Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dk · 10-10-2002, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus:
DK, try using a published paper next time. All you have offered is unreviewed internet fluff.
About junk DNA:

A little fact not mention in your post, both coding and non-coding DNA produce the same trees. So your complaints are invalid.

[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]

If the underlying structure of DNA manifests appearances, then it establishes a pattern, not a philosopher's stone or the elixir of life.

Valentine Pontifex · 10-10-2002, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk:

But I will remind you about the battle going on between HGS, Celera, Incyte and other genome enterprises. Celera says there are as few as 26,000 genes and max of 40,000; HGS claims to have discovered 90,000, and Insyte vows 140,000.

This is completely false. There have been two genome projects: Human Genome Project and Celera. The numbers you have given are bugus. From the issue of Science which the public data was published:

Quote:

...What interested me most about the genome? The number of genes is high on the list. The public project estimates that there are 31,000 protein-encoding genes in the human genome, of which they can now provide a list of 22,000. Celera finds about 26,000....

<a href="http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v409/n6822/full/409814a0_fs.html" target="_blank">Click here</a>

No one is claiming that there are "90,000" or "140,000" genes in the human genome. Before the work of the Human Genome Project and Celera was published, 100,000 was a common guestimate.

Valentine Pontifex · 10-10-2002, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk:


And here I thought you guys were non-judgmental. But on a serious note, would this guy be any more competent if he bowed at the alter of evolution?

Ignoring that there is no alter, the answer is no.

Valentine Pontifex · 10-10-2002, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk:


And here I thought you guys were non-judgmental.

I will agree with dk on one thing. The use of the term "NitWit Tech" was uncalled for. We should avoid name calling and no evidence was provided that "Northwest Tech" was an unworthy institution. And attacking someone for there geographical location in a "bible belt" is not kosher either.

Doubting Didymus · 10-10-2002, 04:16 PM

Pardon me if this sounds rude, dk, as that is not my intent. But do you have a point of some kind? I am quite seriously having some problems trying to work out what you are actually trying to say.

I appreciate the admission that you would have to change your outlook if the evidence is convincing, but you also admit a total lack of knowledge in the field and an apparent unwillingness to discuss the technical evidence.

So what is your actual point about the fused chromosomes?

Remembering that the evolutionary explanation for this phenomenon is that our chromosome is similar to an apes two chromosomes, because we each got our chromosomes from the same ancestor. This explanation fits all the evidence (why there are extra centromeres, why the chromosomes are similar etc), regardless of which came first, the evidence or the question.

You seem to be wanting this evidence to 'prove' evolution, but you have a slightly faulty concept of what is going on in this case.

The thing about theories in science is that, when some evidence arises, it is matched to the theory to see if it can be explained by that theory. If the theory provides a perfect explanation for the data, then the data is said to support the theory.

This is what people mean when they say that theories can not be 'proven' in a sense, they can only be supported or unsupported by evidence.

So, in this case, the fused human chromosome supports the theory of common descent, because it is explained by the theory. Why is the human chromosome similar to two ape chromosomes joined end to end? Because we both share the same ancestor, who passed the same genes on to our line and the chimpanzee line. Why are ours fused, and apes not? Because a telomeric fusion occured after we split from apes.

Its a slightly different concept from the 'proof' you are probably used to. When you see your car outside your window, you say that the location of the car is proven to be ouside your house. If science addressed the question formally and technically, it would first pose a hypothesis: that your car is parked outside. Then it would collect data, by a visual test. (looking for the car). Ideally any variables would be controlled and multiple tests with various testers would be performed, the results of which would no doubt be: 'visual tests show that light forming the shape of a car radiates from a location ouside your house'.

Does the hypothesis explain this data? Yes, it does: The car shaped light is emanating from your car, which is hypothesised to be present at that location. The hypothesis is supported by the visual evidence. Further supporting evidence from more tests also support the hypothesis, and it is now the theory that your car is outside. In a technical sense, 'proof' never enters the process. Alternative hypotheses are still possible, but the only question to ask is: do the other hypotheses explain the data better?

What is it you dispute. Is it:

1) That the chromosome is a telomeric fusion between two shorter chromosomes.

2) That the chromosome displays the same presence and order of the genes in the two chromosomes present in chimps?

(questions one and two, therefore, are questions about whether you accept that the evidence is accurate)

3) That common descent is a very good explaination for the evidence.

or 4) That no other theory explains the evidence even better.

