What to talk about...

[MarcusHill]

If this feature is a strong evidence of evolution, then should we see more cases on this process on other evolving species? Why is this one unique?

Who says it's unique? It relies on a fairly close inspection of the chromosomes of two species which we know are related - but one species had one fewer chromosome pair than the other. Since one of the species is us, this sparked an interest which drove research. Evolution predicted one of our chromosome pairs would be a fusion of two pairs found in the other great apes - which it is.

Now, there could be any number of such chromosomal fusion events, but I have no idea how common they are, or how likely it is that any extant species have a similar event in their recent evolutionary past. What I do know is that we have only mapped the genome of a tiny proportion of the species on the planet sufficiently closely to notice this kind of event, so it's no big surprise if this is the only one we can currently prove. It's entirely possible that more will be found in the not too distant future.

 

[juvenissun]

Of course.



Such people are fools -- but no more foolish than the ones trying to use science to prove God's existence/involvement.

But can that compare to the sheer folly of those who attempt to reduce "God" to the simplest terms, claiming that God is, and can only be, (for example) that which is described in a certain ancient book?

If we recognized that there is a God, then you have to describe Him. When you start the description, you also specify. The more one "understands" the God, the more specifications the God gains. Then one is "reducing" the possible characters of the God.

We do have examples that people defined their gods by different domains. Unfortunately (to you), the richer the content of a theology, the narrower the God is defined, i.e. more exclusive.

I have a friend whose god has not be defined by any written literature. But he rejected the Christian God. So, his god MUST be defined somewhere in his mind.

 

[juvenissun]

Did you just call the water cycle magic? Wow, you're dense. Even the kids in my mother's fifth grade class know about the water cycle.

Think: The earth is the only place has that process today within a radius of a few light-years. Don't take anything for granted.

 

[Vene]

Think: The earth is the only place has that process today within a radius of a few light-years. Don't take anything for granted.

So, now the properties of water, which are the same throughout the universe, are magic? I know that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, but this is just ridiculous. Especially from a so-called geologist (don't worry, I don't believe you are one ).

 

[Naraoia]

OK, I browsed the Chromosome 2 on the wikipedia. So, the difference between ape and human is on that chromosome.

Not really. It is only one difference and not very important for all I know about genetics.

And we also know how much differences are there between ape and human.

Technically, we are apes but taxonomy isn't the point of this discussion, so...

So does that say Chromosome 2 is responsible for all the differences?

No.

If not, than what is the point of the argument?

The point of the argument is that chromosome 2 shows our common ancestry with chimps. Now how does it do that?

(1) It has the same genes in the same order as two chimp (or gorilla, or orang-utan...) chromosomes. One half of it corresponds to one ape chromosome, the other to another ape chromosome.

(2) It has telomeres in the middle. Telomeres are normally found at the end of a chromosome.

Because of certain features of our DNA replication (could go into details if you want me to), some of the end of a chromosome gets lost every time it's copied. You obviously don't want to lose genes and other important bits of DNA... so every chromosome has long repetitive sequences that can get lost instead of the more important stuff. You don't normally find telomeric sequences anywhere other than the ends of chromosomes.

(3) Chromosome 2 has two centromeres (one non-functional). Centromeres are where a chromosome gets grabbed and dragged apart during cell division. A normal chromosome has only one of these - and only one of the centromeres in human chromosome 2 functions as a centromere, but the other is still recognisably similar to a working centromere.

In short, human chromosome 2 looks exactly like two chimp chromosomes stuck together. And...

Even all the Chromosomes are the same, ape and human are still very different. Two things are "very similar" does not mean one is derived from the other.

No it doesn't. And we are not saying that. We are saying that these particular similarities are best explained by common ancestry (and not explained otherwise).

Why do you say this piece of evidence is VERY strong for evolution?

You could call it an argument from lack of function. If two functional things are similar you could say they are similar because this design worked well for whichever function, so it was reused*. However, the telomeres in the middle of human chromosome 2 and the second, non-functional centromere don't really do anything. There is no reason why they should be there - unless they are leftovers from our evolutionary history.

