Home » Intelligent Design » A Bogey Moment: The Human Chromosome Count

A Bogey Moment: The Human Chromosome Count

In the 1954 movie The Caine Mutiny, Humphrey Bogart plays the compulsive-paranoid Captain Queeg who is relieved of duty when unable to deal with a dangerous storm at sea. Upon return to port two officers face a court-martial for mutiny. The trial goes badly for them and they appear to be destined for prison until the final testimony of Captain Queeg where his underlying paranoia is suddenly revealed. In the courtroom sideways looks and wide eyes reveal a collective revelation: “Ohh, noooowwww I understand.”

Read more

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

102 Responses to A Bogey Moment: The Human Chromosome Count

  1. 1

    Cornelius,

    No, the chromosome fusion event is not evidence of common descent, but IS a successful prediction made by good science.

    Hypothesis: humans and great apes share a common ancestor.

    Prediction: since we have different numbers of chromosomes, and losing an entire chromosome would be fatal, humans must have a fused chromosome somewhere.

    Confirmation: BAM! Fused chromosome found.

  2. Chuckles,

    “since we have different numbers…”

    doh! Bam!

    lets see, since there is a flower with pollen, a tree with a seed.

    Confirmation of what, that we live? No brainer. You win by accident because frankly, they have no clue why it is fused, except that the information must exist. This is a default position. It certainly is not a Darwinian prediction of evolution.

    Scientific? Yes and simply so. Darwinian? No, not at all. It does not take Darwin or Modern Synthesis to realize information must exist.

    Fused? How did this miraculous event occur without death to the human species?

    Gradually over millions of years?

    Got more fictional, unobserved stories to tell?

    It is one thing to observe similarities, yet another to make it an evolution story. The intepretation can be similar design steps unfolding, with an exception for a reason as yet undiscovered, much like vestigal organs. Anyone look up spleens, appendix or tonsils lately? The snide-mouth Darwinian smirchers blew those predictions. Maybe there is a design answer in the future just as their is an answer today for long held beliefs of vestigial organs.

    Hunter quotes a Darwinist…
    “And even if there were, a designer who can easily put in the 60 million or so differences between humans and chimpanzees…(a designer) should be able to accomplish whatever results a chromosome fusion gives more elegantly than sticking two ape chromosomes together.()my insert.

    1) Assumption that two ape chromosomes were “stuck” together
    2) Assume they can design it better
    3) They have yet to design anything remotely close to a kumquat, let alone human chromosomes, or a flagella nano-motor spinning at 20,000rpm from scratch.

    What utter hubris.

    Prediction: Like Vestigial Organs, future Bio-Engineers trained in nanoscale technology, thermodynamics, EE and many other skillsets will discover one day the actual reason for 46 Chromosomes and the beauty of the design.

    Frankly, why wouldn’t “cumulative selection” build up more chromosones, not less? Oh thats right, because evolution is blind and predicts nothing, except of course when Darwinist say it does and then it predicts anything and everything.

    ———————————–

    In a real representation of how evolution works in todays observed world…

    Mr. Hunter, please see date “1995″ typo. Should be 2005 for the farsical dover trial.

    Degeneration of information, now there is real evolution at work.

  3. Degeneration of information, now there is real evolution at work.

    I have only learned about (advantageous) mutations leading to evolution.

    But I am beginning to realize that while there may be some rare instances when degeneration may be an advantage, what we are up against is genetic entropy.

    I take the use of the term entropy as meaning it is a one-way, non-reversible process. I just wonder, is anything known about the rate of genetic entropy; has any estimate been made about when this entropy shall reach the inevitable end?

  4. A wise man once said it is not people who are wrong that concern him, but people who know they are right. Enter the evolutionists who are sure that evolution is a fact just as gravity is a fact.

    Just to make sure; am I right in assuming this means ID proponents do not know ID is right, are not sure ID is a fact? Are they just like the evolutionists in this respect, or not?

  5. Cabal States:

    “I have only learned about (advantageous) mutations leading to evolution. But I am beginning to realize that while there may be some rare instances when degeneration may be an advantage, what we are up against is genetic entropy.”

    Cabal you can take this to the bank,,,Genetic Entropy is the true foundational rule for all of biology.

    After much research, I find the principle of Genetic Entropy to be the true principle for biological adaptations which directly contradicts unguided Darwinian evolution. As well, unlike Darwinian evolution which can claim no primary principles in science to rests its foundation on, Genetic Entropy can rests its foundation in science directly on the twin pillars of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and on the Law of Conservation Of Information(LCI). The first phase of Genetic Entropy, any life-form will go through, holds all sub-speciation adaptations away from a parent species, which increase fitness/survivability to a new environment for the sub-species, will always come at a cost of the functional information in the parent species genome. This is, for the vast majority of times, measurable as loss of genetic diversity in genomes. This phase of Genetic Entropy is verified, in one line of evidence, by the fact all population genetics’ studies show a consistent loss of genetic diversity from a parent species for all sub-species that have adapted away, (Maciej Giertych).

    This fact is also well testified to by plant breeders and animal breeders who know there are strict limits to the amount of variability you can expect when breeding for any particular genetic trait. The second line of evidence, this phase of the principle of Genetic Entropy is being rigorously obeyed, is found in the fact the “Fitness Test” against a parent species of bacteria has never been violated by any sub-species bacteria of a parent bacteria.

    For a broad outline of the “Fitness test”, required to be passed to show a violation of the principle of Genetic Entropy, please see this following video and article:

    Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? – “The Fitness Test” – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BwWpRSYgOE

    Testing the Biological Fitness of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria – 2008
    http://www.answersingenesis.or.....-drugstore

    List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria:
    http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

    This overriding truth of never being able to violate the Genetic Entropy of poly-constrained information by natural means applies to the “non-living realm” of viruses, such as bird flu and HIV, as well:

    Ryan Lucas Kitner, Ph.D. 2006. – Bird Flu
    Excerpt: influenza viruses do possess a certain degree of variability; however, the amount of genetic information which a virus can carry is vastly limited, and so are the changes which can be made to its genome before it can no longer function.
    http://www.answersingenesis.or.....it-evolved

    Michael Behe defends the one “overlooked” protein/protein binding site generated in HIV, that Abbie Smith and Ian Musgrave had found, by pointing out it is well within the 2 binding site limit he set in “The Edge Of Evolution” on this following site:

    Response to Ian Musgrave’s “Open Letter to Dr. Michael Behe,”
    “Yes, one overlooked protein-protein interaction developed, leading to a leaky cell membrane — not something to crow about after 10^20 replications and a greatly enhanced mutation rate.”
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/.....VF3SRXVK9O

    In fact, I followed this debate very closely and it turns out the trivial gain of just one protein-protein binding site being generated for the non-living HIV virus, that the evolutionists were “crowing” about, came at a staggering loss of complexity for the living host it invaded (People) with just that one trivial gain, (leaky cell membrane), in binding site complexity. Thus the “evolution” of the virus clearly stayed within the principle of Genetic Entropy since far more functional complexity was lost by the living human cells it invaded than ever was gained by the non-living HIV virus. A non-living virus which depends on those human cells to replicate in the first place. Moreover, while learning HIV is a “mutational powerhouse” which greatly outclasses the “mutational firepower” of the entire spectrum of higher life-forms combined over millions of years, and about the devastating effect HIV has on humans with just that one trivial binding site being generated, I realized if evolution were actually the truth about how life came to be on Earth then the only “life” around would be extremely small organisms with the highest replication rate, and with the most mutational firepower, since only they would be the fittest to survive in the dog eat dog world where blind pitiless evolution rules and only the strongest survive.

    I would also like to point out scientists have never changed any one type of bacteria into any other type of bacteria, despite years of exhaustive experimentation trying to change any bacteria type into any other bacteria type. In fact, it is commonly known the further scientists deviate any particular bacteria type from its original state, the more unfit for survival the manipulated population will quickly become. (Genetic Entropy)

    As former president of the French Academy of Sciences Pierre P. Grasse has stated:
    “What is the use of their unceasing mutations, if they do not change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.”

    Needless to say, this limit to the variability of bacteria is extremely bad news for the materialist and gives strong impetus to Genetic Entropy.

  6. SingBlue states:

    “Prediction: since we have different numbers of chromosomes, and losing an entire chromosome would be fatal, humans must have a fused chromosome somewhere.”

    Do you have any actual empirical evidence that a fusion event has ever led to anything other than genetic diseases?

    Please feel free to list your references:

    The truth of the fact Singblue is the actual prediction of evolution would presuppose more genetic material for more advanced creatures (or Are you now arguing that chimps are actually more evolved than us?)

    The chimpanzee is found to have a 12% larger genome than humans. Thus, at first glance it would seem the chimpanzee is more evolved than us, but this discrepancy is no anomaly of just chimps/humans. This disparity of genome sizes is found throughout life. There is no logical “evolutionary” progression to be found for the amount of DNA in less complex animals to the DNA found in more complex animals. In fact the genome sizes are known to vary widely between Kinds/Species and this mystery is known as the c-value enigma:

    C-value enigma
    Excerpt: it was soon found that C-values (genome sizes) vary enormously among species and that this bears no relationship to the presumed number of genes (as reflected by the complexity of the organism). For example, the cells of some salamanders may contain 40 times more DNA than those of humans. Given that C-values were assumed to be constant because DNA is the stuff of genes, and yet bore no relationship to presumed gene number, this was understandably considered paradoxical;
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-value_enigma

    Singblue why is this glaring failed prediction overlooked by you? Which theory would most likely have predicted this type of pattern?

    In fact Singblue, why are only biased similarities counted as confirmed predictions of evolution while crushing dissimilarities are completely ignored by you? Do you consider this fair to the practice of good science?

    Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees; Gene; Volume 346, 14 February 2005:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15716009

    Chimps are not like humans – May 2004
    Excerpt: the International Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 Consortium reports that 83% of chimpanzee chromosome 22 proteins are different from their human counterparts,,, The results reported this week showed that “83% of the genes have changed between the human and the chimpanzee—only 17% are identical—so that means that the impression that comes from the 1.2% [sequence] difference is [misleading]. In the case of protein structures, it has a big effect,” Sakaki said.

    Do you really even care about good science at all SingBluee? Or is maintaining your atheism of greater precedence?

    But let’s take a closer look at your “similarity evidence”

    For prime example of the flimsy “similarity evidence” used by materialists to try to make their case for evolution, most materialists are adamant Darwinian evolution is proven true when we look at the supposed 98.8% genetic similarity between chimps and man. Though suggestive, the gene similarity, even if true, is not nearly good enough to be considered conclusive scientific proof. Primarily this “lack of conclusiveness” is due to concerns with the second law of thermodynamics and with the Law of Conservation of Information. But of more pressing concern, body plans are not even encoded in the DNA code in the first place. This inability of body plans to be reduced directly to the DNA code is clearly shown by Cortical Inheritance.

