26 replies to this topic

[Phaedrus]

One of the prevailing assumptions is that small changes accumulate over hundreds or thousands of generations. Most of the evidence is ancedotal and simply projects adaptations being accumulated in a stepwise fashion, evolution does not work this way. Speciation occurs, this is a well established fact but when you are talking about this kind of a major mophological change there is a lot of supposition.

Human and Chimpanzee Chromosomes 1-4

Take a good look at the comparison of Chromosome 2. Notice the one on the left (human) is one chromosome while the other is two (chimpanzee). Supposedly, these two chromosomes fused but where are the specifics as to how this is accomplished. Truly, nature produces a vast array of size, shape, color, texture in a seemingly endless series of changes. What is more, the crossing over of genes can cause an enormous amount of diversity. However, the mechanism that splices two chromosomes into one without devastating consequences is a mystery. Here are a couple of noted effects from changes in genes:
Chromosome 9


"Chromosome 9 harbours four genes that can cause s@x-reversal, all the human interferon type 1 genes (interferon is important in suppressing cancer development and in resisting virus infection), a gene implicated in neurodegenerative disease (CHAC), as well as a gene (abl) that is involved in 90 per cent of chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) cases."

Chromosome 10

"The team decoded 131 million base-pairs of the chromosome 10 sequence and found 1357 genes. Alterations in 85 of these genes are known to predispose to diseases such as a form of epilepsy (LGI1), obesity (GAD2), and cancer."

Getting back to chromosome 2, there is an odd contradictory event in the presumed changes. It has been long believed that the changes just accumulate gradually. This looks good when you have millions of years to work with for putting together statistical probability. There is just one major problem with this, these genes that are supposedly duplicated, inverted, inserted, deleted...etc are subject to long periods of stasis.

"Researchers report today that regions of the human genome have been hotspots for acquiring duplicated DNA sequences – but only at specific time-points during evolution. It appears that long periods of genomic stasis, at least with regard to the accretion of duplicated DNA fragments, are "punctuated" by relatively brief episodes of duplicative activity. This is the first time that such temporal bias has been documented for DNA duplications, and it challenges the evolutionary paradigm that continuous alterations occur during the course of genome evolution...

"The important implication here is that episodic bursts of activity challenge the concept of gradual clock-like changes during the course of genome evolution. Since duplications are important in the birth of new genes and large-scale chromosomal rearrangements, it may follow that these processes may have gone through similar episodes of activity followed by quiescence."

'Punctuated' evolution in the human genome, Maria A. Smit

This is the same problem at every step in the evolutionary chain, that is, crucial points of divergance. It is presumption over demonstrative proof.

[Phaedrus]

The sweeping statement at the end of that is not justified by the material you linked. Not only was that study limited to duplicated DNA segments (i.e., they were not looking at deletions, point mutations, etc) but you apparently missed an important point which was noted by the authors: "Other regions may show different temporal biases".

I don't think you really grasped the point I was driving at. The gradual accumulation of inherited traits is fine for adaptation to a new environment. However, when you are talking about the fussion of two chromosomes you can't just splice them together. Every chromosome in the human genome has a list of disease and disorder as long as you arm due to changes in the form and function of the genes. What is more the center of the chromosome is the last place you would want random chance making alterations because of possible damage to the spindle.

And you have just illustrated the point with a bit of supposition of your own by equating speciation with major morphological change. You may not be familiar with what are termed sibling species, where individuals from separately breeding populations, infertile on crossing, are virtually indistinguishable from one another morphologically (for an example, see Certhia brachydactyla and Certhia familiaris).

Wrong, this is not equivacation, it makes a distinction between speciation and the macroevolutionary fussion of chromosomes. Now as far as infertility I have an example that has nothing to do with evolutionary changes. My daughter has a male African Grey Parrot that is incapable of procreation simply because he does not life in the wild. Species is generally defined by the ability to interbreed but no one is suggesting that domestic and wild African Grey Parrots are seperate species.

What you have just provided is an example of presumption being subjected to demonstrative proof. The scientific landscape is littered with the carcasses of failed suppositions; it's simply the way science works.

The presumption is that chimpanzees and humans have a common ancestor, actually some kind of ape or protoape that descended from monkeys. The only way this can be qualified genetically is to account for the differences in the genomes. The most viable explanation for the extra chromosome in apes is the fussion of two chromosomes. All you need do to put this to the test is to take directly observed and demonstrated proofs and apply them to the effects of changes on this level. What do you think happens when you try to fuse a Volkswagon and a Honda? It would look more like a head on colision then and improvement in design.

Well, let's take some evidence that has 3 outcomes.

Out come one would support one view and also support evolution.

Out come two supports another view and also supports evolution.

Out come three support creation view and also supports God.

Now, which gets the trash can? Like you say: it's simply the way science works.

Science is only out to prove the view it currently has about our origins. To do anything other wise, would make them look like fools. I don't think the worlds finest educated minds, like to be called a fool. So number three will always get the trash can because: it's simply the way science works.

So most of the" The scientific landscape is littered with the carcasses of failed suppositions;" is more of creation evidence than any scientific ones.

