Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Creationist Objections to Chromosome 2 fusion (Now Refuted!)

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 4
 [ 76 posts ] 
Creationist Objections to Chromosome 2 fusion (Now Refuted!)
Author Message
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3462Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Creationist Objections to Chromosome 2 fusion (Now Refut

Visaki wrote:
leroy wrote:In fact it is the other way around, you argue that we share a common ancestor with apes because we have similarities. If we were more similar to cows than to chimps then we would be cow-like mammals and you would argue that we share a close ancestor with cows.

Are you really complaining that science goes where the evidence leads? It sounds like it.

Also; if your aunt had balls then she'd be your uncle, or in clearer terms if things were different they'd be different.


This is a wonderful example of a counter-factual conditional logical fallacy. Since it is a logical fallacy, the argument it is trying to make can simply be dismissed.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Thu Sep 24, 2015 3:01 pm
YIM WWW
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Creationist Objections to Chromosome 2 fusion (Now Refut

SpecialFrog wrote:
Besides, if the molecular evidence indicated that we were more closely related to cows that would be a problem as it would mean that the molecular evidence was in conflict with the other evidence (physiology, fossils, etc.)

And you are still ignoring the fact that the genetic similarities between us and other apes is significant only because of what we know about genetics, such as what descent looks like in the genetic record, what mutations can happen and what they look like, etc.

You have to either claim that everything we know about molecular biology is wrong or claim that sometimes specific genetic similarities are due to descent and sometimes they are due to magic.


If we would have been genetically similar to cows, then we would also be similar in our physiology. I mean if to images have similar html codes, then it is obvious that these images would also look similar.

Fossils, what fossils?

The missing link between chimps and humans is still missing, the missing link between gorillas and humans is still missing, the missing link between orangutans and humans is still missing, the missing link between moneys and humans is still missing. Why are there so many modern-like apes and monkeys in the fossil record, and ZERO ancestors, why is the fossil record so biased in in preserving modern-like animals and in disappearing the ancestors of modern species?


But these is way off the original topic, do you all agree that the evidence related to the fusion at most proves that there was a fusion in the human genome at some point in the past?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Sep 24, 2015 7:54 pm
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: Creationist Objections to Chromosome 2 fusion (Now Refut

leroy wrote:
SpecialFrog wrote:
Besides, if the molecular evidence indicated that we were more closely related to cows that would be a problem as it would mean that the molecular evidence was in conflict with the other evidence (physiology, fossils, etc.)

And you are still ignoring the fact that the genetic similarities between us and other apes is significant only because of what we know about genetics, such as what descent looks like in the genetic record, what mutations can happen and what they look like, etc.

You have to either claim that everything we know about molecular biology is wrong or claim that sometimes specific genetic similarities are due to descent and sometimes they are due to magic.

If we would have been genetically similar to cows, then we would also be similar in our physiology. I mean if to images have similar html codes, then it is obvious that these images would also look similar.

Are you really claiming that evolution is unsound because if cows were similar to us genetically and physiologically then it would conclude that we were closely related? In what sense is that not a pointless argument? In what way would cows be cows if they were physiologically very similar to humans?

leroy wrote:Fossils, what fossils?

The missing link between chimps and humans is still missing, the missing link between gorillas and humans is still missing, the missing link between orangutans and humans is still missing, the missing link between moneys and humans is still missing.

"Missing link"? Is this the Victorian era?

There are thousands of fossils of primates that are closer to non-human apes than they are to humans yet have characteristics unique to humans (among living apes). We have no way of determining whether these fossils represent direct ancestors (and probably none of them do) but they demonstrate that the transition is possible and give us information about our ancestry.

leroy wrote:Why are there so many modern-like apes and monkeys in the fossil record, and ZERO ancestors, why is the fossil record so biased in in preserving modern-like animals and in disappearing the ancestors of modern species?

I don't know what you are saying here. What transitions do you think are missing?

leroy wrote:But these is way off the original topic, do you all agree that the evidence related to the fusion at most proves that there was a fusion in the human genome at some point in the past?

This has been answered by me and others.

SpecialFrog wrote:Surely at the least it shows that we had an ancestor undergo a chromosome fusion prior to which it had two chromosomes that are extremely similar to those in other apes. [specifically chromosomes 1 and 2]

Additionally, as has been pointed out, this fact doesn't exist in isolation. The part of my last post which you ignored said this:

SpecialFrog wrote:And you are still ignoring the fact that the genetic similarities between us and other apes are significant only because of what we know about genetics, such as what descent looks like in the genetic record, what mutations can happen and what they look like, etc.

Do you agree that we have evidence of this sort that is relevant when assessing genetic similarities?
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Thu Sep 24, 2015 8:16 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Creationist Objections to Chromosome 2 fusion (Now Refut

SpecialFrog wrote:
And you are still ignoring the fact that the genetic similarities between us and other apes is significant only because of what we know about genetics, such as what descent looks like in the genetic record, what mutations can happen and what they look like, etc.



No what I am saying is that there are many animals, some hare more similar to humans than other animals, chimps simply happened to be more similar to humans than any other animal, some animal necessary had to have that designation, these would be true regardless if evolution where true or not. If humans where significantly different then humans would not be ape like, and we would fit in some other clade.




[I don't know what you are saying here. What transitions do you think are missing?


I was very careful in not using the term “transitional” because evolutionists typically change the definition for transitional over and over again.
The fact is that few (if any) possible ancestors have been found in the fossil record, while millions of modern-like species have been found. This is true among apes and among all clades. For some reason the fossil record likes to perceive modern-like animals and evolutionary dead ends but doesn´t like to preserve ancestors.



