Freethought & Rationalism Archive

scigirl · 07-19-2002, 06:46 AM

You stated in another thread,

Quote:

It is not a contridiction, I can't prove creation but it is historically recorded, and no one can with overwhelming evidence prove evolution.

How about this proof (my new favorite piece of evidence for human evolution):

We have sequences that look like chimp telomeres (ends) in the middle of the chromosome that we believe is two fused ones.

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

Chimps have 24 chromosomes in their sperm/eggs, we only have 23.

Quote:

There are two potential naturalistic explanations for the difference in chromosome numbers - either a fusion of two separate chromosomes occurred in the human line, or a fission of a chromosome occurred among the apes. The evidence favors a fusion event in the human line. One could imagine that the fusion is only an apparent artifact of the work of a designer or the work of nature (due to common ancestry). The common ancestry scenario presents two predictions. Since the chromosomes were apparently joined end to end, and the ends of chromosomes (called the telomere ) have a distinctive structure from the rest of the chromosome, there may be evidence of this structure in the middle of human chromosome 2 where the fusion apparently occurred. Also, since both of the chromosomes that hypothetically were fused had a centromere (the distinctive central part of the chromosome), we should see some evidence of two centromeres.

So, not only does evolutionary theory explain how we got 23 chromosomes from 24, it makes two testable predictions. Do the predictions come true? Yes indeed:

Quote:

The first prediction (evidence of a telomere at the fusion point) is shown to be true in reference 3 [...] When the vicinity of chromosome 2 where the fusion is expected to occur (based on comparison to chimp chromosomes 2p and 2q) is examined, we see first sequences that are characteristic of the pre-telomeric region, then a section of telomeric sequences, and then another section of pre-telomeric sequences. Furthermore, in the telomeric section, it is observed that there is a point where instead of being arranged head to tail, the telomeric repeats suddenly reverse direction - becoming (CCCTAA)3' instead of 5'(TTAGGG), and the second pre-telomeric section is also the reverse of the first telomeric section. This pattern is precisely as predicted by a telomere to telomere fusion of the chimpanzee (ancestor) 2p and 2q chromosomes, and in precisely the expected location.
The second prediction - remnants of the 2p and 2q centromeres is documented in reference 4. The normal centromere found on human chromosome 2 lines up with the 2p chimp chromosome, and the remnants of the 2q chromosome is found at the expected location based upon the banding pattern.
[...]
Now, the question has to be asked - if the similarities of the chromosomes are due only to common design rather than common ancestry, why are the remnants of a telomere and centromere (that should never have existed) found at exactly the positions predicted by a naturalistic fusion of the chimp ancestor chromosomes 2p and 2q?

So, the evolutionary explanation made 2 predictions that came true - it not only explains why we see the phenomenon in our chromosomes, it also explains how they got there.

So. . . evidence of a creator, or of evolution, GTX? Let's hear it. . .

scigirl

scigirl · 07-19-2002, 06:48 AM

Here is a schematic of the chromosomes and their G-banding patterns:

H = human (note there's only one), C = chimp, G = gorillla, O = orangutan. Note the three other primates have two chromosomes.

scigirl

excreationist · 07-19-2002, 06:57 AM

How about "a common designer suggests a common design".

scigirl · 07-19-2002, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by excreationist:
How about "a common designer suggests a common design".

But that doesn't explain why the extraneous, superfluous, unnecessary parts and pattens are the same.

I argued with Douglas about this very thing: he used a robot analogy
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000920" target="_blank">here.</a>

Quote:

Douglas J Bender:
So, if someone was to find, say, two such robots, they COULD NOT conclude, just from the fused parts, whether those two robots were created that way, or had "evolved" that fusion during their history of self-replication.

My reply:

All right, I'll play the robot game. Let's say we are watching a junkyard wars marathon, and we tune in to find the following robot had been constructed:
1. A robot with a one-piece arm. This part had a hook on it that attached it to the main frame, and also had a characteristic blemish on it--say, a big red stain.

Now, let's say that the old creations get left in the junkyard, and can be used in future shows.

Next week we find this robot:

2. This robot is much different from last week's robot. The arm is composed of two pieces this time. The piece that attaches to the main frame (the "upper arm) has a different hook from the first robot arm. But then we notice that there's a piece that was welded by the team to the upper arm (i.e. the "forearm) that, strangely enough, looks just like the main arm from the first robot. In fact, the hook is still there, but is not hooking to anything. Also, this forearm has the same red stain, and is the same size.

Would you conclude the following?

A. The junkyard wars team constructed the second robot arm from scratch, they stuck a hook on the forearm even though it wasn't hooking to anything, and also put a red stain on it.