    Cortical Inheritance: The Crushing Critique Against Genetic Reductionism – Arthur Jones – video
    Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JzQ8ingdNY
    Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1bAX93zQ5o

    This inability for the DNA code to account for body plans is also clearly shown by extensive mutation studies to the DNA of different organisms which show “exceedingly rare” major morphological effects from mutations to the DNA code.

    Hopeful monsters,’ transposons, and the Metazoan radiation:
    Excerpt: Viable mutations with major morphological or physiological effects are exceedingly rare and usually infertile; the chance of two identical rare mutant individuals arising in sufficient propinquity to produce offspring seems too small to consider as a significant evolutionary event. These problems of viable “hopeful monsters” render these explanations untenable.
    Paleobiologists Douglas Erwin and James Valentine

    This includes the highly touted four-winged fruit fly mutations.

    …Advantageous anatomical mutations are never observed. The four-winged fruit fly is a case in point: The second set of wings lacks flight muscles, so the useless appendages interfere with flying and mating, and the mutant fly cannot survive long outside the laboratory. Similar mutations in other genes also produce various anatomical deformations, but they are harmful, too. In 1963, Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote that the resulting mutants “are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as ‘hopeless.’ They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through natural selection.” – Jonathan Wells

    Darwin’s Theory – Fruit Flies and Morphology – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZJTIwRY0bs

    If all that wasn’t enough, the Human Genome Project really put the last nail in the coffin for “Genetic Reductionism”:

    DNA: The Alphabet of Life – David Klinghoffer
    Excerpt: But all this is trivial compared to the largely unheralded insight gained from the Human Genome Project, completed in 2003. The insight is disturbing. It is that while DNA codes for the cell’s building blocks, the information needed to build the rest of the creature is seemingly, in large measure, absent. ,,,The physically encoded information to form that mouse, as opposed to that fly, isn’t there. Instead, “It is as if the ‘idea’ of the fly (or any other organism) must somehow permeate the genome that gives rise to it.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2....._life.html

    Thus the 98.8% similarity derived from the DNA code, to the body plans of chimps and man, is purely imaginary, since it is clearly shown that the overriding “architectural plan” of the body is not even encoded in the DNA in the first place.

    Does it even matter to you SingBlue that you have no foundation in science in which to base your conjectures for similarity? Does it even bother you to be so out of touch with reality?

  7. Here some more for you to chew on SingBlue:

    Sanford Genetic Entropy Polyploidy – (Gene Duplication Fallacies)
    http://livinglove.files.wordpr.....x4-pg3.pdf
    http://livinglove.files.wordpr.....x4-pg2.pdf

  8. Two questions:

    1.
    How is genetic entropy related to thermodynamics; life on Earth is not an isolated system? Isn’t it a fact that local entropy can decrease at the cost of increased entropy in the universe? As long as our primary source of energy, the sun is not only shining but even increasing it’s output, there shouldn’t be any risk of entropic death here? More like loss of entropy death?

    2. In case you overlooked it, can anything be said about the rate of genetic entropy; has any estimate been made about when this entropy shall reach the inevitable end?

    (The only inevitable end I know about is when the Sun will make our oceans boil, but I am relieved that won’t happen while I am here;-)

    BTW, unless I am mistaken, trees have a much larger genome than us. Isn’t that funny?

  9. SingBlueSilver,

    Do you have any idea on what would have to take place to get the fusion on both chromosomes?

    Also did you realize there isn’t any scientific data which demonstrates the transformations required are even possible?

    BTW evidence for common ancestry is not evidence for a mechanism.

    And I bet I can take any evidence for common ancestry and use it in a hypothesis for common design and/ or convergence.

    For example-

    Chromosome fusion is a design feature to maintain reproductive isolation between the two populations.

    There is also the possiblity it just looks like a fusion.

  10. Cabal, in case you’ve missed these:
    Thermodynamic Argument Against Evolution

    Part 1
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nI1RiTOQ4do

    Part 2
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgzWMccWOe8

    Part 3
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQBjguaBueE

    I believe BA77 linked these yesterday. Very informative.

  11. DATCG asks:

    Fused? How did this miraculous event occur without death to the human species?
    Gradually over millions of years?

    I have addressed the subject of Human Chromosome 2 in a series of guest essays on The Panda’s Thumb. They should be read in order:

    The Dicentric Problem

    http://pandasthumb.org/archive.....f-hum.html

    The Fertility Problem

    http://pandasthumb.org/archive.....hum-1.html

    Fixation within a deme

    http://pandasthumb.org/archive.....hum-2.html

    There is one last essay in the series, talking about the spread from a deme to the species that is in preparation.

  12. 12
    William J. Murray

    One more thing: showing that a pathway exists is not a demonstration that your vehicle can travel that pathway. I often have Darwinists confuse (or conflate) the finding of a pathway with evidence that RM & NS are sufficient vehicles for traversing the pathway.

  13. Dave,,, I read through some of your papers and found very little to substantiate your claims for evolution:

    typical examples of what you cite: “Observations of the natural population over a 7-year period and breeding experiments with captive animas(animals) indicate that heterozygous individuals suffer no detectable reduction in fitness.”

    “The results suggest the involvement of chromosomes 6 and 15 in the fusion demonstrated by G-banding in prometaphase cells. The Brazilian sample of animals carrying structural rearrangements did not present any reduction in fertility, suggesting the existence of prezygotic selection against unbalanced gametes”

    —- Yet this is suppose to be conclusive proof of evolution in your eyes? Give me a break! The glaring deficit in the fossil record, and consistent evidence for genetic entropy in bacteria demand far more rigorous results to overcome you deficit of empirical evidence at those base levels of proof!

    #1,,, How do you know for a fact the rearrangement was a purely random process as required to substantiate your primary claim for non-teleological evolution? i.e. How do you know the complex information in the genome did not “oversee” what readily appears to be a precise adjustment of massive amounts of poly-functional information in the genome? i.e. The burden is on you to prove it was random!

    #2,,,Where is the gross morphological change that was suppose to accompany the event if the event was truly a random event and truly proof of increased functional complexity?

    #3,,,By which rigorous methodology did you establish the fitness was “equal” to the parent species? i.e. Should you not find “equal fitness” to be anomalous if evolution were true? Should you not “stress test” to more rigorously establish if genetic entropy has indeed been violated?

    This is just a quick glance at your work,,,a work I am sure you put much pride in,,,but alas what have you really done but supply a “just so story” which has failed to even address the true question at hand!

  14. 14

    Bornagain77,

    Do you have any actual empirical evidence that a fusion event has ever led to anything other than genetic diseases?

    I believe you are engaging in what us “evolutionists” refer to as the Gish Gallop. Spew out so much tangential information that we don’t have time to address it all. Could be seen as the Chewbacca Defense as well. A lot of hand waving. “Look over here! Look over here!”

    I’m NOT talking about whether a fusion event leads to genetic diseases or not. I’m NOT talking about the mechanism of evolution. I’m NOT talking information increase, decrease, apple pie recipes, or Paris.

    The hypothesis is that we are related to chimps. We have one less chromosome. Therefore, they predicted we should have a fused chromosome. A successful prediction is the hallmark of a good scientific theory.

    Joseph,

    Do you have any idea on what would have to take place to get the fusion on both chromosomes?

    Also did you realize there isn’t any scientific data which demonstrates the transformations required are even possible?

    Same goes for you.

    BTW evidence for common ancestry is not evidence for a mechanism.

    What I’m talking about IS evidence for common ancestry. I’m not talking about the mechanism otherwise I would have stated evidence for a mechanism. Molecular fingerprints that connect us with chimps in a non-trivial manner is all I’m talking about.

    For example-

    Chromosome fusion is a design feature to maintain reproductive isolation between the two populations.

    Sure. But it’s an ad hoc explanation. A fusion would not have been predicted by design theory. You would not have said “Hypothesis: life was designed directly by a designer. Prediction: therefore we should find a fused chromosome in humans.” In fact, I’m pretty sure creationists used to use the differing number of chromosomes to prove that we AREN’T related to chimps.

    You can always just say “Well, the designer made it like that” but it isn’t falsifiable if you say that.

    There is also the possiblity it just looks like a fusion.

    When all chromosomes are capped by teleomeres with a centromere in the middle, and our chromosome #2 is capped by telomeres, followed by two centromeres farther in, and two telomeres in the middle? Sure, I guesss…. you could… just say “nope.” If that floats your boat.

  15. SingBlueSilver,

    Common ancestry is an ad hoc explanation as no one knows whether or not the tarnsformations required are even possible.

    A fusion event isn’t predicted by evolution, never mind non-telic processes.

    What you don’t have is a way to test your premise.

    All you have is a declaration.

  16. SingBlue you state:

    “I believe you are engaging in what us “evolutionists” refer to as the Gish Gallop”

    Do you evolutionists take a advanced class in “Gish Gallop”? that would explain why you guys are so good with obfuscation and so terrible with foundational science!

    Let’s put the evidence a little more clearly—

    The similarity you are trying to establish your case with, as referenced previously, completely breaks down when proteins are transcribed from the supposed similar sequences of genes. why do you not address this glaring deficit?

    Let me give you a little taste of what you would have in trying to reconcile genetic similarity with the protein dissimilarity we actually find.

    —What makes matters much worse for the materialist is that he will try to assert proteins of one structure can easily mutate into other proteins, of a completely different structure, by pure chance. Yet once again the empirical evidence we now have brutally betrays the materialist. Individual proteins have been experimentally shown to quickly lose their structural integrity with random point mutations. What are the odds of any “functional protein domain” in a cell mutating into any other functional protein domain, of very questionable value, by pure chance?

    Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds: Doug Axe:
    Excerpt: Starting with a weakly functional sequence carrying this signature, clusters of ten side-chains within the fold are replaced randomly, within the boundaries of the signature, and tested for function. The prevalence of low-level function in four such experiments indicates that roughly one in 10^64 signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain. Combined with the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences. (of note: the universe only has 10^80 sub-atomic particles)
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723

    Axe Diagram for finding a functional protein domain out of all sequence space:
    The y-axis can be seen as representing enzyme activity, and the x-axis represents all possible amino acid sequences. Enzymes sit at the peak of their fitness landscapes (Point A). There are extremely high levels of complex and specified information in proteins–informational sequences which point to intelligent design.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/axediagram.jpg

    Experimental Support for Regarding Functional Classes of Proteins to be Highly Isolated from Each Other:
    “From actual experimental results it can easily be calculated that the odds of finding a folded protein (by random point mutations to an existing protein) are about 1 in 10 to the 65 power (Sauer, MIT). To put this fantastic number in perspective imagine that someone hid a grain of sand, marked with a tiny ‘X’, somewhere in the Sahara Desert. After wandering blindfolded for several years in the desert you reach down, pick up a grain of sand, take off your blindfold, and find it has a tiny ‘X’. Suspicious, you give the grain of sand to someone to hide again, again you wander blindfolded into the desert, bend down, and the grain you pick up again has an ‘X’. A third time you repeat this action and a third time you find the marked grain. The odds of finding that marked grain of sand in the Sahara Desert three times in a row are about the same as finding one new functional protein structure (from chance transmutation of an existing functional protein structure). Rather than accept the result as a lucky coincidence, most people would be certain that the game had been fixed.” Michael J. Behe, The Weekly Standard, June 7, 1999
    http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_smu1992.htm

    Fancy footwork in the sequence space shuffle – 2006
    “Estimates for the density of functional proteins in sequence space range anywhere from 1 in 10^12 to 1 in 10^77. No matter how you slice it, proteins are rare. Useful ones are even more rare.”
    http://www.nature.com/nbt/jour.....6-328.html

    Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins – 2007:
    Kirk K Durston, David KY Chiu, David L Abel, Jack T Trevors
    In this paper, we provide a method to measure functional sequence complexity (in proteins).
    Conclusion: This method successfully distinguishes between order, randomness, and biological function (for proteins).
    http://www.tbiomed.com/content/4/1/47/

    Does God Exist? Argument From Design – Kirk Durston – Detecting Design In Proteins – video
    Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnBT2VD4B-8
    Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGgh6lbBAnU

    “A problem with the evolution of proteins having new shapes is that proteins are highly constrained, and producing a functional protein from a functional protein having a significantly different shape would typically require many mutations of the gene producing the protein. All the proteins produced during this transition would not be functional, that is, they would not be beneficial to the organism, or possibly they would still have their original function but not confer any advantage to the organism. It turns out that this scenario has severe mathematical problems that call the theory of evolution into question. Unless these problems can be overcome, the theory of evolution is in trouble.”
    Problems in Protein Evolution: http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/blocked.html

    “Mutations are rare phenomena, and a simultaneous change of even two amino acid residues in one protein is totally unlikely. One could think, for instance, that by constantly changing amino acids one by one, it will eventually be possible to change the entire sequence substantially… These minor changes, however, are bound to eventually result in a situation in which the enzyme has ceased to perform its previous function but has not yet begun its ‘new duties’. It is at this point it will be destroyed – along with the organism carrying it.” Maxim D. Frank-Kamenetski, Unraveling DNA, 1997, p. 72. (Professor at Brown U. Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Biomedical Engineering)

    In fact proteins are found to be “self-correcting” to any “random disturbance” of their shape:

    Proteins with cruise control: – 2008:
    Excerpt: A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order.

    As well, the Ribosome, which makes Proteins, is also found to be severely intolerant to any “random mutations”.

    The Ribosome: Perfectionist Protein-maker Trashes Errors
    Excerpt: The enzyme machine that translates a cell’s DNA code into the proteins of life is nothing if not an editorial perfectionist…the ribosome exerts far tighter quality control than anyone ever suspected over its precious protein products… To their further surprise, the ribosome lets go of error-laden proteins 10,000 times faster than it would normally release error-free proteins, a rate of destruction that Green says is “shocking” and reveals just how much of a stickler the ribosome is about high-fidelity protein synthesis.

    Even if evolution somehow managed to overcome the impossible hurdles for generating novel proteins by totally natural means, evolution would still face the monumental hurdles of generating complimentary protein/protein binding sites, in which the novel proteins would actually interact with each other in order to accomplish the specific tasks needed in a cell (it is estimated that there are least 10,000 different types of protein-protein binding sites in a “simple” cell: Behe; Edge Of Evolution).

    What does the recent hard evidence say about novel protein-protein binding site generation?

    “The likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of of the probability of developing one: a double CCC (chloroquine complexity cluster), 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the entire world in the past 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety (just 2 binding sites being generated by accident) in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable.” Michael J. Behe PhD. (from page 146 of his book “Edge of Evolution”)

    Thus SingBlue address how the genes remained similar yet the proteins were drastically changed (indeed many unique proteins are found in humans). Please address to purely random processes and you shall have made your case for evolution and have shown that you are not blowing Gish Gallop.

  17. 17

    Joseph,

    Common ancestry is an ad hoc explanation as no one knows whether or not the tarnsformations required are even possible.

    Tu Quoque Fallacy. Instead of addressing my criticism of your explanation, you just resort to “well, you do it too!” Thus, getting out of the argument.

    A fusion event isn’t predicted by evolution, never mind non-telic processes.

    Yes, it is. It’s predicted because we have one less chromosome than apes, when we are supposed to be related to apes. An obvious problem for common descent. They knew to look for it because of evolution.

    What you don’t have is a way to test your premise. All you have is a declaration.

    It isn’t a premise or even a declaration. It’s a piece of data from the real world. We have one less chromosome than apes. We are supposed to be related to apes. A problem. A prediction. Prediction verified.

    Now, what is the problem, exactly?

    bornagain77,

    “Long reams of copy and pasted text about functional proteins, but never addressing the argument at hand.”

    There’s gotta be a name for this fallacy you keep engaging in. Let me see if I can find it…

  18. 18

    bornagain77,

    Aha! Found it!

    Ignoratio elenchi

    “…the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.”

  19. #16, bornagain 77

    - isolation of different functional protein folds in sequence space:

    Sauer, R.T. (MIT): nature structural biology, dec. 2000, pg. 1129-1132

    An evolutionary bridge to a new protein fold.

    abstract: Arc repressor bearing the N11L substitution (Arc-N11L) is an evolutionary intermediate between the wild type protein, in which the region surrounding position 11 forms a beta-sheet, and a double mutant ‘switch Arc’, in which this region is helical. Here, Arc-N11L is shown to be able to adopt either the wild type or mutant conformations. Exchange between these structures occurs on the millisecond time scale in a dynamic equilibrium in which the relative populations of each fold depend on temperature, solvent conditions and ligand binding. The N11L mutation serves as an evolutionary bridge from the beta-sheet to the helical fold because in the mutant, Leu is an integral part of the hydrophobic core of the new structure but can also occupy a surface position in the wild type structure. Conversely, the polar Asn 11 side chain serves as a negative design element in wild type Arc because it cannot be incorporated into the core of the mutant fold.

    - finding functional proteins in random sequences

    Szostak, JW Nature (2001) 410:715-718

    Functional proteins from a random-sequence library.

    Abstract:
    Functional primordial proteins presumably originated from random sequences, but it is not known how frequently functional, or even folded, proteins occur in collections of random sequences. Here we have used in vitro selection of messenger RNA displayed proteins, in which each protein is covalently linked through its carboxy terminus to the 3′ end of its encoding mRNA, to sample a large number of distinct random sequences. Starting from a library of 6 x 10exp12 proteins each containing 80 contiguous random amino acids, we selected functional proteins by enriching for those that bind to ATP. This selection yielded four new ATP-binding proteins that appear to be unrelated to each other or to anything found in the current databases of biological proteins. The frequency of occurrence of functional proteins in random-sequence libraries appears to be similar to that observed for equivalent RNA libraries.

  20. SingBlue, You are maintaining the similarity is proof of common ancestry, yet the proteins produced by the genes are very dissimilar (+80%),,,as well when we draw back from the biased methodology, used by materialists, of only counting protein coding genes as proof of similarity (as is more than warranted due the virtual 100% functionality found by ENCODE) the similarity falls to below 70%.(Richard Buggs) On top of all this you are miles away from proving the supposed fusion was a random event as required by non-teleological evolution,,,, To top all that off Dave has listed references of mice and goats which fused chromosomes and had demonstrated no gross morphological change to the fusion (This scenario screams designed repositioning of functional information),,,Why should we presuppose that the supposed fusion occurred in a ape ancestor when we have no evidence of gross morphological change from the fusion events we witness? As well the loss of information suffered by the supposed fusion event is “going backwards” as to how much functional complexity present is concerned i.e. why not presuppose a created human ancestor that has suffered genetic entropy? ,,,thus you have not even come near falsifying the main principle of Genetic Entropy….To top all this off all the evidence we have for human evolution confirms this “loss of information” we should primarily presuppose!

    Ancient DNA and the origin of modern humans: John H. Relethford
    Excerpt: Adcock et al. (7) clearly demonstrate the actual extinction of an ancient mtDNA lineage belonging to an anatomically modern human, because this lineage is not found in living Australians. Although the fossil evidence provides evidence of the continuity of modern humans over the past 60,000 years,,,, http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.g.....rtid=33358

    “We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations,” Tishkoff told attendees today (Jan. 22) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim. “Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians.” Tishkoff; Andrew Clark, Penn State; Kenneth Kidd, Yale University; Giovanni Destro-Bisol, University “La Sapienza,” Rome, and Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins, WITS University, South Africa, looked at three locations on DNA samples from 13 to 18 populations in Africa and 30 to 45 populations in the remainder of the world.-

    High genomic deleterious mutation rates in hominids
    Excerpt: Furthermore, the level of selective constraint in hominid protein-coding sequences is atypically (unusually) low. A large number of slightly deleterious mutations may therefore have become fixed in hominid lineages.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/j.....344a0.html

    Professional evolutionary biologists are hard-pressed to cite even one clear-cut example of evolution through a beneficial mutation to the DNA of humans which would violate the principle of genetic entropy. Although a materialist may try to claim the lactase persistence mutation as a lonely example of a “truly” beneficial mutation in humans, lactase persistence is actually a loss of a instruction in the genome to turn the lactase enzyme off, so the mutation clearly does not violate Genetic Entropy. Yet at the same time, the evidence for the detrimental nature of mutations in humans is overwhelming for doctors have already cited over 3500 mutational disorders (Dr. Gary Parker).

    “Mutations” by Dr. Gary Parker
    Excerpt: human beings are now subject to over 3500 mutational disorders.
    http://www.answersingenesis.or.....ations.asp

    and again why do you address the glaring dissimilarity while only quoting similarity gained through biased methodology?

    Chimpanzee?
    10-10-2008 – Dr Richard Buggs – research geneticist at the University of Florida
    …Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%.
    http://www.refdag.nl/artikel/1.....anzee.html

    More Chimp-Human Genome Problems – Cornelius Hunter
    Excerpt: Even more interesting, at these locations the chimp’s genome is quite similar to other primates–it is the human that differs from the rest, not the chimp. (human accelerated regions (HARs).
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....blems.html

    Thus SingBlue once again you are miles away from establishing your case conclusively,,,But you jump up and down screaming it is so does nothing if you fail to address the elephant in the living room,,, in other words YOU GOT BIG TIME PROBLEMS.

