Chromosome 2...

[alloytoo]

No they are "magick" because they are unfalsifiable. By claiming those are unfalsifiable because they are magic you make an a priori assertion that only a materialist explanation is allowed.

Given that Non-Materialist explanations cannot be tested, only positively proven. (Here's your opportunity BTW) there really is no way to distinguish between your "Non-Materialist explanation" and fiction.

In the absense of positive proof (Another opportunity here.) Science is better served considering explanations which are testable and make predictions.

You are also wrong on your view of the ToE. Assuming it's falsifiable this does not extend down to all claims made from it. If it did you can make any claim no matter how ridiculous and it would be science. Individual claims have to be falsifiable as well and THAT extends up to the ToE to make it falsifiable.

Individual hypothosis are falsifiable.

However falsifying an individual claim on the periphery of our knowledge is unlikely to invalidate the entire TOE.

So show us how the claim that it was a random mutation that merged the chromosomes is falsifiable.

This is more of an observed fact than a claim.

This is an interesting explanation.

 

[Swa]

This is more of an observed fact than a claim.

This is an interesting explanation.

WOT?!!! Somebody was there millions of years ago to see the mutation occur?

No you are confusing hypothesis with observation. Apes have 24 chromosomes - observed fact. Humans have 23 - observed fact. 24 chromosomes changed into 23 - hypothesis. Now assuming the hypothesis is correct it still leaves the reason as evolution, aliens, fairies, gnomes and my two farting ants. All of them unfalsifiable.

The materialist however don't care about falsifiability and science only an a priori commitment of which answer is acceptable. Or actually rather which answer and more importantly Who is NOT acceptable. I have my answer thanks.

 

[alloytoo]

WOT?!!! Somebody was there millions of years ago to see the mutation occur?

We observe similer events today and understand the mechanism.

No you are confusing hypothesis with observation. Apes have 24 chromosomes - observed fact. Humans have 23 - observed fact. 24 chromosomes changed into 23 - hypothesis. Now assuming the hypothesis is correct it still leaves the reason as evolution, aliens, fairies, gnomes and my two farting ants. All of them unfalsifiable.

We find a rock at the bottom of a hill, as we watch another rock falls from the top of the hill. A reasonable person may conclude with reasonable certainty that the first rock was there because it fell from the top of the hill through nature means. Just because we didn't actually see the original rock fall, we do not attribute equal weight to other explanations, to wit: aliens, fairies, gnomes and your two farting ants, without evidence. Nor even to reasonable explanations (a man placed it there) without evidence.

The materialist however don't care about falsifiability and science only an a priori commitment of which answer is acceptable. Or actually rather which answer and more importantly Who is NOT acceptable. I have my answer thanks.

Answers without evidence are unacceptable.

 

[Swa]

Ah, so our DNA is in fact so closely related and similar to each other in function that it could almost be confused for one another. What's also interesting is that subsections or compound units of said code can be traced back through other primate species in varying degrees. Looking at the overall pattern of dispersion these creates throughout different branches suggests something very interesting as well. Particularly when you consider some ERV distributions.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v17/n1/dna
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html
I wouldn't call 95-97% so closely related to each other that they can be confused for one another. Geneticists will very quickly and with indisputable accuracy be able to tell you if a sample of DNA is human or chimp or neither or in the case of chimp which species of chimp. ~96% would roughly be in the range required for our similarities were DNA the function determiner. Again if we didn't see this similarity our understanding of DNA would be wrong so I don't view it as a problem that only a common evolutionary ancestor could explain.

Now Ken Miller asks why creationists can't give an answer. Sorry porch but it was in the introduction. Well I didn't know that saying we don't know for sure instead of making some stuff up was a disqualifier in science. Contrary to what darksidehippo said Ken isn't being entirely truthful here. He's right that a missing chromosome would probably kill but what he doesn't say is why this should be a big deal for creation. It's a big deal for evolution because a missing chromosome would prove the idea of evolving from an ape false. But the presence of it doesn't prove it true though and this is where he tries to flip the argument around by using rhetoric and harping on creationists.

So why is he and everyone else emphasizing chromosome 2? If anything it would actually be better evidence for evolution if it was still two separate chromosomes. And indeed there's 22 other chromosomes they could use. Well it's actually diversion. Chromosomes 4, 9 and 12 show signs of "remodeling." Of course by remodeling they mean evolutiondidit™. Chromosome 21 in particular also shows a number of probable insertions in human DNA. Hmm... remodeling and insertion by evolution or debugging and tweaking by an intelligent being?

I also see in the wiki article that chromosome 2 may be important in human intelligence. Human = intelligent, ape = not so intelligent. Yup it a was blind evolution.

