Baloo

If a 66-chromosome horse sperm can successfully fertilize a 64-chromosome horse egg, I'd say V's most recent objection along the lines of a 24-chromosome sperm unable to fertilize a 23-chromosome egg have been laid to rest.

Vanderzyden

Answer: YES

But it is a provisional denial. Please indicate if you don't know what I mean by this term.

As with the other thread, I think you read too much into what I'm saying, Skeptical. Furthermore, you insist that the answer to everything is binary. Zero for no/false, and 1 for yes/true. But surely, many things in life cannot be answered with such precision, eh?


Vanderzyden

Vanderzyden

Welcome X!

I will ignore the standard insults and the other redundant content of your post and wait to upon you to substantively contribute evidence to support your claims. Please don't merely refer to the links that others have posted: make an attempt to elucidate a particular point and demonstrate how it serves to answer the question at hand.

Furthermore, I will consider your last statement as an exceptionally flattering comment. I don't care about my reputation--at least not in the way that you are indicating.

As I have said, I could be wrong. That has not been shown. Let us follow the truth wherever it leads, not where we would like it to go.


Thanks!

Vanderzyden

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

wade-w

Please take your own advice!

Vanderzyden

I don't see it on the website. Actually, where may I find the original study?

It seems interesting, but still problematic. But...let's wait until you can point me to something definitive before we discuss it in detail.

Vanderzyden

Coragyps

VZ - I am not a biologist any more than you, so I will ask all that are here:

What in the sacred name of Gregor Mendel would prevent a 2p and a 2q chromosome in a sperm from lining up one right after the other along a fused 2p/2q chromosome in an ovum? Particularly when all the sequences matched essentially exactly, except for the fusion itself?

You wrote: I know what provisional means. Are you also waiting for more data on whether apples still accelerate toward the center of the Earth when they separate from the tree?

Skeptical

I understand exactly what provisional means. It means you are hedging. What I cannot understand is why you are hedging on a question of fact. As far as I can tell, you are simpy denying it without any factual basis for doing so.

You say you "provisionally" deny the appearance of human chromosome #2. The only basis I can think of for your denial is that you think Scigirl is lying or the source of her information is lying. The chromosome is what it is. Would it take you being brought to a lab and seeing the chromosome for yourself? If you don't trust that scientists are even telling the truth about a trivially verifiable fact, then I don't see what point there is in any further discussion. If the human chromosome #2 does not look like scientists say, don't you think that someone, somewhere by now would have blown the whistle? I have tried to understand your POV, but at this point it seems to me that you are being stubborn just for the sake of being stubborn.

I think that a question of fact is _always_ a binary. Either there is a ball in the road or there is not. Either the human chromosome #2 looks as reported by Scigirl or it does not. Empirical facts are what they are. You "provisionally" deny what is an observable fact. This observable fact is accepted by all creationists and evolutionists who have studied the question, the only disagreement is on the explanation of the observable fact. You are the only person, as far as I can tell, who has examined the evidence that denies this fact. What's more, you offer no explanation as to why you deny this fact. I don't know what more can be said if you will not even agree on the facts we are discussing.

It would have been better if you had simply said at the beginning of the thread that you thought that the appearance of human chromosome #2 has been faked by scientists. We could have ended the discussion right then. In truth, I'm not sure why you continued with the discussion as you have when you could simply have said "human chromosome #2 doesn't look like that, so no explanation is necessary" and been done.

Mageth

The 66/64 stuff is on <a href="http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html" target="_blank">this site</a> which is linked to from the page Nightshade provided a link to. At (9) it gives the reference to the study. I'll include it here so you don't have to try to figure it out:

pz

Nothing at all, and that's exactly what happens. I've even seen time-lapse video of mismatched chromosomes lining up exactly as you describe. And as we all know, if you can see it on TV, it must be true.

KnightWhoSaysNi

My mistake. It's on the the same website, but in this <a href="http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html" target="_blank">page here.</a>

Here's some info from the site specifically on the <a href="http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/BREEDS/HORSES/PRZEW/index.htm" target="_blank">Przewalski horse.</a>

And here is primary reference the site gives:


Edit: Arrgh!! Sorry Mageth, once again ya beat me to it!

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