Aron-Ra v. BoranJarami

[Nooj]

These usually account for no more than the apparent differences between siblings who would otherwise be identical were it not for these mutations.

For the purposes of clarification, are not the differences between siblings due to random recombination at the point of conception?

 

[Aron-Ra]

For the purposes of clarification, are not the differences between siblings due to random recombination at the point of conception?

That too. Its hard to illustrate what I mean when we're dealing with the genes of two parents and all that. But if it weren't for mutations, all the children of the same parents would be based on the exact same genetics. Recombination would only account for so much variance in that case.

 

[MrEvol]

Well, how very Christian of you. Impressive too. From Newbie to banned in one post. Nice job.

we should talk about what your dad did to u as a child...

 

[SLP]

But the mutations are not the ~128 per zygote mentioned. The mutations that produce alleles have generally occurred well before the formation of the zygote. Most new mutations are neutral, certainly in terms of phenoptype.
Most sibling differences are, in fact, produced via recombination events.

As we grow, and our cells continue to replicate, we accumate more mutations, which is why even identical twins tend to become increasingly distinct the older they get

Yeah, that is wrong, too. Somatic mutations will have nothing to do with age-related appearance issues.

Sorry.

 

[BoranJarami]

Sorry for takeing so long to post. I've had alot of things going on. This post is just initial comments. I will have to take some time to look over the information you have given me and write a more complete response.

First, I do not contest that mutations occure or that they can change the physical makeup of the creature/plant. My problem is that there is a wide difference in the number of chromasomes of different organisms. The vast majority of mutations deal with substitutions and reversals, haveing no net effect on the amount of genetic material. There are also duplications within chromosomes which do not account for varied numbers of chromosomes.

The question is whether or not mutations of Chromosomes happen and if they have ever been shown to be benificial. While I have yet to look at the specific cases you presented (and I will), I doubt they are examples of such mutations. The only such mutation I am aware of is the cause of down syndrome (where there is an extra chromosome). This can hardly be called benificial.

Second, the explainations that I have seen for irreduceably complex structures have been far from compelling (though I have not delved into this subject too deeply). Perhaps I just got ahold of some poor examples of the refutations. Why don't we start with the basics, the flagellum of the bacteria.

Third, I understand that the changes between species would have had to be small and take place over many generations, this is why I did not ask you to give evidence that the significant differnces evolved in a sigle generation, I just asked for evidence from the fossile record that it happened at all. I gave you specific examples of what I am looking for (though you are not limited to these) to explain what I am looking for. If all organisms have a common ancestry, then there should be evidence of it in the fossil record (at least for those that can leave fossils).

Fourth, unfortunatly for me I did not take the same classes that you have, we will have to discuss that here. I understand that radiometric dateing methods show that the earth is very old, but how reliable are these dateing methods? There are, of course, a number of other issues to cionsider on this, but let's not get into that yet.

Fifth, I see no benifit in takeing on too many issues at one time. I believe it would be far better to discuss one topic at a time and give it our full attention. As such I would recommend first dealing with the topic of genetics, then moving on to another topic when we have finished with it. Does this sound reasonable?

 

[Tomk80]

Seems good to me.

Regarding genetics, you asked a very specific question regarding the fusion of chromosomes. I think there are some basic issues to address here:

1. You seem under the impression that chromosome fusions must be beneficial. However, this is not necessarily true. Two things must happen for chromosome fusion to become part of the gene pool of a species. First, the chromosomes must fuse (duh). Second, they must spread through the gene pool. However, such fusions are not necessarily either detrimental or beneficial, they may just be neutral. To spread in the gene pool, they do not have to be beneficial either. Any mutation that is not so detrimental as to inhibit its carriers to reproduce, can be spread in the gene pool. This can include neutral mutations or mutations that are slightly detrimental.

2. With that out of the way, we know of genetic fusions happening in wild and domestic populations of species. For example, the somali wild ass can have 50 or 51 chromosomes (IIRC, might be a different chromosome count though).

3. Equines (horse-like organisms like horses, asses and zebras) are very interesting in that respect, as this genus has a wide variety of chromosome counts and connected effects. The fusions in the wild ass have no effects (at least that we know of). Furthermore, domestic horses have 64 chromosomes while przwalski horses have 66. The interesting thing is that their offspring is fertile, other then for example the domesticated ass, which has 62 chromosomes but only rarely produces fertile offspring with domesticated horses (although this does happen).

