inferences and data from those labs as well, or are they A-OK?)

Or do you dispute the fusion primarily because of your religion? You never did answer this question, and I encourage you to at least think about it. If you are criticizing a field because of your religious beliefs, doesn't that put you at a disadvantage? Aren't you afraid that your biases are blinding you to the truths and facts and workings of science in general?

Well that's all I have to say. . .off to study anatomy for the next 80 hours!

scigirl

Blinn · 09-05-2002, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:


Hmm....this merely describes the details behind the imagery, not the disparities between the two I'm presenting. Perhaps you could elaborate on what you intend for me to see.

Vanderzyden

Perhaps you could elaborate on what the supposed disparities are?

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

09-05-2002, 06:33 PM	#242
scigirl Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 4,261	Oh and in response to "why are you doing this?" Mainly, to educate not just you but all the lurkers. I do not see you as a willing student, as I would, say, a person who signed up for a biology class because they were interested in it and actually wanted to learn. I see you as a religious person who rejects basic tenets of science because a musty old book tells you to. Sorry if that sounds mean, but that's how I see it. YES criticism of science is needed - and in fact that's how it works! But usually, if you want to critique science you first have to learn what it is, and how it works! You continue to show your scientific illiteracy (not even understanding the basics of meiosis and mitosis - and from one of your recent posts, it is obvious that you still don't understand these things) yet you continue to arrogantly assert that you are right and that the dogmatic propagandizing scientists are wrong!!!! <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> How can you be so sure they are wrong, when you barely know what a chromosome is? Your presence here is clearly not to learn (although I'm sure you have learned plenty), but to assert your beliefs, and that is why we are hostile with you. scigirl

09-05-2002, 06:36 PM	#243
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	Vanderzygen. I am making comments concerning quotes you made in this thread. As a matter of fact, there is another thread that calls you to answer this. It is currently caled 'a thread vanderzygen may have missed'. Can we see you there anytime soon? How do you expect us to have a rational debate with someone who may or may not be a deliberate liar?

09-05-2002, 06:51 PM	#249
scigirl Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 4,261	Vanderzyden, The chromosomes are not orphaned. The other chromosomes would have to fuse after fertilization. It helps to draw out pictures. About the G banding - not sure, I'll have to look that up. (note I won't be looking it up for a while - see below). I do want to point out here that G-banding is from staining - which can vary from experiment to experiment. G banding patterns are only used to look at overall similarity (and both your and my picture still look remarkably similar, if you ask me, which well you did ask me!) However, sequence data is much less ambiguous. So are you now saying that the evidence was either faked, or misinterpreted from the beginning? I like how you keep changing which part of the fusion you disagree with! My suggestion - take a statistics course. I will not have much time to post on this thread anymore, since I feel like I am wasting my time (and anatomy class is kicking my ass right now). So I guess I have to say - Vander, thanks for challenging my science skills, I think I improved my ability to explain data. Plus you gave me an excuse to read that paper in full. My suggestion - before you try to argue against basic principles of science, try to learn them first! And. . .think about why you disagree with the science papers. Is it because of the actual science? You may say, "yes," but then you have to be against a whole lot of other science papers too (did you know that the same inferences about centromere- and telomere-like sequences are also used in cancer research? Do you dispute the inferences and data from those labs as well, or are they A-OK?) Or do you dispute the fusion primarily because of your religion? You never did answer this question, and I encourage you to at least think about it. If you are criticizing a field because of your religious beliefs, doesn't that put you at a disadvantage? Aren't you afraid that your biases are blinding you to the truths and facts and workings of science in general? Well that's all I have to say. . .off to study anatomy for the next 80 hours! scigirl

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.