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

<cafeinst@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1137352828.426631.173960@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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?

How do you know that we haven't? There must be known cases of
individuals with Robertsonian chromosomal changes.
A very quick Google search turns up:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3156085&dopt=Abstract

Human chromosome variation with two Robertsonian translocations.
Morgan R, Bixenman H, Hecht F.
A woman was found to have 42 autosomes due to engagement of both
chromosomes 14 in Robertsonian rearrangements, one with a chromosome
21 and the other with a chromosome 22: t(14q21q) and t(14q22q). The
two translocations appear monocentric and by silver staining have no
rRNA activity. The t(14q21q) translocation is familial and was
ascertained through a nephew with Down syndrome, while the origin of
the t(14q22q) translocation was not established. In addition to these
two translocations, the woman had XX/XXX sex chromosome mosaicism. She
has had two recognized pregnancies, each resulting in the birth of a
child with one of the two translocations. Both children are
phenotypically normal, as is their mother, the first normal liveborn
individual identified with two Robertsonian translocations.
Hum Genet. 1985;69(2):178-80.


Healthy, normal, and fertile. QED, your assumption is wrong.

> > >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?

Why the heck not? We understand how chromosome numbers can and do
change in evolving lineages.

But of course there's no "preaching evolutionism", just the science
of evolutionary biology. This wouldn't be a low key exercise in
Norse theology, perchance?

>> Zebras and horses obviously must have had a long separation in
> > >order to get such divergence in the number of chromosomes.

Not needed. We see similar and greater chromosome number ranges
within single species.

But isn't it
> > >a miracle? They still look so similar!

And how exactly does it matter how many volumes an edition of an
encyclopedia is bound into?

> > 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.

Then why the apparent surprise over zebras and horses?

> I was asserting that
> no healthy and fertile human has been found with a different number
> than 23 pairs of chromosomes.

Which assertion turned out to be incorrect.

>This was merely to contradict the claim
> by another poster that number of chromosomes is a trivial matter.

If not "trivial", it doesn't prevent changes in chromosome number
within species and in the course of evolution.

And
> the fact that there have been found XXY and XYY humans does not
> contradict my claim, as asserted in another post.

But individuals with Robertsonian and similar chromosome changes
does contradict you.

>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.

Odd numbers aren't a problem if this is an individual
heterozygous for a chromosomal fusion or fission.

> You are the one making strawman arguments against me, not me against
> evolutionists.

Looks like there's enough straw for both of you.

> 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,

Not so. That would sound like a case of polyploidy, which is another
way an evolutionary lineage can have major shifts in chromosome number.

> just like the variance in the equus species presented above.

How is the 'variance' in Equus any more of a problem than the house
mouse example?

>Evolution
> theory predicts a gradual change from species, not an abrupt change
> like this. Therefore, as I said "evolutionism is defeated!!!!!!"

Tsk. I recall what Pratchett said about exclamation points. Who said
the change in number has to be abrupt? What about populations with
chromosomal polymorphism as a gradual transitional phase?

The polyploid change would tend to be rather abrupt, but then there's
nothing anywhere in "evolution theory" that forbids any such thing.

> talkorigins.org predicts a nested hierarchy,

The site predict this?

> which means that defining
> characteristics of species like chromosome numbers

Are chromosome numbers really "defining characteristics" of
species? Could someone go tell the mice?

>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!

So, then what matters is how many volumes a large text is bound into,
not the written contents of the books?

> We see here in the case
> of equus the prediction of nested hierarchy completely contradicted.
> 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.

Gosh, you really come across as a straw-maniac,

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!

Shells are nice. Some are shiny with pretty colors and markings.

> > 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.

Right. A lot of "evolutionist's arguments" presented here by
antievolutionists aren't worth the straw they're made of.

> > 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)..."

Which IIRC was a falsehood even at the time. Were they in fact "very
similar" or were they instead two extremely distantly-related members
of Anura? Which species were they?

> > 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)."

Which may be a false supposition with regard to their evolutionary
divergence. Perhaps these frogs are much more divergent than Spetner
supposes? Or, Spetner may have misrepresented what McDonald had to say?

> The article was:
>
> McDonald, J.F., "Macroevolution and retroviral elements," BioScience,
> vol. 40 , pp. 183-191.

And what new things did McDonald have to say about these frog examples?
It turns out that he merely cited a 1974 paper by other workers, who
compared frogs that had been separate lineages for 150 million years.
In other words, these "similar" frogs represent lines that were
separate from one another for much longer than placental mammals have
been in existence. "Similar frogs", indeed!

[snip]

cheers


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Commentary: Keeping science in debate over evolution
    ... still evolution simmers on the national political scene. ... I read that size of Y chromosome has reduced because it did not have ... it has partner in female sex to recombine. ... If Chromosome don't get partner to recombine than there is tendency to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Heresy of Scientists
    ... >>> And it's not just chromosome number. ... >> To answer Mark Isaak's assertion that there is no nested hierarchy with ... >> If you believe that evolution theory is a science in which there are ... > their reversibility or irreversibility. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Commentary: Keeping science in debate over evolution
    ... still evolution simmers on the national political scene. ... Microbiological evidences ... I read that size of Y chromosome has reduced because it did not have ... it has partner in female sex to recombine. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Heresy of Scientists
    ... >>>hierarchy with respect to chromosome number, ... >>>hierarchy prediction of evolution, thereby falsifying evolutionism ... >> And it's not just chromosome number. ... > To answer Mark Isaak's assertion that there is no nested hierarchy with ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Help, who know the process of inactivity of X chromosome during male meiosis
    ... This processes occured in many species. ... the chromosome helps protect it from damage during meiosis. ... There's a lot on the evolution of neo-X chromosomes, ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)