4. Thus, from the above we can derive that chromosome fusions are not necessarily impossible. This leads to testable predictions, one of which is in human/chimps. Humans have 46 chromosomes, chimps 48. If humans have a common ancestor with chimps, such a fusion must have taken place (a fusion is the most likely explanation because all other great apes have 48 chromosomes, humans are the only ape with 46). To test this, we can look whether we can find the endings of chromosomes (called telomeres) and the centers of them (called centromeres) in the human chromosome. And we do. The human chromosome 2 has two centromeres (ie, two 'centers'), and in the middle of the chromosome 2 we find two opposing telomeres. We have, as it were, discovered the duct tape used for the fusion in the center of chromosome 2. We can even align this chromosome with the two ape chromosomes it comes from, in which case we get a perfect match.



So, fusions do not need to be beneficial to spread in a population, they can be neutral. They have been observed in nature and the remnants of a relatively recent fusion site can be found in the human chromosomes, indicating that one of these happened after the human lineage split off from the chimp lineage.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Sorry for takeing so long to post. I've had alot of things going on. This post is just initial comments. I will have to take some time to look over the information you have given me and write a more complete response.

Remember, you have two weeks to digest this information before you have to reply to it, and of course, I would give you even more time if you needed it. So don't rush yourself or post out-of-step.

First, I do not contest that mutations occure or that they can change the physical makeup of the creature/plant. My problem is that there is a wide difference in the number of chromasomes of different organisms. The vast majority of mutations deal with substitutions and reversals, haveing no net effect on the amount of genetic material. There are also duplications within chromosomes which do not account for varied numbers of chromosomes.

The question is whether or not mutations of Chromosomes happen and if they have ever been shown to be benificial. While I have yet to look at the specific cases you presented (and I will), I doubt they are examples of such mutations. The only such mutation I am aware of is the cause of down syndrome (where there is an extra chromosome). This can hardly be called benificial.

Dr. Ken Miller discussed chromosomal variance, both as an expert witness at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, and subsequently, at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. You might want to check that out too. But if you have questions for me, remember to please make them specific.

Second, the explainations that I have seen for irreduceably complex structures have been far from compelling (though I have not delved into this subject too deeply). Perhaps I just got ahold of some poor examples of the refutations. Why don't we start with the basics, the flagellum of the bacteria.

That's fine. In the meantime, since your general concern wasn't addressed in my original post, and until you've posed specific questions for me to answer directly in my own words, let me offer you this relevant snippet from my discussion with Casey Luskin B.S. from the Discovery Instutute, wherein I quoted the ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover:

"As expert testimony revealed, the qualification on what is meant by “irreducible complexity” renders it meaningless as a criticism of evolution. In fact, the theory of evolution proffers exaptation as a well-recognized, well-documented explanation for how systems with multiple parts could have evolved through natural means. ....Professor Behe attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional fiat, ignoring as he does so abundant evidence which refutes his argument. ...tructures and processes that are claimed to be ‘irreducibly’ complex typically are not on closer inspection. ...Complex biochemical systems can be built up from simpler systems through natural selection. ...The complex biochemical cascade resulting in blood clotting has been explained in this fashion. ...As irreducible complexity is only a negative argument against evolution, it is refutable and accordingly testable, unlike ID, by showing that there are intermediate structures with selectable functions that could have evolved into the allegedly irreducibly complex systems. ....Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex.
First, with regard to the bacterial flagellum, Dr. Miller pointed to peer reviewed studies that identified a possible precursor to the bacterial flagellum, a subsystem that was fully functional, namely the Type-III Secretory System. Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich admited that there is serious scientific research on the question of whether the bacterial flagellum evolved into the Type-III Secretary System, the Type-III Secretory System into the bacterial flagellum, or whether they both evolved from a common ancestor. None of this research or thinking involves ID. In fact, Professor Minnich testified about his research as follows: “we’re looking at the function of these systems and how they could have been derived one from the other. And it’s a legitimate scientific inquiry.” ...We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution.
...We therefore find that Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large.”
--U.S. Disctrict Judge John E. Jones III

Third, I understand that the changes between species would have had to be small and take place over many generations, this is why I did not ask you to give evidence that the significant differnces evolved in a sigle generation, I just asked for evidence from the fossile record that it happened at all. I gave you specific examples of what I am looking for (though you are not limited to these) to explain what I am looking for. If all organisms have a common ancestry, then there should be evidence of it in the fossil record (at least for those that can leave fossils).

