Re: Chex Watt nomination: (was The Heresy of Scientists)


cafeinst@xxxxxxx wrote:
> A.Carlson wrote:
> > On 14 Jan 2006 22:10:11 -0800, cafeinst@xxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> > >"The number of chromosomes is a trivial matter. Like the color of
> > >scales or fur, or body mass. Would you consider yourself to be more
> > >closely related to a small gorilla your body weight, or to a woman who
> > >is much lighter?"
> > >
> > >Come on now..... If it's so trivial then why aren't there healthy and
> > >fertile human beings out there with a different number of chromosomes
> > >than 46? There are 6 billion people out there. Why haven't we found any
> > >mutations into healthy and fertile human beings with a different number
> > >of chromosomes?
> > >
> > >I agree that the fact that humans have 46 and chimps have 48 is
> > >consistent with evolution theory. And I agree that the fact that
> > >donkeys have 62 and horses have 64 is consistent with evolution theory.
> > >Similar phenotypes imply similar genotypes, just as evolution theory
> > >predicts - common ancestry implies common genetics. A little difference
> > >between 23 and 24 pairs of chromosomes or 31 and 32 pairs of
> > >chromosomes is reasonable for organisms with similar physical
> > >characteristics.
> > >
> > >But my G-d! Zebras have 32, 44, 46 chromosomes? How the heck can you
> > >savants still preach evolutionism with a straight face after you learn
> > >this? Zebras and horses obviously must have had a long separation in
> > >order to get such divergence in the number of chromosomes. But isn't it
> > >a miracle? They still look so similar!
> >
> > To quote directly from the talk.origins archive:
> >
> > "Chromosome counts in the house mouse species (Mus
> > domesticus) range from 2n = 22 to 40 (Nachman et al. 1994)."
> >
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB141.html
> >
> > And this isn't even about similar species but within one specific
> > species!
> >
> > The claim that similar species MUST have similar chromosome counts is
> > simply one of your typical creationist straw man arguments.
>
> You missed the point of my claim. My claim was not that the number of
> chromosomes in a species must always be the same. I was asserting that
> no healthy and fertile human has been found with a different number
> than 23 pairs of chromosomes. This was merely to contradict the claim
> by another poster that number of chromosomes is a trivial matter. And
> the fact that there have been found XXY and XYY humans does not
> contradict my claim, as asserted in another post. Such a human would
> have an odd number of chromosomes, a clear anomoly, which is not going
> to produce a subrace of humans with a different number of chromosomes.
>
> You are the one making strawman arguments against me, not me against
> evolutionists.
>
> The fact that a mouse can have chromosome counts from 2n = 22 to 40 is
> consistent with evolution theory. However, if the mouse were only found
> with 30 and 60 chromosomes, that would contradict evolution theory,
> just like the variance in the equus species presented above. Evolution
> theory predicts a gradual change from species, not an abrupt change
> like this. Therefore, as I said "evolutionism is defeated!!!!!!"
>
> talkorigins.org predicts a nested hierarchy, which means that defining
> characteristics of species like chromosome numbers should have a
> pattern of nested hierarchy, i.e., similar phenotypes should have
> chromosome numbers that are close together like 46 and 48, as in humans
> and chimps, not what we see with equus group! We see here in the case
> of equus the prediction of nested hierarchy completely contradicted.

Are you so sure? Perhaps the species listed in the equus group
represent a collection of species that are simply more diverse and more
distantly related than are the members of all the great
apes....including ourselves.