A (rather famous) presentation of the chromosome evidence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXdQRvSdLAs

*which, it turns out, isn't a good argument once you start looking at DNA or protein sequences. Cytochrome c is the classic example - the protein's sequence changes by massive amounts (50%-ish IIRC) between distantly related creatures, and it has the same functions anywhere from a yeast to us (as far as I'm aware).

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

I would be exceedingly glad to share some of my understanding to you. But it seems this thread is not the place for it (I have done that frequently in the Origin Theology forum). Just let you feel it, Biblical author used a term: "spring in the sea". What do you think about it? Is it a reasonable term used at the time of the author?

Huh? I think you've confused me with someone else. My questions:

If, however, you're referring to the evidence of common descent of all the great apes, then yes, there's evidence of that. If you find it weak, then please please please explain ERVs and Human Chromosome #2. There have been whole threads on these and no creationist has yet actually addressed the issue: how do these things make any sense from a creationist perspective (or any other than the ToE, for that matter)?

and, since you claimed that the Bible is scientifically reliable,

Then please post these scientific facts so that we can be amazed.

(I assume you can also demonstrate how Biblical scholars interpreted these verses scientifically and were able to make scientific predictions based on them before the ideas were accepted by the scientific community. Wouldn't want any examples of convenient retrofitting, would we? "God stretched out the heavens", right AV?)

(where "these scientific facts" refers to your claim "if you take a look of other 95% science related issues (most people do not even know they exist), they are descriptions of scientific facts not known to us until the most recent 100 years").

Now, since you've started to address the first point, let me get back to those points...

 

[Naraoia]

I don't know much about the details. But it is not hard to ask question based on common sense:

If this feature is a strong evidence of evolution, then should we see more cases on this process on other evolving species? Why is this one unique?

That's flawed thinking. Is a gunshot wound on a corpse strong evidence for murder? Probably. Would we expect other murders to produce this evidence? Not necessarily. Murder can be committed in many ways, and all those leave different evidence. Some are more common than others.

Similarly, evolution involves many different processes; chromosome fusion is just one thing that can happen - and probably among the less common things. I don't know how common it is - the only case I've heard detailed is this one with humans and other apes, but then I've never really looked for others.

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

OK, I browsed the Chromosome 2 on the wikipedia. So, the difference between ape and human is on that chromosome.

No, that's not the point at all. There are differences throughout the genome.

And we also know how much differences are there between ape and human. So does that say Chromosome 2 is responsible for all the differences?

What? No. In fact, it's believed that the merging of two chromosomes to make HC#2 made no real difference at all.

If not, than what is the point of the argument?

The point is that something in our genome bears every possible hallmark of being a fusing of two things that we share with other apes. This makes perfect sense if we assume descent with modification: early humans and early chimps have very similar genomes both with the same number of chromosomes; a mutation leads to a fusing of two chromosomes in the early humans, but the same mutation doesn't happen in the chimps (or other apes) because mutations are random; hence today's humans have one fewer chromosome pair than today's chimps/orangutans/gorillas. It makes NO sense if all the great apes (including us) were created separately; why would God create us with a genome that's 90-mumble% similar to all the other apes but with one chromosome made out of two others joined together for no reason? And why leave the redundant extra centromere and telomeres there? God is a bad designer, it seems. Or deceptive.

Even all the Chromosomes are the same, ape and human are still very different. Two things are "very similar" does not mean one is derived from the other.

But the point is precisely that they're not all the same: one of ours bears all the evidence of being two chromosomes fused together. Break HC#2 into two and our genome looks almost identical to the other great apes.

Add in ERVs and you have solid evidence for humans and chimps sharing a common ancestor from which we evolved due to descent with modification (mutation).

Why do you say this piece of evidence is VERY strong for evolution?

Again, it makes 100% sense if evolution is true. It makes 0% sense if creationism is true.

As AV would(n't) say: mutation did it -- case closed.