This I can certainly show you. In fact, one of the primary reasons I'm interested in paleontology is that I want the general public to know what a wealth of transitional fossils there really are. Professional creationists habitually deny these even could exist, but we have hundreds of compelling examples to show according to the strictest possible definition I know for what a transitional species is:

“A transitional fossil is one that looks like it’s from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage...”​

I copied this definition from a young-earth creation site, and it happens to be accurate from a biological standpoint too. So we can agree on this definition. would only add to it that transitional species don't have to be extinct.

Now, to address you question about the origin of birds, let me first say that the word, "reptile" is no longer meaningful from a cladistic standpoint. Synapsids, like Dimetrodon, are not considered "true" reptiles. True reptiles are diapsids, meaning their lineage is identified by two temporal fenestra, being holes in the sides of their skulls. Synapsids, like ourselves, have only one of these.

Modern diapsids fall into two main branches. Lepidosauria (which include lizards among other, mostly extinct things) and Archosauria, who's lineage I have illustrated here. The link is pretty old now, and should be updated. There have been a number of interesting discoveries not listed here, but it should give you a good idea what sort of transition we're looking at.

Within Archosauria is Dinosauria, and within Dinosauria are the aves. Birds had to be reclassified as dinosaurs because dramatic discoveries in the late 1990s revealed that it is no longer possible to define all dinosaurs collectively without describing birds at the same time. This holds true even when describing certain sub-groups within Dinosaurs too. Consequently, birds are a kind of dinosaur just as ducks are a kind of bird.

Similarly, humans are highly-advanced primates, and for the same reasons. Not only is it impossible to define all apes (living or dead) collectively without describing humans along with them, but we have a more complete fossil sequence than virtually any other animal lineage. There hasn't been a link still "missing" between humans and other apes in decades. Really the biggest trick behind identifying fossils humans is trying to find a consistent definition for what makes us human to begin with.

Each of these is an "ape", [Hominioidea]. Which ones are human? Some scientists consider all but a couple of the skulls above to be human, and some creationists reject all but a couple of the skulls below. How we determine our humanity in this case?

Fourth, unfortunatly for me I did not take the same classes that you have, we will have to discuss that here. I understand that radiometric dateing methods show that the earth is very old, but how reliable are these dateing methods? There are, of course, a number of other issues to cionsider on this, but let's not get into that yet.

Alright, I will await your specific questions in your formal reply.

Fifth, I see no benifit in takeing on too many issues at one time. I believe it would be far better to discuss one topic at a time and give it our full attention. As such I would recommend first dealing with the topic of genetics, then moving on to another topic when we have finished with it. Does this sound reasonable?

Sure, although I haven't taken genetics yet, and, as SLP noted, that is obviously not my strongest suit. If you want to concentrate on any one thing, we can. But feel free to inquire about those things that genuinely concern you most, and I'll be happy to address those to the best of my ability.

 

[RichardT]

Hey look everyone, a non beneficial mutation!

(sorry, I just skimmed the thread, didn't really read anything and saw this image and decided to comment on it.)

 

[michabo]

Hey look everyone, a non beneficial mutation!

(sorry, I just skimmed the thread, didn't really read anything and saw this image and decided to comment on it.)

Don't worry, your first comment demonstrated clearly that you hadn't read anything.

 

[RichardT]

Don't worry, your first comment demonstrated clearly that you hadn't read anything.

Alright cool lol

 

[BoranJarami]

Tomk80: cound I get a sourse for this information?

 

[michabo]

Tomk80: cound I get a sourse for this information?

Which part? Tomk made 5 points.

 

[RichardT]

Tomk80: cound I get a source for this information?

fixed

 

[Tomk80]

Tomk80: cound I get a sourse for this information?

