Re: Request

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 00:35:48 -0500, "Steven J."
<sjt1957NOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

zoe asked:

>> What is the source information for chromosome fission or fusion?
>>
>> Apparently, the basis on which you decide that the last common
>> ancestor was more likely to have 24 chromosomes is because all apes
>> except humans have 24 chromosomes. You conclude that there is more of
>> a chance for fusion rather fission because there are (present tense)
>> more populations of 24's available for the random fusing mutation, and
>> less of a chance for the random fissioning mutation to hit a single
>> population of 23's. But the probability is calculated on what exists
>> today and not on the original population, which is what I think should
>> be used.

>No, that is not the basis. The basis is this: if the last common ancestor
>(LCA) of great apes had 23 pairs of chromosomes, then at least three
>fissions (of the exact same chromosome, at the exact same place on that
>chromosome) had to take place (once in the line leading from the LCA to
>orangutans, and once again in the line leading to gorillas after the African
>apes split off, and once yet again in the chimp line after the human-chimp
>split).

why would there have to be three fissions? You're forgetting about
inheritance. You can have a member of a 23-chromosome population get
hit by your mutation, supposedly causing fission. That member should
now be the LCA of populations with 24 chromosomes. If the first small
population of 24's does not get decimated by the abundance of 23's
(most likely to happen within your worldview), then you now have your
growing population of 24's which, according to your theory,
differentiated into gorillas, chimps, et cetera.

If you insist that the 24-chromosome population was more likely to
start first, then you still have to explain how the first 24's
differentiated into your hypothesized various species of apes. Your
explanation for this differentiation could have taken place just as
well before a fusion occurs, as after a fission occurs. It has
nothing to do with parsimony.

So I don't see how probability and statistics has an answer to
something that you have no idea which came first, 23 or 24. How can
odds be placed on an unknown? It is not known if your "history" of
ape chromosomes is even a reality. It's like saying, let's suppose
that fairies exist and they have a human-like form. Now we can
sequence DNA from humans and then we'll know what fairies' DNA was
like.

large snip of non-answers>

>By the way, while I don't think it's important to this discussion,
>"mutations are random" does *NOT* mean "all mutations are equally likely,"
>or "all mutations are equally likely to be selected"

isn't that the meaning of "random"? Why the specialized meaning of
random in evolutionary theory then? Might as well use a different
term.

snip>

>>>also suspect that you have neither the intention nor the ability to tell
>>>us
>>>how "intelligence" (other, perhaps, than human intelligence) implements
>>>any
>>>"design" or change in design in living organisms.
>>
>> I cannot make a digestive system, so I cannot tell you how to do it.
>> But if I were to try to recreate something that works like the
>> digestive system, I certainly would not try to do it by random
>> mutations. Would you? I would take note of the steps taken in a
>> what-you-see-is-what-you-get system, and attempt to copy those, as far
>> as possible. And that would be a useful, scientific venture, learning
>> from nature, copying its processes, rather than speculating on its
>> history.
>>
>Why would you not use random mutations?

would you? Observation of how mental activity behaves in the real
world would tell you that things are not constructed through random
activity. So if creation theory contends that the digestive system is
not the result of random activity, this contention correlates well
with how mental activity behaves.

> If you don't know how to make a
>digestive system, making lots of copies of an initial cell, varying them in
>small ways, and seeing which ways move you closer to a digestive system,
>might be a better idea than trying to dream up a complete digestive system
>from scratch.

trial and error is a tool of mental activity if a creator has not yet
figured out how to make something. But unlike random mutations that
have no idea that they want to make a digestive system, mental
activity knows what it wants to make, and it plans and dreams and
works towards its goal.

> Note that, before there are any digestive systems, you can't
>very well copy one that already exists (since none do).

my mention of copying had to do with how a creationist would approach
science. They would copy nature, and learn how to use the principles
seen in nature to create new things.

