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 >  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

Quote
So this statement from AIG would definitely be incorrect?
Yes it was either written by someone with no knowledge of biology or was intentionally meant to mislead. Or both.

Quote
What about the other statements from Dr. LeJeune?
More out of date with every paper that comes out.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,10:08   

jeannot:

Quote
You could have said for instance that Homo and Pan share a more recent ancestor than Pan and Gorilla do.

Yes, I suppose so. But I was trying to emphasize that we are solidly and thoroughly apes ourselves, and phrasing it your way might be construed as saying we "graduated out of apehood" more recently. So my target was the tendency to distinguish between humans and apes, a distinction as impossible as distinguishing between starlings and birds.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,10:17   

Dave, you must learn that authority is no substitute for learning the issues involved yourself.

why don't you pick up a basic biology textbook sometime and learn these things for yourself?

You could have learned how transcription actually works, for example, or how cells divide, or how chromosomes are constructed, rather than relying on "authorities" to tell you how it is.

Of course, I suppose you should only bother if the issues you raise are actually important to you.

If they aren't, then why do you keep coming here?

It's not anybody's job here to continually educate you about basic biology.

and you really aren't even that amusing.

  
Tom Ames



Posts: 238
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,10:18   

To answer these points of AFDave's directly:

Quote
(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.


1. Chromosome fusions happen all the time. A colleague of mine specializes in following them in microbial evolution: they are a ubiquitous response to selective pressure.

2. Chromosomes have no polarity. The "head-to-head" directionality is arbitrary.

Next "obstacles"?

--------------
-Tom Ames

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,10:26   

Quote (afdave @ May 04 2006,14:49)
What about the other statements from Dr. LeJeune?  These are strong statements from the discoverer of Downs Syndrome ... no?

The statements from Dr. LeJeune are ironically wrong because Downs syndrome is caused by fused chromosomes and Downs patients can live and reproduce. Downs syndrome may not have any obvious evolutionary edge -- but it's not a killer mutation, (maybe a hopeful monster in minature Gouldian form).

Dr. LeJeune had a lapse of vision -- it happens some times.

Yes, the statement from AIG is definitely incorrect.

It's dated speculation.

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

Now let me quote some of what you missed:

Quote

Eldon Gardner summed it up as follows: “Chromosome number is probably more constant, however, than any other single morphological characteristic that is available for species identification” (1968, p. 211). To put it another way, humans always have had 46 chromosomes, whereas chimps always have had 48.

There's a lot that's wrong here, and it can be summed up up with one number: 1968.

Why would someone quote from a 37-year-old genetics textbook in an article about the science of chromosomes? It's not as if scientists have been just sitting around their labs since then with their feet up on the benches.


You have to ask yourself why is so much creationist information so often more than a couple decades old?

It's because they have to quote mine decades worth of literature to find things they can take out of context or find such lapses of vision.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,10:27   

Google's faster my friend ... and it got me as far as this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_Genome_Project

but I could not find anything about chromosome reading being directional ... so I thank "whoever-it-was" for 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

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,10:35   

Quote (afdave @ May 04 2006,15:27)
Google's faster my friend ... and it got me as far as this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_Genome_Project

but I could not find anything about chromosome reading being directional ... so I thank "whoever-it-was" for that!

AFDave, you are one step away... now all you have to do is Google before you cut and paste an inane quote from AIG, and you can answer your own questions.  AIG knowingly lied to you, AFDave.  What did that feel like?

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

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,10:36   

Quote
It's because they have to quote mine decades worth of literature to find things they can take out of context or find such lapses of vision.

It's also because older material is much better at highlighting what science "doesn't understand."

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,10:47   

Because chromosomes have two strands, it doesn't matter whether they have a direction or not, they can still join up at either end.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,10:55   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 04 2006,15:47)
Because chromosomes have two strands, it doesn't matter whether they have a direction or not, they can still join up at either end.

I don't get you argument. Could you elaborate?
Are you talking about chromatids?

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,11:11   

Yes, I just mean that two pieces of double stranded DNA will line up to preserve the 3'-5' direction. I think AiGs argument was that if the chromosomes joined up face to face half of the new chromosome would run in the opposite direction and the codons would be backwards. I was just pointing out this wouldn't happen.

  
Tom Ames



Posts: 238
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,11:44   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 04 2006,14:11)
Yes, I just mean that two pieces of double stranded DNA will line up to preserve the 3'-5' direction. I think AiGs argument was that if the chromosomes joined up face to face half of the new chromosome would run in the opposite direction and the codons would be backwards. I was just pointing out this wouldn't happen.

I'd like to try to clarify your point, if I may.