Do you agree that we have evidence of this sort that is relevant when assessing genetic similarities?

sorry, I did not understand the question
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Sep 25, 2015 12:38 am
DutchLiam84User avatarPosts: 382Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 2:27 pmLocation: Eurasian Plate Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Creationist Objections to Chromosome 2 fusion (Now Refut

leroy wrote:I was very careful in not using the term “transitional” because evolutionists typically change the definition for transitional over and over again

What is the definition according to you and how have "evolutionists" changed it (over and over again)?
Nom...I bewieeeeeve....nom nom nom...I have faith in Eviwution
You can find me in Montreal, in a bitching arcade! I'm proud of my gun, and I pood in space!
Fri Sep 25, 2015 11:48 am
WWW
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Creationist Objections to Chromosome 2 fusion (Now Refut

DutchLiam84 wrote:
leroy wrote:I was very careful in not using the term “transitional” because evolutionists typically change the definition for transitional over and over again

What is the definition according to you and how have "evolutionists" changed it (over and over again)?


There is no clear definitoin, that is why I didn´t use the term
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Sep 25, 2015 12:31 pm
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: Creationist Objections to Chromosome 2 fusion (Now Refut

leroy wrote:
SpecialFrog wrote:And you are still ignoring the fact that the genetic similarities between us and other apes is significant only because of what we know about genetics, such as what descent looks like in the genetic record, what mutations can happen and what they look like, etc.

No what I am saying is that there are many animals, some hare more similar to humans than other animals, chimps simply happened to be more similar to humans than any other animal, some animal necessary had to have that designation, these would be true regardless if evolution where true or not. If humans where significantly different then humans would not be ape like, and we would fit in some other clade.

Nonsense. If evolution is not true, there is no inherent reason why humans should have any strong genetic similarity with any other organisms. You have already acknowledged that similar morphology and function can arise from different DNA. We even know that bats and whales produce very similar proteins from very different DNA.

If humans are a special creation, why are we made of broken chimp DNA?

leroy wrote:
SpecialFrog wrote:I don't know what you are saying here. What transitions do you think are missing?

I was very careful in not using the term “transitional” because evolutionists typically change the definition for transitional over and over again.

Citation needed.

Wikipedia wrote:A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.

Please point out where you have found incompatible definitions.
leroy wrote:The fact is that few (if any) possible ancestors have been found in the fossil record, while millions of modern-like species have been found. This is true among apes and among all clades. For some reason the fossil record likes to perceive modern-like animals and evolutionary dead ends but doesn´t like to preserve ancestors.

The fossil record represents probably around two hundred and fifty thousand species. Given that there are are four and a half million living species, this represents a fraction of a percent of all species who have ever lived. It would be statistically unlikely for this to include any direct ancestors. Even if it did, we cannot tell conclusively whether any fossil is a direct ancestor of a living species given the limits of DNA preservation.

And how are you defining "modern-like"? Is Australopithecus "modern-like"? Archaeopteryx?

And why is it even relevant if we find direct ancestors or not? If I find the remains of a human from 200 years ago and am able to determine that they are related to you it still gives me information about your ancestry even if this person is not a direct ancestor. It also implies that a common ancestor exists even if we don't know exactly who they were or what relation they are to you both.

leroy wrote:
SpecialFrog wrote:Do you agree that we have evidence of this sort that is relevant when assessing genetic similarities?

sorry, I did not understand the question

Do you agree that we know some things about genetic inheritance? We know what types of mutations are probable. We know how DNA tends to change over generations. We know what kinds of genetic differences we see between species that everyone agrees are related (e.g. dogs and wolves). We know that chromosome count differences are not inherently a barrier to reproduction.

Do you agree that we know those things and that that knowledge is relevant when assessing the similarities between our Chromosome 2 and Chromosomes 12 and 13 of chimpanzees?

Edited to correct chromosome numbers. Thanks, HWIN. :)
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Last edited by SpecialFrog on Fri Sep 25, 2015 4:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Fri Sep 25, 2015 1:13 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3462Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Creationist Objections to Chromosome 2 fusion (Now Refut

leroy wrote:Fossils, what fossils?

The missing link between chimps and humans is still missing,


Australopithecus afarensis. Your ignorance is not an argument.

leroy wrote:the missing link between gorillas and humans is still missing,


You got one. This transitional form is indeed missing.

leroy wrote:the missing link between orangutans and humans is still missing,


This would be a transitional form between the African ape clade and the Asian ape clade. This critter is called Proconsual africanus, it was a monkey-like ape. Once again, your ignorance is not an argument.

leroy wrote:the missing link between moneys and humans is still missing.


This critter is called Aegyptopithecus zeuxis. It was an ape-like monkey. Once again, your ignorance is not an argument.

leroy wrote:Why are there so many modern-like apes and monkeys in the fossil record, and ZERO ancestors,


As I have shown above, your ignorance of the fossil record is showing.

leroy wrote:why is the fossil record so biased in in preserving modern-like animals and in disappearing the ancestors of modern species?


Again, you are simply wrong with this claim. Beyond that we have whole groups of fossils, such as the non-avian dinosaurs, "proto-mammals", and tons of marine reptiles that only exist in the fossil record. Thus, it is incorrect to state that there is a bias in the fossil record for preserving only modern-like animals. Honestly, have a look at my Know Your Bones series and see how many of those fossils are "modern."

leroy wrote:For some reason the fossil record likes to perceive modern-like animals and evolutionary dead ends but doesn´t like to preserve ancestors.


Image


SpecialFrog wrote:Do you agree that we know those things and that that knowledge is relevant when assessing the similarities between our Chromosome 1 and Chromosomes 1 and 2 of chimpanzees?


