Jump to content


Photo

Biological Theory: Postmodern Evolution?


  • Please log in to reply
109 replies to this topic

#21 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 05 November 2008 - 11:49 AM

Really now, it may not be faith in a religious sense, but it is still faith because you have absolutely no proof for macroevolution, and I am quite confident that you have absolutely no evidence to support macroevolution either.

View Post

There is lots of evidence. You just refuse to see it as such.

#22 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 05 November 2008 - 02:38 PM

Well, Deadlock seems to think that evolution is a religion. Do you agree?

I think that evolution is an observable fact. I thought that most creationists agreed with that, which was why I was asking Deadlock for more precise definitions, and guessing that he might mean "macroevolution".

When you use the word faith in a non-religious sense, I think you have to mean beliefs that are not based on evidence, and that fits your comment (that you are quite confident that I have absolutely no evidence to support macroevolution).

So, I think that macroevolution happens, and you think that I'm just taking it on blind faith, and not on observations and evidence. Is that correct?

I think that if we look at fossils and find creatures that seem to share the characteristics of different orders, like fish/amphibians, amphibian/reptiles, and reptile/mammals, then that would mean evidence for macroevolution, and that someone thinking that macroevolution has happened based on such evidence would not be doing so on "faith". Don't you agree? Transition between orders is very "macro".

We could also look within orders, even families, taking the hypothesis that we descend from a common ancestor with the chimps as an example. Observation tells us that one important point of difference between ourselves and the other great apes is our brain size. Again, looking at available fossils, we have examples of adult hominids with skull sizes ranging from those of the other apes to our own. And cross checking that with molecular evidence, like the interesting way in which our chromosome 2 is formed, for example, I see this as evidence of macroevolution and common descent of ourselves and the chimps (and the other great apes).

I don't need faith in order to believe that macro-evolution happens.


Unfortunately for evolutionists , Homology can be explained by common design.Even in evolution, homology is a subjective argument, if not, there would not be convergent evolution and parallel evolution.So, your evidence is weak, dont you have anything better than "if two beings have similarities they must have a common ancestor, except when the simillarities are due to convergent evolution or parallel evolution" ?


Of course, if you agree that microevolution happens, you might require faith to identify a point at which it must stop. What are the limits to it, in your opinion, and how much microevolution would equal macroevolution?

View Post


We dont need faith, we only need to know about the Theory of probability and what is combinatory explosion.

#23 NowhereMan

NowhereMan

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Yorkshire, England

Posted 05 November 2008 - 03:10 PM

Unfortunately for evolutionists , Homology can be explained by common design.Even in evolution, homology is a subjective argument, if not, there would not be convergent evolution and parallel evolution.So, your evidence is weak, dont you have anything better than "if two beings have similarities they must have a common ancestor, except when the simillarities are due to convergent evolution or parallel evolution" ?


Was that (the bit in quotes) your understanding of what I said about transitions between orders? :) Or about the succession of skulls ranging in size from those of the other apes to ours? Would you like to explain chromosome 2 in terms of common design? Was the designer trying to make it look as though these were two identifiable ape chromosomes fused together?

We dont need faith, we only need to know about the Theory of probability and what is combinatory explosion.

View Post


And how do these tell you what amount of microevolution can happen, and what the limits to evolution are? Can you get all the extant cat species from one ancestor species via microevolution? If not, why not? If so, why not all mammals from one ancestor species? Where does the theory of probability cut in, and how?

#24 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 06 November 2008 - 08:36 PM

There is lots of evidence. You just refuse to see it as such.

View Post


There is a difference between refusing to see the evidence as such, and knowing that it isn't.

#25 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 06 November 2008 - 10:41 PM

I find the homology arguement incredibily decietful.The reproductive bones of whales have muscle attachments completely different than legs and the nerves are wired completely different as well.

Archaeopteryx has digits 3,4,and 5 just like all embryonic and some adult birds,while all therapod dinosaurs have digits 1,2,and 3.

Therapod dinosaurs,by comparison,have serrated teeth with straight roots and no constriction...Archaeopteryx has unserrated teeth with constricted bases and expanded roots like those of other mesozoic birds.

So there is nothing homologous in archaeopteryx and therapods nor is there anything homologous with whale reproductive bones and terrestrial mammal legs.