B. The team found the first robot in the junkyard, took the arm, and stuck it on their new robot?

That, I believe is a better analogy. Robot A's arm represents one of the chimp chromosomes (how about 2q), robot B's arm represents human chromosome 2. A piece of chromosome 2 looks just like 2q - same size, same blemishes, same non-functioning hook (at least it looks non-functional). The centromere does actually function as a hook--the microtubules attach to it to pull chromosomes apart during meiosis and mitosis. Chromosomes only need one. We have not observed any known function for the extra centromere in the human chromosome, but yet, there it is, looking just like the centromere from 2q, blemishes and all.

scigirl

(For the regulars - sorry I keep posting this stuff over and over, but I just think it's such great evidence for human evolution, that every new creationist to the II needs to see it!!!)

KnightWhoSaysNi · 07-19-2002, 09:59 AM

Scigirl,
Besides the claim of "common design" from creationists to explain this human/chimp chromosome example, I've seen them make negative arguments. An example would be from the recent "Reasons to Believe" <a href="http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/creation_update/Archives.asp" target="_blank">Creation Update</a> show. Fuz Rana argues that chromosome fusions or splits in the gamete cells will always produce deleterious effects and infertile offspring. That's quite nicely shot down in the <a href="http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html" target="_blank">link</a> you gave though:

"Some may raise the objection that if the fusion was a naturalistic event, how could the first human ancestor with the fusion have successfully reproduced? We have all heard that the horse and the donkey produce an infertile mule in crossing because of a different number of chromosomes in the two species. Well, apparently there is more to the story than we are usually told, because variations in chromosome number are known to occur in many different animal species, and although they sometimes seem to lead to reduced fertility, this is often not the case. Refs 5, 6, and 7 document both the existence of such chromosomal number differences and the fact that differences do not always result in reduced fertility. I can provide many more similar references if required. The last remaining species of wild horse, Przewalski's (sha-val-skis) Wild Horse has 66 chromosomes while the domesticated horse has 64 chromosomes. Despite this difference in chromosome number, Przewalski's Wild Horse and the domesticated horse can be crossed and do produce fertile offspring (see reference 9)."

[ July 19, 2002: Message edited by: Nightshade ]

scigirl · 07-19-2002, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nightshade:
Fuz Rana argues that chromosome fusions or splits in the gamete cells will always produce deleterious effects and infertile offspring. That's quite nicely shot down in the <a href="http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html" target="_blank">link</a> you gave though:

Indeed it is, Nightshade.

I love carrying out thought experiments in my head like this, and pondering, "How exactly did evolution happen?" It truly is amazing - even if it is boring and naturalistic!

I grow so weary of creationists accusing us of not having any wonder or mystical feelings about the universe just because we don't believe in their god. If they only knew the theories that kept us awake at night. . . .

Anyway, I'm way off topic. Where are you GTX??

scigirl

Badfish · 07-19-2002, 11:10 PM

Here I am, thanks for the info, but.... that still doesn't PROVE we evolved from anything. It is substansial evidence of how close all the species really are. I've seen similar information, but I must admit I am not an expert in genetics, I know a little, and enough to know that evolution hasn't been proven 100%

But the difference in chromosomes aren't that much different between a human and a frog.

I realize the good evidence, but it isn't really even close to proof positive.

Whats even more curious my evolutionist friends

, is what humans are going to evolve to from here.

I really am very interested, don't get me wrong, but I am pretty concrete in my creation beliefs.

I am taking physics in college, and my teacher addressed this, concerning creation. If you put all categories and sub catagories and theories in to respective main catagories, the only 3 one can mathematically come up with, with certainty is:

1. A Creator created the Universe

2. Man created the Universe

3. The Universe created the Universe.

Now this is just an argument for our Universe being created, it doesn't rule out evolution, or evolution of the species, but if you trust the Math and believe a Creator created the Universe, it is then equally compelling that we very well could have been created by God just as he said.

Theres other evidence such as moon dust and other evidences that suggest the Earth isn't old enough for evolution.

Wait you say, "well there are landmarks and if you dig you can see the layers", but maybe during the creation process, these layers formed, I think we can even conclude that the bible speaks of dinosaurs and other creatures that are extinct.

There are good evidences both for young Earth and evolution, the question is who has the preponderance, and even if one side holds the preponderance, evolution cannot at this time be proven 100%

[ July 20, 2002: Message edited by: GTX ]

Badfish · 07-19-2002, 11:21 PM

Scigrl!!

Your from Bozeman?? I just moved from Anaconda, Mt. Real close to Butte! I bowled in quite a few tournaments in Bozeman (Country Bowl) and Manhatten, also I loved and I miss fishing in Three Forks!!