It is actually our chromosome 2 and chromosome 12 and 13 for the other apes.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Fri Sep 25, 2015 4:23 pm
YIM WWW
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Creationist Objections to Chromosome 2 fusion (Now Refut

SpecialFrog wrote:[Nonsense. If evolution is not true, there is no inherent reason why humans should have any strong genetic similarity with any other organisms. You have already acknowledged that similar morphology and function can arise from different DNA. We even know that bats and whales produce very similar proteins from very different DNA.

If humans are a special creation, why are we made of broken chimp DNA?


Granted, but there is nothing contradictory nor absurd with the idea of a designer creating different animals with similar raw materials. My point is that it doesn’t matter if, which theory is true, similarities among different animals are expected,


Wikipedia wrote:A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.

Please point out where you have found incompatible definitions.


The problem with that definition is that It is based on circular reasoning, the definition presupposes ancestral and descendant groups, the only reason you would argue that archaeopteryx is transitional is because you already presuppose that birds evolved from dinosaurs, the only reason you would argue that marsupial wolves are not transitional (between wolves and marsupials) is because you don´t consider marsupials to be ancestral to wolves.
The definition of transitional presupposes evolution, in a similar way the definition of “kind” presupposes the creationist model.
Talk origins for example uses another definition for transitional.
intermediate form / transitional form A fossil or modern species that displays characters definitive of two or more different taxa or that displays characters morphologically intermediate between two different taxa. The existence of intermediate forms is a prediction of common descent. An intermediate is not necessarily a common ancestor or even an actual ancestor of a modern species. For example, the intermediate species Archaeopteryx displays characters definitive of two different taxa (e.g. dromaeosaur dinosaurs and birds), yet Archaeopteryx is probably not an ancestor of modern birds
.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... termediate

Given this definition a marsupial wolves would be an intermediate between dogs and marsupials since it has both dog-like and marsupial like traits, in fact any case of so called convergent evolution would be a transitional fossil (given this definition)


The fossil record represents probably around two hundred and fifty thousand species. Given that there are are four and a half million living species, this represents a fraction of a percent of all species who have ever lived. It would be statistically unlikely for this to include any direct ancestors. Even if it did, we cannot tell conclusively whether any fossil is a direct ancestor of a living species given the limits of DNA preservation.



Ok, but if we focus just on the hard bodied animals (mammals, fish, birds etc.) we can fairly conclude that most families have at least one member in the fossil record.

My point is that thousands of modern-like animals have been found in the fossil record and few (if any) possible ancestors have been found. According to the theory of evolution each modern “kind” (or family) has hundreds of direct ancestors that are clearly a different “kind” (or family) for every modern-like animal that we find in the fossil record we would expect to find hundreds of possible ancestors.


And how are you defining "modern-like"? Is Australopithecus "modern-like"? Archaeopteryx?



With modern-like I mean some animal that is ether identical or similar to a modern animal, (same kind or same family)

And why is it even relevant if we find direct ancestors or not?


Because evolution predicts an abundance of direct ancestors in the fossil record. The fact that you can´t find any strongly suggest that evolution is wrong.

leroy wrote:
SpecialFrog wrote:Do you agree that we have evidence of this sort that is relevant when assessing genetic similarities?

sorry, I did not understand the question

Do you agree that we know some things about genetic inheritance? We know what types of mutations are probable. We know how DNA tends to change over generations. We know what kinds of genetic differences we see between species that everyone agrees are related (e.g. dogs and wolves). We know that chromosome count differences are not inherently a barrier to reproduction.

Do you agree that we know those things and that that knowledge is relevant when assessing the similarities between our Chromosome 2 and Chromosomes 12 and 13 of chimpanzees?


I can agree with all that, but at the end you are simply proving that chimps and humans have similar chromosomes.

Dogs are simply a deteriorated wolf, this in no way is analogous to the evolution of humans from an ape like ancestor.

he who is nobody.....Australopithecus afarensis. Your ignorance is not an argument.


I am sure you are not defending the idea that Austalupetecus Afarencis (nor any other of the species that you mentioned) is our direct ancestor, nor the ancestor of any other modern specie. So they are all irrelevant.

The point that I am making is that we would expect to find hundreds of defect ancestors and you can name few (if any) possible candidates.
For example A. Afarensis can´t be our ancestor because it has a gorilla like jaw, the common ancestor of chimps and humans most have ether a human or a chimp-like jaw (or something in between)
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:03 pm
itsdemtitansBloggerUser avatarPosts: 706Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:36 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Creationist Objections to Chromosome 2 fusion (Now Refut

leroy wrote:For example A. Afarensis can´t be our ancestor because it has a gorilla like jaw, the common ancestor of chimps and humans most have ether a human or a chimp-like jaw (or something in between)


Wrong. It could have had a gorilla like jaw, which in both lineages diverged down separate paths and took the forms we see today. It in no way must be halfway between a modem chimp and a modem human.
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:39 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3462Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Creationist Objections to Chromosome 2 fusion (Now Refut

leroy wrote:My point is that thousands of modern-like animals have been found in the fossil record and few (if any) possible ancestors have been found. According to the theory of evolution each modern “kind” (or family) has hundreds of direct ancestors that are clearly a different “kind” (or family) for every modern-like animal that we find in the fossil record we would expect to find hundreds of possible ancestors.


Thus, you already agree that humans are great apes since kind is equal to family. One now wonders why you are making such a big fuss about transitions between us and the other great apes and why the similarities between our chromosomes means nothing since we are all the same kind (or family).

However, I will wait for the goalpost to shift. :)

leroy wrote:
he who is nobody.....Australopithecus afarensis. Your ignorance is not an argument.


I am sure you are not defending the idea that Austalupetecus Afarencis (nor any other of the species that you mentioned) is our direct ancestor, nor the ancestor of any other modern specie. So they are all irrelevant.


