RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (5) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 >   
  Topic: AF Dave Questions Human-Chimp Chromo Evo, Creation/Evolution Debate< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2006,02:34   

Quote
Ok, I didn't get what you meant by the RNA poly using different strands between two codons.


My fault, mixing up "codon" with"gene".

Quote
But you're not reading. ;)


My wife's fault. She sometimes gets irritated about all the time I spend blogging, so I do tend to rush through threads, and thus miss the odd salient point. (More than the odd one, probably.)

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2006,03:10   

Dave, when you talk to this doctor, don't forget to also remind him of this: Although the process of gnetic coding and codons and transcription and 5'-3' orientation can be unknown or forgotten to an MD (heck, I hardly remembered any of it), arguing against centric fusions and Robertsonian translocations as an impossibility can not be attributed to ignorance. It's standard textbook genetics, and highschool material, for crying out loud. Anyone who disregards that is either lying, or too ignorant to discuss genetics in the first place. Or both.
Quote
May the God who you may not believe in bless you anyway!

Funny... You reminded me of something H.L.Borges wrote in a story of his, about a medieval Arab philosopher and poet, who was also fascinated by mathematics:

[...]A sudden discomfort -or a premonition- makes him stop reading. He gets up, marks the page his eyes will never again see, and makes amends with God, that God that might exist, and whose Grace he begged for, through the intricate pages of his algebra. He dies the same day, around sunset.

Now why am I quoting this? As a reminder: That, for many people, the way of finding "god" (a god, their god, any god) is, not by trying to verify their beliefs at all costs, but by actually looking for the truth. They may succeed or fail; but for them, that is the only path available. Give this some thought.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2006,08:47   

Quote
Although the process of gnetic coding and codons and transcription and 5'-3' orientation can be unknown or forgotten to an MD (heck, I hardly remembered any of it), arguing against centric fusions and Robertsonian translocations as an impossibility can not be attributed to ignorance. It's standard textbook genetics, and highschool material

Might have been high school material for you ... I must have been sleeping in that class!  The ignorant one on centric fusions was ME, not Dr. Wieland.  Only the paragraphs starting with "Professor Jerome LeJeune, a very distinguished French cytogeneticist ..." were from him.  I should have made that clear by enclosing it.

Now I see why you think he was lying !!  I thought that was strange that you should think that.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2006,11:28   

Quote (afdave @ May 04 2006,07:54)
The blow for Neodarwinism comes, however, with the discovery that the theoretical ‘join’ is head-to-head. Since the chromosomes are always ‘read’ in the same direction, this means that the same ‘sentence’ would be read backwards, and would make no biochemical sense!

Afdave never linked the AiG article he quoted. I found it here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v2/i1/cytogenetics.asp

The quote is from Dr Carl Wieland the author of the article.

This guy's Biography states:

"Dr. Carl Wieland is the author of several popular creation books and booklets, some of which have been translated into multiple languages.  Although his formal qualifications are in medicine and surgery, Carl has not practiced in the medical profession since 1986.  He is a past president of the Christian Medical Fellowship of South Australia."

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2006,11:50   

Dave, let's see what this doctor says:
Quote
The blow for Neodarwinism comes, however, with the discovery that the theoretical ‘join’ is head-to-head. Since the chromosomes are always ‘read’ in the same direction, this means that the same ‘sentence’ would be read backwards, and would make no biochemical sense!

So, he says that "head to head" fusion is a biochemical impossibility. Right. So, how hard is it to check any textbook in genetics and see that this "impossibility" happens all the time, with little consequense save a drop in fertility? He is arguing about genetics, after all, and he knows what the other side says. What would be the first thing you'd do in his place?
There's no way around it... He's either both arrogant and clueless enough to think he can argue against fundamental knowledge in genetics with no prior information, by making stuff up, or he knows he's wrong, and he's lying. You can decide yourself which is worse.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2006,16:14   

Quote
So, he says that "head to head" fusion is a biochemical impossibility. Right.

No.  He does not say that.  His mistake is this ...
Quote
Since the chromosomes are always ‘read’ in the same direction, this means that the same ‘sentence’ would be read backwards, and would make no biochemical sense!


--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2006,16:32   

Quote (afdave @ May 07 2006,21:14)
Quote
So, he says that "head to head" fusion is a biochemical impossibility. Right.

No.  He does not say that.  His mistake is this ...
Quote
Since the chromosomes are always ‘read’ in the same direction, this means that the same ‘sentence’ would be read backwards, and would make no biochemical sense!

I think afdave is starting to get it.

The AiG article says because the fusion is head to head it will be read backwards. That's what is wrong. The fusion and the reading are unrelated. The DNA is unzipped and floats free in shorter strands before it's read for protein production. The ends are marked by telemers.