On point 1 I think this is fairly basic. No sources at this point, I don't really have any accept the advice to read a good book on genetics. But if you have points you want to discuss in that I will happily try to explain myself further and perhaps then be able to give some more specific sources.

On point 2: The somali wild ass: http://medicine.ucsd.edu/cpa/somalifs.htm. Go to paragraph 13, specifically:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] A much more extensive study of the chromosomes, including banding patterns, was done by Houck et al. (1998). It involves a pedigree of Somali Wild Asses at the San Diego Zoo and revealed novel findings. Animals with 2n=62, 63, and 64 chromosomes were identified. In addition, some animals had a heritable pericentric inversion of chromosome # 2, and animals with 63 chromosomes were fertile. It was presumed that fission in a heterochromatic region was the mechanism of this chromosomal variety.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
There are other examples, but I think this is a good starting point. You might also want to google equine karyotype.

Point 3: Here is a good introductory on equine karyotyping (again paragraph 13). Some information on the przwalski/domestic horse hybrids you can find here. I had some better sources for the latter, but seem to have lost them.

Point 4: This is a source explaining the fusion of human chromosome 2.

If you have any specific points you want to have more sources about, just ask.
[/FONT]

 

[Schroeder]

But the mutations are not the ~128 per zygote mentioned. The mutations that produce alleles have generally occurred well before the formation of the zygote. Most new mutations are neutral, certainly in terms of phenoptype.
Most sibling differences are, in fact, produced via recombination events.



Yeah, that is wrong, too. Somatic mutations will have nothing to do with age-related appearance issues.

Sorry.

two mistakes already nice start for aron ra. not that i would know for certain he is. He should clarify wether he is or is not correct. And i would say is first part about the mutations and his examples were poor and show absolutly now proof or evidence for the THEORY. He did tell me once that it only needs to happen ONCE no matter the odds of it happening. that really solid proof. but good luck Boran. Dont let not essential proof of evolution be twisted into proof of the theory, they try this all the time.

 

[Nooj]

We all make mistakes. It's really shallow of you to focus on the mistakes and not the relevant points.

 

[Aron-Ra]

two mistakes already nice start for aron ra. not that i would know for certain he is. He should clarify wether he is or is not correct.

For all I know, I am. But, while I must admit I've learned more from the debates I've lost than those I won, I still think it would be foolish to argue against a specialist in genetics when I haven't even taken a single class in the subject yet. How about you, Schoeder? Why do you feel so comfortable doing so?

Because let me tell you something else about science: You'll never get away with asserting your beliefs as if they were fact, like you can from behind the podium in a church. In any place of religious indoctrination, you're assured there will be enough head-bobbing, mouth-breathing, zombie wanna-believers to silence anyone with enough presence of mind to challenge the speaker with queries like, "How do you know that?" But in science, you'd better choose your words carefully, because your whole audience is out to challenge every comment and expose any error they find. I prefer it that way. Though I'm sure you'll never understand why, I would prefer to be proven wrong publicly than to be wrong and never know it.

And i would say is first part about the mutations and his examples were poor and show absolutly now proof or evidence for the THEORY.

This should be good. What would you consider to be proof of evolution? And why did you capitolize "theory"? Is it because you aren't aware that a theory encompasses an entire body of knowledge including, not only a whole bundle of tried-and-true hypotheses, but also all relevant natural laws? In other words, saying something is "just" a theory is exactly like saying something is "just" as well-established as anything can be. I have the feeling you've been told this before.

He did tell me once that it only needs to happen ONCE no matter the odds of it happening. that really solid proof.

What are the odds against winning the lottery in one lifetime?

but good luck Boran. Dont let not essential proof of evolution be twisted into proof of the theory, they try this all the time.

What are you talking about? What is "essential proof of evolution" and how does that differ from the theory? How would essential proof of atoms differ from atomic theory?

I know you won't answer all these questions, Shroeder. You can't. But its because I know why you can't that I ask them anyway.

 

[Aron-Ra]

But the mutations are not the ~128 per zygote mentioned. The mutations that produce alleles have generally occurred well before the formation of the zygote. Most new mutations are neutral, certainly in terms of phenoptype.
Most sibling differences are, in fact, produced via recombination events.

Just for the record, that's what I thought I said. I don't think I made any error here.

