The science of creationism: where is it?

[biggles53]

I would like to see (read) another example of animal chromosome fusion. It would be better if it is similar to the one described for chimp and human.

No problem.

Here's one that took about 9 seconds to find.

It involves the chromosome fusion which was responsible for the kulan, an animal from Turkmenistan, having 54 chromosomes, while its 'relative' the onager (horse family) has 56.

There are many, many other examples. It's not hard to find them....

Chromosomal polymorphism in <i>Equus hemionu</i><i>s</i>

As I said earlier...welcome to the ranks of evolutionary theory!

 

[juvenissun]

It seem the ape man Washington has abandoned this thread. So, there is no point for me to focus on the OP any more.

For those who like to learn some geology, you may keep asking questions in a good manner. Otherwise, this would be it for me.

 

[juvenissun]

No problem.

Here's one that took about 9 seconds to find.

It involves the chromosome fusion which was responsible for the kulan, an animal from Turkmenistan, having 54 chromosomes, while its 'relative' the onager (horse family) has 56.

There are many, many other examples. It's not hard to find them....

Chromosomal polymorphism in <i>Equus hemionu</i><i>s</i>

As I said earlier...welcome to the ranks of evolutionary theory!

OK, I read the short abst. It seems suggested that this chromosome fusion is a very common feature. It can even be observed during the life time of involved animals. Is that right?

I still like to see this process be demonstrated in lab. It seems to me that we have never witnessed the process, but only see the result.

 

[biggles53]

OK, I read the short abst. It seems suggested that this chromosome fusion is a very common feature. It can even be observed during the life time of involved animals. Is that right?

I still like to see this process be demonstrated in lab. It seems to me that we have never witnessed the process, but only see the result.

And why would that be a problem?

Aren't you claiming to be a scientist? A geologist, no less? You trying to tell me that, unless you "witness" the milions-of-years process involved in producing the various rock structures we see now, you just don't accept that they happened..!?

Let me also remind you that, in your country at least, you put people TO DEATH on the basis of similar evidence...ie, that wasn't directly "witnessed"....

If you were truly a scientist, you would know that direct observation is NOT the only way to collect evidence!

By the way, I note that you have neatly sidestepped MY contribution in this thread (ERV's).....no comment?

 

[anagnostic]

It seem the ape man Washington has abandoned this thread. So, there is no point for me to focus on the OP any more.

For those who like to learn some geology, you may keep asking questions in a good manner. Otherwise, this would be it for me.

Q1. I think you said you were a geology professor - where do you teach (which institution)?

Q2. Please tell me how long you think an incised meander, such as the one in my avatar (Horsehoe Bends, Colorado River, Arizona) might take.

 

[Alunyel]

OK, I read the short abst. It seems suggested that this chromosome fusion is a very common feature. It can even be observed during the life time of involved animals. Is that right?

I still like to see this process be demonstrated in lab. It seems to me that we have never witnessed the process, but only see the result.

If you and a mate were walking down the street and you saw a burnt out building and your mate turned 'round and said "Look at that building, it blatnetly caught fire at some point!", would you then turn around and say "We have never witnessed the process of that building burning down, but only the result. That means that the building never caught fire."?

You don't need to re-create something in a lab, if the evidence is freely observable (In multiple instances). Only when the evidence can't be freely observed, do you need to re-create that evidence under controlled lab conditions.

 

[Washington]

It seem the ape man Washington has abandoned this thread. So, there is no point for me to focus on the OP any more.

Haven't abandoned it all. It's just that the various tangents people went off on were either of little interest to me or I felt they didn't deserve to be interrupted. If anyone would like to readdress the OP---show me the actual science that's being done to support creationism---I'd be more than happy to jump in. But so far, nada. Mere seat-of-the-pants interpretations, one of the creationists main tools, just don't cut it.

 

[juvenissun]

Q1. I think you said you were a geology professor - where do you teach (which institution)?

Q2. Please tell me how long you think an incised meander, such as the one in my avatar (Horsehoe Bends, Colorado River, Arizona) might take.

According to classical geology models, we are looking at the following general processes in terms of time sequence:

a. deposition: layers of sediments
b. lithification: during burial
c. uplifting: (may partially overlap with b.)
d. stages of meandering: (may partially overlap with c.)
e. entrenching: (may partially overlap with c, and d.)

The above sequence is the history model of the interested area. So, from what stage to what stage is the time interval which you called its "age"?