[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: Doubting Didymus ]

Albion · 10-10-2002, 04:20 PM

Quote:

And here I thought you guys were non-judgmental. But on a serious note, would this guy be any more competent if he bowed at the alter of evolution?

No competent scientist would treat evolution as something to be worshipped.

Blinn · 10-10-2002, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Valentine Pontifex:


I will agree with dk on one thing. The use of the term "NitWit Tech" was uncalled for. We should avoid name calling and no evidence was provided that "Northwest Tech" was an unworthy institution. And attacking someone for there geographical location in a "bible belt" is not kosher either.

That's what the locals call it, for all that's worth. Other names for it are "Cornfield College" and "Factory U." (implying that anyone getting a degree from there ends up getting a manufacturing job anyway). No, it's not an unworthy educational facility; but considering that someone who supposedly has seven degrees, which he stands on to critique evolution in favor if Intelligent Design (after being fired from a state university for same idiocy) chooses to work at this facility, when instead he could be preaching to a wider audience - why the hell doesn't he? Why doesn't Oxford or Harvard hire him if he's so damn brilliant? If you had to live with these cretins for 19 years as I did, then you'd be as cynical as I am.

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

Blinn · 10-10-2002, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk:


And here I thought you guys were non-judgmental. But on a serious note, would this guy be any more competent if he bowed at the alter of evolution?

I try not to be, but i am human; it comes from experience.

Blinn · 10-10-2002, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Albion:


No competent scientist would treat evolution as something to be worshipped.

I agree.

And I don't want to hijack this thread, so I request that we go back to chromosome fusions.

[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: Zetek ]

RufusAtticus · 10-11-2002, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk:


If the underlying structure of DNA manifests appearances, then it establishes a pattern, not a philosopher's stone or the elixir of life.

What does this have to do with anything?

10-10-2002, 04:16 PM	#25
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	Pardon me if this sounds rude, dk, as that is not my intent. But do you have a point of some kind? I am quite seriously having some problems trying to work out what you are actually trying to say. I appreciate the admission that you would have to change your outlook if the evidence is convincing, but you also admit a total lack of knowledge in the field and an apparent unwillingness to discuss the technical evidence. So what is your actual point about the fused chromosomes? Remembering that the evolutionary explanation for this phenomenon is that our chromosome is similar to an apes two chromosomes, because we each got our chromosomes from the same ancestor. This explanation fits all the evidence (why there are extra centromeres, why the chromosomes are similar etc), regardless of which came first, the evidence or the question. You seem to be wanting this evidence to 'prove' evolution, but you have a slightly faulty concept of what is going on in this case. The thing about theories in science is that, when some evidence arises, it is matched to the theory to see if it can be explained by that theory. If the theory provides a perfect explanation for the data, then the data is said to support the theory. This is what people mean when they say that theories can not be 'proven' in a sense, they can only be supported or unsupported by evidence. So, in this case, the fused human chromosome supports the theory of common descent, because it is explained by the theory. Why is the human chromosome similar to two ape chromosomes joined end to end? Because we both share the same ancestor, who passed the same genes on to our line and the chimpanzee line. Why are ours fused, and apes not? Because a telomeric fusion occured after we split from apes. Its a slightly different concept from the 'proof' you are probably used to. When you see your car outside your window, you say that the location of the car is proven to be ouside your house. If science addressed the question formally and technically, it would first pose a hypothesis: that your car is parked outside. Then it would collect data, by a visual test. (looking for the car). Ideally any variables would be controlled and multiple tests with various testers would be performed, the results of which would no doubt be: 'visual tests show that light forming the shape of a car radiates from a location ouside your house'. Does the hypothesis explain this data? Yes, it does: The car shaped light is emanating from your car, which is hypothesised to be present at that location. The hypothesis is supported by the visual evidence. Further supporting evidence from more tests also support the hypothesis, and it is now the theory that your car is outside. In a technical sense, 'proof' never enters the process. Alternative hypotheses are still possible, but the only question to ask is: do the other hypotheses explain the data better? What is it you dispute. Is it: 1) That the chromosome is a telomeric fusion between two shorter chromosomes. 2) That the chromosome displays the same presence and order of the genes in the two chromosomes present in chimps? (questions one and two, therefore, are questions about whether you accept that the evidence is accurate) 3) That common descent is a very good explaination for the evidence. or 4) That no other theory explains the evidence even better. [ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: Doubting Didymus ]</p>

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.