Chromosome 2...

[porchrat]

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

Aliens and fairies and schit. Talk of how science only holds to materialist explanations.

These sort of things (while perfectly valid in a philosophy discussion) don't really IMO have a place in a discussion about chromosome 2.

We have a place for philosophical discussion on this forum, it is called PD.

 

[Unhappy438]

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

EDIT: Nevermind, found it. Bliss

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.

Excellent idea

 

[wily me]

I have discovered a wonderful button that has cut out a lot of the garbage in this [-]thread[/-]forum. As Zoidberg said... bliss . Have fun.

Typical as in the PD section?

 

[wily me]

....... 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.....

Like evolution "accidents" called mutations?

 

[CoolBug]

Evolution shouldn't be allowed in science sections? Rofl

Well then I thank your baby jesus riding a dinosaur that this is nothing more than a foolish opinion.

Wow these die hards hey?

They have such a huge problem with ToE, they think it makes their sky daddy idea fall apart.

Who is to say the ToE is not science? I despise the Vatican but even the last 3 popes have accepted the ToE.

What is or isn't science, is not decided on public opinion.

Do you think a group of special secret scientists congregate every Sunday and read forums and then change what is and what isn't science?

 

[wily me]

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%.

No answers for your analysis as yet? It must be evolution that contributed to that 4.5% difference, how else could it have happened? Please let me know your thoughts. This is a science mystery it seems that only a few of the MyBB members are accomplished enough to resolve in a day.

 

[Geriatrix]

Check out this article:
The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium
Nature 437, 69–87 (1 September 2005)

That was a bloody interesting article, thanks man!

 

[porchrat]

Like evolution "accidents" called mutations?

Who knows what we will discover in the future. Things just keep getting more and more interesting.

Especially now that we have started investigating the epigenome and the proteome. People are also starting to devote more time to carbohydrates and focusing less on the traditional protein and DNA angles. There is still plenty to learn about carbohydrates.

All I'm saying is that nothing in science is ever set in stone and that is what makes it so awesome to me. If that means we discover another valid explanation for what we see today as a merging of 2 chromosomes then bring it on.

 

[Techne]

No answers for your analysis as yet? It must be evolution that contributed to that 4.5% difference, how else could it have happened? Please let me know your thoughts. This is a science mystery it seems that only a few of the MyBB members are accomplished enough to resolve in a day.

Currently it is estimated that there is about a 0.5% genetic difference between human beings living today, on earth. You inherited your genetic make-up from your parents so you are genetically different from your parents. This is biological evolution. This of course does not imply that you where not created. The same goes for the first human being that shared a common ancestor with other non-human primates. Empirical science simply does not deal with creation. Anybody that says that empirical science and/or biological evolution negates creation is simply ignorant or dishonest (or in error to put it more euphemistically) or a combination of both.

 

[Swa]

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.

What are your bloody issues? We are not discussing magic (and by claiming "magic" without a scientific measure you have already made an a priori assertion of the answers you are willing to accept) so nobody brought magic in here but YOU. The premise was and still is that the claim is just as unfalsifiable as aliensdidit™, fairiesdidit™, gnomesdidit™. But hey if you don't like the examples (who would have thought aliens to be magic) then we can always use my two farting ants.

And in case you missed it the video talked about evolution and creation so it was philosophical from the start.

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.

Don't talk crap. Evolution predicted a merged chromosome just as much as it predicted you or I would exist. Meaning it had zero predictions about it. Indeed scientist were surprised to find a merged chromosome instead of two separate ones.

You're still missing the point though. It's not about the MERGE. It's about the claim that it was due to a mutation. It does not matter if you only know of one possible mechanism. That alone does not make it falsifiable. There are other possible mechanisms like alien splicing but it's just as unfalsifiable.

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.

You are welcome. Fact is you can't answer the question (about the mechanism) and continue to resort to the after effect instead.

 

[Swa]

What is or isn't science, is not decided on public opinion.

Roflol. That is a ridiculous statement. If it's not for outside (aka public) opinion science would die.

 

[Swa]

No answers for your analysis as yet? It must be evolution that contributed to that 4.5% difference, how else could it have happened? Please let me know your thoughts. This is a science mystery it seems that only a few of the MyBB members are accomplished enough to resolve in a day.

Percentages are largely meaningless. It's entirely dependent on what you are comparing. In this case the 4% is about 120 million base pairs so it's a hell of a big difference.

There's also some other stuff I have. Will post for you later.

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

Think I found our friend trolling on news24 columns too. Link: http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/The-Fossils-Are-in-Your-Head-20120618 scroll down the comments, I think you'll find "Sean's" comments very familiar, maybe brothers

 

[CoolBug]

Roflol. That is a ridiculous statement. If it's not for outside (aka public) opinion science would die.

No it's a perfectly legitimate statement, you're just living in a dreamworld, not that it surprises me.

In some states more than half the pubic don't want evolution taught in their public schools, you guessed it, the backward hillbilly lower IQ states. (A lower IQ has a mysterious link to being credulous, polls would show, fancy that?)

And even though in some states more than half the public (public opinion) dont support evolution, it is still taught in public schools after court cases time and time again are in favor of the ToE, you know why that is? evidence holds up in court and it's things like this that is evidence for the ToE and why it is still taught in public schools.

Crackpot theories like creationism don't have a shred of evidence which is why they cannot win a court case and their crackpot ideas will remain in their homes and / or in their churches.

I'll say it again, in another way this time to not confuse you.

