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>

Vanderzyden

[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Clutch

What's going on? Is my tolerance for this act just way too low, or should this thread have ended wayyyyyy back when VZ looked at the first round of sustained, detailed, careful and devastating replies to his OP, and replied, "Sorry, none of these counts as a reply"?

Doubting Didymus

It would help if you answered these allegations. So far your silence has been deafening.

Vanderzyden

And how shall we assess your opinion, coming as it does from a person who sees JS Mill as assisting him in becoming an athiest.

Vanderzyden

Starboy

I say again, why are you doing this?

Starboy

Vanderzyden

You do mean a "naturalistic" explanation, don't you? See this <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001333" target="_blank">thread</a>.

Providing you with a detailed answer to your question will no doubt fragment the discussion.

Why don't you start a new thread?

Vanderzyden

Doubting Didymus

Vanderzygen. I respectfully request that you answer the serious allegations levelled against you about libelous misquoting and intellectual theft. I will admit right now the possibility that we are wrong about these allegations, but I want to see this issue resolved.

First, do you understand that the context of the quotes is incorrect? You used the quotes to suggest unreliability in phylogenetic trees in modern animals, when the true context of the quote was about prokaryotes, which are known to have unreliable trees because prokaryote individuals exchange genetic material.

You have applied these quotes inappropriately even after it was pointed out to you that the context was wrong. Is this just because you do not understand the context, or are you deliberately dishonest. (Or, option three, are you actually claiming that prokaryote phylogenies have a bearing on modern animals?)

Before this debate continues, I would dearly like to see this issue resolved. You have four options.

1) If you attained the quotes yourself, admit that you did not understand the context.

2)If you attained the quotes yourself, and you understood their context, admit that you used them in a libelous manner.

3)If you attained the quotes yourself, and you understood their context, explain why the known problems with prokaryotic phylogeny has any bearing on phylogenies of organisms which do not exchange genetics.

4) If you attained the quotes indirectly from another authors work, reference that work.

I would like to believe that you are not a deliberately dihonest person, that you are not a liar, and you are not a theif. And I don't believe that you are, I believe that this is a misunderstanding, which is why I am giving you this opportunity to clear your name, so that we might continue to discuss other matters without suspicion.

Mageth

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.

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. (Other than some spell it idiogram and others ideogram - don't ask me why.)

There are different idiograms for different banding resolutions, for one thing (e.g. 400, 550, 800). IIRC, these nice "picture" idiograms are developed by cytogeneticists as typical or "average" representations of what g-banded chromosomes look like. Different idiograms have been generated for use with different staining techniques, etc. (which introduce variation in chromosome banding). Depending on their different techniques, they may develop slightly different idiograms.

The important thing is that the comparative idiograms in the right image you posted were developed for the same technique/banding level/etc, which they appear to be.

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.

[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Vanderzyden

That will be for another time and another thread. Now let me respectfully request that you do the following:

1. Stop trying to derail or sidetrack this thread and other threads with peripheral issues. In particular, stop looking for supposed ironies in my posts.

2. Contribute substantially to the core disputes. It would be great if you would attempt to refute me, instead of playing games. Take the central tenets of what I am saying and attack it with everything you've got. You're diverting too much steam to auxilliary processes.

Thanks!

Vanderzyden

scigirl

Vanderzyden,

I would like to return to your denial of the sequence data, where you say, "the scientists see what they want to see."

Therefore 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