Yeah, that is wrong, too. Somatic mutations will have nothing to do with age-related appearance issues.

This one I think I would concede without contest. But I would still like to know what does cause identical twins to "grow apart" as it were.

 

[SLP]

Just for the record, that's what I thought I said. I don't think I made any error here.

Perhaps it was just the wording. If you meant that, ultimately, mutation produces the variation, then I would agree. As worded, it just did not seem that was what you meant.

This one I think I would concede without contest. But I would still like to know what does cause identical twins to "grow apart" as it were.

The aging process, response to environemnt, etc. In addition, the time at which the zygote cleaves to produce monozygotic twins will affect the "identical-ness" of identical twins. The earlier this happens, the less "identical" they will be. The differences may be apparent early in life, or may take longer to manifest themselves. My oldest sisters are identical twins. And up until about their 10th year or so, they were really identical. As they aged, especially after puberty, their physical appearance changed substantially, as did their personalities. Now, they look 'related', but I doubt anyone would, on first seeing them, assume that they were identical twins.
Just goes to show you the impact of 'nurture' in the whole nature v. nurture concept.

 

[Schroeder]

For all I know, I am. But, while I must admit I've learned more from the debates I've lost than those I won, I still think it would be foolish to argue against a specialist in genetics when I haven't even taken a single class in the subject yet. How about you, Schoeder? Why do you feel so comfortable doing so?

I merely thought you should for your sack clarify what you saidf since it was challenged by a fellow evo. I do so, so as you, can learn, it makes no matter whether i muddle along or not its for my benifit is it not. SO you are a lot more learned of science then me. you arrogance is rather large. you seem to think you know EVERYTHING on planet earth.

Because let me tell you something else about science: You'll never get away with asserting your beliefs as if they were fact, like you can from behind the podium in a church. In any place of religious indoctrination, you're assured there will be enough head-bobbing, mouth-breathing, zombie wanna-believers to silence anyone with enough presence of mind to challenge the speaker with queries like, "How do you know that?" But in science, you'd better choose your words carefully, because your whole audience is out to challenge every comment and expose any error they find. I prefer it that way. Though I'm sure you'll never understand why, I would prefer to be proven wrong publicly than to be wrong and never know it.

For one when was the last time i brought the bible into it in saying it says this so it has to be true no matter what. i learned long ago this doesnt prove anything. I may at times bring up certain things in scripture but not as proof. And you do not assert the "theory" as fact. And you can find those head bobbing, nouth-breathing ect ect anywhere and in any subject so get off your high horse. That type of yap just doesnt work or prove anything.

This should be good. What would you consider to be proof of evolution? And why did you capitolize "theory"? Is it because you aren't aware that a theory encompasses an entire body of knowledge including, not only a whole bundle of tried-and-true hypotheses, but also all relevant natural laws? In other words, saying something is "just" a theory is exactly like saying something is "just" as well-established as anything can be. I have the feeling you've been told this before.
What are the odds against winning the lottery in one lifetime?

evolution is very evident, maybe you mean proof of the THEORY. seeig hoe you will not distingues from the two. I no what a theory is. take the theory of gravity, its a theory because there is no PHYSICAL evidence to make it a fact. SO it cant be tested and in science if it cant be tested it cant be said to be a fact. even though it is rather obviuose it is a fact because what goes up comes down. the theory on the other havnd supposedly as physical evidence out the yen yan yet its still a theory. maybe because most all of it is about evolution which doesnt prove the thoery happened. as for your odds like i said thats sure good prove of it. same odds that God created it all i would guess SO why is it not as pluasible.

What are you talking about? What is "essential proof of evolution" and how does that differ from the theory? How would essential proof of atoms differ from atomic theory?

as above evolution is shown all the time to make the theory seem true when it doesnt prove or show it at all. biology science doesnt prove the theory which is why you use geology to fix the problem.

I know you won't answer all these questions, Shroeder. You can't. But its because I know why you can't that I ask them anyway.

i cant answer them with science knowledge as in terms and what not only with what i have read and been given proof of the theory. As before you have not yet shown clear evidence for the thoery and the ones you have given are weak. strong families two toed families how do these show or prove anything. i suppose your get to that so i will read on.