If you guys are really convinced by the evidence,then perhaps you should find some more to convince yourself all over again.

Ofcourse there are many more examples out there,but the more i look at the details the more the evidence contradicts itself.

Thanks.

#26 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 07 November 2008 - 12:07 AM

Heres some more contradicting evidence nobody likes.

Deseret News, The (Salt Lake City, UT) - July 16, 1992

DISCOVERY HINTS ANIMALS LIVED EONS LONGER THAN ONCE BELIEVED
An ancient jawbone discovered in Canada indicates that a group of mammal-like reptiles survived at least 100 million years longer than previously believed, researchers reported Wednesday.The tiny jaw appears to be that of an animal that belonged to a group called therapsids, which were believed to have become extinct 160 million years ago, the researchers reported in the British scientific journal Nature. The bone was recovered from a rock containing fossils dating at least 100 million...

It seems therapsids dont evolve after all,they just show up and stay the same for hundreds of millions of years.Why dont text books contain the actual evidence instead of telling the story they want people to hear?

#27 NowhereMan

NowhereMan

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Yorkshire, England

Posted 10 November 2008 - 07:10 AM

I find the homology arguement incredibily decietful.The reproductive bones of whales have muscle attachments completely different than legs and the nerves are wired completely different as well.


What evolutionary biologists mean by homology in this sense are features that are derived from common ancestry. They can be very different, so that limbs that are fins, legs, wings and arms can all be homologous. In terms of evolution/creation debates, merely describing something as homologous in very different creatures doesn’t mean much, as it assumes evolution. The whale’s blow hole is homologous to our nostrils, for example, and that can be deduced on an anatomical basis, but to illustrate the connection in an evo/creo debate it would be much more useful to have a cross check for the anatomical deduction, like a series of three whale ancestors with the nostrils in the front, as with land mammals; on the top of the head, as in modern whales; and half-way between.

Such a series exists, and like the series of hominid skulls I mentioned in a post above, it helps to illustrate that we live in a macroevolutionary world. There are also transitionals for the whale limbs.

There are many other examples of very different features that are homologous. One well known one is the relationship that anatomists claim between the bones of our mammalian middle ear and those of reptilian jaws. Again, just stating that they’re homologous means nothing in evolution/creation debates, but the fact that there are fossils of creatures with the bones inbetween the reptilian and mammalian positions illustrates the evolutionary process.

Such things would not be found if we didn’t live in a macroevolutionary world.

Archaeopteryx has digits 3,4,and 5 just like all embryonic and some adult birds,while all therapod dinosaurs have digits 1,2,and 3.

Therapod dinosaurs,by comparison,have serrated teeth with straight roots and no constriction...Archaeopteryx has unserrated teeth with constricted bases and expanded roots like those of other mesozoic birds.

So there is nothing homologous in archaeopteryx and therapods nor is there anything homologous with whale reproductive bones and terrestrial mammal legs.


Are you quite clear about the meaning of “homology”, Jason? The limbs of all tetrapods are homologous. Archaeopteryx’s tail is homologous to all tetrapod tails, but it’s also a very Deinonychosaurian tail, don’t you think?

If you guys are really convinced by the evidence,then perhaps you should find some more to convince yourself all over again.


Perhaps I'll go out and find a Deinonychosaur with feathers and hollow bones (like birds') just for you, but I think someone already has. Alternatively, us guys could just sit back and wait for the first piece of scientific evidence ever to support any of the many creationist mythologies invented by ancient cultures. :lol:

Ofcourse there are many more examples out there,but the more i look at the details the more the evidence contradicts itself.


Oh, well. Enjoy your studies of homology, anyway.

#28 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 10 November 2008 - 02:34 PM

Was that (the bit in quotes) your understanding of what I said about transitions between orders?


Transitions between orders only exist in your imagination.

Or about the succession of skulls ranging in size from those of the other apes to ours?


Imagine I put the skulls of all races of dog on a table in size order, from chiauhua to St bernard.

Now the 1 million dollar question :

That´s evidence of :

1 - An evolutionary lineage going from chiauhua to St bernard

2 - the variety of dog specie.

Would you like to explain chromosome 2 in terms of common design? Was the designer trying to make it look as though these were two identifiable ape chromosomes fused together?