:facepalm:

I was obviously not defending them as direct ancestors (which is why I made it clear by calling them transitionals). Since all of the ones I pointed out (and I only pointed out one for each group, there are more) fall well within the definition of transitional fossil, as you defined from Talk.Origins, they are relevant to what the fossil record can prove.

leroy wrote:The point that I am making is that we would expect to find hundreds of defect ancestors and you can name few (if any) possible candidates.


Again, no one is claiming that any of the fossils we find are direct ancestors to living or extinct species. That is not what the definition of transitional (you so kindly provided) means. I will not argue for the straw man you have created in your head.

leroy wrote:For example A. Afarensis can´t be our ancestor because it has a gorilla like jaw, the common ancestor of chimps and humans most have ether a human or a chimp-like jaw (or something in between)


Citation needed; claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. However, I am hoping you are not talking about Rak et al. (2007), because if you are, I already know that you have not read the paper, but only the headline.

_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sat Sep 26, 2015 11:03 pm
YIM WWW
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Creationist Objections to Chromosome 2 fusion (Now Refut

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
Thus, you already agree that humans are great apes since kind is equal to family. One now wonders why you are making such a big fuss about transitions between us and the other great apes and why the similarities between our chromosomes means nothing since we are all the same kind (or family).

However, I will wait for the goalpost to shift. :)


For the purpose of the specific point that I made, we can use family and kind as equivalent terms. In this context, with “different kind (or family)” I simply mean something clearly different. When I say that we should find direct ancestors from a different kind I simply mean that these fossils have to be clearly a different animal.

When I say that we should find direct ancestors of modern humans in the Fossil record, I simply mean that these ancesotrs can´t be other humans.


I apologize if the terms that I used are misleading, but honestly I don´t know what terms should I use.

Again, no one is claiming that any of the fossils we find are direct ancestors to living or extinct species. That is not what the definition of transitional (you so kindly provided) means. I will not argue for the straw man you have created in your head.



Given the definition of transitional from talk origins, I don´t argue that there are no transitional fossils, sure there are thousands of them.
My argument is that there are few (if any) fossils that represent possible direct ancestors.

This is my argument:

Premise 1: evolution predicts thousands of fossils from direct ancestors
Premise 2: there are no direct ancestors in the fossil record
Therefore evolution made a wrong prediction.

Just to be clear which of the 2 premises you think is wrong?


[
Citation needed; claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. However, I am hoping you are not talking about Rak et al. (2007), because if you are, I already know that you have not read the paper, but only the headline
.

Yes that is my source, the source concludes that A Afarensis is not our direct ancestor, but we both agree on that point anyway
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sun Sep 27, 2015 1:53 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3462Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Creationist Objections to Chromosome 2 fusion (Now Refut

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:
Thus, you already agree that humans are great apes since kind is equal to family. One now wonders why you are making such a big fuss about transitions between us and the other great apes and why the similarities between our chromosomes means nothing since we are all the same kind (or family).

However, I will wait for the goalpost to shift. :)


For the purpose of the specific point that I made, we can use family and kind as equivalent terms. In this context, with “different kind (or family)” I simply mean something clearly different. When I say that we should find direct ancestors from a different kind I simply mean that these fossils have to be clearly a different animal.


Then your specific point is already defeated. You are trying to claim chimpanzees and the other great apes are not related to us while also claiming that we are both the same kind. If you already agree kind is equivalent to family, than humans and the other great apes are the same kind because they belong to the same family.

Image


Beyond that, how would you be able to tell if a fossil/skeleton was a different animal or not? Have you studied anatomy or genetics?

leroy wrote:When I say that we should find direct ancestors of modern humans in the Fossil record, I simply mean that these ancesotrs can´t be other humans.


This statement makes no sense.

leroy wrote:I apologize if the terms that I used are misleading, but honestly I don´t know what terms should I use.


Well, how about taking some time to actually study this subject? Open up a basic biology textbook and start learning the correct terminology for this subject. Again, no one is arguing for the straw man of evolution that only exists in your head.

leroy wrote:
Again, no one is claiming that any of the fossils we find are direct ancestors to living or extinct species. That is not what the definition of transitional (you so kindly provided) means. I will not argue for the straw man you have created in your head.



Given the definition of transitional from talk origins, I don´t argue that there are no transitional fossils, sure there are thousands of them.


Thus, you already agree that there are thousands of transitional fossils, yet want more than that? I am not sure if this is a goalpost shift or just simple arrogance on your part.

leroy wrote:My argument is that there are few (if any) fossils that represent possible direct ancestors.


If a transitional fossil lines up in the correct time in earth's history, than it could represent a possible ancestral state. However, without the genetics or an exact fossil record, one could never conclude that.

leroy wrote:This is my argument:

Premise 1: evolution predicts thousands of fossils from direct ancestors
Premise 2: there are no direct ancestors in the fossil record
Therefore evolution made a wrong prediction.

Just to be clear which of the 2 premises you think is wrong?


Citation for your claim that evolution predicts thousands of direct ancestors. That appears to be a straw man and no one is arguing for the straw man of evolution that only exists in your head.

leroy wrote:
[
Citation needed; claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. However, I am hoping you are not talking about Rak et al. (2007), because if you are, I already know that you have not read the paper, but only the headline
.

Yes that is my source, the source concludes that A Afarensis is not our direct ancestor, but we both agree on that point anyway


No one ever claimed it was a direct ancestor to us; it is a transitional fossil between the last common ancestor we shared with chimpanzees and us. Tis a difference.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Sep 28, 2015 5:43 am
YIM WWW
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Creationist Objections to Chromosome 2 fusion (Now Refut

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
Thus, you already agree that humans are great apes since kind is equal to family. One now wonders why you are making such a big fuss about transitions between us and the other great apes and why the similarities between our chromosomes means nothing since we are all the same kind (or family).