Here is my point. We have two scenerios, one, monkeys evolved into apes who later evolved into humans. Let's consider what would have had to happen at a genetic level and estimate the probablity. Two, monkeys, apes and humans are seperatly created fully formed and developed into the vast array withing those three groups. Lets then look at the evolutionary mechanisms with a ligitamate scientific basis (genetic not forensic) and estimate the probablity. Then you just compare the two.

By the way, it is undiluted bunk that given enough time something like chromosome fussion becomes more of a possiblity. Changes to the form and function of the chromosomes will have devastating consequences no matter how long they take to develop the vast majority of the time.

Grace and peace,
Mark

[John Paul]

Here's a test-

Can people with down's syndrome reproduce?
Can people with sickle-celled anemia reproduce?

The point being that detrimental variations can get passed along also. That is beside the point that "beneficial" is a relative word.

As for chromosome fusion- perhaps it was the other way around- chrosome separation and chimps devolved from a once very good population of humans.

IOW chimps are the result of an accumulation of non-fatal yet detrimental variations artificially removed from the parent population of humans. Neanderthals were another such branch of artificial selection removing non-fatal and deemed detrimental variations.

Just a thought...

[John Paul]

Is Chromosome fussion a myth of demonstrated mechanism in TOE?

I voted other because I think such an event is possible, however said event would be evidence for a change in allele frequency and not "goo-to-you-via-the-zoo" evolution.

Chromosome separation is also viable.

What else explains the difference in chromosome number in very morphologically similar organisms? Just look at Equus (Family Equidae ).

Renditions of Noah would have us understand that the diversity in Equus arose post-Flood. The chromosome number in that diversity is itself diverse- ie the chromosome number varies.

[John Paul]

According to the studies we do have natural selection accounts for at most 16% of the "evolution" within a population. There is no way to predict what variation will be selected over another. And the way you use "beneficial" makes it ultimtely useless in a discussion. Why because we would have to follow all lineages until the end, if there was one, in order to determine what was beneficial or not.

The evidence shows our molecular clocks have "ticked" 13 times since the allged split, whereas chimps have "ticked" 34. Wouldn't that indicate that our common ancester was more human-like than chimp-like?

QUOTE
and chimps devolved from a once very good population of humans.

Cal:
You repeat the mistake made by Phaedrus above: confusing genetic content (the genes that produce the differences between chimps and humans) with the 'packaging' (the chromosomes).

Thank you but I know the difference. I also doubt that genes make the difference between chimps and humans. I am 100% sure that is nothing but wishful thinking.

Also it should be clear by my post on Equus that I don't think the 'packaging' plays much if any significance. Duh- why do you think I voted for "other"?

Please read & think before you post.

[John Paul]

QUOTE(John Paul @ Aug 28 2005, 10:13 AM)
And the way you use "beneficial" makes it ultimtely useless in a discussion. Why because we would have to follow all lineages until the end, if there was one, in order to determine what was beneficial or not.

Cal:
We can directly observe that organisms reproduce at different rates.

But that doesn't mean it is due to any variation.

Cal:
It seems reasonable to infer that these different rates are a result at least in part of different qualities they possess, even though we may not know what the qualities are that are making the differences. As I have noted before, generalizing this idea to all observed differences is a top-down approach, and should be applied with considerable caution.

But we already know, via scientific research, that 84% of the variation in the population arises from sometyhing other than natural selection. IOW the "qualities they possess" may be luck or some other non-inheritable feature.



QUOTE
Also it should be clear by my post on Equus that I don't think the 'packaging' plays much if any significance.

Cal:
Perhaps my confusion originated with the way you linked these two statements with the conjunctive "IOW":

---------------------------------
"As for chromosome fusion- perhaps it was the other way around- chrosome separation and chimps devolved from a once very good population of humans."

"IOW chimps are the result of an accumulation of non-fatal yet detrimental variations artificially removed from the parent population of humans."
---------------------------------

Could be but there isn't anything in those sentences that "implies" the differences between the species is linked to the chromosome action (separation or fusion). Also it means that you ignored an entire post before making your entry.

[John Paul]

Let's get a few things straight-

I am not locked into any number.

I do not have an infatuation for any number. However it is obvious you have an infatuation with me.

Discussion- please show how the original or ANY paper supports the premise that NS plays anything but a minor role in "evolution".

Ya see Cal I challenge you to support the claims made by evolutionists. By your absence in the evidence thread I am sure you cannot

I would ask you to show your actual arguments but you don't have one- except to criticize anyone who you disagree with. That is evidenced in this thread when you posted a response ignoring very relevant information. But even then you messed up your inference anyway and still tried to pass the blame.

[John Paul]

Cal:
You have mentioned the 84% thing quite a number of times, and always in such a way as to imply that it is a matter of well-established and widely accepted fact. (It isn't).

It is what the scientific research to date shows. Again if you have evidence that contradicts the number, now would be a good time to present it.

BTW I am VERY interested in details. That is why I am no longer an evolutionist. Both the theory and its proponents are absolutely void of them.

Cal:
Really, what exactly is it that you hope to get out of all of this?

You have asked this question more than once already. Each time I answered the same way. Nothing has changed.


Join the evidence thread. Then we will see if you are an evolutionist based on atheism/ faith or if there is real evidence to support the claims of evolutionists.

As I said before the absence of evolutionists from that thread is very telling.