  21. rna, Experiment was done in vitro— on top of that to only one binding site on top of that 1 in 10^12 which I addressed

    “Estimates for the density of functional proteins in sequence space range anywhere from 1 in 10^12 to 1 in 10^77. No matter how you slice it, proteins are rare. Useful ones are even more rare.”

    http://www.nature.com/nbt/jour.....6-328.html

  22. 22

    bornagain77,

    The issue at hand is not: “fusion causes morphological changes” but “fusion was predicted by common descent, and thus, common descent is a successful scientific theory.”

    Unless you address that specific argument, I will ignore your future prognostications about Wookies on Kashyyyk.

  23. Sing,
    What you basically got is an orginizational problem with the whole Chromosome 2 scenario:

    DNA Packaging: Nucleosomes and Chromatin
    each of us has enough DNA to go from here to the Sun and back more than 300 times, or around Earth’s equator 2.5 million times! How is this possible? http://www.nature.com/scitable.....omatin-310

    DNA Wrapping – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AF2wwMReTf8

    DNA Double Helix – Information – Transcription – Dean Kenyon – video
    http://video.google.com/videop.....1954150174

    Basically you requiring me to suspend my disbelief that organizational information was required to make such a dramatic shift in 100% poly-constrained/poly-functional information so as in order to believe random processes were totally responsible for the shift,,,As well you want me to make up a belief for morphological change from apes to humans (through totally random processes) though all fusion events we have evidence of show no major morphological change,,, Need I remind you of the suddeness and the stability of the fossil record, as well as the gaps that exist?

    “Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether”. Evolutionist Henry Gee, Nature 2001
    http://www.nature.com/nature/j.....131a0.html

    “The australopithecine (Lucy) skull is in fact so overwhelmingly simian as opposed to human that the contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white.” Lord Solly Zuckerman – Chief scientific advisor to British government and leading zoologist

    A 2004 book by leading evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr stated that “The earliest fossils of Homo, Homo rudolfensis and Homo erectus, are separated from Australopithecus (Lucy) by a large, unbridged gap. How can we explain this seeming saltation? Not having any fossils that can serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative.”
    Misrepresentations of the Evidence for Human Evolutionary Origins:
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2......html#more

    Evolution of the Genus Homo – Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences – Tattersall, Schwartz, May 2009
    Excerpt: “Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis.”
    http://arjournals.annualreview.....208.100202

    This following site has a graph which was made by an evolutionist. The graph can be enlarged by clicking on the image. The graph, though made by an evolutionist with an extreme bias for “shoehorning”, shows just how stable each of the hominid species is over the long periods of time they are found in the fossil record, as well as each hominid’s “abrupt appearance” in the fossil record. Man is, of course, the last hominid species to “abruptly appear” in the graph. As well the graph shows the only actual transition ever witnessed by anyone, between any of the stable hominid lineages on the graph, is in the imaginations of the evolutionists who draw the connecting lines between the stable hominid lineages on such graphs. I guess drawing connecting lines on graphs represents hard physical evidence for them. Perhaps they can forgive me for being less than impressed with their imaginary “lines of evidence” for human evolution.

    Hominid Fossil Graph
    http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.gif

    Man is indeed as unique, as different from all other animals, as had been traditionally claimed by theologians and philosophers.
    Evolutionist Ernst Mayr http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=home_more4

    “Something extraordinary, if totally fortuitous, happened with the birth of our species….Homo sapiens is as distinctive an entity as exists on the face of the Earth, and should be dignified as such instead of being adulterated with every reasonably large-brained hominid fossil that happened to come along.” Anthropologist Ian Tattersall (curator at the American Museum of Natural History)

    If you want to make evolutionist Henry Gee mad at you remind him that he once wrote this following “true” statement:

    “To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story, amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
    Evolutionist – Henry Gee, editor of Nature, on the feasibility of reconstructing phylogenetic trees from fossils

    So please tell me why should I take your word that man evolved from apes based on the chromosome 2 evidence? Just because you have faith that it was so? Excuse me but I already have a faith and I don’t need yours especially when you have absolutely no solid evidence but onloy wishful speculation.

  24. You know singblue,,,you keep harping that this was a successful prediction of evolution,,,though you seem to admit this is far from proving common descent,,,,but be honest with yourself singblue,,,,in all integrity of the overall picture, this was actually a failed prediction of evolution due to this following “natural” prediction for evolution:

    C-value enigma
    Excerpt: it was soon found that C-values (genome sizes) vary enormously among species and that this bears no relationship to the presumed number of genes (as reflected by the complexity of the organism). For example, the cells of some salamanders may contain 40 times more DNA than those of humans. Given that C-values were assumed to be constant because DNA is the stuff of genes, and yet bore no relationship to presumed gene number, this was understandably considered paradoxical;
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-value_enigma

    Now be honest singblue, why should evolution be allowed to miss all the major predictions that naturally fall to it, of which there are numerous failed instances, and then when a supposed, and very dubious, fusion event is discovered you claim a stunning victory for evolutionary predictive power. Indeed why should you adamantly claim this as a clean and clear unbiased prediction for evolution, especially considering genetic entropy has all rights to first try at explanation from what we know to be true from the first principles of science (LCI: Second Law) That you would be so forgiving of the many gross failed predictions of evolution and then be such a cheerleader for such a trivial dubious prediction, reveals that you have an extreme philosophical bias towards evolution. If you were truly concerned with the truth should you not seek something vastly more substantial to make your claims with? Why should you be satisfied with what I have clearly shown to be so flimsy?

  25. 25

    bornagain77,

    More Ignoracio Elenchi. I’m glad this fallacy has a term! Because you just can’t stop doing it!

    You flirted with the argument at the end, but then said “What about all the failed predictions of evolution?”

    My argument is NOT about successful predictions vs failed predictions.

    I’m not arguing the entire freaking case for human evolution, so stop trying to suck me into it.

    My argument was in response to the original post which said that “such a fusion event has nothing to do with evolution” which is utterly false.

    Address that argument, or don’t. Your choice.

  26. Sing, The evolutionary prediction of “supposed” fusion is only successful if you ignore the primary failed prediction of the c-value enigma that evolution predicted and missed, as well as the concern genetic entropy has for the event IF it truly occurred,,, If you want to claim this as victory for evolution you are severely misguided as to how to practice rigorous science. Moreover the event truly does not have anything to do with evolution since you have no morphological change from fusion events to back you up, and since it can be explained much more satisfactorily within the genetic entropy framework which, need I remind, is based on foundational principles of science,,,, whereas I can find no foundation for evolution,,,…. that you would continue to claim this has something to do with evolution clearly shows your dogmatic bias,,, to the point of continually, and maybe even willingly, being deceptive when shown your fallacy of reasoning.

  27. 27

    bornagain77,

    Your argument about the C-value enigma makes no sense. Genome size was assumed to correlate with genes. Then they found out that much of the genome is non-coding.

    So what?

    Then you said, for the five thousand, two hundred, and thirty seventh time that “fusion doesn’t produce morphological changes.”

    So what?

    My argument has nothing to do with whether a fusion caused or could cause morphological change. Nothing to do with genome size, or whether such and such does or does not code for anything, or information increase or decrease, or apple pie recipes, or Paris.

    I again repeat:

    They knew to look for a fused chromosome because, according to the hypothesis of common descent, we were short one.

  28. Sing,
    the prediction has everything to do with c-value enigma! Materialism/Evolution predicted “information” (as well as everything else “spiritual”) was an emergent property of some material basis. Thus if evolution were true and could be correlated to some fundamental law of nature which could be rigorously codified to math somehow, then the functional information in a genome should naturally follow some logical progression of material size to informational complexity,,,but yet this is not the case at all and is to be counted as a severely missed prediction of evolution/materialism!!,,,In fact we find genome sizes all over the map,,,, in fact when evolution was attempted to be brought into a law of math, with the modern neo-Darwinian synthesis that was developed by Haldane, Fisher and Wright,,,it was severely humiliated by the interwoven complexity findings of ENCODE. This is because evolution was forced, by the rigorously established proof of Mendelian genetics, to no longer view the whole organism as to what natural selection works upon, but to view the whole organism as a multiple independent collection of genes which can be selected or discarded as natural selection sees fit. Thus the “complex interwoven network” finding of ENCODE was absolutely devastating for the population genetics scenario of evolution (modern neo-Darwinian synthesis) developed by Haldane, Fisher and Wright since evolution no longer had unfettered access to the genes which carry the traits natural selection is suppose to select for in order to make evolution plausible…Of course all the devastating evidence is completely ignored by evolutionists….

    And to top it all off sing “information’ is now shown to be a completely independent entity with dominion over matter and energy.

    Converting Quantum Bits: Physicists Transfer Information Between Matter and Light
    Excerpt: A team of physicists at the Georgia Institute of Technology has taken a significant step toward the development of quantum communications systems by successfully transferring quantum information from two different groups of atoms onto a single photon.
    http://gtresearchnews.gatech.e.....mtrans.htm

    How Teleportation Will Work -
    Excerpt: In 1993, the idea of teleportation moved out of the realm of science fiction and into the world of theoretical possibility. It was then that physicist Charles Bennett and a team of researchers at IBM confirmed that quantum teleportation was possible, but only if the original object being teleported was destroyed. — As predicted, the original photon no longer existed once the replica was made.
    http://in.geocities.com/info_aruni/tele.htm

    Scientific Evidence For God Creating The Universe – 2008 – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQhO906v0VM

    Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh
    Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) — Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred to teleport.
    http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/fa.....lPSA2K.pdf

  29. 29

    DATCG: Ah, thanks for catching that mistake!

  30. 30

    bornagain77,

    My argument has nothing to do with whether a fusion caused or could cause morphological change. Nothing to do with genome size, or whether such and such does or does not code for anything, or information increase or decrease, or apple pie recipes, or Paris.

    I again repeat:

    They knew to look for a fused chromosome because, according to the hypothesis of common descent, we were short one.

  31. 31

    SingBlueSilver (30):

    They knew to look for a fused chromosome because, according to the hypothesis of common descent, we were short one.

    What if it hadn’t been found? Do you think evolution would have been dropped, or do you think it merely would have been modified to accommodate the new finding? (Given long time periods, chromosomal restructing can occur, blah, blah, etc…).

  32. 32

    What if it hadn’t been found? Do you think evolution would have been dropped, or do you think it merely would have been modified to accommodate the new finding?

    It would have been a major thorn. They would have kept looking for what happened to the missing chromosome. Nothing would have been conclusive.

  33. SingBlue,,,
    If you think that that one supposed failed prediction, (it is not even a true prediction when taken in true total context of what is actually being weighed), would have been a thorn in the side to the great “can do no wrong” myth of evolution you severely deluded!