In fact, not only do chromosomes not have polarity, but double-stranded DNA does not either. It's composed of two complementary antiparallel strands: one goes 5'->3', the other goes 3'->5'. Flip it around and you'll get the same thing.

But AiG's stupidity does not stop here. They seem to be suggesting that genes run along the double strand in one direction only, that this implies some polarity and that this matters. In fact, there are genes on both strands, transcribed in either direction. Furthermore, the process of transcription has nothing to do with replication. Even if the genes DID all point in one direction, it wouldn't matter one bit. The DNA replication machinery just sees 2 strands of DNA. It works in an antisense direction just as easily as in a sense direction.

This whole line of argumentation could only have been made by someone who has never taken a single semester of modern undergraduate biology. Indeed, the person who makes these arguments could not have paid any attention in his high school biology class (assuming he took biology after 1960 or so).

--------------
-Tom Ames

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,11:56   

Exactly.   :D

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,12:36   

Re "In fact, not only do chromosomes not have polarity, but double-stranded DNA does not either. It's composed of two complementary antiparallel strands: one goes 5'->3', the other goes 3'->5'. Flip it around and you'll get the same thing."

Hey, a thread with an interesting discussion in it! What happened? :p

Henry

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,15:32   

Quote
Hey, a thread with an interesting discussion in it! What happened?


What happened?

... you guys finally got one over on AIG after many years of trying ...

Your welcome!

--------------
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 2006,15:38   

Quote (afdave @ May 04 2006,20:32)
... you guys finally got one over on AIG after many years of trying ...

Thanks for reminding us that no matter what we do, the light of reason will never penetrate your religion darkened brain.

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,16:15   

Quote (afdave @ May 04 2006,20:32)
Quote
Hey, a thread with an interesting discussion in it! What happened?


What happened?

... you guys finally got one over on AIG after many years of trying ...

Your welcome!

AFDave, that was soo sad.  That was your argument, not ours.  One of the few pieces of proof you have posited.  It was blown to confetti.  Try again, but Google first.

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

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,16:17   

dave does have a point. It's rather unusual for creationists to make straightforward fact-based statements, because they are so easy to refute directly, with the actual facts. Usually, those who provide the grist for creationists to parrot are much more careful to make statements correctly implied by false assumptions.

Wrong: You beat your wife.

Right: It was only yesterday that you denied not beating your wife, which is suspiciously recent.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,17:13   

Quote
Thanks for reminding us that no matter what we do, the light of reason will never penetrate your religion darkened brain. ...


Man you guys are uptight ... it was a joke!

Norm ... you succeeded in getting some good info into my 'religion darkened' brain.  The chimp thing is the best one I've heard so far.  I'm really interested in studying it more.  You guys did good today!  There ... is that better?

Go celebrate!  Send the drink bills to me!

--------------
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 04 2006,19:58   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 04 2006,16:11)
Yes, I just mean that two pieces of double stranded DNA will line up to preserve the 3'-5' direction. I think AiGs argument was that if the chromosomes joined up face to face half of the new chromosome would run in the opposite direction and the codons would be backwards. I was just pointing out this wouldn't happen.

I think we’re not talking of the same thing. Yes, transcription can only occur in the 5’ -> 3’ direction. But as far as I understand, AfDave was not referring to that. He was unconsciously implying that there was one definite master strand for a whole chromatid, since all genes were supposed to be read in the same direction, for some odd reason. If it were an absolute rule, the way chromosomes join would matter a lot. They would have to fuse both master strand and coding strand with their analogues, and not a master strand with a coding strand.
The fact that DNA has two strands in both direction doesn’t change anything.

Am I correct?

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,22:56   

In transcription only one strand of DNA (the master strand, as Jeannot puts it) is copied to nRNA. The reverse complement does not produce the same sequence if read in the opposite direction. I.e. If you produced  a back-to-front mRNA from the complement strand it would not be the same.

Is the issue that individual codons can be in either DNA strand as once the strands are unwound the RNA polymerase attaches to whichever strand is the master at that point, so it would not matter which way chromosomes fused as it is individual codons that are transcribed, and which strand is the master can swap from codon to codon?

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,23:13   

Quote
He was unconsciously implying that there was one definite master strand for a whole chromatid, since all genes were supposed to be read in the same direction, for some odd reason.
Oh ok I thought he meant that it would join up the 5'-3' direction the wrong way. You are right, I'm giving AiG too much credt.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,00:19   

Quote (afdave @ May 04 2006,22:13)
Go celebrate!  Send the drink bills to me!

Dave, I will drink a whole bottle of fine Arcadian wine (and each glass to you and your family's health) if you tell me that this has made you question, even slightly, the "authority" of AIG in these issues- and that you'll try to check and cross-examine their claims before believing them from now on (even with a simple google search).
Because if you do, believe me, this was only your first surprise...