Chromosome fusion is a common event in many species.As no specie of monkey have the chromosome 2 fused together then the fusion of chromosome 2 is an exclusive human event.
If chimps have the chromosome 2 fused then you could say it was a shared error between humans and chimps, but that´s not the case so it´s a flawed evolution argument.But that rises an interesting point about natural selection.Any individual with fused chromosome has only 50% chance of having viable offspring.But the fused chromosome 2 is fixed in human population despite of the decrease of 50% in the coefficient of selection.Evolutionist Scientists use 0.05 as selection coefficient in general, but here we have a case where a negative selection of 0.50 was fixed in the population instead of being removed.I´d like to hear the evolutionist explanation for this.

And how do these tell you what amount of microevolution can happen, and what the limits to evolution are?


micro-evolution can happen inside the following scope :

1 - recombination of existing genes.
2 - Point mutations which don´t chnage the main function of a protein.


Can you get all the extant cat species from one ancestor species via microevolution? If not, why not? If so, why not all mammals from one ancestor species?


Species of cats are like races of dogs, that´s only recombination of existing genes.

You cannot use the same mechanism in the evolution of mammals because it´s impossible to put together all the genes that exist in all mammal species in a common ancestor.


Where does the theory of probability cut in, and how?


The number of unfunctional proteins are exponentially greater than functional proteins.There was no enough time in the universe to evolve all the functional proteins that exist using random mutations.

for more details you can read these articles :

The Steppingstone Problem

Calculation of "Trillions upon Trillions of Years"

#29 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 10 November 2008 - 02:59 PM

Hi NowhereMan,
Quote;What evolutionary biologists mean by homology in this sense are features that are derived from common ancestry. They can be very different,

Being very different,is the point we have been saying all along.

Quote;Such a series exists, and like the series of hominid skulls I mentioned in a post above, it helps to illustrate that we live in a macroevolutionary world. There are also transitionals for the whale limbs

There is no intermediate ear canal labarynth,humero femeral index,half curved finger etc.I hope you dont believe in evolution because of the size of somethings head.

Quote;Archaeopteryx’s tail is homologous to all tetrapod tails, but it’s also a very Deinonychosaurian tail, don’t you think?

No,birds have bird like tails,some have tails longer than others,but bird no doubt.

Quote;There are many other examples of very different features that are homologous. One well known one is the relationship that anatomists claim between the bones of our mammalian middle ear and those of reptilian jaws.

With that kind of logic,you would have to claim a platypus evolved from a duck.No one has a transition from a reptile jaw to a mammals ear bone,it's pure speculation.

We could go into detail on the alleged feathered dinosaurs,but were getting way off of topic.

Thanks.

#30 NowhereMan

NowhereMan

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Yorkshire, England

Posted 13 November 2008 - 02:22 PM

Imagine I put the skulls of all races of dog on a table in size order, from chiauhua to St bernard.

Now the 1 million dollar question :

That´s evidence of :

1 - An evolutionary lineage going from chiauhua to St bernard

2 - the variety of dog specie.


You could examine them all, and come to the conclusion that they all have recent common ancestry, and you’d be right. Note that the hominid skulls vary enormously in individuals of similar size, unlike the dogs.

The importance of these skulls is that when the idea that we were apes first developed (actually pre-Darwin) none of them were known, and none of them were known during Darwin’s lifetime. There was only us, our large brained cousins the Neanderthal, and the small brained extant apes. The subsequent discovery of the intermediate sizes confirms a prediction of evolutionary theory, and it is largely because the ToEvolution has this capacity of prediction that it is considered such a strong theory.

Chromosome fusion is a common event in many species.As no specie of monkey have the chromosome 2 fused together then the fusion of chromosome 2 is an exclusive human event.
If chimps have the chromosome 2 fused then you could say it was a shared error between humans and chimps, but that´s not the case so it´s a flawed evolution argument.But that rises an interesting point about natural selection.Any individual with fused chromosome has only 50% chance of having viable offspring.But the fused chromosome 2 is fixed in human population despite of the decrease of 50% in the coefficient of selection.Evolutionist Scientists use 0.05 as selection coefficient in general, but here we have a case where a negative selection of 0.50 was fixed in the population instead of being removed.I´d like to hear the evolutionist explanation for this.
micro-evolution can happen inside the following scope :

1 - recombination of existing genes.
2 - Point mutations which don´t chnage the main function of a protein.
Species of cats are like races of dogs, that´s only recombination of existing genes.