We find a rock at the bottom of a hill, as we watch another rock falls from the top of the hill. A reasonable person may conclude with reasonable certainty that the first rock was there because it fell from the top of the hill through nature means. Just because we didn't actually see the original rock fall, we do not attribute equal weight to other explanations, to wit: aliens, fairies, gnomes and your two farting ants, without evidence. Nor even to reasonable explanations (a man placed it there) without evidence.




Answers without evidence are unacceptable.

Still dodging the central problem.

 

[alloytoo]

Still dodging the central problem.

What central problem.

Fact: The Chromosome is fused.

Fact: We have observed chromosomes fuse and understand the mechanism.

Fact: Chimps do not have a fused chromosome

Fact: Chimps and Humans share substantively the same DNA including ERV's

Conclusion: Human Chromosomes fused after our species diverged from Chimps.

If you want to falsify the conclusion you have to pretty much shift one of the facts or provide an evidence based alternative that better fits the facts. Hard, improbable, but not entirely beyond the realm of posibility.

 

[porchrat]

No they are "magick" because they are unfalsifiable. By claiming those are unfalsifiable because they are magic you make an a priori assertion that only a materialist explanation is allowed.

This is the science section. You want to talk philosophy go to PD please.

You are also wrong on your view of the ToE. Assuming it's falsifiable this does not extend down to all claims made from it. If it did you can make any claim no matter how ridiculous and it would be science. Individual claims have to be falsifiable as well and THAT extends up to the ToE to make it falsifiable. So show us how the claim that it was a random mutation that merged the chromosomes is falsifiable.

You are asking for proof for a theory again. The best we can do is check to see that our observations line up with the predictions in the theories.

 

[Swa]

This is the science section. You want to talk philosophy go to PD please.

So you got caught...

You are asking for proof for a theory again. The best we can do is check to see that our observations line up with the predictions in the theories.

I want you to show that it's a falsifiable claim. Where do you get the part about proof? :wtf:

 

[porchrat]

So you got caught...

No just that this section is the science section, you want to talk about schit that ISN'T science then go to PD. Forum rules.

Please stop this. Every single time you get involved in a thread in here it becomes about philosophy or some other rubbish that really has fsck all to do with the topic. I really hate seeing this section get disrupted. Please just stop.

I want you to show that it's a falsifiable claim. Where do you get the part about proof? :wtf:

We know what a merged chromosome looks like and so far we have seen nothing within this chromosome to suggest this isn't a merged chromosome. To falsify it you are going to have to find something that demonstrates that it isn't a merged chromosome, something we haven't seen yet. Obviously merged chromosomes have a particular pattern to them and whatever doesn't fit that pattern is going to falsify the current thinking that this is a merged chromosome.

Either that or one could demonstrate that the patterns seen in merged chromosomes could be caused by something else, then we would have 2 competing theories which would be cool.

 

[Geriatrix]

I wouldn't call 95-97% so closely related to each other that they can be confused for one another. Geneticists will very quickly and with indisputable accuracy be able to tell you if a sample of DNA is human or chimp or neither or in the case of chimp which species of chimp. ~96% would roughly be in the range required for our similarities were DNA the function determiner. Again if we didn't see this similarity our understanding of DNA would be wrong so I don't view it as a problem that only a common evolutionary ancestor could explain.

Oh well, I would. Seems we've come at an impasse then. You don't believe 96+% show a high correlation of relation, I do. C'est la vie.

 

[Jab]

answersingenesis

 

[Techne]

But why would there be chimp DNA in our cells, why? Decoration?

Where is the chimp DNA in my cells :wtf:? I don't see any...

But ya, chromosome 2 and ERVs are pretty good evidence that chimps and humans had a common ancestor. Of course it is not proof (I don't think anybody sees it as proof or expects to have proof), just pretty good evidence!

An old but interesting article about the similarities between chimp and human
DNA: Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%

A more accurate similarity to DNA sequence between the human and chimpanzee is more or less 95.2-95.5%. You can work it out for yourself:

There are roughly about 3010-3200 million base pairs (MB) in the human genome.
Check out this article:
The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium
Nature 437, 69–87 (1 September 2005)

There are roughly 90 MB of indels. ndels are insertions or deletions. When you look at one genome and compare it to another and there is a section that humans have and the chimpanzees don't they call that an insertion, if it's absent then it's a deletion.

There are also roughly 20MB of chromosomal rearangement differences between human and chimp genomes (Including: homologous recombination 2MB, other large scale differences eg supposed fusion, pericentric inversions etc.).

And there are 35 MB of single-nucleotide changes

If you add this up:
A ) Single-nucleotide change: 35MB
B ) Indels: 90MB
C ) Chromosomal rearangements-- 20MB
= +- 145MB

Therefore:
145/3010*100= 4.8% (145/3200*100 = 4.5%)

So the difference, according to base-pair = 4.5-4.8%.