But don't depend on us -- get an edited textbook on the subject. We're bloggers, not teachers or textbook writers. What we're all agreed on here is that the AiG sentence is in error.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2006,21:00   

Quote
The ends are marked by telemers.


Did you mean telomeres?

Telomeres are a region of repeat sequences at the end of a chromosome that act like a biological clock, limiting the number of cell divisions, as a sequence is lost on each division, until there are none left and the cell can no longer divide.

Promoters mark the beginning of a gene and the stop codon signals the end of the coding sequence.

  
Jay Ray



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2006,23:28   

Alan Fox says:

Telomeres are a region of repeat sequences at the end of a chromosome that act like a biological clock, limiting the number of cell divisions, as a sequence is lost on each division, until there are none left and the cell can no longer divide.

----------

No kidding?   That's all there is to the natural lifetime of a cell?  What an interesting factoid.  I never learned that in my bio or A and P classes.  My teachers were remiss in forgoing its mention.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2006,23:36   

Quote (afdave @ May 07 2006,21:14)
Quote
So, he says that "head to head" fusion is a biochemical impossibility. Right.

No.  He does not say that.  His mistake is this ...
Quote
Since the chromosomes are always ‘read’ in the same direction, this means that the same ‘sentence’ would be read backwards, and would make no biochemical sense!

Excuse me?

Can you explain to me where the difference in context lies?
This guy says that there could not have been a "head-to-head" fusion, because that would mean the genes would be read backwards and that makes "no biochemical sense".
Is this true or false? Does he accept the fusion event as possible, yes or no? You already know the answers.
Don't play with words, Dave. We're not children.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2006,23:42   

Quote
I think afdave is starting to get it.

Actually, I understood this back on page 1 when 'jstockwell' explained it.  The only piece still hanging to me was Faid thinking that Dr. Wieland is a liar.  This was due to the fact that Faid thought it was Dr. Wieland who was questioning 'stepwise fusion of chromosomes'.  This was ME that had this question, not Dr. Wieland.  Dr. Wieland's problem was that he thought there could be a 'backwards' way to join the chromosomes.  

Relevant to this, Faid (an MD himself) notes ...

Quote
Although the process of gnetic coding and codons and transcription and 5'-3' orientation can be unknown or forgotten to an MD (heck, I hardly remembered any of it)


My conclusion is that AIG made an understandable mistake in this case, but that there is no evidence of lying.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2006,23:52   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,04:42)
Dr. Wieland's problem was that he thought there could be a 'backwards' way to join the chromosomes.  

Dave, Wieland says there couldn't be a "backwards" way to join the chromosomes. In spite of the fact that what he refers to as 'backwards way' is common genetic knowledge.
I said that this displays either voluntary ignorance, or deliberate deceit.
Can you think of another possibility?


Oh and, yes, I remembered little about genetic coding, it's true (although I did kind of remember something about fusions, and a lot came back to me). But then, I'm not the one writing an article trying to dispute elementary stuff in genetics...

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,00:59   

Quote (Alan Fox @ May 08 2006,02:00)
Quote
The ends are marked by telemers.


Did you mean telomeres?

Telomeres are a region of repeat sequences at the end of a chromosome that act like a biological clock, limiting the number of cell divisions, as a sequence is lost on each division, until there are none left and the cell can no longer divide.

Promoters mark the beginning of a gene and the stop codon signals the end of the coding sequence.

Yea, what he said.
Too much genetic terminology floating around in my head to keep things straight -- especially when lack of sleep starts creeping up on me.

I goofed.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,01:06   

Quote (Jay Ray @ May 08 2006,04:28)
No kidding?   That's all there is to the natural lifetime of a cell?  

Not exactly. A cell lineage can live very long after its last division. Most neurons don't divide, but some can live many years.

I don't know much about the subject, but apoptosis (programmed cellular death) is tiggered by many factors, not just telomeric segments.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,01:17   

Quote
Dave, Wieland says there couldn't be a "backwards" way to join the chromosomes.


???? I cannot find where he says this.

Here is what he says ...

Quote
Since the chromosomes are always ‘read’ in the same direction, this means that the same ‘sentence’ would be read backwards, and would make no biochemical sense!


He is talking about READING the Chromosome backwards, not JOINING it backwards.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,01:42   

Quote (Faid @ May 08 2006,04:52)
Dave, Wieland says there couldn't be a "backwards" way to join the chromosomes.

It's not quite wrong to say Wieland believes the join is impossible. He certainly doesn't believe it happened.

