A Bogey Moment: The Human Chromosome Count

_{Cornelius Hunter

August 24, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

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

Comments

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"?Dave Wisker_{August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PST}

"science should demand that the evidence demand something from the theory." That's a great point Upright.lamarck_{August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PST}

"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.lamarck_{August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PST}

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?Dave Wisker_{August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PST}

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.Joseph_{August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PST}

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.Joseph_{August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PST}

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.Dave Wisker_{August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
03:55 AM
3
03
55
AM
PST}

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?Upright BiPed_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PST}

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.lamarck_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
10:18 PM
10
10
18
PM
PST}

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.lamarck_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PST}

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.SingBlueSilver_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
09:20 PM
9
09
20
PM
PST}

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?lamarck_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PST}

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.SingBlueSilver_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PST}

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.Dave Wisker_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PST}

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?Diffaxial_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PST}

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.Joseph_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PST}

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.Joseph_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PST}

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.Diffaxial_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PST}

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.Dave Wisker_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PST}

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.Joseph_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PST}

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.Dave Wisker_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PST}

It is also dishonest to use a case of genetic engineering as an example of macroevolution.Joseph_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PST}

Dave, I never said the illustration was an example of telomeric fusion. It is dishonest to illustrate one thing when talking about something else.Joseph_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PST}

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.Dave Wisker_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PST}

Ooops comment 73 should have credited Dave Wisker not PZ.Joseph_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PST}

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...Joseph_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PST}

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.Joseph_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PST}

SingBlueSilver, Until there is some genetic evidence that demonstrates the transformations required are even possible, you are putting the cart before the horse.Joseph_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PST}

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.Joseph_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PST}

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.Joseph_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PST}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply