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 >  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,02:54   

HUMAN-CHIMP CHROMOSOME NUMBER PREDICTION

This is a common 'proof' for Ape to Human Evolution, but as is so often the case, this appears to be wishful thinking on the part of Neo-Darwinists.  There are two major problems that I see with this Neo-Darwinist assertion, which they most recently displayed in the Dover case ...  

(1) No one to my knowledge has ever proposed a stepwise solution of HOW the 2A and 2B chimp chromosomes joined.  This appears to be a HUGE obstacle.
(2) The join was 'head-to-head'.  If my understanding is true (stated below) that chromosomes are read in only one direction, then this would be a SECOND HUGE OBSTACLE.

See Chimpanzee Genome Project
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_Genome_Project
for a nice picture comparing the genomes.

Below is a quote from Dr. Jerome LeJeune, Discoverer of Down's Syndrome.  Notice that this was 1975, so this is old news.  Chimp and human chromosomal differences were known around 8 years before this.  (I think I read that LeJeune and his staff discovered this also)

Professor Jerome LeJeune, a very distinguished French cytogeneticist and holder of the chair of Fundamental Genetics, University of Paris, claims that modern knowledge of chromosomes makes it impossible for a human to have evolved slowly and gradually from a pre-human. From other things he mentions, it appears that Prof. LeJeune is not a creationist—he appears to hover somewhere between theistic evolution and ‘progressive creation’. However, his comments denying Neodarwinism are very relevant to us [AIG], since this is the mechanism of evolution which is being taught in our schools and universities. His statements here mentioned were made at a conference of mostly Catholic doctors and theologians, entitled ‘The Quality of Life’ and dealing mainly with abortion, euthanasia and other pro-life issues. (Combined conference, Guild of St. Luke, SS Cosmos and Damian, Wairakei, N.Z. Ott 9-12, 1975, proceedings edited by D. Bonisch) For example:
Quote
‘And just from what we know from primates, that is, from the gorilla, from the chimpanzee, from the orangutan and from man, we can safely say that the very ingenious simplification of Neodarwinists is now just good to put in the museum of old news—that is, the museum in which you put past discoveries that no longer have any explanation-interest.’

A little further on:
Quote
‘Because from the actual structure of the chromosome we can demonstrate that the human species did not come from a progressive humanization of a prehuman. We can be as sure that the gorilla never came to be a gorilla by a progressive gorillization of a pregorilla. These things are not true. They are told as telltale in classic books, but they are not any longer true.’


Prof. LeJeune does not delve into technicalities or all his reasons for saying this, but one apparent reason seems to be as follows: A chimp has two more chromosomes than man, which two appear as if ‘homologous’ to a single one in man. The evolutionist would have to say that in the process of the chimpanzee and man’s common ancestor becoming ‘humanized’, the two chromosomes (which remained independent in the chimp) became joined in man. The strong biochemical resemblance between man and chimp would be used as further evidence to support the notion that the chromosomes are indeed homologous. 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!

Here is another quote from Dr. LeJeune ...
Quote

‘The Neodarwinist is now reaching the point of dignity in the history of science that the Ptolemaic system in astronomy, the epicycle system, reached long ago. We know that it does not work.’
(LeJeune, Jerome (Professor of Fundamental Genetics, University of Paris)
Symposium volume titled ‘Quality of Life’, Ed. D. Bonisch, 1975, p.64)


How would my friends here at PT answers these two objections?

--------------
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

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,03:19   

Another thread again, yet you fail to deliver on your promise to produce evidence on other threads. Keep your promises on the other threads first before clogging the system with your ignorance.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,03:30   

I have given evidence every day as promised.  I spend at least 2 hours every day now both answering critics and producing evidence for my own assertions.

Where have you been?

And kindly don't clog my serious attempts to understand ND assertions--such as this one--with your polemics.

--------------
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

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,03:40   

Quote
I have given evidence every day as promised.  I spend at least 2 hours every day now both answering critics and producing evidence for my own assertions.


I have been reading your threads daily, and have not seen one gram of evidence. I also did not see anyone else pointing to any evidence you posted, instead, they are all still waiting (and asking) for the promised evidence. Where have you been?

Quote
And kindly don't clog my serious attempts to understand ND assertions--such as this one--with your polemics.


I think very few people here think you are serious (if any), or even honest in your "search" for truth. You might as well rename this thread to "AFdaves pulpit".

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,03:49   

Just so I understand what you are saying fully. You think that the fusion resulted in half of the genes on the chromosome being backwards and therefore untranscribable?

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,03:50   

Quote
This is a common 'proof' for Ape to Human Evolution

And this is a common creationist false assumption. Humans fall spang in the center of the ape clade. Genetically, you just can't get more apish than Homo Sapiens.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,03:53   

You you have not read my evidence that I have posted for my first "God Hypothesis" point?  About 'Cosmic Fine Tuning' and 'Biological Machines'? Have you not read my explanation for Cain's wife that was asked of me?

Or are you telling me you don't consider this to be evidence?   I really can't help you if you don't ACCEPT my evidence.  I can only give it.  And I will not take time to answer EVERY question that I feel has no bearing on the purpose of my thread.

Back to this thread, do you have any explanation for these seemingly insurmountable questions?

--------------
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 04 2006,04:03   

Quote (afdave @ May 04 2006,07:54)
(1) No one to my knowledge has ever proposed a stepwise solution of HOW the 2A and 2B chimp chromosomes joined.  This appears to be a HUGE obstacle.
(2) The join was 'head-to-head'.  If my understanding is true (stated below) that chromosomes are read in only one direction, then this would be a SECOND HUGE OBSTACLE.

Good grief! You look at a comparison of two closely related genomes with many chromosomes of exactly the same size that screams "Darwin got it right" when Darwin didn't even know DNA existed and you just miss seeing how strong that evidence is.

Instead you've got some pathetic argument about a fused chromosome.

Here's information on how chromosomes fuse:
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2003/12_02_03.html

Here's information on how creationists lie about this:
http://loom.corante.com/archives/2005/08/29/the_chromosome_shuffle.php

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

Could you explain why two pieces of DNA couldn't join together and preserve the correct direction.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1788
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,04:26   

Jeezuz AFDave, what's with you?

You've been given the benefit of the doubt several times now, and each time you've reacted not like someone who's interested in learning, but like a preachy YEC dolt who's only interested in flaunting his ignorance.

You've left dozens of questions unanswered on the other threads you started.

You refuse to do the most basic research before you post another piece of "evidence"

You snap at people who keep pointing out that your actions do not jibe at all with the "honest skeptic" you claim to be.

As far as this latests "evidence", you cite a study that is over 30 years old, and even then you don't understand the contents of what it says.

Here is a good overview of the chromosomal fusion evidence.  Notice all the references to the primary scientific literature, including this one

Quote
10. Chromosome Res 2002;10(1):55-61

Direct evidence for the Homo-Pan clade.

Wimmer R, Kirsch S, Rappold GA, Schempp W.

Institute of Human Genetics and Anthropology, University of Freiburg, Germany.

For a long time, the evolutionary relationship between human and African apes, the 'trichotomy problem', has been debated with strong differences in opinion and interpretation. Statistical analyses of different molecular DNA data sets have been carried out and have primarily supported a Homo-Pan clade. An alternative way to address this question is by the comparison of evolutionarily relevant chromosomal breakpoints. Here, we made use of a P1-derived artificial chromosome (PAC)/bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) contig spanning approximately 2.8 Mb on the long arm of the human Y chromosome, to comparatively map individual PAC clones to chromosomes from great apes, gibbons, and two species of Old World monkeys by fluorescence in-situ hybridization. During our search for evolutionary breakpoints on the Y chromosome, it transpired that a transposition of an approximately 100-kb DNA fragment from chromosome 1 onto the Y chromosome must have occurred in a common ancestor of human, chimpanzee and bonobo. Only the Y chromosomes of these three species contain the chromosome-1-derived fragment; it could not be detected on the Y chromosomes of gorillas or the other primates examined. Thus, this shared derived (synapomorphic) trait provides clear evidence for a Homo-Pan clade independent of DNA sequence analysis.

                      PMID: 11863072 [PubMed - in process]




All this information is easily available for those who are intellectually honest enough to seek it.

Strike two Dave.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,04:48   

Quote
Good grief! You look at a comparison of two closely related genomes with many chromosomes of exactly the same size that screams "Darwin got it right" when Darwin didn't even know DNA existed and you just miss seeing how strong that evidence is.


But that's standard Creationist/ID 'argumentation': find one scientific datum that's unexpected or unexplained, noisily crow about 'scientists can't explain this!', ignore everything scientists CAN explain, and claim that since there's this one unexpected factoid, the entire theory of evolution must therefore be thrown overboard. The inevitable next step is the magical leap that all this therefore proves ID or Biblical Creation.

A quintessential example is the UD clowns obsessing over the apparent red blood cells being found in the T-Rex bones: instead of assuming that this means there's things we don't understand about the long-term preservation of tissue, they imply that ALL THE OTHER PROOF we have about an old earth must be thrown out. Other evolutionary evidence, geological evidence, astronomical evidence -- to the creationist, it must all be thrown out, because we found some red blood cells in a dinosaur!!

And of course, this all proves the Book of Genesis, too.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1047
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,05:16   

Norm wrote:

Quote
Good grief! You look at a comparison of two closely related genomes with many chromosomes of exactly the same size that screams "Darwin got it right" when Darwin didn't even know DNA existed and you just miss seeing how strong that evidence is.


Afdave wrote:

Quote
really can't help you if you don't ACCEPT my evidence.


I wrote:

Norm was writing about actual evidence, Afdave wants us to accept pseudoscientific BS as "evidence" we should accept.  Unfortunately, Afdave doesn't know the difference, and is utterly incapable of differentiating between evidence and tendentious apologetics.

And that is really how it stands.  The only thing I have to add is that those of us who understand science cannot be affected by Afdave's "evidence", something he needs to learn at some point.  An uneducated buffoon is not going to teach anything to the educated, so he may as well find people ignorant enough to persuade.  Right now he's just the whipping boy here, standing in for all of the ignorant creationists/IDists of the world.

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,05:22   

Dave, head-to-head fusion is as possible as head-to-tail. We are not talking about a chimairic event of the past here: Head to head fusions are observed in other species by genetic research today, as well as in our own body cells, in many pre-neoplasmatic conditions:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez....bstract
http://www.genomics.princeton.edu/botstein/Articles/1990/kunes.pdf
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=52649
http://www.ncc.go.jp/en/nccri/annrep/2004/10gen.html (look at "Alternative Mechanisms of Gene Amplification in Human Cancers")
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2003/12_02_03.html
http://www.bx.psu.edu/miller_lab/dist/chr2.4.pdf (look at page six for the explanation)


A simple google search would have led you to all those from the first pages. And you'll notice I didn't cite any "evilutionist" sites...

Remember what I told you about those who lie to you?

--------------
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."

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,05:31   

Quote
Back to this thread, do you have any explanation for these seemingly insurmountable questions?
Have you figured it out yet Dave? If you don't know this I really don't understand how you can critique any other aspect of biology.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,05:48   

Dave, this is exactly what happens when amateurs get in over their heads. Here you are, talking about a very esoteric field of human knowledge (genetics), citing 25-year-old research that's completely out of date and has been completely supplanted by newer research in a rapidly-advancing field.

No offense, Dave, but you're an electrical engineer. Do you really believe you're qualified to go head-to-head with research geneticists with decades in the field? Did you honestly think you were going to find errors in their work? That would be like me expecting to find errors in Stephen Hawking's math.

And, let's not forget, you still have not presented any evidence for a young earth, or for any of your other assertions, for that matter. To take an example, your "explanation" for Cain's and Abel's wives didn't present any "evidence" whatsoever. Claiming that Cain and Abel must have married their sisters, without even any reference to Biblical passages (which wouldn't have been evidence anyway), shows how little you understand about the way science works.

In the same vein, citing outdated research to attempt to disprove one tiny piece of evidence in favor of evolution doesn't even get you one baby-step closer to proving your claims.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,05:50   

There you go Dave, here's a plain explanation, with a nifty pic too:

http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hbooks....ns.html

Check "centric fusion". Now, the picture is not exactly the way the fusion was made in the human chromosome (that is more like a "Robertsonian translocation", also mentioned there but not shown), but the mechanism is pretty much the same and it may help you understand the head-to-head bit. And genetic researchers see that happening all the time. Anyone who (claims to be) a biologist, and says it's impossible, is a liar.

--------------
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."

  
jstockwell



Posts: 10
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,06:19   

afdave, I think you've confused a chromosome with an unpaired DNA strand.  DNA is indeed only read in a single direction, from 3' to 5' end, but since there are 2 strands, and both are 'read', an inversion causes very little problem.

To illustrate:

3' ATGCA 5'
5' TACGT 3'

inverted:

3' TGCAT 5'
5' ACGTA 3'

Notice that a polymerase reading the top strand of my first example will produce an identical product as one reading the bottom strand of the inversion.  

Hope that helped.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,06:27   

Don't tell him, I wanted to see if he could work it out. This is really elementary stuff, biology 101 as they say in the US (on tv at least). You see Dave this is why people have very little patience, if you say that this is an insurmountable obstacle, you obviously don't know a great deal about biology.

  
jstockwell



Posts: 10
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,06:29   

Ah.  Sorry about that.  Though from what I've seen while lurking here it's doubtful either of our approaches will work.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,06:30   

Quote

Remember what I told you about those who lie to you?


You mean how lies make Baby Jesus cry?  ;)

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,06:58   

afdave, do you think Mr Potato Head could be the intelligent designer?

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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,08:43   

Quote (Flint @ May 04 2006,08:50)
And this is a common creationist false assumption. Humans fall spang in the center of the ape clade.

What do you mean?

In a cladogram you can freely 'rotate' any sub-clade so that every taxa can be at the 'center' or at the 'edges', without changing the topology.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,08:51   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 04 2006,09<!--emo&:0)
Could you explain why two pieces of DNA couldn't join together and preserve the correct direction.

Different genes in a chromosome can be read in different directions, so there is no 'correct direction'
And given that transcription occures during the interphase, when chromosomes are not condensed (is this the correct term in English?), the direction of a particular locus is meaningless.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,09:03   

Yes that's the right word. It was AFDaves question not mine. Again, no one here is a 'neo-Darwinist'.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,09:15   

jeannot:

I know. I wasn't talking about the topology, exactly. I wish I could draw diagrams in this little box. But a cladistic outlier would be one that branched off early, without subsequent branchings. Hominids don't have a common ancestor with other apes long ago at the base of the diagram, suggesting a large genetic distance between them and other apes. Instead, hominids share common ancestors recently, and with chimps just less recently, etc. To the extent that the ape clade has been branching, humans are recently and closely related to many other apes,

So I guess that's what I was trying to say - if you took all of the genes of all the apes and did a factor analysis, humans would lie in the largest, "apiest" factor. And I wanted to contrast this with the creationist caricature of humans having ape ancestors, which we outgrew and left behind in all their hairy smelly distasteful glory.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,09:40   

Ok flint, I get your point.
You could have said for instance that Homo and Pan share a more recent ancestor than Pan and Gorilla do.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,09:43   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 04 2006,14:03)
It was AFDaves question not mine.

That question is in your post (May 04 2006,09:04).
??

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,09:49   

So this statement from AIG would definitely be incorrect?

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!


What about the other statements from Dr. LeJeune?  These are strong statements from the discoverer of Downs Syndrome ... no?  Were not the 2 structures of chimp and human chromosomes well known even back in 1975?  Would this not put him in a postion to make an authoritative statement?

--------------
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

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,10:03   

AFDave...
1975.
Nineteen seventy five.
(heeeee)
AIG was fact-mining.
   * January 1 - Watergate scandal: John N. Mitchell, H. R. Haldeman, John D. Ehrlichman are found guilty of the Watergate cover-up
   * January 2 - The Federal Rules of Evidence are approved by Congress
   * January 5 - The Tasman Bridge in Tasmania, Australia, is struck by the bulk ore carrier Lake Illawarra, killing twelve people.
   * January 7 - OPEC agrees to raise crude oil prices by 10%.
   * January 8 - Ella Grasso becomes Governor of Connecticut, becoming the first woman to serve as a Governor in the United States who did not succeed her husband
      * January 29 - Weather Underground bombs US State Department main office in Washington D.C.
   * January - Altair 8800 is released, sparking the era of the microcomputer

Why would someone quote a paper this old?  Perhaps subsequent papers disagreed with it and produced inconvenient results? Lying for Jesus by omission.

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
jstockwell



Posts: 10
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,10:07   

That statement is not only incorrect, it shows such a lack of understanding that I would question the scholarship of wherever you found that.  

And you should look it up yourself as well.  Basic knowledge of how DNA transcription and replication work would help you understand why your arguments don't work.  Although really, you should have learned that before claiming to have found a 'major obstacle'.

  
  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]