Mageth

Yes, following his rejection of God, Darwin established a new religion of his own. Darwin is therefore a synthetic savior.

What is that religion? I'm not familiar with it. Where did Darwin write about it?

Further, Christianity is the only religion I know of that has a "savoir." I may be wrong in that, but I know that a savior is not a requirement of a religion. So, even if Darwin establised a "religion," why would it require a savior, and why would Darwin be that savior?

Vanderzyden

Scigirl,

I'm going back to your detailed analysis of the "Origin of Human Chromsome 2" paper.

While I appreciate the education on the organization of research papers, I find that this paper isn't persuasive, and remain surprised at the amount of propaganda present it contains.

Let me make a few more points:

But, I must ask: Eliminated on what basis? There is no explanation. In fact, fully one third of that paragraph (all of the first and last sentences)is nothing but proganda, which insists that the "inverted arrangement" is "precisely" what is predicted for a fusion.

Complex, for sure. What bothers most is that the entire document is full of "indications" such as these. If anything, they say "we're not quite sure what we're looking at". But, I guess that this is where weaseling comes in: they have to make it sound authoritative. Hmmm....


This is wholly unsatisfying as an explanation. Care to elaborate?

Also, you did not address my concern about two possible modes of fusion. An explanation is necessary for this statement, in the first paragraph following the abstract:

Perhaps you could venture a guess as to why we find no exclusion of the possibility of a centromeric fusion in the article.

MOST IMPORTANT -- You also did not address what may be considered the most controversial aspect of this topic:

[b]If supposed chromosome fusions are always associated with genetic malfunction, then what makes it likely that a fusion in the common ancestor produced the beginnings of a new species, instead of yet another genetic malfunction? [b]


My suggestion: we should consider this paper to have been prematurely conclusive, and look elsewhere for evidence of "common ancestor chromosome fusion". What do you say?


Other problems:

I am amused at the name and concept of "weasel words." Why is it necessary to weasel? Why make something more than it really is? Doesn't this contribute to the invention of tall tales? Is this universal practice? I am now beginning to imagine a big balloon filled with hot air!

It's not that I don't like the data. Data is my friend. Rather, phylogenies of any kind remain unconvincing. The only real data is from things presently living. Most of these "trees of life" are pure invention and fail trivial comparative studies.

A note on peer reviews: With all the "weaseling" that happens, and the agreement that such embellishment is permissible, it is difficult for an outsider to place much confidence on peer reviews. Furthermore, what does "peer-reviewed" really mean. Surely it doesn't include scientists who are vocal about their disdain for Darwinism. To do so would be to conduct a genuine peer-review! And no, I'm not talking about conspiracy, but naturalistic dogmatism.

Vanderzyden

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Doubting Didymus

Van, we have already shown you that this is not true. Why do you keep saying this? Your quotes were not about phylogenetic trees at the level we are talking about, they were about phylogenetic trees at the prokaryotic level, where organisms frequently exchange DNA. Did you not understand that?

Your use of those quotes in the manner you did, deliberately excluding the context that specified prokaryotes was an immoral act of libel. You made respected scientists sound like they were saying something they were not. You are a criminal to have done what you did. (Either you personally, or the author of the creationist paper I suspect you shamelessly lifted them from).

Phylogenetic trees for multicellular organisms are extremely accurate. They agree extremely well with one another. They also agree with homologous structures. You have identified no problems with genetic phylogeny at the animal level.

Do you understand this yet?

scigirl

Vanderzyden,

Your critique of the paper is severely flawed. You clearly don't understand what the paper is about, or how the methods work. Yet you think you know how to make inferences about the data better than the scientists!

What propaganda?

Vander, is this your first time reading a research article? Please read more research articles - perhaps in fields that you don't reject, like cancer or something. Then get back to me. The very nature of how scientific articles appear to be a stumbling block for you.

They eliminated this possibility by looking at the other parts of the chromosomes near the extra telomeres, and showed that these parts were not duplicated. Therefore - it is unlikely that the telomere region was duplicated (because other parts of the chromosome would have probably been duplicated as well, and they weren't). Is that more clear?

Your main objection to the paper here seems to be, "I don't get it. . . therefore it must be false!"

So any paper that is above your head is propaganda?
Um, did you actually read the article? I thought that was obvious. They excluded this possibility by the raw sequence data - the telomeres were there in the correct spots, and there were no "breakages". If it was a centromeric fusion, their data would have shown a piece or two missing from the 2p/2qs and well, go back and look at those pictures (actually I'm posting them below) and see for yourself what a centromere verses a telomere fusion would have looked like, and what the chromosome DOES look like.

I don't know. That's the next study. And actually this paper did start to address that question in the discussion.

That is an excellent question, and it is precisely why scientists are studying it. How could this have taken place? Under what conditions were the chimps "pressured" or selected to have fused chromosomes? What implications - both medical and non-medical - are derived from these types of evolutionary studies?

You stated,
Well I don't think we need to look elsewhere, because the fact of human and chimp evolution has been known and proven for the last 150 years.

But should scientists begin to address the questions that I just posed? Absolutely. And they are.

What evidence, by the way, would NOW convince you personally that the chromosomes fused, since all of your previous objections have been addressed?

Well, that's a good question. Why do scientists use words like "tentative" or "speculation?" Because their conclusions are tentative, and they are speculation.

However at this point, the data we have discussed have convinced scientists to regard the fusion as a fact. It is no longered speculation.

What is still speculation? Well, exactly how it happened is still speculation. As is the implications of the fusion (i.e. how did this fusion help humans to evolve?)

Yet you believe the Bible is infallible? All I can say to that is, <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Yes science is filled with errors and people who make errors, or even people who lie. But science has something that religious texts never do: Error-correcting mechanisms. When I read 1Corinthians, I don't ever see Paul writing, "Well I'm not exactly sure if this is what Jesus meant or not, I'm going to do another study!" If peer review is flawed due to human nature, than the Bible is at least 100 times more flawed!!

Ok, let's back up.

Will you at least grant the following facts:

1. Two chimp chromosomes look like this:

Chimp 2p: T--&lt;--p---c---p--&gt;--T

Chimp 2q: T--&lt;--p------c------p--&gt;--T

2. Here's an IF/THEN statement using the above picture: If there was a fusion event between 2p and 2q, then our human chromosome #2 would look like this:

T--&lt;--p---c---p--&gt;--TT--&lt;--p------c------p--&gt;--T

3. Our human chromosome #2 does look like this:

T--&lt;--p---c---p--&gt;--TT--&lt;--p------c------p--&gt;--T

We aren't talking proofs or mechanisms here, we are just stating the facts, and making a logical IF THEN statement. Do you agree, yes or no, with the previous 2 facts and the 1 IF/THEN statement (I.E. if you were a computer, does this logic break down?)

Now either the chromosomes fused, or they didn't, right? Let's suppose that the chromosomes did not fuse together. What would we see in human chromosome #2? There are two possibilities:

A) It could look nothing like 2p and 2q
B) It could look like 2q and 2p fusion, but for some other reason other than fusion.

So, at this point, we can say for sure that possibility A above definitely did not occur (they do indeed look like they fused).

Can we at least get this far? Then we can go into mechanisms, and how we get from saying "looks like they fused" to "proving they fused" ?

scigirl

Vibr8gKiwi

I'm not going to respond further to the "Darwin as Savior" issue (because I don't want to hijack the thread, and frankly I think it's incredibly silly), but I wanted to note that I appreciate Van responding to one of my questions.

Automaton

Now this is just getting ridiculous. scigirl, and others, I advise you not to waste any more time with this troll, who is becoming as nonresponsive as Douglas. I understand that many lurkers and others (even, apparently, those sympathetic of the creationist position!) have learnt a lot from this thread, but I doubt much more can be gained from constantly refuting Vanderzyden's lies about science over and over.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

So I'm the saviour? Well, that's what I thought, but, you know...

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Definately a headless chicken. Most definately.

Vanderzyden

But you are merely being presumptive here. This is a pattern I see with all of your replies. While I may not understand all of the details of the methods employed in this so-called "research" paper, I do understand the unwarranted confidence of the abstract, the results, the discussion and the conclusions being drawn. Because they lack explanatory power, employ simplifying and evasive terminology, and because they rely on false premises in making their argument, their presentation remains utterly unconvincing. If the authors would hope to substantiate the incredibly bold claim that a non-destructive chromosome fusion has occured in a human ancestor, they should take great pains to ensure that their audience is well-informed. But then, perhaps the excuse may be advanced that very short length of the paper is the problem, to which I would answer: why have entire books not been published which document in detail this astounding discovery!

To my question regarding the detrimental effects of supposed chromosome fusions, you respond:

But you don't concede the possibility that chromosome fusions did not occur. Why is that?
Furthermore, you argue in a circle by referring to supposed selective pressures, which is an undemonstrable evolutionary mechanism.

Then you imitate Michael Ruse by insisting that chimp-human evolution is "fact":

But of course, that is what we are discussing. It has not be proven. Use of the term is nothing but one of those "weasel" terms. You have not addressed my objections. Incidentally, I did not find one use of the words "tentative" or "speculative" in that paper.

In the correct spots? Yes, I note the "precise" terminology in the paper, as well. Well, how did they determine the correct spots? You will say that it comes from comparison with a combination of the 2p and 2q chimp chromosomes. But what I am asking for is the relative positioning on the human chromosome #2. What is the precise position of this supposed vestigal telomeric region?

No, that has not been conclusively demonstrated. It is merely speculative at this point. Again, I must reiterate: since this is such an important discovery, why has any one else taken up the work to verify and extend this research?

Also, the abstract for the formerly unpublished data does not provide strong indication of the vestigal chromosome. Do you know where I can get the full paper?

Oh, incidentally, the claim about no evidence of duplication in the supposed non-telomeric region is easily supported by assuming that the non-telomeric regions are are "normal" part of human chromosome #2.

One last comment, regarding:

What does infallible mean, anyway? And why, again, are you making ad hoc assessment of what I believe concerning the bible?

Vanderzyden

monkenstick

well vanderzyden, I must congratulate you on your excellent evasive skills, you've managed to raise a whole bunch of inane and irrelevant objections to the most logical inference to make about this evidence.

I'm starting a new thread with some different evidence that I feel you should try to answer if you really have any objections to common descent. okay?