You cannot use the same mechanism in the evolution of mammals because it´s impossible to put together all the genes that exist in all mammal species in a common ancestor.


Certainly. Even if the fusion of the chromosomes resulted in advantages to our species in the future, they would be outweighed IMO, and natural selection would have a bias against them. They could only spread across a very small and isolated population group by drift. This would be a rare event, but far from impossible, and it may happen occasionally in small groups of apes, but be fought back by natural selection when the group mixes in with the rest of the population.

What the effect would be for a couple with different chromosome numbers is that the female would have more early miscarriages than usual, because the ways in which the chromosomes combine are either completely lethal, or produce perfectly normal offspring. So it’s only the time taken up having miscarriages that means that these couples would, on average have less children than normal, hence the inevitable selection bias against the new number of chromosomes over time in large populations. However, there’s nothing to stop some of these couples, say one in twenty, having more children than average, six for example. The new number of chromosomes are inherited by half the kids on average, but in 1/64 of such families, all 6 will have it. Therefore, such a scenario would happen in about 1/1280 occurrences of the fusion in an individual.

It still takes genetic drift luck of a chance of about 1/100 chance in the next generation or two in a tiny incestuous population that is only producing an average of twenty kids per generation for the 23 pairs of chromosomes to go above the 50% mark, but once they do, the selection prejudice is against the old 24 pair characteristic, because all couples with the same number of chromosomes don’t have the miscarriage problem. So we end up with something like 1/128000 occurrences of the fusion for the event to happen, and as the fusion occurs in about 1/1000 of the population, that means that about 128,000,000 apes would have to have been living in small tribal groups (which they tend to do) for one incidence of a complete group with 23 chromosomes to occur. If there were about one million apes alive at any one time, it would actually happen about once every 1500 years on those figures, but our group must have been the only one in complete isolation for it to stick over the whole population.

All of which takes me away from the original point that our chromosome two is definitely made from two of the ape ones, and that that’s an odd way to design us, and one of a number of chromosomal features that define us as apes. :)

#31 NowhereMan

NowhereMan

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Yorkshire, England

Posted 13 November 2008 - 02:55 PM

The number of unfunctional proteins are exponentially greater than functional proteins.There was no enough time in the universe to evolve all the functional proteins that exist using random mutations.


Which is why natural selection, which selects only the functional, is so important, obviously.

for more details you can read these articles :

The Steppingstone Problem

Calculation of "Trillions upon Trillions of Years"


It sounds like Behe. Dr. Pitman needs (like everyone else) to know a lot more about the E coli flagellum before he makes probability calculations on its evolution. Understanding the flagellum is ongoing research, and already he needs to update his article to include research published this year which shows that some important components can be removed that were previously thought to be essential to the working of the flagellum; yet it functions without them! It is a reducibly complex machine in more ways than one, and that's no surprise to evolutionary biologists.

Keep up with the research going on by Keiichi Namba's team, particularly, and you can see how the flagellum is evolutionary fun!

#32 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 13 November 2008 - 07:37 PM

Quote;It sounds like Behe. Dr. Pitman needs (like everyone else) to know a lot more about the E coli flagellum before he makes probability calculations on its evolution. Understanding the flagellum is ongoing research, and already he needs to update his article to include research published this year which shows that some important components can be removed that were previously thought to be essential to the working of the flagellum; yet it functions without them! It is a reducibly complex machine in more ways than one, and that's no surprise to evolutionary biologists.

You have to consider the fact that there are many variations of the flagellum in nature.Through circular reasoning you can conclude that they are all ancesteral,but it does in fact take 20 proteins to make a flagellum.Finding the most complecated one and removing a few parts,but failing to mention the fact,that a flagellum requires a minimum of 20 proteins is reminescent of a ken miller lecture.

#33 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 13 November 2008 - 10:17 PM

Heres the homology simularities connecting the Flagella protein H to the F type ATPase F1 protein.