> They may answer back that chromosome numbers aren't important, but in
> science this is called cheating. You don't make a prediction in science
> and if your prediction does not turn out correct say that the
> prediction doesn't apply to that situation. If this were really the
> scientific method, then you could prove anything your heart desires by
> the scientific method! And I'm afraid that is how evolutionism works.
> It's all just a shell game!
>
> >
> > You've obviously got a lot to learn (don't we all), but the first
> > thing you should learn is never trust a creationist's argument on it's
> > face without looking into it yourself.
>
> I agree with you just as I agree that you cannot trust an
> evolutionist's argument on its face without looking into it yourself.
>
> >
> > The second thing you should learn (that will follow the first if you
> > actually pay attention) is that most creationist arguments are not
> > only false but either are known to be false or should have been known
> > to be false when they were first made.
> >
> > >And finally, see http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1e.asp
> > >"...studies have shown that there are many differences in the proteins
> > >of two very similar frog species (Spetner, 69)..."
> >
> > Case in point! A brief sentence with no elaboration about a
> > creationist's argument made 35 years ago notable not just for what it
> > says but for what it doesn't say.
> >
> > Did you know that, in an individual, when a given segment of DNA is
> > transcribed into mRNA, that further normal processing may result in
> > different versions of the same protein? Was Spetner aware of this way
> > back in 1969? How 'radical', if at all, were these differences in
> > these proteins that he was talking about?
>
> Spetner quoted in his 1997 book an article in 1990 which addressed this
> same issue. Spetner said that the differences were not just in the
> proteins but in the genome itself. And they were great differences
> according to Spetner. I quote Spetner: "Differences in DNA between
> species seem to be unrelated to their supposed evolutionary divergence
> (McDonald 1990)."
>
> The article was:
>
> McDonald, J.F., "Macroevolution and retroviral elements," BioScience,
> vol. 40 , pp. 183-191.
>
> Before, I quoted the internet (Spetner 1969) date because it was
> available to everyone unlike the Spetner book.
>
> >
> > Did you know that, even among human populations, you can find
> > polymorphic sequences that are genes in some individuals and
> > pseudogenes in others?
> >
> > Did you know that amphibians are autopolyploids, with multiple sets of
> > chromosomes? How might this contribute not only to genetic diversity
> > but also to variations between species?
> >
> > Since we're talking about two different species of frogs, even if they
> > are 'similar', why wouldn't we expect maybe to see some differences in
> > proteins? It is the differences that make them different species in
> > the first place.
> >
> > >This isn't just number of chromosomes; this is the differences in the
> > >proteins! Yet, you guys still stubbornly defend your ridiculous
> > >religion of evolutionism!
> >
> > Yes, differences in proteins, even within a given individual, although
> > not necessarily fully understood, is certainly well known.
> >
> > Perhaps if you were to enlighten us on exactly what protein he was
> > talking about and what specific differences he was referring to, this
> > might actually contribute to the discussion.
>
> Answered above.
>
> >
> > >As we see, the "scientific theory" of evolution has just evolved into a
> > >religion. Mazel Tov!
> >
> > And you can't see a straw man if it were standing right in front of
> > you blocking your way.
>
> Craig

.

Relevant Pages

  • Blog: The Scars of Evolution.
    ... The Scars of Evolution ... Human beings, like all other species on this planet, have a history. ... hiccups are a sign of humanity's evolutionary past. ... 23 pairs of chromosomes, while the other great apes such as gorillas ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Chex Watt nomination: (was The Heresy of Scientists)
    ... >>>fertile human beings out there with a different number of chromosomes ... >>>consistent with evolution theory. ... >> And this isn't even about similar species but within one specific ... But humans aren't horses, are they!? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Blog: The Scars of Evolution.
    ... Human beings, like all other species on this planet, have a history. ... determined to derive from an earlier form through this "evolution" ... 23 pairs of chromosomes, while the other great apes such as gorillas ... gene, but ours is "broken", disabled by mutations. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Chex Watt nomination: (was The Heresy of Scientists)
    ... >>"The number of chromosomes is a trivial matter. ... >>consistent with evolution theory. ... > And this isn't even about similar species but within one specific ... >>"...studies have shown that there are many differences in the proteins ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Chex Watt nomination: (was The Heresy of Scientists)
    ... Human chromosome variation with two Robertsonian translocations. ... >>>consistent with evolution theory. ... within single species. ... Was Spetner aware of this way ...
    (talk.origins)