Vanderzyden

Scigirl,

You know, I used to take it for granted. I was fed this stuff in high school and college. Unaware of the problems, I simply received what all of academia apparently accepted: evolution is fact. But, you know, it's funny: I never stopped to wonder why it was so often emphatically stated. If someone questioned the law (note, law ) of gravity, well that would be funny. (Please bring the straight jacket...there, there, he'll come 'round...) However, to my increasing amazement, I saw that if Darwinism was questioned, the supporters would go ballistic. So then I started asking questions. I studied, and asked more questions. I studied more, and found others who are also asking tough questions. And now I am discovering what lies beneath the proganda.

Yes, tragically, some of those "Christians" you know are very likely uncritical of their own beliefs. They see "faith" as a substitute for a failure of reason. They don't think it through, and consequently they live highly inconsistent lives. When confronted with varsity-level questions, their beliefs are shown to be synthetic. Of course, I can say that I don't always live consistently with my beliefs. Frequently, I find myself regretting much of what I've done in any given day. I have personal experience of what Paul is writing about in the seventh chapter of his letter to the Romans:

I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing.

But, with much confidence, I can say that the typical naturalist is no better when it comes to consistent living and critical thinking. In many discussions, it's difficult to ask questions because the defiant shouting is so loud. The name-calling and dogmatic posturing indicate clearly that beneath the surface lies a fear of facing the "tough questions". The vanity of the heart prevents many from developing a desire for the truth.

Who's harassing? Evolution is just one of several "junk sciences". Similar unsubstantiated hypotheses include those concerning global warming, asbestos, DDT, growth hormones, etc. Political agenda and fear-mongering dominate in these "sciences." Surely you'll agree that there has been much controversy over these subjects.

Furthermore, I don't think you intend to do so, but you are clouding the issue here:

-- Are you implying that attempts to affirm evolution are producing medical or technological benefits in a like manner to cancer research? I have raised this issue before in this forum: Darwinism has so far produced no gain for mankind.

-- You are using the term "spiritual" very loosely here. Perhaps a better substitute would be "supernatural", or "non-natural". There are supernatural and natural--as well as rimary and secondary--causes.

-- Most critically, you are denying a prevalent understanding of what it means to be human. Proposals concerning the origin of humans necessarily must advance explanations for the non-physical attributes of humans. I am referring to consciousness and reason, primarily. Failure to admit such uniquely human qualities is to ignore the collective human experience. If you would persuade others of such a view, you must provide evidence and solid, self-critical explanation.

...If man has been kicked up by chance out of what is only impersonal, then those things that make him man--hope of purpose and significance, love, motions of morality and rationality, beauty, and verbal communication--are ultimately unfulfillable and are thus meaningless. In such a situation, is man higher or lower? He would then be the lowest creature on the scale. The green moss on the rock is higher than he, for it can be fulfilled in the universe that exists. But if the world is what these men say it is, then man (not only individually but as a race), being unfulfillable, is dead. In this situation man would not walk on the grass, but respect it--for it is higher than he!

--Francis Schaeffer, The God Who Is There

OK, back to chromosome "fusion". Let me clarify on what I find lacking:

-- Translocations are "reported", but they appear to be associated with abnormality
-- Natural translocations are not conclusively demonstrated (correct?)
-- Hypothetical chromosome fusions are different from--and many steps beyond--translocations or dislocations

But here is the kicker, courtesy of Zetek:

Do you agree with this understanding? It seems that it directly contradicts the chromosome fusion proposal. Contrast this with what I see as a key sentence in the William's article (I presume that "When" should be "In"):

Do you see the problem?

Let me see if I can explain this correctly in simple terms: The supposed common ancestor had two "additional" chromosomes (which, incidentally, it didn't really need? eh? ). Now each chromosome has a centromere (spindle attachment) and a telomere on each end. Now, the telomeres are "non-sticky". However somehow these telomeres contributed to a fusion event.* The evidence of this fusion is supposedly the vestigal remnants of telomeres at "precise" locations in the #2 human chromosome. This would have to be the case, since, if sequence of the original chromosomes remained intact, the telomeres would be present in the new chromosome. So, then, we come to the critical question:

How could the repellant telomeres fuse together?

Please explain how it is possible for telomeres to attach to one another and remain preserved in a fused chromosome if the telomores are non-sticky and don't attach to anything, much less other telomeres.

Also, I realize that if the chromsome broke (dislocated) in the middle of an arm, then the telomere would break off with it. If subsequently, a hypothetical translocation were to occur (which would be the basis for a fusion), then there would be no telomeric components from the "broken" original chromosome, since these went away with the chromosome fragment. Thus we would find no evidence of vestigal telomeres in a "fused" chromosome.

*Note: Of course, this would happen by purely natural means, since there were no molecular biologists or geneticists employed so early in hominid history (no language & no reason. remember?).

Let me know where I am in error in the foregoing analysis. But finally, permit me to comment again on your use of analogy--the type of which I see is used with high frequency in this forum:

This doesn't conclusively represent all of the facts. The only thing that is partly in favor of the evolutionist is the "dead body". I have previously posted information that calls homology (classical or modern, structural or genetic) into serious question as justification of common descent. So you don't even have a dead body, only a rumor that someone has been assaulted. There is no blood, there is no motive. But there is an alibi--in fact, many of them. The alibis are analogous to knowledge--content and approach. If some of the detectives refuse to listen to all of the informants and ignore much of what is advanced as evidence and counterevidence, then the truth is unlikely to be found.

One more thing to ponder, scigirl. This is a question I ask myself regularly:

In everything that you do, do you choose to believe in order to affirm your presuppositions and preferences, or do you believe on the basis of a thorough, balanced search for the truth?