However, I will wait for the goalpost to shift. :)


You are trying to win the argument based on word games. All I am saying is that according to evolution all modern animals came from ancestors, these ancestors where clearly a different animal. For example some of the far ancestors of lions where clearly not lions nor anything that would be consider a feline.

We already agree on 2 points
1 that transitional fossils have been found (using talk origins definition)
2 A Afarensis is not our direct ancestor.
I made an argument:
Premise 1: evolution predicts thousands of fossils from direct ancestors
Premise 2: there are no direct ancestors in the fossil record
Therefore evolution made a wrong prediction.
[/quote]

Apparently you have problems with premise 1,

Well if each modern animal has hundreds of direct ancestors, and these ancestors lived in this planet, then we would expect to find an abundance of fossils that represent direct ancestors.

Obviously it is impossible to know for sure is a fossil represents a direct ancestor, but at least we would expect to find viable candidates.
A viable candidate would be someone found in the correct period of time and with consistent morphology, for example the direct ancestor of humans and chimps is not expected to have a gorilla-like jaw.

agree?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Sep 28, 2015 10:18 am
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1252Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Creationist Objections to Chromosome 2 fusion (Now Refut

leroy wrote:
Then a creative designer is by definition unfalsifiable, and therefor useless as a hypothesis. It all pretty much boils down to magic really
.

The same is true with evolution, evolution can create bird-like wings or it can create a completely different mechanism for flight

No, the same is not true for evolution. First of all there has to be enough time for those things to evolve(they can't evolve in a single century, or a few thousand years even, it takes much longer). In fact if we suddenly saw a pig being born with bird-like wings tomorrow from a normal, healthy breeding pair of pigs, that would be evidence AGAINST evolution and in favor of creationism.
And there has to be the right selection pressures and so on. There has to be a substrate to work on (wings can't sprout from your back, they are modified limbs, so there has to be at the very least limbs already present on an organism). There are many requirements for evolution to work that must be satisfied, that means that if these requirements aren't satisfied, evolution won't work and would be falsified.

evolution can produce a fully formed trilobite from a unicellular organism in 30M years

Where do you get this idea from?

It took at least 100 million years for trilobites to evolve from the last universal multicellular ancestor. Emphasis on at least. There are good indications that the origin of multicellular animal life goes back to as much as 800 million years ago, if not further.

or it can maintain animals unchaged for 500M years.

Give an example. As far as I know there are no unchanged survivors from the late cambrian.

It doesn’t matter if we share 99% 95% 90% or 70% of our genome with chimps, you´ll conclude that we chare a common ancestor anyway.

No that's not how it works. The degree of genetic similarity has to match roughly the chronology of the fossil record. If there was a significant mismatch between them, common descent would be falsified.

Also, it takes multiple species to infer common descent. As in, it was the fact that ALL life could be grouped into nesting hierarchies that implied common descent. Things don't have to be merely similar, they have to show particular patterns of similarities that can be objectively grouped into nesting hierarchies based on shared and derived characteristics. Later organisms must be derivations of earlier life. More closely related life must be more similar, but both must be derivations of earlier forms etc. etc. The genetics, biochemistry and embryology must agree to a significant extend with the morphology and fossils. These are all things that could have been different from what they are.

For example, the genetics could have mismatched with the morphology, because we know that many different genetic patterns can produce the same morphological structures. This means there is no a priori reason to expect a similar morphological structure to be produced by the same underlying genetic framework except if they are both derivations from a common ancestral version. For further information see here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html
D Theobald 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution wrote:Criticisms:

One possible, yet unlikely, objection is that the slight differences in functional performance between the various cytochromes could be responsible for this sequence similarity. This objection is unlikely because of the incredibly high number of nearly equivalent sequences that would be phenotypically indistinguishable for any required level of performance. Additionally, nearly similar sequences do not necessarily give nearly similar levels of performance.

Nonetheless, for the sake of argument, let us assume that a cytochrome c that transports electrons faster is required in organisms with active metabolisms or with high rates of muscle contraction. If this were true, we might expect to observe a pattern of sequence similarity that correlates with similarity of environment or with physiological requirement. However, this is not observed. For example, bat cytochrome c is much more similar to human cytochrome c than to hummingbird cytochrome c; porpoise cytochrome c is much more similar to human cytochrome c than to shark cytochrome c. As stated earlier in prediction 1.3, the phylogenetic tree constructed from the cytochrome c data exactly recapitulates the relationships of major taxa as determined by the completely independent morphological data (McLaughlin and Dayhoff 1973). These facts only further support the idea that cytochrome c sequences are independent of phenotypic function (other than the obvious requirement for a functional cytochrome c that transports electrons).

Underline emphasis mine.

So, given that:
* All life we observe can be objectively classified according to their characteristics (genetic, morphological and others) into nesting hierarchical arrangements.
* That we know the mechanism of inheritance if allowed to take place over multiple generations is directly observed to produces nesting hierarchical patterns(in the shared derived characteristics of humans, dogs, bacteria, birds etc. etc).
* The fact that all organisms reproduce using these mechanism of inheritance. This is important, it means we have direct observational evidence that evolution happens and produces the kinds of pattern we seek to explain.
* The fact that the genetic differences between organisms do not HAVE to match the morphological differences(many different genes could produce the same morpological and functional effects).

- We are justified in claiming that the best explanation with the most direct empirical support, we have for the nesting hierarchies we can construct objectively, is that they were produced by the evolutionary process over extremely long timescales.

Yes, design CAN explain all the same observations. But only in a empty and ad-hoc fashion that lacks explanatory power. "That's just what the way the creative designer wanted to make it". There is no WHY or HOW in the design-rationalization.

