Is this Darwin’s legacy?
| February 20, 2009 | Posted by Steno under Intelligent Design |
A cartoon in an American paper, the New York Post, has brought fresh attention to the race problems in some sections of society. The cartoon shows a chimpanzee shot dead by police with a caption apparently referring to the new American President Obama – (edit: although later denied that Obama was the target). Note from UD Admin: As has been pointed out in the comments, the chimp in this cartoon was a pet chimp shot by police in Connecticut. It was never intended to represent Obama or any other human. The cartoonist was stunned over the uproar.
Where does the idea that human beings are related to apes come from? It comes straight from Darwinism. There is some irony that the left loves both Darwin and Obama, but Darwinism leads to racism and fascism where the African is considered less evolved and closer to apes than the Caucasian. It is time for the left to address honestly the dark side of Darwinism. See this article on the Telegraph.
http://science-and-values.blogspot.com/
44 Responses to Is this Darwin’s legacy?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
madsen,
Do you have any idea what it would take to get that fusion fixed in a population?
Any idea at all?
I ask because if you did then you would question it.
We are talking about an extreme bottle-neck- possibly down to two individuals of the same family- yes incest.
Also science is NOT done via consensus.
And THAT is why many people disagree on the topic.
If the ONLY supporting data is consensus then it ain’t science.
BTW not ONE of the scientists in that consensus even knows what makes an organism what it is.
NOT ONE!
ID does NOT weigh in on universal common descent.
About the only thing that can be taken from ID on UCD is that if it did occur it occurred by design with a few random hiccups thrown in.
Joseph,
First, do you therefore reject that chromosome 2 is a fusion of the two chromosomes found in apes? If so, what’s your explanation for what would then be an incredible coincidence?
And why would incest be necessary for the fusion to spread throughout the population? Animals with different numbers of chromosomes can breed successfully (if that’s the issue you are concerned about—see Przewalski’s Wild Horse.
First off, I have it from a source studying the matter that the evidence for an extra set of telomeres may be weaker than we’ve grown fond of repeating; so we must keep that in mind before we make any conjectures on the topic. (I hope he will soon publish his work, so we can discuss it openly here.)
But assuming for the time being that there is iron-clad evidence that humans have a fused chromosome, this only tells us that ancient humans had 48 chromosomes and so did ancient apes. It does not tell us that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. We could assume the prototypical Adam and Eve each had 48 chromosomes, then over time one of their children had a fusion event. Still all humans in that line.
The similarity of ancient humans having 48 chromosomes and apes having 48 chromosomes is no more convincing evidence of common ancestry than humans having two arms and apes having two arms. Homology is not evidence for common ancestry, unless you can define it in a non-circular way. If you define it as “similarity due to common descent” then it isn’t independent evidence for common descent; you’re assuming what you want to prove.
Atom
Hi Atom,
Please do post on the research concerning the telomeres as soon as it’s available. Can you tell us anything now about this source, without actually revealing his/her identity? Is it a scientist who has published in this area before, for example?
Regarding your other point, my understanding is that the chromosome 2 evidence involves more than just numbers of chromosomes. Rather, it is claimed that chromosome 2 specifically is the one that is “fused”, and that even in comparisons of human and chimp chromosomes today, the two parts of our chromosome 2 match up very well with the still separate chromosomes in chimps.
Now if this similarity isn’t convincing to you as evidence of common ancestry, can I ask what types of evidence you would find persuasive?
madsen,
I can’t reveal anything about the source yet, but like I said, if he makes his findings public, then we can discuss it. Until then, we’re assuming that the telomere evidence is iron-clad and that a real fusion occurred, for the starting point of our discussion.
My point still stands, since no one claims that the fusion event occurred in a common ancestor between apes and humans (since it only exists in humans), so we are still left with the first protohumans Adam and Eve with 48 chromosomes, some of which are extremely similar to chromosomes in apes. Again, we’ve known for a long time that humans and apes share similarities, and known for less time that they share genetic similarities (and very real differences.) But this tells us nothing about common descent, unless we assume common descent to begin with.
Take for example birds. They walk on two legs, so we can say that this proves that they share a common ancestor with humans and that this common ancestor walked on two legs. Or we can just say that it is a repeated Design Pattern, a good solution to a common design problem.
So logically, it could be either option (preserved common ancestry or reused design pattern), which means it isn’t evidence for (or against) either. If common descent is true, then it is evidence for common descent. If it is not, then it is evidence for reused design. So it doesn’t help us either way, unless we want to assume common ancestry is true.