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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,02:14   

Quote (Alan Fox @ May 05 2006,03:56)
Is the issue that individual codons can be in either DNA strand as once the strands are unwound the RNA polymerase attaches to whichever strand is the master at that point, so it would not matter which way chromosomes fused as it is individual codons that are transcribed, and which strand is the master can swap from codon to codon?

I'm not sure about the question (your sentence is a bit too complicated for me), but for one gene, there is one physical master strand.
Of course, in a chromatid, different genes can have different master strands (that is they are read in different directions).

I hope it helps.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,02:28   

But what the AiG article seems to be suggesting is that the chromatids fused so that one strand would run 5'-3' up to the join, and then 3'-5' after the join. So what they are saying is that half the genes on the chromosome would be backwards. My guess is that whoever wrote that didn't realise that there are two pairs of double stranded DNA.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,02:51   

Jeannot

It was
Quote
In fact, not only do chromosomes not have polarity, but double-stranded DNA does not either. It's composed of two complementary antiparallel strands: one goes 5'->3', the other goes 3'->5'. Flip it around and you'll get the same thing.
that made me ask, as I read this as suggesting that if you transcribe the complement strand from stop to start you get the same mRNA as if reading the master strand from start to stop, which I don't think is right.

Then I wondered if the master strand has to be continuous just for each codon, or for the complete strand. You tell me yes. OK. So is it hypothetically possible for the master strand to alternate in a gene so long as codon is continuous.

Oooh, I think I see a problem. the codons that alternate would have to be of the same number of nucleotides or master/complement will not work.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,03:16   

Indeed, even if the RNA polymerase could transcript the complementary strand of a given gene backward (it can't because this strand lacks a promoter) the resulting mRNA, if translated, would be completely different. Just try it on a piece of paper and see.

And the polymerase can't swap the strands during transcription, they are oriented in opposite directions ( 5'-3' ) (and certainly for other biochemical reasons).
A gene or an operon is read all in once (not sure of the expression). If the polymerase fails before the end, it has to start again from the beginning.

  
Tom Ames



Posts: 238
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,03:27   

I'd recommend that anyone with a real interest in this poke around on some of the online tools for biologists.

An example: the "Synteny Viewer" for yeast shows gene direction and order for genes in 4 species of budding yeast. (Note that the divergence among these species is MUCH greater than thet separating humans and other great apes.)

This link is to a small region of  chromosome 11 in yeast. Some genes have arrows poining to the left, some to the right. This indicates the direction of transcription which, again, is independent of the direction of replication. If you browse around you'll also notice massive evidence of the kinds of chromosomal rearrangements that AiG seems to think should be problematic.

(Alan: I'm not quite sure what you mean by "master strand" or its degree of being "continuous". Sorry.)

And to AFDave: keep in mind that AiG has not simply been shown to be wrong in this instance. We didn't "get one over on AiG once in many years". The claim that AiG made was shown to exhibit such a depth of fundamental ignorance about molecular biology as to demolish ALL credibility of the people making it. They might as well have claimed that the sun orbits the earth. They aren't just being refuted. They've demonstrated either profound stupidity or stunning mendacity.

All claims from AiG should be seen in this light. By passing them on, you're sharing in AiG's reputation.

--------------
-Tom Ames

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,05:07   

Thanks Jeannot and Tom

(All at once, or all in one go, Jeannot, you seem to have had a recombination event :D )

Is the key the promoter, which after following your link, appears to specify start of transcription and which direction, ie which strand, to transcribe. Whilst I'm clear that for each codon for a particular protein, mRNA polymerase reads off in one direction off one strand (which is what I was calling the master strand), I still just wonder if for all codons in one chromosome, is it always the same strand of DNA that is read  when any codon is transcribed?

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,05:20   

Quote
And to AFDave: keep in mind that AiG has not simply been shown to be wrong in this instance. We didn't "get one over on AiG once in many years".


Tom, thanks.  But I was kidding.  I do realize what you are saying and I will take AIG with a grain of salt and I know they have been wrong before, and I plan on confronting them with this when I have been completely educated on the topic myself.  

And I hope no one thinks that I am trying here to demonstrate my superior biological knowledge by slinging AIG quotes around, because obviously I have very little.  I was simply showing all of you an assertion made by them and I wanted to hear your side.

And I am really enjoying the dialog here ... I am learning a lot about a process that is MOST fascinating to me from people who evidently know a lot about it.

I am wondering about what Alan Fox meant by this ...
Quote
Oooh, I think I see a problem. the codons that alternate would have to be of the same number of nucleotides or master/complement will not work.


Maybe it will become clear as the dialog continues.  I will also look at your links ... thanks!

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

  
  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]