The problem you guys are having is that Wieland doesn't believe in evolution or the fusion in this case. All that similarity between Chimp and Man is lost to Wieland because Wieland doesn't believe the fusion event happened. He says the "theoretical ‘join’ is head-to-head."

Using theoretical and putting ‘join’ in quotes speaks to it not happening. But it does not speak to the impossibility of joins ever happening (he thinks that backward join would be a killer I imagine because it would be read as nonsense).

The real evidence against Wieland is that there is lots of evidence for all sorts of fusions in all sorts of species, mice, flowers, insects etc. and sometimes with little effect. Fusions have been observed to happen in yeast.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,01:45   

You seem to be missing the main point. I have no problem with people not understanding this stuff. It's taken me years of reading to understand evolution properly. The point is when you made this mistake you described it as an unsurmountable obstacle. I suspect the AiG article uses similar language. It is very rare for scientists to make those kinds of mistakes without someone pointing them out. It is this arrogance that annoys people, and you will find that most of the problems that you think you have found with evolution are also easily answered if there is someone with the appropriate knowledge listening. You will find scientists will be a lot more receptive if you say 'could someone please answer this question' instead of 'Ha, how will the Darwinists overcome this obstacle!'.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,02:36   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,06:17)
Quote
Dave, Wieland says there couldn't be a "backwards" way to join the chromosomes.


???? I cannot find where he says this.

Here is what he says ...

Quote
Since the chromosomes are always ‘read’ in the same direction, this means that the same ‘sentence’ would be read backwards, and would make no biochemical sense!


He is talking about READING the Chromosome backwards, not JOINING it backwards.

If a chromosome fragment cannot be read backward, how could two chromsomes fuse head to head?

If it isn't a biochemical constraint, it's a selective constraint, and the probem would still be impossible to overcome.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,03:39   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,06:17)
Quote
Dave, Wieland says there couldn't be a "backwards" way to join the chromosomes.


???? I cannot find where he says this.

Here is what he says ...

Quote
Since the chromosomes are always ‘read’ in the same direction, this means that the same ‘sentence’ would be read backwards, and would make no biochemical sense!


He is talking about READING the Chromosome backwards, not JOINING it backwards.

???  ???  ???  ???
Dave, what exactly are you trying to argue about here?
Wieland says that the proposed evolutionary pathway recieves a "blow", because that requires a "head-to-head" fusion, and if you have a head to head fusion, then the 'sentence' would be "read backwards", and that "makes no biochemical sense".

I mean, seriously, what is the meaning you make out of that? does he say that "head-to-head" fusions are possible, or not?

Again, please don't play with words.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,03:42   

I wonder if Dave will admit that the Chromosome fusion is STRONG evidence for evolution..... anyone want to take a bet?

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,04:56   

Quote
Dave, what exactly are you trying to argue about here?

That Carl Wieland is mistaken, but not necessarily a liar.  There is a big difference.
Quote
I wonder if Dave will admit that the Chromosome fusion is STRONG evidence for evolution..... anyone want to take a bet?

Yes.  I'll take you up on a bet.  How about $1000?  Will you take the position that I WILL NOT say chromosome fusion is strong evidence for evolution and pay me $1000 if I do?  

Before you commit to that, you might want to hop over to my new "Ape Questions" thread.

As far as I'm concerned, this thread has accomplished its purpose.  Thanks for your participation!

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,06:57   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,09:56)
Quote
Dave, what exactly are you trying to argue about here?

That Carl Wieland is mistaken, but not necessarily a liar.  There is a big difference.

Dave, the guy @ AIG basically said "the chromosome fusion was impossible, yet it happened"
Silly mistake indeed.

How do you call something that is impossible but yet happens? I think religious people have a word for that.

And BTW, what is your theory about the chromosomal fusion in our lineage?

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,08:50   

Well ... I didn't quite read the AIG guy quite that way ...

but whatever ... I don't really care about that anymore.

The important thing is that I was corrected in some erroneous thinking regarding this topic and I am glad for that.

You might want to check out my new thread "Ape Questions" ... where I concede many things that evolutionists are saying about Ape/Human issues.

I have maintained from the first that I am a fairminded guy and will give up my position readily when it is proven wrong.

I do wonder if anyone else here will ever concede anything, though.  Haven't seen it yet, but then ... I've only just begun, really.  Who knows!

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
thurdl01



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,08:52   

You've provided nothing worthy of concession.  This isn't a negotiation.  It's not encumbant upon us to concede something just because you have.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:02   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,13:50)
I have maintained from the first that I am a fairminded guy and will give up my position readily when it is proven wrong.

Creationism can't be proven wrong (that is not falsifiable, in scientific terms) so why should we bother? ???