You then ask what would serve as evidence for common descent? Shared mistakes would be the strongest evidence, even though a lot of this evidence has been overturned by the ENCODE findings (multi-layered, multi-funtion for most, if not all, of the genome) and further studies. While ID doesn’t have any beef with common descent in particular, I’d say many IDers have problems with the shoddy thinking and argumentation in its favor.
If common descent is true, let’s at least come up with objective, logical and reasonable evidence for it. I think I speak for most IDers (even the YEC ones) when I say that is our honest sentiment.
Atom
You have read Atom’s response and I can only offer another “alternative”:
The fusion is real. It was DESIGNED into the population to achieve (and keep?) reproductive isolation.
If so, what’s your explanation for what would then be an incredible coincidence?
And another “explanation” is we just don’t understand what it is we are looking at.
Michael Shermer calls it “patternicity” that is we see patterns where none exists just because we are presupposed to seeing patterns.
He loves to apply thta to ID. Too bad his “skepticism” is one-sided.
But anyway…
Przewalski’s Horse- 66 chromosomes- right?
Domestic horse – 64 chromosomes right?
The fertile offspring are ‘tweeners with 65 chromosomes.
Say the fusion happens in one gamete.
That gamete just happens to fertilize its opposite which would have one more chromosome.
The offspring would then be 23.5 if we use YOUR example.
But that .5 would just be counted as 1.
Or should we expect to see a mixture 23/24?
Is it just a coincidence that they have died-off?
Similarity can be explained by convergence and common design.
To be any different universal common descent would need to explain the differences.
Yet it cannot because guess what?
No one knows…
Atom,
But this tells us nothing about common descent, unless we assume common descent to begin with.
Here’s how I would characterize the situation: A prediction of the hypothesis of common descent of humans and apes would be some event (such as the fusion we are discussing) which would account for the different number of chromosomes we see today. That prediction has now been observed with modern tools of genetics. So this hypothesis makes a prediction which has been confirmed. That’s just the hypothetico-deductive method of science in action, and should count in favor of common descent, in my opinion.
Now regarding shared mistakes as evidence, I certainly agree. What is your opinion on the vitamin C pseudogene? Here’s Behe on the matter:
Both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C.
It’s hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans.
(from pages 71 and 72 of The Edge of Evolution).
madsen,
The original humans with 48 chromosomes having chromosome_2 similar to that of apes is what could possibly count as evidence for common descent; the fusion event is irrelevant, since if it did occur, it happened only in the human line and after any presumed common ancestor. How can something that happened only to humans possibly count as evidence for common descent?
So your position degenerates to: “Human chromosome_2 parts are identical to ape chromosome_AB (if you put them together), so this is evidence of common ancestry.” Again, there is a lot of identical similarity in organisms that cannot be explained by common ancestry. So similarity cannot count as evidence for common ancestry, unless you already assume common ancestry. If similarity always counts as evidence for common ancestry, then bipedalism in birds means that birds and humans share a bipedal common ancestor. So obviously it doesn’t and my point remains.
As for the GULO sequences, this is likely part of the overturned evidence I’m discussing. See: http://creationontheweb.com/im.....18-127.pdf for more details.
Atom,
Thanks for the link.
How can something that happened only to humans possibly count as evidence for common descent?
It counts because it’s a successful prediction of the hypothesis of common ancestry. Here’s the logic:
1. Common ancestry of apes and humans is hypothesized > 150 years ago.
2. It is found that apes have one more pair of chromosomes than humans.
3. The common ancestry hypothesis predicts that one of our chromosomes should be a fusion of two ape chromosomes (perhaps there are some other possibilities as well—in any case, there must have been some event which resulted in differing chromosome numbers).
4. This prediction is confirmed in 1991.
If a hypothesis makes risky predictions that are then confirmed, that should count as evidence supporting the hypothesis.
madsen,
It doesn’t count because I can make the same “risky” prediction based on a design hypothesis:
1) Humans and apes did not originate from a common ancestor, but were designed as separate classes by the same designer(s).
2) Human designers (the only kind we have familiarity with) often use the same design pattern for similar problems. (confirmed)
3) Humans and chimps are found to have similar ecological and morphological needs.
4) Since genetics underly (at least partly) morphology, we expect genetic similarity between apes and humans, while also expecting differences, since the needs are not exact.
5) We find similarities (chromosome_2) and differences (ORFans), therefore this prediction is confirmed by 2008.