If you are only interested in the time period for stage e. in this particular area, then you are having a narrow and incomplete view. The answer to the time period of stage e, is in fact, intertwined closely with stage c. and d.

Think about a river which flows on the flood plain of Nebraska (4000 ft high) today. That is at the stage d. The uplifting of the plateau has already happened at least a few million years ago. But, the river is not entrenching at all today. This feature goes against your simply model of your pet landform. Millions of years has passed, yet the river did not cut one inch down.

I know you are not thinking so much. But what I said is only part of the process involved in the background of creating such a landform. With this understanding, then you can start to think about the process of river erosion.

 

[juvenissun]

Haven't abandoned it all. It's just that the various tangents people went off on were either of little interest to me or I felt they didn't deserve to be interrupted. If anyone would like to readdress the OP---show me the actual science that's being done to support creationism---I'd be more than happy to jump in. But so far, nada. Mere seat-of-the-pants interpretations, one of the creationists main tools, just don't cut it.

There are two discussions of "scientific" study going on in this thread now. Do you want to open a third one? I will take care of yours first.

 

[juvenissun]

And why would that be a problem?

Aren't you claiming to be a scientist? A geologist, no less? You trying to tell me that, unless you "witness" the milions-of-years process involved in producing the various rock structures we see now, you just don't accept that they happened..!?

Let me also remind you that, in your country at least, you put people TO DEATH on the basis of similar evidence...ie, that wasn't directly "witnessed"....

If you were truly a scientist, you would know that direct observation is NOT the only way to collect evidence!

By the way, I note that you have neatly sidestepped MY contribution in this thread (ERV's).....no comment?

Serious problem.

If the chromosome fusion is such a common process, how come we do not see more of it happened during the human evolution?

Sorry I overlooked the ERV's stuff. I do not know what it is. If you like to explain it more, I would like to give it a thought.

 

[Alunyel]

The ERV (Endogenous Retrovirus) is a virus that plants its DNA into the genome of the host.

It then "tricks" the mechanism that copies the host's DNA into copying the virus DNA, too. (All a virus wants to do is copy itself.) Because the viral DNA is embedded into the DNA of the host, it's permanently stuck there, in the host's genome.

The odds of it planting itself into the same spot in 2 different animals (with similar genomes, such as a chimp and a man) is virtually impossible. It'll never embed itself in the same position in 2 different animals.

We can recognise the viral DNA within a genome, we can know what parts of a genome are left from the virus.

However, what we find in the human and chimp genomes, are ERV DNA in exactly the same places in our genome. This means that the ERV embedded itself into our common ancestor, and not into either us, or chimps. The ERV DNA is still there in humans and chimps, leftover from when it embedded itself in our common ancestor's DNA.

Hope that explains it a bit clearer.

It embeds itself... kinda like...

Did you ever play Final Fantasy 8? Well, there's this mission where you have to decouple a train and put another train in its place, imagine the bottom train is a strand of the host's DNA and the the top train is the ERV DNA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBhIABZYlBE&feature=related

Skip to about 31:30.

 

[anagnostic]

According to classical geology models, we are looking at the following general processes in terms of time sequence:

a. deposition: layers of sediments
b. lithification: during burial
c. uplifting: (may partially overlap with b.)
d. stages of meandering: (may partially overlap with c.)
e. entrenching: (may partially overlap with c, and d.)

The above sequence is the history model of the interested area. So, from what stage to what stage is the time interval which you called its "age"?

If you are only interested in the time period for stage e. in this particular area, then you are having a narrow and incomplete view. The answer to the time period of stage e, is in fact, intertwined closely with stage c. and d.

Think about a river which flows on the flood plain of Nebraska (4000 ft high) today. That is at the stage d. The uplifting of the plateau has already happened at least a few million years ago. But, the river is not entrenching at all today. This feature goes against your simply model of your pet landform. Millions of years has passed, yet the river did not cut one inch down.

I know you are not thinking so much. But what I said is only part of the process involved in the background of creating such a landform. With this understanding, then you can start to think about the process of river erosion.

We seem to be at cross purposes here. I merely wanted to clarify whether you accept the YEC position.

Clearly you don't, as you accept time scales in millions of years.

I have no idea what 'simply model of your pet landform' means - but I suspect it's a putdown. That's Ok - I like the way the landform demonstrates so 'simply' how we know the world is older than 6000 years.

