Evolution a hoax?

[randman]

Dinwar, how in the world do you translate my discussion of human chromosomal fusion into you hearing we are to discuss the field of taxonomy?

Do you what taxonomy is?

If you are not willing to even try to rebut, nor understand, my very factual, simple straightforward comments in human chromosome fusion, then please don't pollute the waters here with some bs about taxonomy which isn't even the topic at hand.

 

[Wowbagger]

Personally, I would look a strong version of the anthropomorphic principle in physics to suggest intentionality and some areas outside of biology but you can talk with more IDers and creationists who point to specific evidence in biology all the time.

How do you know the strong anthropomorphic principle applies to us?

What if it was all meant for the Perfect Life forms, and we are merely taking advantage of it?

I would say Dust Bin Theory has a LOT of advantage over Intended Intelligent Design: It explains all the flaws life forms on Earth have, and all the contingencies we have. It explains why so much of our planet is so harsh against most forms of life. Intelligent Design can not account for that, as much.

But, how do we settle the issue once and for all?

Once again, isn't this thread supposed to be on evolution?

I am demonstrating that Creationism is soooooooooo weak, it doesn't stand a chance against Evolution! Evolution can find ways to solve its mysteries, even its biggest ones, and its most important ones, through the scientific method. Creationism can not.

 

[DC]

Dinwar, how in the world do you translate my discussion of chromosomal fusion into you hearing we are to discuss the field of taxonomy?

Do you what taxonomy is?

you were the one starting to use abuse taxonomy which shows that it is you that doesn't know what taxonomy is.

 

[randman]

If you think my full-length to all-length calculation was off-base, here's another for you that I hope eases your apples-to-oranges concerns.

The paper identified 425 full-length ERVs in the chimpanzee genome, spread across 42 "families" (though the family thing isn't important right now). 41 of those full-length ERVs aren't in an orthologous position in the human genome. That means 384 were in an orthologous position in the human genome.

So, if you just compare full-length ERVs, you're still looking at 90.4% of them being in an orthologous position in the genomes of both species.

But 10% are not though considered to have entered at the same time, before the proposed evolutionary split?

We'll see how all this shakes out over time. My suspicion is we're going to see functionality for these to be in very specific locations, maybe related to epigenetics as some have speculated, and that their function explains their placement, or from an evo perspective, specific sequences in specific locations are selectively under pressure to remain in those loci.

 

[Dinwar]

Dinwar, how in the world do you translate my discussion of human chromosomal fusion into you hearing we are to discuss the field of taxonomy?

Do you what taxonomy is?

Taxonomy is the classification of organisms, though in practice it's much broader. You want to argue that we are not related to monkeys, or at least that current evidence is not sufficient to support that conclusion. Your discussion of whales, which you suspiciously dropped after I refuted your article, is entirely taxonomic. Of course, that addressing this would require you to refute....well, anything I've said on the subject, really--not a single aspect of it has been addressed by you or those who are proposing the ideas you're advocating.

If you are not willing to even try to rebut, nor understand, my very factual, simple straightforward comments in human chromosome fusion, then please don't pollute the waters here with some bs about taxonomy which isn't even the topic at hand.

There are multiple threads going on in this conversation; the fact that you've chosen to ignore one in no way means that I am required to pretend it isn't still there.

I strongly suggest going back and re-reading a few pages of this thread. You appear to be under the impression that you're the only one who gets to decide what topics are worth discussing, which is not the case.

 

[randman]

you were the one starting to use abusing taxonomy which shows that it is you that doesn't know what taxonomy is.

Like I didn't know and had the insane idea that healthy people could have just 45 chromosomes and it was quite common.

Who was right on that again?

Btw, no one is discussing the taxonomy of humans and chimps except Dinwar misunderstood what taxonomy is and thought that was under discussion. Maybe you and he are confusing taxonomy with phylogeny.