But back before digestive systems existed on this earth, if you had to
make a digestive system from scratch, I would hope you would put your
mind to the task and figure out how best to approach it. You'd be
fired on your first day on the job if you were caught sitting around
idly doodling on your pad, hoping that something would come together
on its own....which is the principle upon which evolutionary theory is
based.

snip>

>>>You have, in the consistent nested hierarchy of homologies,
>>
>> you have yet to demonstrate that nested hierarchies always mean common
>> descent. If they do not always mean common descent, then on what
>> basis do you decide that only the nested hierarchies of nature mean
>> common descent?
>>
>I have argued that *consistent* nested hierarchies -- seen if families of
>hand-copied manuscripts, families of languages, and clades of living
>organisms -- imply common descent. Your supposed counterexamples involve
>sets of entities that fall into very different hierarchies depending on what
>traits one chooses to examine and compare.

there's the key: "Depending on what traits one chooses to examine and
compare."

Families of languages would not fall into a nested hierarchy if you
chose other traits for comparison than the ones you have chosen to
use. Those same languages that seem to fall into a nested hierarchy
would not appear hierarchical if you chose to classify them according
to other traits.

Depending on the traits you choose to use for comparison you can get a
nested hierarchy and even twin or triple-nested hierarchy, or none --
all for the same groups.

>>> in biogeography,
>>
>> why does biogeography mean common descent, unless there is a
>> preconceived notion in place?
>>
>If, e.g. the various genera of the hominoids are not related, why do the two
>living genera most genetically similar to humans share a continent with [a]
>the greatest genetic diversity of humans (indicating humans have lived on
>that continent longer than they've lived on other continenets), and [b] with
>the australopiths, the extinct great ape genus most similar to our own genus
>_Homo_.

this, again, is the as-yet-unsupported premise that similarity means
relationship. On what basis do you decide that similarity must means
relationship for only biological life forms, but nowhere else? So
far, this question has not been answered by anyone.

snip>

>>>in vestigial structures at the genetic and morphological level,
>>
>> the term "vestigial structures" is a term arising out of preconceived
>> notions. Some may call the appendix vestigial, but there are uses for
>> the appendix. Some may call the tailbone vestigial, but there are
>> uses for the tailbone...and so on. To call something vestigial
>> because it seems to have no use is a misunderstanding of and
>> egotistical dismissal of structures that are really not vestigial at
>> all.
>>
>"Vestigial structures" are defined as having *reduced* function, not *no*
>function, and can be recognized without regard to evolutionary notions.

and what is the standard for reduced function? You have to first
know the function of the supposed "vestige" in order to say its
function has been reduced. It's too superficial to look at a
similar-looking organ in another life form and decide that, therefore,
this "vestigial" organ is indeed meant to function the same way as the
other, but it's just not functioning anymore.

You might as well look at the trunk of a car and call it vestigial
because the tray of a pickup truck seems to perform a similar
function, just more extensively.

>Indeed, they can be recognized where evolution is rejected as an
>explanation: the shortened simplified limbs of a thalidomide baby are
>vestigial according to definition (that is, they lack some of the function
>of homologous structures in related or allied organisms), but the vestigial
>limbs aren't caused by any genetic change (the genes are unchanged), and
>therefore cannot be an example of evolution. However, when vestigial
>features are not the result of developmental derangement, it is reasonable
>to ask why they share so many details of structure with organs with which
>they do not share details of function, in species otherwise very similar to
>the one with the vestigial structure.

human creators use the same template for many different purposes. If
mental activity is evidenced in the use of templates, why doesn't the
similarity of structures not cause you to see mental activity here,
also?

>Saying that the appendix is vestigial does not mean it does nothing; it
>means that it occupies the location and shares embryological and anatomical
>features with the caecum, a pouch used to digest leaves in many monkeys.

no, no, no. The cecum or caecum in the monkey has its counterpart in
the cecum or caecum of the human. Its counterpart is NOT the
appendix. See:

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

"Cecum or caecum is a pouch connected to the large intestine between
the ileum and the colon. It is separated from the ileum by the
ileocecal valve (ICV) or Bauhin's valve, and is considered to be the
beginning of the large intestine and part of the colon.