 

[Hespera]

According to classical geology models, we are looking at the following general processes in terms of time sequence:

a. deposition: layers of sediments
b. lithification: during burial
c. uplifting: (may partially overlap with b.)
d. stages of meandering: (may partially overlap with c.)
e. entrenching: (may partially overlap with c, and d.)

The above sequence is the history model of the interested area. So, from what stage to what stage is the time interval which you called its "age"?

If you are only interested in the time period for stage e. in this particular area, then you are having a narrow and incomplete view. The answer to the time period of stage e, is in fact, intertwined closely with stage c. and d.

Think about a river which flows on the flood plain of Nebraska (4000 ft high) today. That is at the stage d. The uplifting of the plateau has already happened at least a few million years ago. But, the river is not entrenching at all today. This feature goes against your simply model of your pet landform. Millions of years has passed, yet the river did not cut one inch down.

I know you are not thinking so much. But what I said is only part of the process involved in the background of creating such a landform. With this understanding, then you can start to think about the process of river erosion.

For those who may think that the description of a river in Nebraska makes sense we offer the following comments.

Nebraska was shallow tropical ocean up through the Cretaceous. Giant sea turtles nesting on the beaches of Wyoming, that sort of thing.

There was a general uplifting, the old sea bed is high above the world sea level now.

The uplift of the rocky mountains produced the source of nearly all the sediment that now is thousands of feet deep over the old seabed. Rivers carried it out across the plain and deposited it there, building the sediment layers deeper and deeper.

A river carrying a lot of sediment will, as any actual geologist knows, aggrade the channel. Ancient stream beds in western nebraska are deeply buried under the silt of newer ones.

And for that matter, a number of them flow thru deep valleys, others are shallow and flow in wide braided channels. (which river is juv talking about)?

The simplistic and untrue statement that ANY river flowing across Nebvaska has not cut its channel deeper can be addressed by simply driving across the state on I 80. Hmm! This road follows the Platte River, and gosh, you can see that it is a flat valley nice wide flood plain and un, you can see the sides of the valley to north and south. If not satisfied you can check the white river, the niobrara, check them all.

Its a bit counterintuitive but... in the relatively dry years, a river will cut its channel deeper, it wetter years, it will tend to aggrade the channel.

as Juv says..."With this understanding, then you can start to think about the process of river erosion.[/quote]"

 

[dewaddict84]

Think about a river which flows on the flood plain of Nebraska (4000 ft high) today. That is at the stage d. The uplifting of the plateau has already happened at least a few million years ago. But, the river is not entrenching at all today. This feature goes against your simply model of your pet landform. Millions of years has passed, yet the river did not cut one inch down.

Actually the Platte river runs through some bluffs near Omaha right before it connects with the Missouri. A few people that built their houses at the top of the bluff have had them fall down into the river as the eats away at the hillside. Futhermore, while it isn't nearly as troublesome, the Platte does try to meander into fields and needs to be straightened now and then.

And while the Platte does have a wide floodplain after all it's meandering, insinuating that all of Nebraska is a floodplain is a bit disingenuous. I'll assume that you simply mis-spoke.

Did you ever play Final Fantasy 8?

NO. (7 and 9 were so much better)

 

[Hespera]

Actually the Platte river runs through some bluffs near Omaha right before it connects with the Missouri. A few people that built their houses at the top of the bluff have had them fall down into the river as the eats away at the hillside. Futhermore, while it isn't nearly as troublesome, the Platte does try to meander into fields and needs to be straightened now and then.

And while the Platte does have a wide floodplain after all it's meandering, insinuating that all of Nebraska is a floodplain is a bit disingenuous. I'll assume that you simply mis-spoke.

NO. (7 and 9 were so much better)

The Platte River cuts right along the base of a, yes BLUFF at Scottsbluff Nebraska too. the bluffs are soft sandstone, material washed down millions of years ago from the rockies.

When the Platte floods, it aggrades the flood plain. Your reference to cutting the bank isnt an example of downcutting the channel, its just meandering. The net effect will probably to build up the level of the floodplain. I probably should know, but I think those bluffs are left over from the ice age and are not part of any floodplain as such.

As for what he said about Nebraska as floodplain, it sure isnt all the SAME floodplain, but I believe it would be accurate to say that essentiailly anything you see in the state was part of some river's floodplain at some time. The whole state is built up from sediments washed down from the mountains. So he is more or less right about that. More or less.

 

[juvenissun]

The ERV (Endogenous Retrovirus) is a virus that plants its DNA into the genome of the host.