So the same evidence cannot be evidence for both common descent and common design; if it is, then it is really evidence for neither.
Also, your point 3 is incorrect: Common Ancestry does not predict a fusion event, or even that the chromosome number be the same (or different) in the human line as in the modern ape line. This is obvious, since humans could have 48 chromosomes and still be a product of Common Descent. Or they could have 42. So the fusion event is not predicted or relevant.
What about the fact that humans have many genes in common with gorilla that it doesn’t with a chimp? Does that count as evidence against a recent chimp/human split (relative to gorilla)? (Read the appendix for details) If neither differences nor similarities are incompatible with the common descent hypothesis, you can’t claim that either one supports it. A true prediction predicts not only what we should find, but excludes what we shouldn’t find. (Which is why I hold out a lack of shared common mistakes of a good example of a prediction non-common ancestry makes.)
Of interest may be the appendix for the article I linked, which I mentioned: http://creationontheweb.com/im...../xgulo.pdf
Atom
Joseph,
Regarding the horse example, I have read that while the first generation offpsring of a Przewalski’s horse with a normal domesticated horse has 65 chromosomes, further crosses of these offspring with domesticated horses have 64. I don’t know anything about their particular biology or behavior, but if a domesticated horse was introduced into a small population of Przewalski’s horses, isn’t it conceivable that after a number of generations, the entire population would have just 64 chromosomes?
Clearly that’s just a hypothetical, and I guess there would have to be some inbreeding as you mentioned, but it’s not as if that has never happened. I don’t see any reason to assume the same thing couldn’t happen in humans.
Atom,
Also, your point 3 is incorrect: Common Ancestry does not predict a fusion event, or even that the chromosome number be the same (or different) in the human line as in the modern ape line. This is obvious, since humans could have 48 chromosomes and still be a product of Common Descent. Or they could have 42. So the fusion event is not predicted or relevant.
What I’m saying is, given that humans and apes now have differing numbers of chromosomes, common descent then predicts a fusion or perhaps fission event to explain this discrepancy. You are correct that common descent does not predict that we would necessarily have a different number of chromosomes than apes.
Regarding your predictions from design, they are not very specific—is there any reason to expect these similarities and differences would include chromosome fusion?
madsen wrote:
I’m sorry to be a pain madsen, but even this is false. Common Descent would be not be falsified one bit if it was found that the chromosomes had simply been reduced from the genetic information via a mutational/crossover/rearrangement event. Honestly, Darwinists would have no problem explaining that the difference was due to some random genome change and could even say that common descent would predict such changes in the genome to alter chromosome count (obviously chromosome counts have changed dramatically over time if CA is true.)
So, in either case, Common Ancestry could claim a verified prediction. But as is obvious, such predictions are worthless. It is like predicting “It will rain tomorrow or it will not rain.” While my prediction will come true and I can claim the fulfillment as evidence of my psychic powers, the fact that I also could accommodate a contradictory finding means I didn’t predict anything.
Such is the case with your “prediction” of a fusion event, since no fusion would work equally well with CA. (Ask yourself if CA would be damaged if they found that no fusion event had occurred…then ask yourself why ORFans don’t falsify CA in that case.)
As for me, I wasn’t saying my off the cuff “prediction” wasn’t as useless. I did not give it as an example of a good prediction, just as an example on the same level as yours (both can accommodate contradictory findings, so both are not useful.)
Atom
Atom,
Maybe there are more mechanisms that could account for the divergence in chromosome number, so the prediction made by common ancestry isn’t for just one event specifically. However, either fusion or fission seems to be the “simplest” hypotheses, and apparently fusion turns out to be correct.
OTOH, special creation makes exactly zero predictions here—and leaves chromosome 2 completely unexplained. Even if you aren’t 100% convinced by this example, I don’t see how you can’t conclude that common ancestry has the edge here.
I wasn’t aware of the ORFans issue until you raised it, so I’ll have to read more about it. Based on the little reading I’ve done however, it looks like an unsolved puzzle that is stimulating new research, which could end up changing scientists’ understanding of how evolution works. In principle, maybe it could be a challenge to common descent. However, I think it’s a bit risky to commit to the ORFan argument (at least Paul Nelson’s version of it). This paper shows how while the number of ORFans is increasing, their proportion is actually decreasing. (Fig 1 (b)). And it’s not surprising that some ORFans exist, after all, given that evolution does occur (nylonase, for example). I wouldn’t bet against this problem being solved without throwing out common descent.