Vanderzyden

[ August 30, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]

[ August 30, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Lizard

I guess when irrational arguments fail, VZ, the Bible quoting begins. I was wondering how long it would take. I have nothing against anyone's religious beliefs. What I object to is the notion that they somehow should supersede science. They are entirely different fields of study.

VZ, you said you studied and studied and studied. I advise you to study some more. There is a wealth of reliable information here about the fact of evolution. I don't know what your problem is, other than you haven't studied biology, and you don't trust anybody who has.

And BTW, I think it's arrogant and obnoxious for you to criticize sincere Christians for accepting the evidence for evolution. Not everybody thinks scientific knowledge is a threat to faith. And that doesn't mean they aren't good Christians, or that they're ignorant, or don't think about what they believe.

Have you actually taken a look at Keith B. Miller's website, for which I posted the URL? Or his article on geological evidence for evolution? I doubt it. Do you hear what I'm saying, that Keith is (a) an Evangelical Christian; (b) a geologist who teaches at Kansas State University; and (c) someone who accepts the overwhelming evidence for evolution? And I might add, he is an extremely intelligent and well-read person, and he definitely has thought carefully about what he believes. He takes his faith seriously, and he takes science seriously. There is no problem here. Do you bother to read *any* of the stuff people post here, or do you just start typing?

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say science has provided no benefit to mankind. While science has been discovering cures for disease and how to breed better food crops, what has your (total lack of) theory been doing?

Hint: Goose-egg.

By the way, what *is* your alternative theory? I don't recall hearing you posit one. I would be extremely interested to hear it, and the supporting evidence which convinced you of it. I will be awaiting your reply with bated breath.

[ August 30, 2002: Message edited by: Lizard ]</p>

davidm

Hi, Zetek, thanks for your response. If I have got this right, you are saying that chromosomal fusion does not explain the differences between humans and chimps. It merely is evidence for descent from a common ancestor. It is the language inside the chromosomes that explains the differences. Yes? Do we know yet what those language differences are? I guess not. Otherwise we would have been required to fully sequence/docode both the human and chimp genomes. Is ths right? Can you direct me to good books/Websites on this subject? Thnx. dave.

Albion

Maybe "some" of them are. But maybe a lot of them are not. Evolution has support throughout the top level of the Church of England clergy, and I think those people are very used to "varsity-level" questions. Unless, of course, they're lying about their degrees.


What do you mean by "in a like manner"? Evolutionary theory is used extensively in cancer research itself.

Blinn

vanderzyden,

I just read through your post, and I must say "Huh?" I'm going to have to take a little bit of time to dissect your ramblings. I'm going to Cedar Point tomorrow (must ride Millenium Force) so don't expect any kind of response to your raving until tomorrow night. Cheers. Zetek.

Blinn

Right.
Yes.
I'm not sure what the specific genetic differences are between us and chimps. I just saw a study today online that suggested chimps went through a selective phase that might be related to a virus related to the one that causes AIDS. There are probably many similar studies out there that look at the differences between us & chimps, but I'm not familiar with them (sorrry - I'm a frog guy)...

Blinn

(Edited to try to not be so insulting.)

[ August 31, 2002: Message edited by: Zetek ]</p>

lpetrich

I wonder if VZ is going to devote the same kind of skepticism to the Bible and his religious beliefs. The indignant denials and emotional responses evoked by discussions of Biblical errancy must be strong evidence that the Bible does, in fact, contain errors. At least by that argument.

VZ, please go into detail.

Darwinism helps us understand why mosquitoes get resistant to insecticides and how bacteria get resistant to antibiotics, for example.

VZ, please describe what you mean by "consciousness" and "reason". And to get you thinking, I suggest that you study chimpanzee behavior.

Chimps can perform "insight learning" -- they will sometimes pause, and then implement a solution, as if they were planning that solution in their minds.

Chimps can make tools, such as stripped twigs for catching termites.

Chimps can recognize themselves in mirrors. This suggests that they have some conception of self, an important part of consciousness.

In fairness, very few other species have such abilities.

And VZ, do you think that reason and consciousness are due to some special mind-stuff?

Natural selection is NOT chance. And what Mr. Schaeffer describes are completely real, regardless of how we had originated. If we were the result of genetic-engineering experiments conducted by extraterrestrial visitors, what would Mr. Schaeffer say? And VZ?

(lots of stuff on the chromosome fusion in our ancestry...)

VZ, you have not commented on my comments about your comments. To summarize, you think that homology is a tautologous concept, when it is not. It is similarity in structure associated with dissimilarity in function. Thus, flower petals are homologous to the owner plant's leaves. They have very similar structures, but very different functions.

Nickle

Great post lpetrich, Oolon, Automaton, pangloss, Sci-girl and others!

I just skipped through near the end so maybe I missed where VZ explained why our chromosome has extra centromeres and telomeres.

VZ, I thought I saw a point by point refutation of your post at the beginning. Now, I'm sure it is obvious to you why they are wrong, hence the statement:
but, maybe that's not obvious to the creationist lurkers here. Perhaps they would like to see why the refutations of your opening post are wrong, especially since they are pretty in-depth and cover every point you made at the beginning of the thread.

Looks a bit evasive to me, but then again, maybe it's my dogmatic non-belief that's blinding me.

back to my brain-washing session (lab write-ups).

Blinn

They're only non-sticky if they're intact. And they're not entirely preserved. Don't assume things.

<a href="http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/instruct/mcclean/plsc431/eukarychrom/eukaryo3.htm" target="_blank">web page</a>

CHROMOSOMETELOMERE TELOMERECHROMOSOME

No sticking.

CHROMOSOMETELOM++LOMERECHROMOSOME

Sticking.

Any more questions?

(off to ride roller coasters )

[ August 31, 2002: Message edited by: Zetek ]</p>