Posted Image
Figure 1. (A) Diagrammatic depiction of proton-translocating and type III secretion ATPase complexes, highlighting homologous
catalytic and noncatalytic components and interactions. (B,C) Multiple alignments of representative NF-T3SS, F-T3SS,
F-type, and V-type ATPases. (:) N-proximal domains of NF-T3SS, F-T3SS, and V-type ATPases aligned with F-type B subunit
proteins. © C-terminal domains of NF-T3SS, F-T3SS, and V-type ATPases aligned with C-terminal domains of F-type D
subunit proteins. Alignments were generated using T-coffee (http://igs-server.cn...ects_home_page/ t_
coffee_home_page.html) and a set of 32 representative sequences derived from the original YscL psiBLAST. For clarity, the
final alignments contain only 3 NF-T3SS ATPases, 3 F-T3SS ATPases, 1 V-type ATPases, 3 F-type B subunits, and 4 F-type D
subunits. Alignments were colored using CHROMA (http://www.lg.ndirect.co.uk/chroma/) with an 80% consensus threshold:
aromatic (FHWY, blue lettering on a dark yellow background), big (EFHIKLMQRWY, blue on light yellow), hydrophobic
(ACFGHILMTVWY, black on dark yellow), aliphatic (ILV, gray on dark yellow), polar (CDEHKNQRST, blue on white),
small (ACDGNPSTV, dark green on white), tiny (AGS, light green on white), charged (DEKR, pink on white), and negatively
charged (DE, red on white). Organism names are abbreviated as Ypest (Yersinia pestis), Bjapo (Bradyrhizobium japonicum),
Psyri (Pseudomonas syringae), Styph (Salmonella typhimurium), Mjann (Methanococcus jannaschii), Chydro (Carboxydothermus
hydrogenoformans), Ecoli (Escherichia coli), Efaec (Enterococcus faecium), Pmari (Prochlorococcus marinus), Avari (Anabaena
variabilis), and Teryt (Trichodesmium erythraeum), respectively. Protein names are as stated in the respective GenBank record,
except where no name is available (i.e., Efaec_AtpF, Pmari_AtpF, and Teryt_AtpF are EfaeDRAFT_0503, PMN2A_0982, and
TeryDRAFT_3685, respectively). GenBank accession numbers (in alignment order) are 10955581, 27376926, 28868594,
16765309, 16122081, 28869164, 15668393, 78042703, 16131604, Efae021782, 75908826, 71674228, 72382820, 114580.
www.proteinscience.org
www.proteinscience.org/cgi/reprint/15/4/935.pdf?ck=nck

Enjoy.

#34 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 13 November 2008 - 10:20 PM

The simularities are highlighted,the amount of dissimularities are what make it a very weak arguement.

#35 NowhereMan

NowhereMan

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Yorkshire, England

Posted 14 November 2008 - 03:53 AM

You have to consider the fact that there are many variations of the flagellum in nature.Through circular reasoning you can conclude that they are all ancesteral,but it does in fact take 20 proteins to make a flagellum.Finding the most complecated one and removing a few parts,but failing to mention the fact,that a flagellum requires a minimum of 20 proteins is reminescent of a ken miller lecture.

View Post


The simplest of modern flagella requiring 20 proteins doesn't matter at all if you understand exaptation, Jason.

As you said in a post above, we're way off topic. If there are existing threads on flagella and transitional fossils, we probably should move our discussions to them. (I'm not very familiar with the board, and I don't know how strict the moderators are about staying on topic).

#36 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 14 November 2008 - 03:21 PM

It sounds like Behe. Dr. Pitman needs (like everyone else) to know a lot more about the E coli flagellum before he makes probability calculations on its evolution. Understanding the flagellum is ongoing research, and already he needs to update his article to include research published this year which shows that some important components can be removed that were previously thought to be essential to the working of the flagellum; yet it functions without them! It is a reducibly complex machine in more ways than one, and that's no surprise to evolutionary biologists.

Keep up with the research going on by Keiichi Namba's team, particularly, and you can see how the flagellum is evolutionary fun!

As you said in a post above, we're way off topic. If there are existing threads on flagella and transitional fossils, we probably should move our discussions to them. (I'm not very familiar with the board, and I don't know how strict the moderators are about staying on topic).

View Post


You are really laughable. You answered the probability argument using a Sidestepping fallacy about flagellum, when you are inquired about flagellum you say you want to stay on topic.