Further more, why do human beings (the only intelligent designer we know of empirically) use "common design"? Mostly to save time and resources. Human beings copy previous designs because it is simply faster to do so when they need to make something that works. Nuts and bolts are reused because they work fine as they are, no need to change them. Wheels are good for vehicles, easy to copy the basic pattern and save time, instead of having to re-invent a new method of locomotion every time.

But, life wasn't designed by humans, so we can't use analogies to anthropomorphic tendencies with respect to design.

The kind of designer most ID proponents think designed life is an omnipotent supernatural designer, unconstrained by a faulty or mediocre imagination, a lack of time or resources or anything at all. Such a designer would have absolutely no practical reasons for copying it's designs over and over again in a derivative fashion by re-using and slightly altering items and structures from previous designs to include in new organism that appear as evolved derivations of previous ones. None of the inferences we use to infer human design took place, are valid inferences for an unconstrained, omnipotent divine designer who does not have human concerns of practicality such as resources, lack of intelligence, imagination, creativity and time.

A problem I see is the colossal ambivalence at the heart of the main ID proponents, who start with a conclusion that a specific and supernatural designer did the designing. This leads them into problems very quickly, for among some reasons that the nature, capacities and intentions of their designer, they assert, is unknowable, infinite and mysterious, respectively.

I could easily imagine design hypotheses that had elements of testability. Take rubber tires for cars, bicycles etc. We can simply look at the tires and know how they were manufactured:
Image
Image

They're called tire hairs, and they're a byproduct of the manufacturing process. Liquid rubber is poured into a mold, but the manufacturer wants to avoid tiny air bubbles in the tires, so little holes are drilled all over the mold so the air can escape before the rubber hardens.

Similarly for other man-made objects there's mold lines, welding spots, all sorts of toolmarks from hammers, saws, files, polishing equipment and so on. Finding these features on an object would tell us that the item was designed, and even something about how it was manufactured.

Now, for human objects there's only really two reliable ways to say they have been designed. Either we detect the aforementioned byproducts of the manufacturing process(some of which can be signatures from the maker, or product labels and trademarks etc.), or we have seen human beings design such objects.

Take the tires, let's pretend we find a tire in the woods, it looks brand new, but there are no mold lines or rubber hairs. Are we now to postulate a blind natural process made the tire? Of course not. Why would we then infer that it was designed? Because we've seen humans design tires before, that's how we know tires are the product of design. We've seen the designer, and also very importantly, prior to human beings making the first tires, no tires had ever been found in nature.

We work with what we got and from what we know: Observed designers, observed natural processes, observed manufacturing processes leaving observational evidence behind. The mechanism is understood, it makes testable predictions. It fits into already well-established frameworks of science from other fields: Physics, chemistry etc.(And in the case of human designs, human psychology and culture). We can then form hypotheses and look for the results of the mechanism and either confirm or falsify the hypothesis.

Now comes "ID". Do it have a mechanism? Nope.

What did it make? Depending on who you ask, all living organisms as-is, or occasionally it just dropped in to magically instantiate specific mutations at various points in the history of life, or zap a flagellum into existence.

Does their designer leave a signature, product description or trademark behind?(Stainless Steel, Goodyear, Firelli, Made in Taiwan, Nike, nVIDIA) Nope.

Does it use tools? Nope(or no idea).

When did it operate? No idea, millions and billions of years ago and now it's suddenly stopped entirely no new creations take place.

Do they draw analogies to human manufacturing processes? Well, they sometimes say that the designer re-uses old designs. What reasons do they have to expect their designer to do this? Since they don't know the designer(they keep saying this to secular audiences), then they must be getting their idea from having seen human beings design things.

Ok, let's just run with that. Let's try the "accepts common descent and some degree of evolution but occasionally dropping in to make specific mutations happen or instantly create a flagellum 2 billion years ago(theistic evolution)". What testable predictions does this make? It should look exactly like evolution happened. Just like evolution could have created all of life through mutations, drift and selection, with all the minor quirks and oddities being the result of incomplete lineage sorting, convergent evolution, drift, horizontal gene transfer and so on, all expected to happen but never statistically deviate from the main pattern, so does theistic evolution become observationally indistinguishable from naturalistic evolution.

In other words, an unobserved designer operating in the deep geological past, on a global scale, who has the ability to make specific mutations happen inside living organisms, is in competition with the observed fact that evolution happens naturally:
Incomplete lineage sorting observationally happens, and we have good reason to think they would in the past too.
Horizontal gene transfer observationally happens, and we have good reason to think they would in the past too.
Convergent evolution observationally happens, and we have good reason to think they would in the past too.
Drift and selection observationally happens, and we have good reason to think they would in the past too.
Environments observationally change, and we have good reason to think they would in the past too.
Mutations observationally happen, and we have good reason to think they would in the past too.
Those mutations affect the morphology of the carrying organism, and we have good reason to think they would in the past too.
The phenotypical and morphological effects of those mutations affect the reproductive rate of the species, and we have good reason to think they would in the past too.

Which is the simplest, most parsimonious explanation then? The observed one that doesn't require us to erect uneconomical unobserved entities: Evolution.

Ok, fuck that then. Moving on to the "all life made as-is" (supernatural or space-alien with superduper technology ID-creationism).

Well, we should expect to find similarities between some species(still re-using old designs).
Ok, we find that. But we have at least two hypotheses that predict this same feature, so can we distinguish between them? Well, evolution predicts congruent nested hierarchies in morphology, anatomical features and genetics.
But designers have been known to design nested hierarchies too.
Sure, but again the reasoning is arrived at ad-hoc. Mere re-using of old designs should not in itself yield a nested hierarchy into which all of life fits to an extremely high degree of confidence.
No, but it still could have been designed.
Yes, but why would we believe it was beyond the mere possibility? What grounds are there to believe that this is what happened? Does the observed nested hierarchy even make sense with respect to known, human designers method of design and manufacture?