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:40   

Quote
Carl Wieland is mistaken, but not necessarily a liar.  There is a big difference.
To make athorititive statements like that to an audience you know is going to believe you when you are ignorant of even the basic science is at the very least dishonest.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,11:16   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,13:50)
I do wonder if anyone else here will ever concede anything, though.  Haven't seen it yet, but then ... I've only just begun, really.  Who knows!

What exactly do you think should be conceded to your point of view?  Which specific afdave point are the biologists and other scientists here not getting?   Which notion were you promoting, I forgot.  Was it the space alient theory, or the time traveler?  Or perhaps it was the Mr Potato Head as the architect of the "fine tuned universe" theory?  Which scientific point were you hoping these know nothing biologists and scientists here would concede?

The nice thing about science (versus creationism aka intelligent design) is that evidence trumps personalities and lies and fabrications don't have a very long shelf life.  No matter how revolutionary or consensus destroying an idea might be, an evidence based notion is going to gain intellectual/scientific currency regardless of the consequences.  So if you have a scientific idea that is backed by evidence and gives a better explanation for things no one here can stop you.

As much as you and your AIG buddies would like to believe otherwise, there is no "darwin conspiracy".  All you have to do to get any or all of your points conceded is provide a better explanation and better evidence than what currently exists.  But moronic ramblings like "fine tuned universe" is not only unscientific, it is in layman's terms, utterly stupid and only for the intellectually weak.

All you have done on this forum is recycle ancient, mistaken, or even dishonest id/creationist claims that have all been addressed and proven mistaken for decades.  Yet you still think you are on to something...

And you honestly wonder why none of the biologists and scientists present in this forum have conceded anything to a person completely ignorant on matters of science and biology?  They have not conceded a #### thing to someone who anytime he opens his mouth he makes an admission he is completely clueless on matters of biology and science.  To someone who gets their "science education" from the lying AIG and the intelligent design creationism camps? Dude, you crack me up :-)  Seriously.

If you were someone who was actually looking for a good understanding of biology you'd knock off your agenda and childish, unscientific "theories" and start asking questions and listening.  Knowing full well you posess a hard core creationist (anti-scientific) bias, you'd spend a few weeks on the talk origins page to clear your head of the nonsense you have uncritically accepted.

But you, you keep making the same old mistaken and proven idiotic points and challenging those around you here to overcome them.  F*** that.

I am astonished anyone here gives you two seconds of their time.  Astonished.

There is a handful of brilliant minds that frequent this forum, it is amazing to watch how quickly you ignore those minds in favor of advancing/justifying your AIG/IDC/creationist nonsense.  As fas I can tell, you're a dishonest jerk, afdave.  If you had an ounce of integrity you'd be thanking people here for giving you those two seconds, stop all the stupid afdave hypothesis nonsense, and spend your time studying at talk origins.

You belong on William Dembski's forum, not on this one.  His is a haven for the intellectually dishonest, misguided, prejudiced, and ingorant.  They would agree with most everything you say.  

I do not buy your notion that you are seeking the truth.  I don't but it for one second.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,11:30   

Quote
I do not buy your notion that you are seeking the truth.  I don't but it for one second.

He already HAS the Truth. Now he's seeking the optimum rationalization for it. He's open-minded enough to recognize that the most transparently incorrect claims are suboptimal. At least some minimal obfuscation seems to be required.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,11:44   

Quote
He already HAS the Truth.


Very good, Flint.  Now if we could just get you to have it, wouldn't life be grand ... :-)

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,11:54   

afdave:
Quote
You might want to check out my new thread "Ape Questions" ... where I concede many things that evolutionists are saying about Ape/Human issues.

I have maintained from the first that I am a fairminded guy and will give up my position readily when it is proven wrong.

I do wonder if anyone else here will ever concede anything, though.  Haven't seen it yet, but then ... I've only just begun, really.  Who knows!


Nope. To compromise is to admit that your opponent has a reasonable point of view and that his needs are worth considering. To the liberal, a conservative doesn't argue from a principled position that may sometimes be misguided, but crafts smokescreens to hide his inherently wicked nature. The facts only count when they support the liberal's side; otherwise it's "lies, #### lies, and statistics". That's why liberals remain unfazed when their policies implode - the policies are not a means, but rather the end.

Flint:
Quote
He already HAS the Truth. Now he's seeking the optimum rationalization for it. He's open-minded enough to recognize that the most transparently incorrect claims are suboptimal. At least some minimal obfuscation seems to be required.

That's a very good description of liberalism. Well, you might want to toss out the "open-minded" part.......

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
  146 replies since May 04 2006,02:54 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (5) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]