MrKrinkles

Monkenstick,

Don't get your hopes up. I'm sure Vander will concoct yet more excuses to avoid addressing the evidence.

Brooks

Happy Wonderer

Let's see if I can guess the objection. "I don't understand the process used to discover these sequences. I think it is flawed, so of course a flawed process will generate the same flawed data no matter how many different people perform it."

Perhaps someone could take a crack at a layman-readable description of modern sequencing techniques?

HW

(O.K., I'll 'fess up. I'm a lurker who is enjoying the information presented here. This is where I'dlike to see the discussion go. How do you people figure this stuff out? )

[ September 17, 2002: Message edited by: Happy Wonderer ]</p>

Blinn

Happy Wonderer,

Here's a nice page that explains <a href="http://seqcore.brcf.med.umich.edu/doc/educ/dnapr/sequencing.html" target="_blank">DNA sequencing</a>. I needed a refresher too. Look <a href="http://seqcore.brcf.med.umich.edu/doc/educ/dnapr/" target="_blank">here</a> if you need more background on DNA structure.

Vanderzyden

"Undisputed" is very different from "small possibility". Perhaps I still don't understand your meaning here.



It is not only a matter of quantity, but quality. Papers that make gross simplifications, contain large amounts of propaganda, and fail to be self-critical are less likely to be persuasive. This is especially relevant for controversial subjects.

Also, current research is important for foundational or controversial subjects. If a supposed chromosome fusion is so crucial in demonstrating human evolution to be true, then why haven't others come forward to validate the findings from over a decade ago?

Incidentally, this <a href="http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html" target="_blank">web site</a> is hardly persuasive, especially since it is filled with ridiculous "party line" material.

The Yunis articles you cite concern g-banding, which is a high-level profile of a chromosome. Can you find papers which concern the details, like the IJdo paper?


Tentative language is good. Evasive or simplifying language is another matter entirely.

Vanderzyden

[ September 17, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

You're right, you don't. What he's saying is that amongst professionals, it's undisputed. There exists, however, a possibility that he really just simply thinks he's right.
Evolution is NOT controversial amongst people with a scientific background, or people the world over. Only in the USA is this even a concern. And guess what? Those articles contain no "propaganda"--unless, of course, you count facts as propaganda.
They did--a decade ago. Again, evolution is NOT controversial.
As oppossed to your extrodinarily biased opinion. Incidentally, this isn't filled with ridiculous material, not really even "party line" material. It's filled with the exact knowledge that is availible.
Wait--first you say you can't understand what is being said (from other threads), then you say the simplifying language is bad.

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

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Give the man a prize.

Doubting Didymus

Sorry, you misunderstood me. The fact that human chromosome 2 is the result of a telomeric fusion of two shorter chromosomes is 'undisputed' in the sense that there do not exist any studies or tests that have returned a negative to this. It is 'undisputed' today, because it has been well known for many years.

My use of 'small possibility' was just a little sarcasm.

"There is just a small possibility that I think I am right."

See? I am just pointing out that there is no sinister propaganda in my strong terms. I am not secretly doubting my claims and having to reinforce them like a mantra. I use confident language like 'undisputed' in this case, simply because I think I am correct on these counts.

Please point out which parts from the papers we have shown you are too simple, or contain propaganda. Note: SERIOUS REQUEST, not fasiciousness.

Scientists certainly do current research on controvertial topics. You will probably find a lot of current work on human chromosome 17. It is currently controvertial, I have heard. I am not sure just why.

However, THESE issues, (namely: that chromosome #2 is a telomeric fusion and that humans share 98.4% of chimpanzee genes) are not controvertial. If you whack a bell, it goes ding. If you do this several times for a number of years, I think you have earned the right to say 'this bell goes ding' and stop confirming and reconfirming it. The same is true of genetic homology and the telomeric fusion. they have been confirmed many times, and there is little point in doing it again.

Mind you, any scientist with the spare time is certainly free to do it all over again, and publish the data.

Note that above I am making a distinction between controversy over the implications and controversy over the data. You will find much debate over just what it means to be 98% chimp, but there has not been genuine scientific dispute over the actual data for a long time. If anything ever surfaced, it would be guaranteed a place in the journals provided that the methods were sound.

I did not expect you to find the website convincing, It was just to show you that the data therein comes from referenced journal articles.

Sorry, contain the details of what? I am not sure what you are asking for.

You have attacked commonly used words like 'speculated' and 'possible'. Are these tentative or evasive?

monkenstick

so vander?

whats the explanation. or are you still going to quibble over a sequence that has been verified independently 4 different times?

Coragyps

The whole sunufabitchin' human GENOME has been sequenced already! Get over it, Van!

Blinn

One more relevant abstract:

<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=176527 3&dopt=Abstract" target="_blank">Molecular evolution of the urate oxidase-encoding gene in hominoid primates: nonsense mutations.</a>