It then "tricks" the mechanism that copies the host's DNA into copying the virus DNA, too. (All a virus wants to do is copy itself.) Because the viral DNA is embedded into the DNA of the host, it's permanently stuck there, in the host's genome.

The odds of it planting itself into the same spot in 2 different animals (with similar genomes, such as a chimp and a man) is virtually impossible. It'll never embed itself in the same position in 2 different animals.

We can recognise the viral DNA within a genome, we can know what parts of a genome are left from the virus.

However, what we find in the human and chimp genomes, are ERV DNA in exactly the same places in our genome. This means that the ERV embedded itself into our common ancestor, and not into either us, or chimps. The ERV DNA is still there in humans and chimps, leftover from when it embedded itself in our common ancestor's DNA.

Hope that explains it a bit clearer.

It embeds itself... kinda like...

Did you ever play Final Fantasy 8? Well, there's this mission where you have to decouple a train and put another train in its place, imagine the bottom train is a strand of the host's DNA and the the top train is the ERV DNA.

OK, Thank you.

So, my question than is still an old one: Do we see this ERV DNA in most (or all) of the ape species who have common ancestor? If not, why not? Why did it only happen on chimp and human?

 

[juvenissun]

We seem to be at cross purposes here. I merely wanted to clarify whether you accept the YEC position.

Clearly you don't, as you accept time scales in millions of years.

I have no idea what 'simply model of your pet landform' means - but I suspect it's a putdown. That's Ok - I like the way the landform demonstrates so 'simply' how we know the world is older than 6000 years.

OK, I said too much. Your question is, in fact, much simpler and I think I have answered that several times in this thread. This is the last time.

YEC does not mean one believes the 6000 years age of anything.

 

[juvenissun]

For those who may think that the description of a river in Nebraska makes sense we offer the following comments.

Nebraska was shallow tropical ocean up through the Cretaceous. Giant sea turtles nesting on the beaches of Wyoming, that sort of thing.

There was a general uplifting, the old sea bed is high above the world sea level now.

The uplift of the rocky mountains produced the source of nearly all the sediment that now is thousands of feet deep over the old seabed. Rivers carried it out across the plain and deposited it there, building the sediment layers deeper and deeper.

A river carrying a lot of sediment will, as any actual geologist knows, aggrade the channel. Ancient stream beds in western nebraska are deeply buried under the silt of newer ones.

And for that matter, a number of them flow thru deep valleys, others are shallow and flow in wide braided channels. (which river is juv talking about)?

The simplistic and untrue statement that ANY river flowing across Nebvaska has not cut its channel deeper can be addressed by simply driving across the state on I 80. Hmm! This road follows the Platte River, and gosh, you can see that it is a flat valley nice wide flood plain and un, you can see the sides of the valley to north and south. If not satisfied you can check the white river, the niobrara, check them all.

Its a bit counterintuitive but... in the relatively dry years, a river will cut its channel deeper, it wetter years, it will tend to aggrade the channel.

as Juv says..."With this understanding, then you can start to think about the process of river erosion.

"[/QUOTE]

Very good. So you noticed the feature of river terraces, which is very common in those areas. This feature gives ADDITIONAL meaning to the geology background. It increases, but not decreases, its complexity.

 

[juvenissun]

Actually the Platte river runs through some bluffs near Omaha right before it connects with the Missouri. A few people that built their houses at the top of the bluff have had them fall down into the river as the eats away at the hillside. Futhermore, while it isn't nearly as troublesome, the Platte does try to meander into fields and needs to be straightened now and then.

And while the Platte does have a wide floodplain after all it's meandering, insinuating that all of Nebraska is a floodplain is a bit disingenuous. I'll assume that you simply mis-spoke.

NO. (7 and 9 were so much better)

Agree.

So, what was the status of the Grand Canyon area when the Colorado River started it down cutting? How was it different from, for example, the Nebraska area?

 

[Alunyel]

OK, Thank you.

So, my question than is still an old one: Do we see this ERV DNA in most (or all) of the ape species who have common ancestor? If not, why not? Why did it only happen on chimp and human?

We see different ERVs all over the animal kingdom, there's not just one type of ERV.

www.google.com

It's your friend, research things*.

Then answer the initial question, how does Creationism explain the ERVs that are found in the exact same places in human and chimp genomes, as well as other species that have a common ancestor?


*From multiple sources, not creationist propaganda, pseudo-scientific sites.