Let's see:
A look into the mind of the designer of the nested hierarchy: "Common design - common designer(forming sets within sets within sets)".

What are the odds that, even if you as a "designer" sits down and thinks "I'm going to reuse some of my older designs", inadvertently produces a nested hierarchy, into which every species on the planet fits, both genetically, morphologically(and chronologically in the fossil record)?

What are the odds that your designer sat down and designed this specific pattern?

Here's a small insight into it's train of thought(courteously trying to give ourselves reason to entertain the design hypothesis by drawing from the only intelligent designer we know of: Homo Sapiens):

Oh, I'm going to design a bacterium with a genome like this(the first genome!).
Oh, I want to design another organism, re-using some of my bacteria designs(the "common designs"-argument), so it looks like this new organism genetically and morphologically mostly derives from the first one.

Oh, I'm going to design a 3rd organism, this time re-using designs from the 2nd organism, so it looks like it mostly derives from the 2nd one.

Oh, I'm going to design a 4th organisms, this time re-using designs from the 3rd, so it looks like it mostly derives from the 4th one.

Oh, I'm also, intermittently, going to go back and re-tweak my previous creations, so that it looks like they each independently changed since I first created them.

Not only am I going to do this, mysterious designer as I am, I'm going to do it in such a way that the degree of change it looks like they underwent, is directly proportional to how old their time of divergence will look like if calculated(and extrapolated from the fossil record). Haha, take that - future humans whom I'm going to create at some point too!

Anyway, back to business, creating a 5th organism, this time re-using designs from the 4th, so that it looks like it mostly derives from the 4th one.

Oh, I just got a brilliant idea! I'm going to go back to the first organism I designed, and then derive a whole new "branch" from it. But I'm not going to be deriving this branch from the original genome I first created, no, I'm going to change it slightly so it looks like that first genome evolved for a time before this new "divergence" happened, THEN I'm going to make the new branch. There, perfect!

Oh, I just got another brilliant idea. In addition to the intermittent return to tweaking the genomes of previously designed organisms, I'm going to do the exact same I just did to the first lineage: Intermittently derive more independent branches off of each of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th etc. etc. linages I created, using the same hilariously illogical method I just used to create a branch off of the 1st one. Brilliant!

And I'm going to do this for millions and millions and millions of species. And to top it all off I'm going to kill billions of them in intermittent extinction events, burying them in the millions in seemingly temporal order matching with morphological sequence, so that it just so happens to look like they left changed descendants over a very long timescale.

I wonder what the odds of me creating and designing life, exactly using this method is? I wonder if it even makes sense to postulate that anything would do "design" like this? Hmmm.


Does this make sense to postulate? No, it doesn't. No concievable intelligent designer would operate like this and produce a nested hierarchy indistinguishable from the one produced by the evolutionary process.

I submit that if you can convince yourself that your designer operated like this, then you're either insane, deluded or infinitely gullible. Regardless, it would be irrational to believe it.

Hold on you say! We mustn't anthropomorphize the designer, it works in mysterious ways, has plans we cannot fathom and is unlimited in creativity and power. Can that idea be tested? Does it make testable predictions? Nope. In fact it stands in contradiction to the "common design-common designer is re-using designs"-rationalization. A rationalization that only works for human designers constrained by time, imagination, intelligence and resources.

Can ID then be said to be science? Well, in the few cases where they bother to make specifics that allow testability, the idea is either demonstrably false(observationally falsified) or massively unparsimonious.

Given the way ID proponents think about their designer, (mysterious, unknowable, omnipotent, non-anthropomorphic), they're terminally unable to produce a scientific hypothesis of ID. In the few rare cases where they even bother on specifics, it's either still unfalsifiable (magic instant creation of features or mutations in the deep geological past), or beaten by a simpler, more parsimonious evolutionary explanation. A process we observe works and which predicts the same patterns we observe if allowed to take place over very long timescales.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Mon Sep 28, 2015 12:32 pm
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: Creationist Objections to Chromosome 2 fusion (Now Refut

leroy wrote:
SpecialFrog wrote:Nonsense. If evolution is not true, there is no inherent reason why humans should have any strong genetic similarity with any other organisms. You have already acknowledged that similar morphology and function can arise from different DNA. We even know that bats and whales produce very similar proteins from very different DNA.

Granted, but there is nothing contradictory nor absurd with the idea of a designer creating different animals with similar raw materials. My point is that it doesn’t matter if, which theory is true, similarities among different animals are expected,

You seem to be agreeing that not all theories expect similarities and then turning around and saying that all theories do expect similarities.

I agree a designer is not incompatible with there being similarities but please explain how it expects or predicts them? It simply does not.

Wikipedia wrote:A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.

leroy wrote:The problem with that definition is that It is based on circular reasoning, the definition presupposes ancestral and descendant groups, the only reason you would argue that archaeopteryx is transitional is because you already presuppose that birds evolved from dinosaurs, the only reason you would argue that marsupial wolves are not transitional (between wolves and marsupials) is because you don´t consider marsupials to be ancestral to wolves.

It's not circular it just is simply not independent of evolution. In what sense does the concept of a "transitional fossil" have any meaning outside of evolution?

The talk origins definition is fine, though you are ignoring the key bit.

Talk Origins wrote:A fossil or modern species that displays characters definitive of two or more different taxa.

Thylacine share(d) characteristics with all other marsupials that are not found in any placental mammals, canines included. The definitive characteristics of "canidae" include all the set of definitive characteristics of "carnivorae", which in turn includes the characteristics that define "eutheria". No marsupial can display the definitive characteristics of a placental mammal.

Your comparison is invalid.

leroy wrote:
SpecialFrog wrote:And how are you defining "modern-like"? Is Australopithecus "modern-like"? Archaeopteryx?