 

[Naraoia]

Think: The earth is the only place has that process today within a radius of a few light-years. Don't take anything for granted.

Think: the water cycle on earth is the result of perfectly non-magical factors. The earth's mass, distance from the sun, etc. And I don't think we know enough of extrasolar planets to say the earth is unique in having a water cycle - maybe not even within those few light-years?

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

I don't know much about the details. But it is not hard to ask question based on common sense:

If this feature is a strong evidence of evolution, then should we see more cases on this process on other evolving species? Why is this one unique?

Well, I was about to answer this, but Naraoia already has (and the previous one as well ). And, interestingly, I was going to use a similar analogy. But I'll go ahead anyway because it's a cool example...

Many years ago I saw a program on forensics where they highlighted a case in which an IRA operative was found by studying the bite marks in an apple from which he'd had a couple of bites while waiting to kill someone/blow something up/whatever (don't remember). The thing was that he happened to have a very distinctive way of biting the apple that allowed the investigators to get more information than they normally might. So the forensic investigation succeeded largely because (A) the guy had a weird mouth, (B) had happened to take just a couple of bites from an apple, and (C) had then just tossed it aside right before committing the crime. Had any of these things not happened, they wouldn't have been able to assemble the evidence they did. Does that invalidate their evidence? No! They found him. The evidence was correct, regardless of the likelihood of it being available.

Similarly, the likelihood of a certain thing happening in our genome for us to observe is irrelevant. It did happen and we observed it. All that's relevant now is to interpret the evidence, and the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of humans once having a genome virtually identical to chimps before a random mutation fused two of our chromosomes.

The smoking gun has been found.

 

[Nathan Poe]

If we recognized that there is a God, then you have to describe Him. When you start the description, you also specify. The more one "understands" the God, the more specifications the God gains. Then one is "reducing" the possible characters of the God.

Which leads to our problem -- the utter hubris that someone of finite understanding can "understand" God, let alone "specify" Him accurately and comprehensively.

We do have examples that people defined their gods by different domains. Unfortunately (to you), the richer the content of a theology, the narrower the God is defined, i.e. more exclusive.

Unfortunately (to you) the "richer" a theology claims to be, the more constricting it is on God.

I have a friend whose god has not be defined by any written literature. But he rejected the Christian God. So, his god MUST be defined somewhere in his mind.

Must it be defined? It seems to me a person of equal parts humility and security in his/her faith would not obsess over what God is, but be content with the belief that God simply is.

It is usually those of a more fearful bent that feels the need narrowly define God in terms they can understand, and thus, control.

Your friend sounds wise -- perhaps you could learn something from him?

 

[juvenissun]

Think: the water cycle on earth is the result of perfectly non-magical factors. The earth's mass, distance from the sun, etc. And I don't think we know enough of extrasolar planets to say the earth is unique in having a water cycle - maybe not even within those few light-years?

It is not meaningful to argue whether we understand the water cycle process or not. It is about the process which still functions on the earth. Remind you that Venus and Mars had this process BEFORE.

OK, I am not going to reply more comments on this issue.

 

[juvenissun]

Originally Posted by juvenissun

OK, I browsed the Chromosome 2 on the wikipedia. So, the difference between ape and human is on that chromosome.

Not really. It is only one difference and not very important for all I know about genetics.

And we also know how much differences are there between ape and human.

Technically, we are apes but taxonomy isn't the point of this discussion, so...

So does that say Chromosome 2 is responsible for all the differences?

No.

Thank you for the clarification.

First, is the mechanism of the genome "fusion" well known? I guess not. If not, then we only have a feature, but not a mechanism. If so, the nature of this evidence is no better than the morphological change of skulls, for example.

Second, the Chromosome 2 difference is not the only difference between ape and human. and the function of Chromosome 2 difference is not clear. AND we see how much differences are there between ape and human. I am not sure how to put this into a correct statement. But the Chromosome 2 difference between ape and human is NOT a strong evidence of evolution because it does not explain the huge differences between the two species.