 

[randman]

Taxonomy is the classification of organisms, though in practice it's much broader. You want to argue that we are not related to monkeys, or at least that current evidence is not sufficient to support that conclusion. Your discussion of whales, which you suspiciously dropped after I refuted your article, is entirely taxonomic. Of course, that addressing this would require you to refute....well, anything I've said on the subject, really--not a single aspect of it has been addressed by you or those who are proposing the ideas you're advocating.

There are multiple threads going on in this conversation; the fact that you've chosen to ignore one in no way means that I am required to pretend it isn't still there.

I strongly suggest going back and re-reading a few pages of this thread. You appear to be under the impression that you're the only one who gets to decide what topics are worth discussing, which is not the case.

Dinwar, you are confused. No one is disagreeing with humans being classified as primates. That's different however than saying they all shared a common ancestor, although I understand you as an evo equate the 2 concepts.

You have confused taxonomy, which is classification, with phylogeny, which is what we were talking about. They are not the same things though closely related for evolutionists. I suggest you think about the differences a little before go off on some other wild, unsubstantiated smear campaign.

 

[DC]

Like I didn't know and had the insane idea that healthy people could have just 45 chromosomes and it was quite common.

Who was right on that again?

Btw, no one is discussing the taxonomy of humans and chimps except Dinwar misunderstood what taxonomy is and thought that was under discussion. Maybe you and he are confusing taxonomy with phylogeny.

i didnt make any claim in such a direction. and no i didnt mistake it with phylogeny.

 

[randman]

This is as false as the claim that nostral position is more important than jaw formation in morphology. There are, simply put, some traits which are more significant than others in biology, and randman refuses to acknowledge that.

A perfect example. The presence of hands and feet IS a useful trait--it's shared by one taxon, and not by others. However, it's useless in comparing two taxa within that larger taxon, as they both have it. There ARE specific criteria, discussed to a great depth in the link to PAST I posted earlier (randman can't see it, but that's his loss), and randman is not using those criteria.

So is an event entirely within human lineage, the proposed chromosomal fusion, "more significant"?

Chimps don't even have the same thing. There is absolutely 0 evidence of this fusion being passed down. Quite the contrary, the exact opposite is considered to be the case.

 

[randman]

what? you are clearly clueless about the theory of evolution, totally clueless.

you have an example of someone that has a fused chromosome today?

So you now claim you were not suggesting there are people today with fused chromosomes?

 

[randman]

Says right there you have healthy people. Reread it. It raised the risks of Downs and Turner. Just read the links I provided.

1 in every 1000 people, vast majority very healthy, have 45 chromosomes with no negative health effects for them whatsoever.

Should there be an extreme bottleneck with humans, we could see down the road people having just 45 chromosomes but that change would have happened all during human lineages just as the reduction to 46 has.

Do I need to remind you of this dc?

 

[DC]

So is an event entirely within human lineage, the proposed chromosomal fusion, "more significant"?

Chimps don't even have the same thing. There is absolutely 0 evidence of this fusion being passed down. Quite the contrary, the exact opposite is considered to be the case.

how come that we can find the same chromosomes unfused in chimps? Evolution has an explenation for this, ID does not. It cannot explain observed phenomena.

 

[Almo]

What he has shown is quite remarkable

Not really.

 

[Dinwar]

Dinwar, you are confused. No one is disagreeing with humans being classified as primates. That's different however than saying they all shared a common ancestor, although I understand you as an evo equate the 2 concepts.

Oh, you're going OLD SCHOOL with your taxonomy! The view that sharing a clade doesn't mean that you share an ancestor went out with the advent of phylogeny, randman. The explanation is given in the link to PAST I previously provided. Further discussion is available by even a curssory glance through the research regarding arthropod classification.

If you ARE going to go old-school on me, I expect to see a great deal more discussion on your part regarding the definitions of the taxa you choose to discuss. Specifically, I expect you to comply with the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. I have a copy, so I'll know if you don't.