    Indeed none of these following major failures in evolutionary predictive power seem to have had the slightest ripple in evolution’s stranglehold of rational science:

    Materialism/Evolution predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”. -

    Materialism/Evolution predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth – The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) -

    Materialism/Evolution predicted a very simple first life form which accidentally came from “a warm little pond”. Theism predicted God created life – The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) -

    Materialism/Evolution predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11) – We find evidence for complex photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth -

    Materialism/Evolution predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. – The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas. -

    Materialism/Evolution predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record – Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record, then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. -

    Materialism/Evolution predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man himself is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. -

    The point is Sing you are deceiving yourself if you think your one example of non-impressive predictive power for evolution would of done anything to the pagan religion of evolution if it would have been found to not be so,,,,ASK YOURSELF SING,,,AND TRY TO BE HONEST,,,WHY DID NONE OF THE OTHER PREDICTIONS MATTER?

  34. CORRECT FIRST LINE TO,,,, “If you think that that one supposed validated prediction,,,,,

  35. 35

    SingBlueSilver (32):

    Nothing would have been conclusive.

    There are many failed predictions of evolution which are remedied by adding more complexity to the theory, and I think this would have been another such case.

    But I agree with you that it wouldn’t have been conclusive in the sense that the science would not have backed up the theory adjustments very well, so the explanation would remain open to revision. This is precisely the case for many of evolution’s patches.

    Be that as it may, the more important point, which you seem to agree with, is that evolution would not have been damaged in the eyes of its adherents. They would have continued to tout that it is a fact. I suspect this simply because that is the track record.

    So given that the theory would have been modified (albeit perhaps inconclusively), but otherwise undamaged, you can see that this evidence (ie, the fusion event that we do infer) is not particularly strong.

    Unfortunately, there is a history of evolutionists touting successful predictions as falsifiers of the overarching theory, had they turned out wrong. Whereas, OTH, those predictions that are falsified, and they are many and significant, never do any harm. The theory is merely modified to accommodate.

  36. CORRECT FIRST LINE TO,,,, “If you think that that one supposed validated prediction,,,,,

    Out of curiosity, why do you use multiple commas in a row?

  37. SingBlueSilver

    Thank you for your posts. You wrote (#30):

    The hypothesis is that we are related to chimps. We have one less chromosome. Therefore, they predicted we should have a fused chromosome. A successful prediction is the hallmark of a good scientific theory.

    I think you have a valid point here, and I would personally agree the discovery of a fused chromosome is prima facie evidence of a shared common ancestry between humans and chimps. The same goes for your vitamin C argument.

    However, saying that we’re related to chimps is not saying much. After all, it was you who insisted in #14 above:

    I’m NOT talking about the mechanism of evolution.

    Thus by your own admission, the discovery of evidence that humans and chimps share a common ancestry does NOT tell us whether an undirected process gave rise to the human line or not.

    Recent evidence cited by Dr. Hunter in an earlier post at http://www.uncommondescent.com.....-problems/ invites the question of whether the startling genetic differences between humans and other primates in the so-called “Human Accelerated Regions” (HARs) of the genome might have been engineered by some Designer.

    You may object that the mechanism of the Designer’s engineering process is not specified; but the same objection would apply to the bare hypothesis that humans and chimps are related.

  38. Cabal you can take this to the bank,,,Genetic Entropy is the true foundational rule for all of biology.

    After much research, I find the principle of Genetic Entropy to be the true principle for biological adaptations which directly contradicts unguided Darwinian evolution.

    Did your research take you to things like LGT, lateral gene transfer? Or the experiment where mice in perfect health was born even after a good chunk of the genome had been removed? Gene duplication? Why do we have DNA that is not in use in our genome?

    the evidence for the detrimental nature of mutations in humans is overwhelming for doctors have already cited over 3500 mutational disorders

    So what? Who says otherwise? The fact of detrimental mutations is not evidence against advantageous mutations. As far as I understand ToE I even believe a bad mutation like sickle cell anemia may sometimes be an advantage. Who knows, maybe further mutation might improve it?

  39. #21 bornagain

    That the experiments were done in vitro does not matter since they answer very abstract questions about the relationship between fold/function space and sequence space for proteins.

    the sauer experiment gives a lower limit for the distance of two different folds in sequence space: one amino acid

    similarly, the szostak-experiment gives a lower limit of sequence diversity you need to find a protein with a specific function. it should be also noted that they found at least four different and independent sequence families capable of the same function and for each family they found multiple members. Thus, in their 10exp12 sequences it was not hard to find a solution. That they found only one binding activity is simply due to the fact that they only looked for atp binders and nothing else in this one experiment. Experimental results with similar pools of RNA sequences indicate that you normally have multiple functions in the same pool.
    Furthermore, a pool with 10exp12 random protein sequence variants of an 80 amino acid protein is less than one microgramm of material.

  40. Cabal,

    Did your research take you to things like LGT, lateral gene transfer? Or the experiment where mice in perfect health was born even after a good chunk of the genome had been removed? Gene duplication? Why do we have DNA that is not in use in our genome?

    bornagain fails to note he was told about work by Estes and Lynch which showed that populations of C elegans which had been given enormous genetic loads of detrimental mutations still managed to recover fitness quickly, most likely due to compensatory mutations. This of course, directly contradicts the thesis of Sanford’s Gebnetic Entropy hypothesis.

  41. Cabal asks:
    “Did your research take you to things like LGT, lateral gene transfer? Or the experiment where mice in perfect health was born even after a good chunk of the genome had been removed? Gene duplication? Why do we have DNA that is not in use in our genome?”

    Yes,
    first,
    “”Did your research take you to things like LGT, lateral gene transfer?”

    The malaria parasite, due to its comparatively enormous population size, has in 1 year more mutation/duplication/selection events than all mammal lineages have had in the entire +100 million years they have been in the fossil record. Moreover, since single cell organisms and viruses replicate, and mutate/duplicate, far more quickly than multi-cellular life-forms can, scientists can do experiments on single celled organisms and viruses to see what we can actually expect to happen over millions of years for mammals with far smaller population sizes.

    Malaria and AIDS are among the largest real world tests that can be performed to see if evolutionary presumptions are true.

    “Indeed, the work on malaria and AIDS demonstrates that after all possible unintelligent processes in the cell–both ones we’ve discovered so far and ones we haven’t–at best extremely limited benefit, since no such process was able to do much of anything. It’s critical to notice that no artificial limitations were placed on the kinds of mutations or processes the microorganisms could undergo in nature. Nothing–neither point mutation, deletion, insertion, gene duplication, transposition, genome duplication, self-organization nor any other process yet undiscovered–was of much use.” Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pg. 162 Swine Flu, Viruses, and the Edge of Evolution
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2....._edge.html

    Then you ask,,,

    “Or the experiment where mice in perfect health was born even after a good chunk of the genome had been removed?”

    I actually got into a debate with DaveScot on this one since he wanted to use it for a very radical front loading scenario:

    Dave: That such a mechanism exists seems evident in the result of a knockout experiment where 1.5 million base pairs of DNA highly conserved between mouse and man was deleted from the mouse and the resultant GM mice were indistinguishable in any metric from unmodified mice.

    Me: Very suggestive I admit,,yet,,, I could remove major portions of a car and still have a car that performed in its basic functions, but I contend that it would suffer in other areas that may not be noticeable to the test the scientists used to determine robustness!

    I even dug down to the paper and found that the scientists who did the knockout experiment readily admitted that it was premature to suppose the “knockout mice” are as robust as the untampered mice… In fact i suggested “stressed reproductive test” so as to differentiate the anomalous “equal fitness” finding….i.e. Why do evolutionists never find equilibrium anomalous?
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-141225

    Then you asks:
    “Gene duplication?”

    Excerpt: The fitness cost of carrying both plasmids increased dramatically as antibiotic levels were raised, and either the wild-type plasmid was lost or the cells did not grow. This study highlights the importance of the cost of duplicate genes and the quantitative nature of the tradeoff in the evolution of gene duplication through functional divergence.

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-124213

    Sanford Genetic Entropy Polyploidy – (Duplication Fallacies)
    http://livinglove.files.wordpr.....x4-pg3.pdf
    http://livinglove.files.wordpr.....x4-pg2.pdf

    Then Cabal presupposes non-functionality (Junk) in the genome,,,, “Why do we have DNA that is not in use in our genome?”

    Cabal do you really want me to reveal how many times evolutionists have been burnt on the presupposition of “junk, useless, or vestigial”???

  42. Dave Whisker,,,I mean this as nice as possible,,,,You are an absolute idiot if you think random “non-designed” processes compensated the information,,,,on top of that you are severely biased to a dogmatic point of atheism if you do not find the equilibrium anomalous as I do,,,,For you ignore a sensitized test, a gave rough reference to, just so to maintain your dubious claim to equilibrium is shoddy science in its most pristine form,,,especially since you claim to be so wise in these matters!!!

  43. rna,,, Methinks you are blinded by your materialism,,,,

    given to the “specialized” in vitro circumstances they used,,,,on top of the fact they used ATP, a very highly reactive molecule which is the “energy currency of life”, just in order to derive 1 binding site in 1 in 10^12 tries for functional proteins from “semi” random sequences,,,would be strong support for the work of Behe and Axe which actually looked for what could happen IN A CELL,,,,basically to clearly differentiate this from Behe’s and Axe’s work they would have to try the same process with 2 binding sites, since proteins work in “cooperation” and see what results they get…..1 in 10^24??? 1 in 10^48????,,,,the numbers should quickly fall in line with what has already been established.

  44. Dave Whisker @40.

    I posted this to you in this thread on this blog

    “3 August 2009
    Stephen Meyer’s Book Ranked #1 in Science/Physics/Cosmology at Amazon”

    It was in regard to the Estes paper you refer to but I received no reply. I would still be interested in your comments.

    Dave Whisker:

    “Actually, mad doc, the authors speculated on the cause, but only in the discussion section”

    Mad doc:

    I am aware of that and what I was trying to draw attention to was the illogicalities in their speculations: “The authors point out that compensatory epistatic mutations are not the same as “beneficial mutations” (even though they obviously benefit the organism). They postulate these mutations benefit the worst performing organisms the most. (It appears If the organism is mutated then the mutations are good and if the organism is not mutated, mutations are bad).”
    From their results, this is all supposed to have happened within 10 generations in several strains. This is a remarkable achievement for a random process and it puts Dawkin’s “weasel” program to shame.
    Basically I think random mutations are unable to do this in 10 generations. Either their experiment is flawed or there is another explaination. In any event their explaination in the discussion makes no sense for the reasons I have outlined before.
    I am glad that they are doing further investigations. About time too, as that paper is 6 years old. I would be interested to find out the results. I expect the answer will only be found when full genetic mapping of the mutated and non mutated strains can be done and I think you will find a highly efficient data recovery mechanism has been activated in the organism to recover the “lost” information.

    Thank you.

  45. 1- Fusion was not predicted by evolution

    2- At best it was post hoc “explanation

    3- Without the scientific data which demonstrates that the transformations required are even possible it isn’t evidence for anything.