 

[juvenissun]

Which leads to our problem -- the utter hubris that someone of finite understanding can "understand" God, let alone "specify" Him accurately and comprehensively.

Exactly. That is why the Bible is so wonderful. The Books were written by human. But the contents are beyond human.

Must it be defined? It seems to me a person of equal parts humility and security in his/her faith would not obsess over what God is, but be content with the belief that God simply is.

If you have a concept of god in your mind, then the way of argument would be totally different. I am not ready to do that in this thread. To my friend, I pushed him to define his god better. And he was doing that. However, the more he said, the more problems surfaced. At this moment, he is still thinking what his god looks like. To create a theology is very difficult. Any theology.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Exactly. That is why the Bible is so wonderful. The Books were written by human. But the contents are beyond human.

Actually, the contents are all too human -- at least most of it's a good read.

If you have a concept of god in your mind, then the way of argument would be totally different. I am not ready to do that in this thread. To my friend, I pushed him to define his god better. And he was doing that. However, the more he said, the more problems surfaced. At this moment, he is still thinking what his god looks like. To create a theology is very difficult. Any theology.

Dismantling one seems easy enough -- why should he or you care what his god looks like?

 

[Baggins]

I did not do any literature search on that. The reason I said it is because people called astronomical feature (more than just the orbiting/rotation of the earth) for the explanation of Ice Ages. So, it would be perfectly reasonable to speculate the similar for an even bigger change like the Cambrian Explosion.

There is no need to explain any possible control by physics. It has to be there.

I think that is about the most unscientific statement I have ever read.

And with that the final nail goes into the coffin of Juve's claims to be a scientist.

 

[Baggins]

It depends on how do you look at it. The feature of "rapid emergence" of species seems indeed lasted for a longer period of time. But many new species simply appeared without any previous fossil record. No matter at what time in the Cambrian period they emerged, they still appeared in a sudden.

Do you never get tired of being wrong?

Proof, as if proof was needed, that you did not give the link I posted even a cursory glkance, not so much as a glance at the abstracts or even just looking at the pictures -which I wouldn't have thought was beyond you.

A number of papers I linked to are about exactly the things you are claiming don't exist - pre-cursors to the shelled fauna we see in the Cambrian.

Fossilisation of animals without hard parts is rare but now people know where to look and what to look for we are finding "Ediacaran" soft bodied faunnas of "root" metazoans in many areas.

Your last point is meaningless, everything appears "in a sudden" otherwise it wouldn't appear.

Species appear when they are fossilised, what we are now looking for, and finding, is soft bodied faunas that show the devolpment of teh metazoan body plans which used to appear to have sprung fully formed in the earliest Cambrian.

We now know that is a function of preservation and we can look for the evidence of how these animals evolved as a soft bodied faunas.

Of course if you believe molecular clocks the first metazoans appear about 1 billion years ago so the Cambrian explosion lasted about 500 million years , some explosion, although no fossils have been found prior to the late Pre-Cambrian ice age, probably because the multi-celled faunas are microscopic.

You'd ahve learnt about that as well if you'd read my link

 

[Baggins]

Besides, you overlooked one source of water: spring in the deep ocean. That type of water does not need to pass over the "land".

Do you think he might mean black smokers which just recycle local sea water?

I have never heard of deep ocean springs, the deep ocean is an igneous province with no connection to continental geology.

What can he mean???

 

[Baggins]

First, is the mechanism of the genome "fusion" well known? I guess not. .

*snip*

Instead of guessing, why don't you actually read something about it.

It is statements like this that make you a figure of fun here.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

There's still a large difference between "no god is needed" and there is no god. I understand the principle of acting as if there is no god because "no god is needed", but I don't buy it. I'll leave you to your "pile of horse manure" theory.

As I've said before, God is more than a god of just the gaps, so I won't go down that road.

Of course god is needed, I admit that. She is the comfort blanket to get weak minded people scared of their own mortality through life, and an excellent job she does of it. Apart that is from the irrational though that accompanies her.