You have confused taxonomy, which is classification, with phylogeny, which is what we were talking about.

Nope. This is like saying "You're confusing physics, which is Newtonian, with astronomy, which is Relativity". Phylogeny (well, actually cladistics now) IS the current view of taxonomy. The previous view is just stamp-collecting.

I suggest you think about the differences a little before go off on some other wild, unsubstantiated smear campaign.

I've thought a great deal about those differences--I've actually read the papers at the PAST link. The data support only one conclusion: that phylogeny/cladistics supercedes taxonomy, though the terms are more or less interchangeable.

You can't simply ignore 50 years of science, randman, no matter how annoying it may be.

So is an event entirely within human lineage, the proposed chromosomal fusion, "more significant"?

The squishy stuff isn't my area fo expertise. ANTpogo seems to be saying that your interpretation is completely erronious, however, and given how wrong you are in terms of osteology I'm inclined to assume that you're equally wrong here.

 

[Almo]

well, biblical creationists are testing whether events in the Bible match up with the data.

They don't match. Tell them they can get real jobs now.

 

[bikerdruid]

well, biblical creationists are testing whether events in the Bible match up with the data.....

 

[randman]

how come that we can find the same chromosomes unfused in chimps? Evolution has an explenation for this, ID does not. It cannot explain observed phenomena.

DC despite your constant rudeness, I've tried not to respond in kind, but man, you are really dense. I say the fused chromosomes happened with people, in the human lineage.

Your response:

how come that we can find the same chromosomes unfused in chimps?

Is it really true you cannot see the fallacy of your question. The very fact the chromosomes are unfused in chimps is exactly what I stated; that the proposed fusion in humans was entirely within the human lineage and not inherited from a common ancestor.

Maybe though you just can't grasp the idea here.

Macroevolution did not explain it; nor predict it as was claimed earlier and no one rose to the challenge. It's a human issue, and as I showed before 1 in 1000 healthy human beings have another fusion and so just 45 chromosomes, and no evolution does not really explain it. Medicine does. In fact, it defies evolution to an extent because it does not confer a selective advantage and can create problems for offspring.

 

[DC]

DC despite your constant rudeness, I've tried not to respond in kind, but man, you are really dense. I say the fused chromosomes happened with people, in the human lineage.

Your response:



Is it really true you cannot see the fallacy of your question. The very fact the chromosomes are unfused in chimps is exactly what I stated; that the proposed fusion in humans was entirely within the human lineage and not inherited from a common ancestor.

Maybe though you just can't grasp the idea here.

Macroevolution did not explain it; nor predict it as was claimed earlier and no one rose to the challenge. It's a human issue, and as I showed before 1 in 1000 healthy human beings have another fusion and so just 45 chromosomes, and no evolution does not really explain it. Medicine does. In fact, it defies evolution to an extent because it does not confer a selective advantage and can create problems for offspring.

the point is that chromsome 2 is fused in humans and we can find the unfused parts in Chimps today.
when we take people with 45 chromosomes , can we find the unfused parts of their fused chromosome in chimps?

here the bible delivers no explenation while the theory of evolution does.

 

[Dinwar]

You know, I should add a few definitions...

Phyletic group: An ancestrial species and all of its decendants.

Paraphyletic taxa: A group consisting of only a portion of a phyla.

Polyphyletic taxa: A group consisting of members of multiple phyla, without including the ones between the two

(Yeah, poly- and paraphyletic are actually very similar, but they're both wrong.)

Clade: See phyla.

Taxon: is a group of one or more organisms, which a taxonomist adjudges to be a unit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxon

As you can see, "phyletic group" and "clade" are much more rigorous than "taxon". The reason I've been using taxon thus far is because no one's gotten into the math, and it's therefore inappropriate to discuss phylogeny/cladistics.

 

[Almo]

I took you off ignore but it's getting tedious. None of what you wrote is relevant.

That's a whole different kettle of fish calling the pot black.