    Especially since the premise of common ancestry cannot be objectively tested.

    We are supposed to be related to apes.

    Correction- some people WANT to be related to the apes.

  46. #43 bornagain

    What do you mean by ‘semi’random sequences? Do you think, they cheated in their experiments?
    Actually the took extra precautions, to keep their starting library as random (highly complex in sequence space) as possible.

    why would it matter in this experiment, that atp is also the ‘energy currency of the cell’ or is highly ‘reactive’? It does not chemically react in this experiment, it just stably binds by non-covalent interactions.

  47. Hmmm rna,,, methinks you are being far to forgiving of their methodology for finding only one binding site with the universal ATP energy molecule,,,tell you what rna,,,you want to impress me??? show where they have successfully synthesized the absolutely critical ATP molecule, that is used by all life, and even viruses, by totally random processes!!!

    Evolution vs ATP Synthase – Molecular Machine
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qE3QJMI-ljc

    ATP: The Perfect Energy Currency for the Cell
    Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.

    http://www.trueorigin.org/atp.asp

    Excerpt:
    Without ATP, life as we understand it could not exist. It is a perfectly-designed, intricate molecule that serves a critical role in providing the proper size energy packet for scores of thousands of classes of reactions that occur in all forms of life. Even viruses rely on an ATP molecule identical to that used in humans. The ATP energy system is quick, highly efficient, produces a rapid turnover of ATP, and can rapidly respond to energy demand changes (Goodsell, 1996, p.79).

    Furthermore, the ATP molecule is so enormously intricate that we are just now beginning to understand how it works. Each ATP molecule is over 500 atomic mass units (500 AMUs). In manufacturing terms, the ATP molecule is a machine with a level of organization on the order of a research microscope or a standard television (Darnell, Lodish, and Baltimore, 1996).

    Among the questions evolutionists must answer include the following, ‘How did life exist before ATP?’ ‘How could life survive without ATP since no form of life we know of today can do that?’ and ‘How could ATP evolve and where are the many transitional forms required to evolve the complex ATP molecule?’ No feasible candidates exist and none can exist because only a perfect ATP molecule can properly carry out its role in the cell.

    In addition, a potential ATP candidate molecule would not be selected for by evolution until it was functional and life could not exist without ATP or a similar molecule that would have the same function. ATP is an example of a molecule that displays irreducible complexity which cannot be simplified and still function (Behe, 1996). ATP could have been created only as a unit to function immediately in life and the same is true of the other intricate energy molecules used in life such as GTP.

    Although other energy molecules can be used for certain cell functions, none can even come close to satisfactorily replacing all the many functions of ATP. Over 100,000 other detailed molecules like ATP have also been designed to enable humans to live, and all the same problems related to their origin exist for them all. Many macromolecules that have greater detail than ATP exist, as do a few that are less highly organized, and in order for life to exist all of them must work together as a unit.

  48. Hi mad doc,

    Thanks for reposting this– I remember seeing and thinking about it, but then lost track of where it was. The issue you brought up about the majority of fitness recovery occurring very early was a very interesting one. I have my own idea why that might be so, so please take it as an hypothesis by someone who isn’t an expert on C. elegans.

    I think the explanation may involve the the nature of compensatory epistatic mutations, and the reproductive strategies employed by C. elegans. Firstly, C. elegans reproduces primarily by selfing and thius was used to the investigators advantage to produce lines of individuals that were almost identical genetically. However, as the authors note, C. elegans also reproduces sexually in the presence of males, and the authors noted that the number of males rose to wild-type levels ( a very low percentage ) in only a few generations. What this means is, recombination could bring together epistatic mutations occurring in different individuals. The early-on presence of males (and sexual reproduction), coupled with a large population size–which increases the probability of mutations appearing– could produce a flush of new epistatic mutation combinations, resulting in an initial surge in fitness recovery. This at least would be consistent with an epistatic compensatory mutation scenario.

    I’m not sure I think your assertion Estes and Lynch were being illogical in coming to their conclusion is warranted. They clearly laid out what they saw as the options available and ruled out those–given our current state of knowledge–which did not fit. And, as I said, Estes has gone one to focus on exploring compensatory epistatic mutations and fitness (including whole genome analysis). So it remains to be seen if furtrher work will establish their hypothesis further.

    I understand that you are positing instead the existence of a completely heretofore unknown mechanism to explain the “recovery of information”. The actual discovery of something like that would be fascinating. Do you have any further ideas on the nature of it?

    As for your ‘about time’ remark, Suzanne Estes was a grad student at Oregon State when the paper was published, and her postdoc fellowship work immediately after was on a different topic. She became an assistant professor at Portland State and runs a lab maintaining several research programs. So let’s cut her some slack ;)

  49. Dave Whisker you state:

    “could produce a flush of new epistatic mutation combinations, resulting in an initial surge in fitness recovery.”

    What is the size of the genome?

    4^100,000,000????

    What is the probability of finding ANY useful sequence whatsoever in that search space?

    .000001% to be generous?

    So please tell me why in the world you would even entertain, for the slightest moment, the belief that the “just right” combination of mutations would occur by totally random processes, to drive the compensation mechanism in such a rapid fashion (to the supposed equilibrium status),,,even if the entire universe were populated with nothing but C elegans to begin with???

    There is clearly an algorithm present,,,which brings us back to the main question evolutionists dare not ask:

    Where did the complex information come from?

    “No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms’ genomes programmed?” – David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information,” Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8

    On top of the fact that we now know the genetic code of the simplest organism ever found on Earth is a highly advanced algorithmic code, which far surpasses man’s ability to devise as such, we also know for a fact no operation of logic ever performed by a computer will ever increase the algorithmic code inherent in a computer’s program, i.e. Bill Gates will never use random number generators and selection software to write highly advanced computer codes:

    “… no operation performed by a computer can create new information.”
    Douglas G. Robertson, “Algorithmic Information Theory, Free Will and the Turing Test,” Complexity, Vol.3, #3 Jan/Feb 1999, pp. 25-34. The Evolutionary Informatics Lab:

  50. bornagain77,

    Dave Whisker,,,I mean this as nice as possible,,,,You are an absolute idiot if you think random “non-designed” processes compensated the information,

    I tried to warn you, now I’m going to moderate your comments. If you stop with this nonsense rudeness, I will take you out of moderation after a while.

  51. # bornagain

    I do not try to impress you, I asked two specific questions.

    the first one was why you called their sequence library ‘semi’random when it was not?

    the second one was why you think that the ‘reactivity’ of ATP which is a well defined chemical concept does matter in their experiment.

    I also pointed out that they found four different families each including multiple members of atp-binding molecules meaning four different kinds of binding sites.

    they found only atp-binders (just one binding site as you call it)because the only looked for binders to atp and nothing else. Experimental evidence from other selection experiments suggests that one can find (very) different functionalities in the same pool of random (in this case RNA) sequences.

  52. 52

    Joseph,

    1- Fusion was not predicted by evolution

    Question: how did biologists know to look for a fused chromosome?

    Answer: because we have an “incorrect” number of chromosomes according to common descent.

    It’s a prediction, and a valid scientific theory makes predictions. Like putting together a puzzle. “There should be a piece with a tractor wheel on it somewhere.”

    Without the scientific data which demonstrates that the transformations required are even possible it isn’t evidence for anything.

    Like with bornagain77, you are attempting to avoid the argument by spiraling willy-nilly into a general argument about evolution. I’m not arguing whether evolution happens or not. I’m simply responding to Cornelius’ incorrect assertion that the fused chromosome has nothing to do with evolution, which it most assuredly does. Even if it isn’t necessarily direct proof of common ancestry by itself.

    Especially since the premise of common ancestry cannot be objectively tested.

    If you walk into your house, see a broken window, your TV missing, and muddy footprints out the door, and then declare that you’ve been robbed, I’m going to answer “the premise of you being robbed cannot be objectively tested.”

    Correction- some people WANT to be related to the apes.

    Off topic, but some who shall remain nameless have an almost Victorian aversion to the idea of being related to animals. Pinkies out! Begin your Thurston Howell III laugh! “I’m not related to those filthy apes!”

  53. Thanks Dave very much for your reply.
    10 generations is a very rapid, too rapid I believe, recovery on the basis of beneficial mutations and I can’t see how this can be the mechanism. I think there must be actual information coming from somewhere. A back up copy in the genome perhaps? Is some information in the cyto-architecture? Of course I can only speculate.

  54. Hi mad doc,

    So you think an 11% increase in mean fitness after 10 generations (the progeny measure), and 5% increase (survival to maturity) was too much for large population size, epistatic compensatory mutations and wild-type-level sexual reproduction? What do you think the limit should have been?

  55. Dr. Hunter.

    Have you seen this yet?

    “More ‘Evidence’ of Intelligent Design Shot Down by Science”

    Here is the money quote, I think it revealing. Lots of ‘Couldn’t have been this or that’s’ in this article as well.

    “Intelligent design mavens once cited flagella as evidence of their theory. Scientific fact dispelled that illusion. The mitochondria study does the same for protein transport.”

    I wonder what the chances are that this argument misrepresents ID’s position on the matter?

    http://www.wired.com/wiredscie.....omplexity/

  56. SignBlueSilver:

    Question: how did biologists know to look for a fused chromosome?

    How do you know they were looking for it and just didn’t stumble across it?

    Also “evolution” is not being debated.

    If you walk into your house, see a broken window, your TV missing, and muddy footprints out the door, and then declare that you’ve been robbed, I’m going to answer “the premise of you being robbed cannot be objectively tested.”

    By conflating investigation of today with biased inferences of the past all you are doing ius exposing your agenda of conflation and deception.

    My point is that if there isn’t any evidence that the transformations required are even possible then the allged fusion event had nothing to do with common ancestry.

    IOW using the fusion as evidence for common ancestry is putting the cart before the horse.

    BTW I don’t have an aversion.

    I have been disciplined to accept only SCIENTIFIC data,

    And to date there isn’t any scientific data that supports common ancestry.

    As I said the premise cannot even be objectively tested.

    YOU have proved that beyond a doubt.

    I say that because I have asked you more than once to tell us how we can test the premise that the fusion is part of a common ancestry and you have failed to provide such a test.

  57. Does anyone else think that measuring fitness by the number offspring is nonsensical?

    Talk about post hoc

  58. IRQ,

    I saw that article yesterday. I just shook my head.

    The WIRED article starts off badly:

    Intricate cellular components are often cited as evidence of intelligent design. They couldn’t have evolved, I.D. proponents say, because they can’t be broken down into smaller, simpler functional parts.

    It isn’t about “evolution” and the smaller simpler parts can still function and IC would still be present.