Scientific truths are not a democracy. So you're wasting your time, so are we by even arguing with you, which is why some are even ignoring you entirely.

 

[Techne]

No it's a perfectly legitimate statement, you're just living in a dreamworld, not that it surprises me.

In some states more than half the pubic don't want evolution taught in their public schools, you guessed it, the backward hillbilly lower IQ states. (A lower IQ has a mysterious link to being credulous, polls would show, fancy that?)

And even though in some states more than half the public (public opinion) dont support evolution, it is still taught in public schools after court cases time and time again are in favor of the ToE, you know why that is? evidence holds up in court and it's things like this that is evidence for the ToE and why it is still taught in public schools.

Crackpot theories like creationism don't have a shred of evidence which is why they cannot win a court case and their crackpot ideas will remain in their homes and / or in their churches.

I'll say it again, in another way this time to not confuse you.

Scientific truths are not a democracy. So you're wasting your time, so are we by even arguing with you, which is why some are even ignoring you entirely.

What kind of creationism are you talking about?

 

[wily me]

Think I found our friend trolling on news24 columns too. Link: http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/The-Fossils-Are-in-Your-Head-20120618 scroll down the comments, I think you'll find "Sean's" comments very familiar, maybe brothers

I like this nick more "Charles Dumbwin"

 

[Swa]

Think I found our friend trolling on news24 columns too. Link: http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/The-Fossils-Are-in-Your-Head-20120618 scroll down the comments, I think you'll find "Sean's" comments very familiar, maybe brothers

LOL. People are still using ad hominems. Why not just admit you were beaten? Why continue to perpetuate the ignorance?

No it's a perfectly legitimate statement, you're just living in a dreamworld, not that it surprises me.

YOU're living in a dream world. There's a number of factors you're not taking into account. If all of science started making ridiculous unproven claims people would start losing faith (oh there's that "ugly" word again) in it. Then it's more lobbying for research grants to be suspended. Less money for science so science produces less legitimate results. More people see it as useless and more people start lobbying. You also see a rapid decline in privately funded research.

So no it's not a legitimate statement. You can't get around the fact that science needs public support to move forward.

In some states more than half the pubic don't want evolution taught in their public schools, you guessed it, the backward hillbilly lower IQ states. (A lower IQ has a mysterious link to being credulous, polls would show, fancy that?)

Another one of your "informed" statements or do you actually have some real stats for this one?

And even though in some states more than half the public (public opinion) dont support evolution, it is still taught in public schools after court cases time and time again are in favor of the ToE, you know why that is? evidence holds up in court and it's things like this that is evidence for the ToE and why it is still taught in public schools.

And this is your big proof? Courts largely put faith in what experts say because the public does. Which brings up another argument. If people lose faith in them juries would stop considering their opinions as valid. But even this being the case court opinion means nothing if the public starts keeping their children out of schools and classes. In fact if this happens the court will probably cave to public opinion and politicians will start using it to get people's votes.

You can't use the current state of affairs to prove that science is independent of the public because it's currently the public that's supporting science. Sorry man but you're grasping at straws. Just concede the point and move on.

 

[wily me]

In some states more than half the pubic don't want evolution taught in their public schools, you guessed it, the backward hillbilly lower IQ states. (A lower IQ has a mysterious link to being credulous, polls would show, fancy that?)

Links to prove your claims would be in order of course

 

[Swa]

Percentages are largely meaningless. It's entirely dependent on what you are comparing. In this case the 4% is about 120 million base pairs so it's a hell of a big difference.

There's also some other stuff I have. Will post for you later.

As I said it's not possible to simply compare two things based on percentages without taking their nature into account. I've seen the comparison to a computer file before. Each byte is composed of 8 bits and have 256 possible combinations. Does that mean if any two random files are 0.39% similar that they are related in some way or another? No because the laws of random chance says this figure should be expected for files that are dissimilar.

Another example is books. Most books contain mainly lower case letters and spaces. That means any two books we compare will be at least 3.7% similar. Does that mean the same author wrote them? No.

If we use individual bits to compare files any 2 randomly generated ones will have 50% expected similarity. Using the comparison to come to the conclusion Windows and Linux were based on one another in any way except being operating systems and running on the same instruction set would be wrong.

DNA is composed of 4 combinations of base pairs (the bits) so we would expect at least 25% similarity if functions were not similar. The acclaimed 40% similarity with a banana is actually more like 20% and since we make or use many of the same enzymes and proteins we would expect a similarity.

Commonality also doesn't necessarily indicate a common ancestor but can also mean a common designer. If we look at two cars we can compare their parts and from that conclude if they were made by the same company. More commonality therefor gives a higher indication of a single designer rather than multiple ones. And no I won't stop talking about this because some people here have personal issues as it IS science. Forensic science looks at factors that indicate an intelligent cause to determine if the cause of death is an accident or a crime. If somebody went to a pathologist and told them they can't continue because it's not science they'll laugh at such a ridiculous claim and rightfully come to the conclusion that that person has a hidden agenda.

 

[alloytoo]

Commonality also doesn't necessarily indicate a common ancestor but can also mean a common designer. If we look at two cars we can compare their parts and from that conclude if they were made by the same company.

Concluding that something is designed is very different from concluding that something we know is designed may have a common origin.

Indeed I'd venture it may be impossible to decern design without having some knowledge of the designer.

What we do know about human designers is that while design faults may persist for multiple generations wear and tear or damage is unlikely to.

More commonality therefor gives a higher indication of a single designer rather than multiple ones.

Or not, some designs are governed by function. Some ideas arise independantly mainly out of changed environments.