#37 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 14 November 2008 - 04:43 PM

You could examine them all, and come to the conclusion that they all have recent common ancestry, and you’d be right. Note that the hominid skulls  vary enormously in individuals of similar size, unlike the dogs.


Me and my brother have two common ancestors, my father and my mother.The main point is that we and races of dogs are only variation inside the same specie and it´s not macro-evolution for sure.

The importance of these skulls is that when the idea that we were apes first developed (actually pre-Darwin) none of them were known, and none of them were known during Darwin’s lifetime. There was only us, our large brained cousins the Neanderthal, and the small brained extant apes. The subsequent discovery of the intermediate sizes confirms a prediction of evolutionary theory, and it is largely because the ToEvolution has this capacity of prediction that it is considered such a strong theory.


That prediction is flawed because the size of skulls are not evidence of intermediate forms as we can see in the races of dogs.

Certainly. Even if the fusion of the chromosomes resulted in advantages to our species in the future, they would be outweighed IMO, and natural selection would have a bias against them. They could only spread across a very small and isolated population group by drift. This would be a rare event, but far from impossible, and it may happen occasionally in small groups of apes, but be fought back by natural selection when the group mixes in with the rest of the population. ( One problem here.If you decrease so much the population to explain how chromosome 2 fusion was fixed, how can you account for 35 millions of neutral mutations in our lineage? shpongle used a population of 100,000 individuals.Although it must be bigger, it does not seem to me a small population.)

What the effect would be for a couple with different chromosome numbers is that the female would have more early miscarriages than usual, because the ways in which the chromosomes combine are either completely lethal, or produce perfectly normal offspring. So it’s only the time taken up having miscarriages that means that these couples would, on average have less children than normal, hence the inevitable selection bias against the new number of chromosomes over time in large populations. However, there’s nothing to stop some of these couples, say one in twenty, having more children than average, six for example. The new number of chromosomes are inherited by half the kids on average, but in 1/64 of such families, all 6 will have it. Therefore, such a scenario would happen in about 1/1280 occurrences of the fusion in an individual.

It still takes genetic drift luck of a chance of about 1/100 chance in the next generation or two in a tiny incestuous population that is only producing an average of twenty kids per generation for the 23 pairs of chromosomes to go above the 50% mark, but once they do, the selection prejudice is against the old 24 pair characteristic, because all couples with the same number of chromosomes don’t have the miscarriage problem.  :huh: So we end up with something like 1/128000 occurrences of the fusion for the event to happen, and as the fusion occurs in about 1/1000 of the population, that means that about 128,000,000 apes would have to have been living in small tribal groups (which they tend to do) for one incidence of a complete group with 23 chromosomes to occur. :lol:  If there were about one million apes alive at any one time, it would actually happen about once every 1500 years on those figures, but our group must have been the only one in complete isolation for it to stick over the whole population. :lol:


All of which takes me away from the original point that our chromosome two is definitely made from two of the ape ones, and that that’s an odd way to design us, and one of a number of chromosomal features that define us as apes. :)


No, Again if you didnt read it.Chimps dont have the chromosome 2 fused, so it´s not a shared error between us and chimps.That fusion event can have happened 10 thousand years ago.So, your are making an unsupported claim.The fusion of chormosome 2 is not an evidence that we have a common ancestor with chimps.

#38 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 15 November 2008 - 03:33 PM

No, Again if you didnt read it.Chimps dont have the chromosome 2 fused, so it´s not a shared error between us and chimps.That fusion event can have happened 10 thousand years ago.So, your are making an unsupported claim.The fusion of chormosome 2 is not an evidence that we have a common ancestor with chimps.

View Post


How do you explain the apparent similarity then?

#39 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 16 November 2008 - 05:15 AM

How do you explain the apparent similarity then?

View Post


The old homology argument, that´s all evolutionists have.

I´ve already said that : "Common Design"

#40 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 November 2008 - 12:46 PM

The old homology argument, that´s all evolutionists have.

I´ve already said that : "Common Design"

View Post


One thing I've never understood is what the "common design" argument actually means. And if similarities imply the same designer, does this mean differences imply different designers?

At any rate, when it comes to the chromosome 2 argument, it's obvious they were fused since the telomere sequences clustered near the centomere are a dead giveaway.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users