    But anyway…

  59. Relevant to the Wired article, IC and people’s misunderstandings were discussed previously here:

    Carl Zimmer on Irreducible Complexity

  60. 60

    Joseph,

    How do you know they were looking for it and just didn’t stumble across it?

    “A direct cytological comparison between species suggests that human chromosome 2 emerged as a result of a fusion…”
    Molecular evolutionary genetics

    “The mechanism which leads to a reduction in the number of chromosomes without causing severed damage is that of centric fusion.”
    Perspectives in primate biology

    “Comparative chromosome banding shows that chromosome 2 in man is best matched with its arm homologues in Pan Troglodytes, as if the two fused by their short-arm telomeres…”
    The phylogeny of human chromosomes

    By conflating investigation of today with biased inferences of the past all you are doing ius exposing your agenda of conflation and deception.

    A robbery investigation, or a murder investigation are all examples of proving past events with leftover evidence. Are you saying it’s impossible to prove a past homicide using DNA, blood, hair, fingerprints, etc? So in a jury you’ll vote with the murderer every time, because you can’t reproduce the actual event of the murder in the lab?

    My point is that if there isn’t any evidence that the transformations required are even possible then the allged fusion event had nothing to do with common ancestry.

    Fine. Then look at the shared vitamin C mutation. Look at the shared number of transposons on our genomes, in the same order, in the same place. These are elements that can only be inherited. Look at the shared endogenous retroviruses. We share ten with chimps, on the same spot, in the same order, and ERVs can only be inherited. Look how the cytochrome C gene studies show the entire family tree, exactly the same as family trees created by morphology.

    The molecular evidence for common descent is overwhelming. You can deny it if you want, but you might as well be the dad on Jerry Springer having just heard DNA proof of paternity: “That’s not my baby! That’s not my baby!”

    And to date there isn’t any scientific data that supports common ancestry.

    Absolutely and completely wrong. The only way you can say this is if you are unaware of the huge pile of evidence for it. However, it’s beyond the scope of this thread…

    I say that because I have asked you more than once to tell us how we can test the premise that the fusion is part of a common ancestry and you have failed to provide such a test.

    Because it’s a whole other argument that would take a lot of time, trying to prove the entire case of common ancestry. My argument is not “common ancestry is true.” My argument is “the fused chromosome is predicted by, and thus has a LOT to do with, evolution, unlike what Cornelius says in the original post.”

  61. SingBlueSilver,

    Seeing that I cannot read the references I cannot tell if they support your claim or not.

    The molecular evidence for common ancestry can be explained by common design and/ or convergence.

    There isn’t anything in genetics which demonstrates the transformations required are even possible.

    We have no idea where the information for form is. And there isn’t any evidence that says we are the sum of our genes.

    BTW just because DNA tests are OK within the same population, doesn’t mean they can be used to link other species.

    The fused chromosome was a post hoc explanation.

    We don’t have any idea what it had to do with “evolution” other than it may have changed allele frequency over time.

    Shared mutations? Are you serious? How many options are there for any one position along the double-helix?

    ERVs? Again do you understand the type of bottle-necks your scenario requires?

    Perhaps the alleged ERVs aren’t from infectious agents. Perhaps ERVs owe their very nature- their origin- to those sequences they resemble. And they, like prions, are just leftover, decaying pieces that were consumed and then took over the new host.

    There was a study by Yale(?) that showed that there are ERV-like sequences that actually prevent ERVs from splicing in.

    I will see if I can find it.

  62. BTW it could also be the fusion event is real, but that it occurred in the human lineage.

    That is the original humans had 48 chromosomes.

    And the fusion didn’t have anything to do with common ancestry with chimps, nor evolution.

  63. Joseph

    BTW it could also be the fusion event is real, but that it occurred in the human lineage.

    You say “could be”. Sounds like you are hedging your bets either way.

    Can you think of an experiment that could be performed that would remove the “could be” from your mind?

    If so, what would it be? What would prove to your satisfaction one way or the other that the fusion did or did not have anything to do with common ancestry with chimps or evolution?

    Is it possible in theory to provide a level of evidence that will satisfy you? If so, what form would that evidence take? How could it be obtained?

  64. Joseph

    The molecular evidence for common ancestry can be explained by common design and/ or convergence.

    Where can I read about the common design explanation for the molecular evidence for common ancestry please?

    For example

    Glutinous rice is a major type of cultivated rice with long-standing cultural importance in Asia. A mutation in an intron 1 splice donor site of the Waxy gene is responsible for the change in endosperm starch leading to the glutinous phenotype. Here we examine an allele genealogy of the Waxy locus to trace the evolutionary and geographical origins of this phenotype. On the basis of 105 glutinous and nonglutinous landraces from across Asia, we find evidence that the splice donor mutation has a single evolutionary origin and that it probably arose in Southeast Asia. Nucleotide diversity measures indicate that the origin of glutinous rice is associated with reduced genetic variation characteristic of selection at the Waxy locus; comparison with an unlinked locus, RGRC2, confirms that this pattern is specific to Waxy.

    http://www.genetics.org/cgi/co...../162/2/941
    What’s the common design explanation for the phenotype examined in that study? Is this evidence for the designer being in Southeast Asia?

    I’m happy to look at whatever reference material you can supply on the topic of the common design explanation for the molecular evidence for common ancestry.

  65. Blue Lotus,

    Don’t ask Joseph about plants when discussing evolution. Their genetics are ‘different’. In other words, Mendel was working in the wrong kingdom when he came up with his laws of inheritance.

  66. Dave Wisker re plants-

    I am not the one parading around genetic engineering as evidence for evolution.

    That dishonest tactic is exactly what Dave Wisker and Art Hunt have done.

  67. Blue Lotus,

    How can we test the premise that common ancstry is the ONLY explanation for the fused chromosome?

    What would satisfy me pertaining to common ancestry?

    Some scientific evidence that would demonstrate that the transformations required are even possible.

    It would be a good start if we knew what was responsible for form.

    Thinking organisms is a sum of their genetic material has proven to be a bust.

    Also common design does NOT rule out evolution.

    All I am saying is that when one looks at the “evidence” for common ancestry it is very apparent that the same “evidence” can be used to support common design and/ or convergence.

    With the rice IDists would see if that mutation was random or not- ie directed by some internal programming.

    See Dr Spetner’s “Not By Chance”.

  68. 1- With telomeric fusions do both telemeres need to be uncapped and vulnerable?

    2- Until one centromere becomes inactivated the new chromosome will have two active centromeres (dicentric).

    3- Does being dicentric always result in chromosome breakage?

  69. 2- Until one centromere becomes inactivated the new chromosome will have two active centromeres (dicentric).

    3- Does being dicentric always result in chromosome breakage?

    No:

    http://pandasthumb.org/archive.....f-hum.html

  70. 70

    Joseph,

    How can we test the premise that common ancstry is the ONLY explanation for the fused chromosome?

    Common ancestry is not the explanation for the fused chromosome. Rather, the fused chromosome is a puzzle piece predicted to exist by the hypothesis of common ancestry. Hypothesis tested, and validated. “If common descent is true, we should find…” And this is just one of thousands.

    All I am saying is that when one looks at the “evidence” for common ancestry it is very apparent that the same “evidence” can be used to support common design and/ or convergence.

    Not true. Design theories would not have predicted fused chromosomes. Design theories would not have predicted shared ERVs. Design theories would not have predicted shared transposons. Design theories would not have predicted the exact same mutated vitamin C gene.

    You can certainly say “well, that’s just how the designer designed it” but you can ALWAYS say that, no matter what. No matter what evidence is presented, the design answer is always “the designer made it like that.” It’s useless as a predictive theory.

    There are examples of creationists from the 1980s using the differing numbers of chromosomes as evidence that we are NOT related to chimps. Because of their theory, they did not predict this piece of data.

    Common descent PREDICTED a fused chromosome. Common descent PREDICTED shared ERVs. Common descent predicted shared transposons. Common descent predicted the mutated vitamin C.

    It’s really quite beautiful, if you actually look at it.

    All these genetic elements can ONLY be inherited, and we share them with chimps, our closest living relatives. We share less with orangutans, as predicted, less with gorillas, as predicted, still less with macaques and baboons, as predicted, and still less with lemurs, as predicted. The family tree emerges quite beautifully from the molecular evidence in the same way it does from the morphological evidence.

  71. SingBlueSilver,
    “Not true. Design theories would not have predicted fused chromosomes. Design theories would not have predicted shared ERVs. Design theories would not have predicted shared transposons. Design theories would not have predicted the exact same mutated vitamin C gene.”

    ID “predicts” these things in the same fashion of “prediction” which you’ve been talking about.

    I think when you say “prediction”, what you mean to say is that it harmonizes with existing data?

    Is this an awkward use of the word prediction?

  72. 72

    I think when you say “prediction”, what you mean to say is that it harmonizes with existing data?

    No. Common descent predicts their existence before they are found. ID only harmonizes with it after it has been found.

    Common descent is a useful theory for making predictions about reality.

    ID, so far, is not.

  73. Dave Wisker,

    All PZ sez is that one centromere becomes deactivated.

    And that has nothing to do with my question.

    What happens if BOTH stay activated?

    Ya see I say one becoming deactivated is evidence for ID because the internal programming recognizes the problem and fixes it bt deactivating one.

  74. SingBlueSilver,

    Ther theory of evolution didn’t predict fused chromosomes.

    Common descent didn’t predict fused chromosomes.

    What happened is that we observed the number of chromosomes in primates and then made a “prediction”.

    Common descent didn’t predict ERVs.

    And there isn’t any reason to assume an ERV would remain intact enough over many, many, many, thousands of generations so that it could be used as a genetic marker.

    Common descent didn’t predict transposons.

    Common descent didn’t predict a vitamin C gene.

    All these genetic elements can ONLY be inherited,

    You say that however it is obvious that you cannot substantiate that claim.

  75. SingBlueSilver,

    Until there is some genetic evidence that demonstrates the transformations required are even possible, you are putting the cart before the horse.

  76. Pandas Thumb on the fusion

    If one reads that article there is an interesting illustration.

    It shows a fusion taking place and two large pieces of a chromosome being discarded.

    What is so interesting about this is that in another essay on PT they talk about how a deletion of a chromosome would be lethal.

    Yet this illustration shows the equivilent of one chromosome being deleteed.

  77. What is also interesting about the illustration is that the fusion that led to chromosome two was a telomeric fusion yet the illustration shows something entirely different.

    Talk about dishonesty…

  78. Ooops comment 73 should have credited Dave Wisker not PZ.

  79. Joseph,

    What is also interesting about the illustration is that the fusion that led to chromosome two was a telomeric fusion yet the illustration shows something entirely different.

    Talk about dishonesty

    When I cited the illustration, I said it was an example of a similar situation that also resulted in a dicentric chromosome–I did not say that the illustration was of a telomeric fusion. And it should be obvious that a telomeric fusion would result in a dicentric chromosome.