With modern-like I mean some animal that is ether identical or similar to a modern animal, (same kind or same family)

So does "kind" mean "family"?

leroy wrote:
SpecialFrog wrote:And why is it even relevant if we find direct ancestors or not?

Because evolution predicts an abundance of direct ancestors in the fossil record. The fact that you can´t find any strongly suggest that evolution is wrong.

Citation needed. The theory of evolution predicts no such thing. It predicts that all modern organisms are evolved from ancestral ones, which therefore must have existed. However, see previous statements about fossils representing a fraction of a percent of all species that have ever lived. That includes vertebrates. Fossilization depends on a lot of factors, including environment. Animals in some environments are unlikely to be fossilized and fossil finds tend to be concentrated in specific sites.

Besides, do you agree that if we demonstrate that species A and species B are related it also demonstrates that a common ancestor existed?

leroy wrote:
SpecialFrog wrote:Do you agree that we know those things and that that knowledge is relevant when assessing the similarities between our Chromosome 2 and Chromosomes 12 and 13 of chimpanzees?

I can agree with all that, but at the end you are simply proving that chimps and humans have similar chromosomes.

So you agree with the findings of modern biology but claim that we can't use them to draw conclusions? That is what you are saying. The findings of biology combined with the evidence of chromosome similarities leads us to the conclusion. That's kind of how science works.

leroy wrote:Dogs are simply a deteriorated wolf, this in no way is analogous to the evolution of humans from an ape like ancestor.

What do you mean "deteriorated"? And why is not analogous?
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Mon Sep 28, 2015 3:46 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Creationist Objections to Chromosome 2 fusion (Now Refut

RUMRAKET

I think you are radically wrong in your wheel example, I personally have never seen a manufacturer creating a wheel and I am not familiar with the process of creating a wheel but I still know that wheels are designed. If an alien visits earth he will know that wheels are designed, if a time traveler from the 1800s travels to 2015 a finds some car wheels he will know that an intelligent designer created them.

The reason why we know that wheels are designed is because they have what creationists call specified complexity.

About your nested hierarchy argument, I completely agree, it would be very unlikely for an intelligent designer to create animals that can be organized in a nice and neat nested hierarchy, a creative designer is expected to create stuff without following any rules or patterns, the problem is that I don´t agree with your premise, animals are not organized in a nice and neat nested hierarchy as this article shows.

http://dna.ac/filogeografia/PDFs/coales ... pTrees.pdf


If compere just the human, chimp and gorilla, DNA which are the animals that have been studied in more detail, 30% of the genes form discordant trees. We are not talking about insignificant exceptions, we are talking about 30% of the genome.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/03/go ... 57391.html

If animals could have been organized in a nearly perfect nested hierachy then I would accept evolution, it would be lunatic to argue that God created things as if evolution where true.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:40 pm
DustniteUser avatarPosts: 531Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 9:11 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Creationist Objections to Chromosome 2 fusion (Now Refut

leroy wrote:The reason why we know that wheels are designed is because they have what creationists call specified complexity.


And you know...the big Firestone label on the side.
"But this is irrelevant because in either case, whether a god exists or not, whether your God (with a capital G) exists or not, it doesn't matter. We both are, in either case, evolved apes. " - Nesslig20
Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:59 pm
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: Creationist Objections to Chromosome 2 fusion (Now Refut

Leroy, the fact that some gene trees disagree does not mean that a nested hierarchy doesn't exist. In fact, as your first paper explains, evolutionary mechanisms predict that trees for individual genes will not always match overall species trees.

Please read this introduction to Incomplete Lineage Sorting at this Christian biology site.

I will point out that Rumraket mentioned incomplete lineage sorting in his post as well so he clearly already anticipated this objection. :)
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Mon Sep 28, 2015 10:00 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Creationist Objections to Chromosome 2 fusion (Now Refut

SpecialFrog[Citation needed. The theory of evolution predicts no such thing. It predicts that all modern organisms are evolved from ancestral ones, which therefore must have existed. However, see previous statements about fossils representing a fraction of a percent of all species that have ever lived. That includes vertebrates. Fossilization depends on a lot of factors, including environment. Animals in some environments are unlikely to be fossilized and fossil finds tend to be concentrated in specific sites.


Well then you have to do a lot of explaining, why is it that the fossil record perceives modern –humans, modern-like chimps, modern-like gorillas and modern-like orangutans, but it doesn´t perceive any of the direct ancestors. If we have an abundance of modern-like animals in the fossil record, why don´t we find the same abundance of direct ancestors, why is the fossil record so biased in perceiving modern animals and excluding direct ancestors?

Besides, do you agree that if we demonstrate that species A and species B are related it also demonstrates that a common ancestor existed?


Yes....



leroy wrote:Dogs are simply a deteriorated wolf, this in no way is analogous to the evolution of humans from an ape like ancestor.

What do you mean "deteriorated"? And why is not analogous?[/quote]



Wolves have a gene that Allows growth, if you remove that gene wolves would be smaller, wolves also have a gene related to “hair creation” if you remove the gene the wolf would be hairless or would have very little hair, and there are also genes related to aggressive behavior if you remove these genes the wolf would be tame and friendly.
A small and friendly wolf with little hair would no longer be a wolf it would be a nice Chihuahua Dog, in other words you can create a dog from wolf by destroying genetic information, this is not analogous to the ape to man evolution that you believe in, you can´t have a human by removing genetic information from an ancient ape.

So you agree with the findings of modern biology but claim that we can't use them to draw conclusions? That is what you are saying. The findings of biology combined with the evidence of chromosome similarities leads us to the conclusion. That's kind of how science works.


I accept the scientific findings, but I don´t think the evidence is sufficient to conclude that evolution is true.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Sep 28, 2015 10:06 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 4
 [ 76 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests