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

On 15 Jan 2006 11:20:28 -0800, 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.

But humans aren't horses, are they!? Are you suggesting a rule
(*your* rule) that what is generally true about the chromosomes of one
species is generally true about the chromosomes of all species? Get a
clue! That has clearly been DISPROVED!

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

You don't contradict a claim by asserting a falsehood or an irrelevant
fact.

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

But the FACT that there are *single species* with a great variety in
their number of chromosomes and the FACT that a chromosome (or
multiple chromosomes) can split, ending up with two chromosomes with
the same genetic material DOES contradict your claim. And there are
still other ways to end up with additional chromosomes as well - even
within a given species - sometimes with the effect of multiplying a
number of chromosomes, not just adding. The fact that these factors
might not regularly appear in Homo sapiens is totally irrelevant.

>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 CLEARLY missing the point! In the first place, you were not
talking about humans and chromosomes here. What is applicable to one
species is not necessarily applicable to another species. Get over
it!

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

What strawman? Do you even know what one is? You're bogus assertion
that related species with similar genetics MUST have a similar
chromosome count for evolution to be true is a farcical strawman,
particularly in the light of clearly contradictory evidence.

>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!!!!!!"

Unless you think there is something magical about the number 30 and
60, let me put it to you this way: Mouse with 24 chromosomes meets
mouse with 38 chromosomes, a distinctly different number of
chromosomes, but the genetic matter is still the same and each mouse
is normal. As they are the same species, they can mate and have
fertile offspring. This huge variation in number of chromosomes just
doesn't happen to appear in humans. One of the points I was trying to
make was that you can't automatically apply observations you see with
one species with a completely different species.

>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!

No, that is YOUR OWN prediction for which there is no basis other than
your complete lack of understanding of what generally goes on with the
number of chromosomes even *within* a single species, let alone
between two closely related species.

You would expect *genetic material* to be similarly linked, which it
clearly is with humans and chimps, for example, but how many specific
*chromosomes* a given amount of similar genetic material organizes
itself into seems to be of no major consequence with so many different
species. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

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

Only if your own crafted strawman, that nested hierarchies mean
similar chromosome numbers is swallowed to begin with. It is
certainly not uncommon for even a *given* species, particularly in
plant, to have even several times the number of chromosomes between
varieties.

>They may answer back that chromosome numbers aren't important, but in
>science this is called cheating.

No, in science this is called getting your facts straight.

>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.

But science is not the one making the bogus prediction that the
specific number of chromosomes must match, that is YOUR bogus
prediction!

>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 obviously haven't got a clue what the scientific method is. Here,
let me give you an example:

Some ignorant creationist, in the furtherance of their pet theory that
evolution is not supported by the facts hypothesizes that the number
of chromosomes is a clear and concise indicator of the degree of
relationship between related species.

One prediction that follows this hypothesis is that, if true, you
would not expect to find wide variations in the number of chromosomes
within a *single* species. You do though, which falsifies your
hypothesis and therefore your pet theory remains unsupported.

>> 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.

Yes, but you then have to deal honestly with the evidence that
confronts you. You clearly have yet to get over this hurdle.

>> 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)."

Wow! A quote of a quote! Will wonders never cease! And still no
specifics!

So, here you have segment of a quote of Spetner, a physicist and a
creationist author, being quoted by J.F. McDonald, Professor and chair
(molecular and cell biology) at Georgia Tech and supporter of
evolution.

One wonders what you could have left out. It also isn't as though Dr.
McDonald hasn't been quote mined in the past either:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4.html#quote4.11

Perhaps this is a regurgitated misquote by Behe.

>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.

Really? You mean to try and tell me that you actually named the
protein and pointed out the specific differences he was referring to?

I don't think so.

All you did was to repeat a creationist's opinion, and around here,
without supporting evidence that doesn't amount to much, even if said
creationist comes with a title and particularly if said creationist is
spouting opinions outside his field of expertise and comes with a
track record (not a very good one):

http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho36.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/spetner.html

>> >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: 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: Search `Fabrizio J Bonsignore` for The Speciation Process
    ... reproduction among the human species such as geographic, ... speciation process is such that it introduces tensions in the human ... different number of chromosomes which, ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Request
    ... >>species with varying numbers of chromosomes in different individuals. ... you were talking about random mutations as ... You have, in the consistent nested hierarchy of homologies, in biogeography, ...
    (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 ... Was Spetner aware of this way ...
    (talk.origins)