    Perhaps before accusing someone of dishonesty, try reading for comprehension first.

  80. Dave,

    I never said the illustration was an example of telomeric fusion.

    It is dishonest to illustrate one thing when talking about something else.

  81. It is also dishonest to use a case of genetic engineering as an example of macroevolution.

  82. Joseph,

    Dave Wisker,

    All PZ sez is that one centromere becomes deactivated.

    And I went on to show that actual “deactivation” may not be occurring.

    And that has nothing to do with my question.

    What happens if BOTH stay activated?

    You cannot have read my essay. I am talking about both centromeres being active, but differing in efficiency at assembing their respective kinethochores. If one is more efficient than the other, the spindle attaches before the other can complete, or intereferes in the assembly of the kintochore of the other enough to prevent attachment. In either case, actual “deactivation” by some mutational mechanism isn’t necessary to prevent breakage.

    Ya see I say one becoming deactivated is evidence for ID because the internal programming recognizes the problem and fixes it bt deactivating one.

    Of course you do.

  83. From DW’s suppoorting paper:

    These results support evidence for nonrandom centromeric activity in humans and, more importantly, suggest a functional hierarchy in Robertsonian translocations with the chromosome 14 centromere most often active and the chromosome 15 centromere least often active.

    It looks like the paper supports my claim of design.

  84. Joseph,

    Dave,

    I never said the illustration was an example of telomeric fusion.

    It is dishonest to illustrate one thing when talking about something else.

    Only if it is used to deceive. And only deeply stupid people would think what I wrote was deceptive in nature.

  85. Joseph @ 74:

    Ther theory of evolution didn’t predict fused chromosomes.

    Common descent didn’t predict fused chromosomes.

    Neither does physics predict the planet Saturn, the formation of which was a contingent event. Nothing in the laws of physics requires the emergence of Saturn apart from the specific contingencies (starting conditions that were themselves events, not laws) that resulted in a planet of that size and configuration.

    Similar contingency characterizes the historical facts of evolution: nothing in our understanding of specific evolutionary mechanisms predicts specific contingent events, such as the emergence of human beings, apart from the events upon which they were contingent.

    It doesn’t follow that such contingent events cannot in either instance both support the underlying theory and be better understood in light of the underlying theory.

  86. An educated person wouldn’t talk about one thing and then illustrate another.

    Especially when said illustration shows something that shouldn’t occur- the deletion of large amounts of two chromosomes.

  87. Ther theory of evolution didn’t predict fused chromosomes.

    Common descent didn’t predict fused chromosomes.

    Dif:

    Neither does physics predict the planet Saturn, the formation of which was a contingent event.

    Contingnet on the design of the solar system.

    And until someone can tell us about those transforamtions that were required universal common descent is just an imaginary tale.

  88. Joseph @ 87:

    Contingnet on the design of the solar system.

    Neither does physics predict the Mississippi river, the formation of which was a contingent event. Nothing in the laws of physics requires the emergence of Mississippi river apart from the specific contingencies (starting conditions that were themselves events, not laws) that resulted in a river of that size and configuration.

    Similar contingency characterizes the historical facts of evolution: nothing in our understanding of specific evolutionary mechanisms predicts specific contingent events, such as the emergence of human beings, apart from the events upon which they were contingent.

    It doesn’t follow that such contingent events cannot in either instance both support the underlying theory and be better understood in light of the underlying theory.

    Are you now going to claim that the Mississippi river was designed?

  89. joseph,

    Since you are one of the few people who actually had a problem with the illustration, I suggest you erase it from your mind. As an educated person, you should then see the illustration itself as being tangenital to the argument being made in the essay.

    You should also easily see that the essay answers your question about dicentric chromsomes, and how they can still undergo normal segregation without being torn apart.

  90. 90

    Joseph,

    What happened is that we observed the number of chromosomes in primates and then made a “prediction”.

    Yes, the prediction being based on the fact that we are supposed to be closely related to chimps, and therefore should have the same number of chromosomes. But we don’t. So it’s a mystery. And it was predicted and then solved.

    And there isn’t any reason to assume an ERV would remain intact enough over many, many, many, thousands of generations so that it could be used as a genetic marker.

    But several of them have remained intact, and these have been found, and chimps have the same ones in the same place on the genome as we do. It IS used as a genetic marker by molecular biologists. It isn’t speculation. It’s real data.

    All these genetic elements can ONLY be inherited,

    You say that however it is obvious that you cannot substantiate that claim.

    Because that’s what a transposon IS. A transposon is a virus that does not have a protein coat and cannot leave the genome. The only way for them to acquired is through inheritance. This is a fact. We share several of them with chimps in the same place on our genomes. Not just any transposons, but the SAME transposons, in the same order, in the same place.

    Until there is some genetic evidence that demonstrates the transformations required are even possible, you are putting the cart before the horse.

    There is tons of evidence. It’s beyond the scope of this thread. Learn basic biology first, and then get back to me.

  91. SingBlueSilver,
    “No. Common descent predicts their existence before they are found. ID only harmonizes with it after it has been found.”

    Incorrect. ID and Evolution both “predicted” their existence in that they allowed for the possibility based on all evidence known. So my point still stands. You are still not so subtly warping “prediction”.

    The meaning of “prediction” which you always desire to be conveyed, is “one outcome is possible and evolution or ID is false if it is wrong”.

    This of course didn’t happen. By the way, we can see Evolution changing today by force, to include ID.

    Also by the way, do you not see that the entirety of factual evolution research is included in ID?

  92. 92

    lamarck,

    ID and Evolution both “predicted” their existence in that they allowed for the possibility based on all evidence known.

    No. ID did not and could not predict the existence of a fused chromosome. How could it? It does not demand that humans and apes share an ancestor, and so the differing number of chromosomes are not a problem for it.

    However, common descent hypothesizes that humans and apes DO share a common ancestor, and so should have the same number of chromosomes.

    It’s not difficult to see how this is a prediction of evolution but not design theory.

  93. Sing,
    ID predicts they share a common ancestor too.

    You do understand ID is about the mechanism by which it happens, and I don’t argue for magic, I think you know that.

    If no fuse was found, this would be a problem for front loading and even intervention. Because other evidence points to set mechanisms and materials being used within front loading and even an intervention hypothesis, but which couldn’t be accounted for by darwinism.

  94. Sing, I think what you really want is an acknowledgment of a large circumstantial evidence blow to non-common descent. Here you go:

    I wish the fuse thing proved common descent wrong in respect to our argument. But my wish is not granted thanks to your convincing testimony and biology skill and insight. You are the winner, I leave in shame.

  95. 95

    Sing,

    “ID did not and could not predict the existence of a fused chromosome. How could it?

    Did Not? Could Not? What Not?

    When the arguments for design vs reductionist materialism were first formulated no one knew anything about a fused chromosome. So, please, get over yourself.

    Wanna deal with modern evidence? Try the empirical fact that there are no chemical or physical bonds along the linear chain of nucleotides within DNA that causes the information content (the sequence) to exist the way it does?

    “It does not demand that humans and apes share an ancestor, and so the differing number of chromosomes are not a problem for it.”

    Why should a any theory demand something of the evidence? Why not (just for a salty change of pace) let the evidence demand something of the theory instead? It would seem that the evidence is that which can be studied and it is the theory that must conform to those studies.

    In fact (given your condemnation of such logical errors) why don’t you personally lead the charge that (from now on) science should demand that the evidence demand something from the theory.

    Perhaps that “something” could be conformity to the evidence itself.

    For instance, when the fossil record shows nothing of gradual change, we could simply eliminate gradual change as a premise. Likewise, if the evidence shows us that random walks cannot organize disperate objects within the cell, we can eliminate random walks as a source for such organization. Further, if the evidence shows that physical necessity cannot be the source of the aperiodic nature within genetic information, then we can simply eliminate it from the list of causes. Similarly, if the mechanisms that are said to have lead to all bio-diversity cannot be examined in highly-mutable organisms over countless generations, then we can kindly place a provisional “edge” on what those mechanisms are capable of.

    And heck while we are at it; if the only observable source within the known universe for functionally specified information is an act of intelligence, then why not go ahead and say the only known source for functionally specified information is an intelligence.

    What is it that science has to lose by following the evidence?

  96. lamarck writes,

    Sing,
    ID predicts they share a common ancestor too.

    I’d say some but not all ID proponents believe this. But acceptance of common ancestry (either by evolutionary biologists or some ID proponents) would be the main reason for anyone suspecting a chromosome was missing in the first place.

  97. Until there is some genetic evidence that demonstrates the transformations required are even possible, you are putting the cart before the horse.

    Sing:

    There is tons of evidence.

    Not of that nature.

    Heck you can’t even account for the loss of the opposable big toe.

    You cannot account for upright bibedal walking.

    You have no idea what genes/ DNA sequence(s) are involved in those two traits.

    And without that you can’t test the premise.

    I could go on and on but you would never grasp the piont as your mind is already made up- you want to be related to chimps.

  98. BTW transposons move around.

    That is what they do.

    So why should we find them in the same location in chimps and humans?

    And that ERVs remained intact enough to be used as markers may mean thay ain’t ancient ERVs.

    IOW you need to go learn about biology and then get back to us.

  99. BTW transposons move around.
    That is what they do.
    So why should we find them in the same location in chimps and humans?

    Excellent question. Given we have two closely-related species (that is, we believe them as being closely-related by morphology or some other non-genetic criteria) with the same transposon sequence in the same place in their genomes, which is the more likely scenario:
    1. The transposon randomly inserted itself in the same genomic location of each species, or
    2. The two species inherited the transposon from a common ancestor?

  100. “I’d say some but not all ID proponents believe this. But acceptance of common ancestry (either by evolutionary biologists or some ID proponents) would be the main reason for anyone suspecting a chromosome was missing in the first place.”

    My point is that ID and evolution were looking at the same set of data at any one point, and evolution could have retroactively predicted any number of things, because that’s what’s happened in evolution. Otherwise a certain picture is sketched, that of evolution moving forward without a glitch. At this point evolution predicts all things and their opposite, so fusion was the luck of the draw, and can only be pointed to if a consistent track record were in place. If a fusion were not found, it would be ignored, not dealt with. So by no means was this predicted as inevitable; hopeful is a better word.

  101. “science should demand that the evidence demand something from the theory.”

    That’s a great point Upright.

  102. lamarck,

    My point is that ID and evolution were looking at the same set of data at any one point, and evolution could have retroactively predicted any number of things, because that’s what’s happened in evolution.

    Such as? And were any such hypotheses generated which were not consistent with what we know about cytogenetics? After all, if they could have come up with any old thing, evidence bedamned, why did they settle on the one possibility that is consistent with known chromosome behavior? Or are you seriously contending it was all just the “luck of the draw”?

Leave a Reply