Now only if my Bowling could evolutionize, and I could raise my average from 218 to 230

excreationist · 07-20-2002, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GTX:
...Theres other evidence such as moon dust and other evidences that suggest the Earth isn't old enough for evolution.

From <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp" target="_blank">AiG</a> - "Which arguments should definitely not be used?...�Moon-Dust thickness proves a young moon�"

Quote:

Wait you say, "well there are landmarks and if you dig you can see the layers", but maybe during the creation process, these layers formed, I think we can even conclude that the bible speaks of dinosaurs and other creatures that are extinct.

So do you mean that God created fossils during the creation week? In Genesis 1:31 it says "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good."
I don't think living above a fake graveyard would be "very good". And it would mislead people into believing things - like that the earth is much older than 6000 years old.

Vorkosigan · 07-20-2002, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GTX:
Scigrl!!

Now only if my Bowling could evolutionize, and I could raise my average from 218 to 230

GTX,

"evolve" does not mean get better. It means "to change."

07-19-2002, 09:59 AM	#5
KnightWhoSaysNi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Edmonton, Canada Posts: 2,767	Scigirl, Besides the claim of "common design" from creationists to explain this human/chimp chromosome example, I've seen them make negative arguments. An example would be from the recent "Reasons to Believe" <a href="http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/creation_update/Archives.asp" target="_blank">Creation Update</a> show. Fuz Rana argues that chromosome fusions or splits in the gamete cells will always produce deleterious effects and infertile offspring. That's quite nicely shot down in the <a href="http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html" target="_blank">link</a> you gave though: "Some may raise the objection that if the fusion was a naturalistic event, how could the first human ancestor with the fusion have successfully reproduced? We have all heard that the horse and the donkey produce an infertile mule in crossing because of a different number of chromosomes in the two species. Well, apparently there is more to the story than we are usually told, because variations in chromosome number are known to occur in many different animal species, and although they sometimes seem to lead to reduced fertility, this is often not the case. Refs 5, 6, and 7 document both the existence of such chromosomal number differences and the fact that differences do not always result in reduced fertility. I can provide many more similar references if required. The last remaining species of wild horse, Przewalski's (sha-val-skis) Wild Horse has 66 chromosomes while the domesticated horse has 64 chromosomes. Despite this difference in chromosome number, Przewalski's Wild Horse and the domesticated horse can be crossed and do produce fertile offspring (see reference 9)." [ July 19, 2002: Message edited by: Nightshade ]</p>

07-19-2002, 11:10 PM	#7
Badfish Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Death Valley, CA Posts: 1,738	Here I am, thanks for the info, but.... that still doesn't PROVE we evolved from anything. It is substansial evidence of how close all the species really are. I've seen similar information, but I must admit I am not an expert in genetics, I know a little, and enough to know that evolution hasn't been proven 100% But the difference in chromosomes aren't that much different between a human and a frog. I realize the good evidence, but it isn't really even close to proof positive. Whats even more curious my evolutionist friends , is what humans are going to evolve to from here. I really am very interested, don't get me wrong, but I am pretty concrete in my creation beliefs. I am taking physics in college, and my teacher addressed this, concerning creation. If you put all categories and sub catagories and theories in to respective main catagories, the only 3 one can mathematically come up with, with certainty is: 1. A Creator created the Universe 2. Man created the Universe 3. The Universe created the Universe. Now this is just an argument for our Universe being created, it doesn't rule out evolution, or evolution of the species, but if you trust the Math and believe a Creator created the Universe, it is then equally compelling that we very well could have been created by God just as he said. Theres other evidence such as moon dust and other evidences that suggest the Earth isn't old enough for evolution. Wait you say, "well there are landmarks and if you dig you can see the layers", but maybe during the creation process, these layers formed, I think we can even conclude that the bible speaks of dinosaurs and other creatures that are extinct. There are good evidences both for young Earth and evolution, the question is who has the preponderance, and even if one side holds the preponderance, evolution cannot at this time be proven 100% [ July 20, 2002: Message edited by: GTX ]</p>

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

07-19-2002, 06:48 AM	#2
scigirl Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 4,261	Here is a schematic of the chromosomes and their G-banding patterns: H = human (note there's only one), C = chimp, G = gorillla, O = orangutan. Note the three other primates have two chromosomes. scigirl

07-19-2002, 06:57 AM	#3
excreationist Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Australia Posts: 4,886	How about "a common designer suggests a common design".

07-19-2002, 11:21 PM	#8
Badfish Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Death Valley, CA Posts: 1,738	Scigrl!! Your from Bozeman?? I just moved from Anaconda, Mt. Real close to Butte! I bowled in quite a few tournaments in Bozeman (Country Bowl) and Manhatten, also I loved and I miss fishing in Three Forks!! Now only if my Bowling could evolutionize, and I could raise my average from 218 to 230

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.