 

[Geriatrix]

Where is the chimp DNA in my cells :wtf:? I don't see any...

Look, there! That bit... you see, with the chin hair and the smiling and giggling bits.

But ya, chromosome 2 and ERVs are pretty good evidence that chimps and humans had a common ancestor. Of course it is not proof (I don't think anybody sees it as proof or expects to have proof), just pretty good evidence!

An old but interesting article about the similarities between chimp and human
DNA: Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%

A more accurate similarity to DNA sequence between the human and chimpanzee is more or less 95.2%.

 

[Techne]

Look, there! That bit... you see, with the chin hair and the smiling and giggling bits.

I see human DNA .

 

[Geriatrix]

I see human DNA .

Eish whena, you know what I mean.

 

[Techne]

Eish whena, you know what I mean.

Not really, but it's a slow Monday so...

 

[CoolBug]

F U! God did it!

Lalalalalala

I can't hear you!

Phuck its annoying when religious nuts stray from the PD section into Science sections quoting schite from answersingenesis.

Seriously? Learn your place or build a time machine and go back to the dark ages.

Unless he's just trolling?

I fully understand if people want to discuss openly without bias but quoting stuff from religious propaganda sites in Natural Science? We cannot tolerate such tendencies.

Loved that pic of bush btw.

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

How can I "mute" a persons posts? I've wasted enough energy on a certain forumite.

EDIT: Nevermind, found it. Bliss

 

[Swa]

No just that this section is the science section, you want to talk about schit that ISN'T science then go to PD. Forum rules.

Please stop this. Every single time you get involved in a thread in here it becomes about philosophy or some other rubbish that really has fsck all to do with the topic. I really hate seeing this section get disrupted. Please just stop.

The only problem with this is that I HAVE been arguing the SCIENCE. As usual though you are the one injecting philosophy into it and then claiming it doesn't belong here. YOU are the disruption. I agree this is the science section so evolution should not be allowed in here. The only problem with that is that not everyone is allowed in the philosophy section.

We know what a merged chromosome looks like and so far we have seen nothing within this chromosome to suggest this isn't a merged chromosome. To falsify it you are going to have to find something that demonstrates that it isn't a merged chromosome, something we haven't seen yet. Obviously merged chromosomes have a particular pattern to them and whatever doesn't fit that pattern is going to falsify the current thinking that this is a merged chromosome.

Either that or one could demonstrate that the patterns seen in merged chromosomes could be caused by something else, then we would have 2 competing theories which would be cool.

You are still dancing around the issue. It's not about the merged chromosome. It's about the claim that it was merged by a random (or non-random) mutation. It's unfalsifiable just like the claim fairiesdidit™. You don't have an answer to that.

F U! God did it!

Lalalalalala

I can't hear you!

Phuck its annoying when religious nuts stray from the PD section into Science sections quoting schite from answersingenesis.

Seriously? Learn your place or build a time machine and go back to the dark ages.

Unless he's just trolling?

I fully understand if people want to discuss openly without bias but quoting stuff from religious propaganda sites in Natural Science? We cannot tolerate such tendencies.

Loved that pic of bush btw.

For you too http://stormbringer005.blogspot.com/2011/08/logic-lessons-genetic-fallacy-and.html

 

[porchrat]

The only problem with this is that I HAVE been arguing the SCIENCE. As usual though you are the one injecting philosophy into it and then claiming it doesn't belong here. YOU are the disruption. I agree this is the science section so evolution should not be allowed in here. The only problem with that is that not everyone is allowed in the philosophy section.

Nah I didn't bring any philosophy into it. You brought magic into and I merely let you know that magic has nothing to do with science and asked that you stop talking about it. Now that we have established that magic has nothing to do with science please stop talking about magic in the science section thanks.

You are still dancing around the issue. It's not about the merged chromosome. It's about the claim that it was merged by a random (or non-random) mutation. It's unfalsifiable just like the claim fairiesdidit™. You don't have an answer to that.

The prediction was that we would see a merged chromosome, we see evidence of a merged chromosome. So far we know of no other mechanism capable of producing a merged chromosome and everything we have observed points to it being merged via known mechanisms. For now it is logical to hold this merge up as another example of the merges we have already observed.

If at some point more observations come to light that demonstrate that it could not have been merged by our known mechanisms we will need to abandon the claim and come up with something else that does explain what we observe.

Again I feel I must point out that this is how science works. Nothing is ever 100% proven. You yourself agreed with this.


Anyway I'm tired of repeating the same stuff over and over with you. I have discovered a wonderful button that has cut out a lot of the garbage in this thread. As Zoidberg said... bliss . Have fun.

 

[Techne]

Ooh ooh, where is the magick and stuff....