scigirl

Vanderzyden,

Thanks for your reply.

I went and re-read your answer to my challenge, and although I think you spent most of your time quoting scientists out of context and changing the subject, I did manage to find a couple of good points. I'll address those shortly.

But as to your last post:

Huh? I'll have you know that many people who accept and study evolution (like my former boss) are christians, or otherwise not pure naturalists.

Science is by definition naturalistic. Do you know of any other way for it to be?

I cannot for the life of me understand why you think this is an insult. It is a legitimate question - one I pose to each and every creationist. Why just evolution? Do you harass oncologists when they look for a natural cause of cancer, rather than a spiritual cause? If not, why not? Why is the origin of humans special, but other disiplines are not? Please actually answer - if you only answer one question, this one I would love to see answered.

Why do you think evolution is not science again? Please tell me what you think the definition of science is, then let's evaluate evolution against those criteria. The criteria that I was taught as a scientist most certainly fit evolutionary biology.

Um, actually you did not prove your case at all. I'll return to your critiques of the article soon. Just because you personally did not understand it, does not make it a bad science article. It is, in fact, a very good science article - in my opinion (based on a bachelor's in cellular and molecular biology with a minor in biochemistry and also a masters in biology).
Once again, why do you have no problems believing in the act of translocations, which involve both breakage and rejoining of chromosome segments, but you doubt fusions which only involve a joining event?

If it looks like the chromosomes fused based on the sequence, and we know that bits of chromosomes can fuse, then why is it illogical to presume they fused?

So? Oh I get it - you want scientists to sit around and observe animals in the wild and wait around for a fusion event just for you?

DNA is DNA. Molecular biologists don't do anything magical - they just use techniques to speed up certain processes--which do occur naturally in the wild--so that we can study and understand them. Please explain why you discount this evidence in more detail, and if you also discount other biological evidence because it was done in a laboratory and not simply observed in nature.

What immense problems? I saw the dead body, I saw the blood on the suspects jacket and shoes, I found a motive, a weapon, and no alibi. So I don't have a videotape of the murder - I'll still convict the SOB. It's called making educated inferences from data, and it's what scientists get (not enough) money to do.

Once again - do you doubt that smoking causes lung cancer in humans, or that HIV causes AIDS? Or even, that Mount Vesuvius erupted some time ago and buried Pompeii? Science gives us ways to figure out things that we can't prove directly (for ethical or historical reasons). If evolutionary influences are flawed, than so too are many other types of scientific inferences that we use in all sorts of fields. But - I rarely see creationists all up in arms over cancer research or volcano history. Why? Well the obvious answer is, "because the Bible doesn't say that cancer or volcanoes aren't real."

I firmly believe that if the Bible somehow stated, 'and God stuck Adam to the ground with magic glue, and he saw that it was good,' then we would be debating the existence of gravity with them. Maybe you are different, Vanderzyden, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But in my extensive dealings with creationists - they don't disbelieve evolution because of the science, they disbelieve evolution because, first and foremost, of their religion. The science debating is incidental.
Already been done, but apparently it wasn't a "True Fusion" (TM) because it was done by those evil naturalistic dogmatic scientists.

Ok let's go on to the questions you posed in this thread that actually related to the fusion event:
I am having problems getting that link to appear here on the medical school computers. Grrr. I'm pretty sure that the author addressed why scientists were led to accept a fusion event rather than a fission event (or there was a reference to the answer). Please make sure you are reading the actual article (you have to follow a couple links after you go to this one below - look for the word "chromosome"), and if it is still unclear, we can talk more about it:

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

The predictions are that 1) you would see an extra centromere and 2) you would see two extra telomeres. Sorry if that wasn't clear from my quoting of the article. I'm pretty sure that the actual article does make it clear, but I try to do less cutting and pasting, and more writing of my own ideas. Heh maybe I should just stick with the actual article!

How so? Because in my analogy, there is a real 'creator'? Well I suppose a creationist might use that analogy, but I don't care - if they believe that God himself fused the chromosomes in a chimp to make humans, that's fine.

Perhaps you didn't understand my robot analogy - read it again, and realize that you are arguing for scenario A (that the robot was made de novo) and I am arguing for scenario B (that the team used the old arm and stuck it on the new robot).

Heh. Ok - you are free to use tarot cards or "my heart tells me" to argue against my cold, hard, scienctific data. Just don't expect to be accepted with it, even among christians who are scientists!

Science frankly just doesn't care how we feel, Vanderzyden. I would love to just believe that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, since some of my family members smoke - alot. But the data suggests otherwise. I like to think that scientific truths can enlighten us - and more importantly, we can use these truths to help humanity. Of course I would say that, because I am currently being indoctrinated into what I affectionately call "The Medical Cult." If I want to help my patients, then I need a healthy mix of compassion and knowledge. Neither one is good enough to cure disease or ease suffering.

And as far as "please do not reply with the demand for an alternate theory," well no you don't need an alternate theory per se to disprove an existing theory, but it sure helps.

Well I've got to go catch the bus.

scigirl

P.S. Two completely off-topic remarks:

1. My anatomy teacher uses evolutionary theory in his class - woo hoo!

2. There was a tornado warning here - and I was trapped in the building for a while. So - I decided to post!

[ August 29, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]</p>

Doubting Didymus

It would be nice to think that Scigirl was not wasting her time with these elegant, lucid discussions, but I fear that this may be the case.

Mageth

Not at all; I'm personally learning a lot, and hopefully others (including lurkers) are.

Kevin Dorner

This is why I usually stick to short posts. Oh... and my typing sucks. This will be one of the rare times you don't see an edit...

I'd hate to write a long and detailed post with the time it takes me already and then get some "You failed to demonstrate anything." reply.

But a great post, Scigirl, and let's hope it gets read and understood, not dismissed out-of-hand.

[ August 29, 2002: Message not edited for a change by: Kevin Dorner ]

Doubting Didymus

I didn't think of that. I am learning too, come to think about it. Could it be that the reason evolution is one of the most airtight of all major scientific theories is because it has been constantly and ceacelessly challenged scince its inception?

I think we have a memic survival of the fittest going on.

Valentine Pontifex

I really doubt that they are really considering that evolution might have happened. But the YECs really do have need for such changes to try to reduce the number of animals in Noah's Ark.

Lizard

Anthrax Gives Up Its Deadly Secret to Researchers
Thu Aug 29, 2:31 PM ET

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The anthrax bacteria first tricks the body's immune cells into attacking it, then quietly kills them before they can call for help, researchers reported on Thursday.

More <a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=585&e=1&cid=585&u=/nm/20020829/sc_nm/science_anthrax_dc" target="_blank">here.</a>

Clue to Childhood Cancer Found in Flower
Thu Aug 29, 2:33 PM ET

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A flower that causes birth defects in grazing sheep has offered valuable clues about treating brain tumors in children, researchers said on Thursday.

More

<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=585&e=3&cid=585&u=/nm/20020829/sc_nm/science_cancer_dc" target="_blank">here.</a>

So, if naturalistic science is so worthless, why does it seem to be so useful?

And while science was doing productive research that possibly could improve the quality of life, what has creationism/ID done?

Well?

Doubting Didymus

I think that's probably the most hilarious creationist argument.

All the species diversity on earth decended from a comparitive handful of parent species in only 4000 years, but still, evolution can't happen.

Edited to add quote.

[ August 29, 2002: Message edited by: Doubting Didymus ]</p>

Lizard

Speaking of mountains, Kansas State University geologist Keith B. Miller can be seen on the side of one (Well, it's an outcropping, but that qualifies as a mountain in Kansas ) on his website,

<a href="http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill" target="_blank">here</a>

But what I wanted to direct VZ's attention to is this article, which should remove the shroud of mystery from the issue how we determine macroevolution has happened. See <a href="http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.html" target="_blank">this article.</a> It is from a publication of the American Scientific Affiliation, an organization of scientists who are Christians.

YES! Evangelical Christians accept the evidence for evolution! Despite what Phillip Johnson and Jonathan Wells and the rest of the anti-evo crowd, many scientists are actually practicing Christians and also accept evolutionary theory. VZ, what is your problem with accepting evidence that has been supported for more than 150 years?

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

[ August 29, 2002: Message edited by: Lizard ]</p>

Mageth

I really doubt that they are really considering that evolution might have happened. But the YECs really do have need for such changes to try to reduce the number of animals in Noah's Ark.

Yep. The bible says it must have happened in 4000 years, but there's no way in hell it could ever happen in 3.5 billion years!