"Its primary function is to absorb water and salts from undigested
food. It has a muscular wall that can knead the contents to enhance
absorption.

"The cecum is present in mammals, birds, and some reptiles."

>Since it doesn't digest leaves in humans, why does it have this location and
>these traits?

the appendix is not even designed to have supposedly digested leaves.
It has a lymphatic function and seems well placed in an area that most
needs it.

See:

http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Lymphoma?OpenDocument

"The lymphatic system is part of the immune system, which defends the
body against infection. It consists of lymph nodes connected by lymph
vessels, which branch out into all parts of the body except the brain
and spinal cord. The lymphatic system also includes the bone marrow,
spleen, thymus gland, tonsils, adenoids and APPENDIX (caps mine.)"

What better area to place an organ of the lymphatic system than at a
point where bacteria are likely to be present?

> Why does the human tailbone, whatever its uses, share so many
>homologies to actual tails in other primates (and other mammals)?

based on how mental activity behaves, it is evident that a successful
template works for many different purposes.

> Vestigial
>structures are simply an extreme case of the problem of "parahomology:"
>similar designs for dissimilar functions. It's one thing to use commn
>design for common purposes, but what logic (other than evolutionary logic,
>in which the function of a structure can evolve over time, without erasing
>all traces of the structure's history) is there to common design for
>different purposes (especially when there is also -- consider bat, bird, and
>pterosaur wings -- different design for common purposes).

I suggest a study of how mental activity behaves when creating items,
and you will get your answer as to common design for different
purposes and different design for common purposes.

Reducing this to basics, a rectangle is a common design used for many
different purposes. Or a circle is a different design for common
purposes.

snip meanderings>

>>>> A single cell exists, replicating itself repeatedly. Along comes a
>>>> random "beneficial mutation." What happens next, based on your
>>>> selection principle? How does the digestive system develop?
>>>>
>>>It becomes a multicellular organism.
>>
>> could you be a little less vague? So you think that a single cell
>> becoming multicellular is how a digestive system forms? Have you
>> accounted for the changes in DNA sequences that are needed to produce
>> the particular types of proteins needed to construct an esophagus, a
>> stomach, duodenum, jejunum, small intestines, and all the attendant
>> parts that make a digestive system work?
>>
>Multicellularity preceeds specialization of the cells in question. For that
>matter, formation of a digestive system preceeds all those specialized
>subcomponents you mention.

I'm afraid that formation of an overarching system to hold a digestive
system precedes even the digestive system, not to mention the
specialized subcomponents.

<snip inability to explain how selected mutations cause evolution>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Blog: The Scars of Evolution.
    ... 23 pairs of chromosomes, while the other great apes such as gorillas ... gene, but ours is "broken", disabled by mutations. ... humans have many characters in common with apes. ... Common descent explains the differences between insectivorous bats, small insectivorous birds and large insectivorous insects far better than any reasonable assumption of common design. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: how to reply to this fool?
    ... You have diploids with 46 chromosomes, ... Panthers, cats, and tigers could have had a common ancestor that also ... The nested hierarchy of biochemical and ultrastructural homologies. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Science fact question: Why Y?
    ... baby's gender was determined - the XX and XY chromosomes thing with a little bit about how the genes on the part of the X chromosome that the doesn't have can cause recessives to be expressed in males. ... So if not, there doesn't appear to be any need for there to be a reason for mammals to use the XY system - it's one of a bunch of genetic choices that occurred in our common ancestor, and just happens to be the one that dominated in the animals that were ancestral to the mammals. ... Forgotten Futures - The Scientific Romance Role Playing Game ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Re: Vestigial subjunctive
    ... > commonly present but have no biological function. ... > The subjunctive mood is less common than formerly, ... over the years by UK posters that the subjunctive is not ... except to say it's a vestige of the former use of the ...
    (alt.usage.english)