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

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.William J. Murray_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

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/archives/2009/02/the-rise-of-hum.html The Fertility Problem http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/02/the-rise-of-hum-1.html Fixation within a deme http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/05/the-rise-of-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.Dave Wisker_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

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.IRQ Conflict_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT}

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.Joseph_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT}

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?Cabal_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT}

Here some more for you to chew on SingBlue: Sanford Genetic Entropy Polyploidy - (Gene Duplication Fallacies) http://livinglove.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/appendix4-pg3.pdf http://livinglove.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/appendix4-pg2.pdfbornagain77_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT}

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/2009/07/dna_the_alphabet_of_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?bornagain77_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT}

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.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/darwin-at-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.org/articles/aid/v1/n1/has-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/post/PLNK2LJVF3SRXVK9O 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.bornagain77_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
02:58 AM
2
02
58
AM
PDT}

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?Cabal_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
01:54 AM
1
01
54
AM
PDT}

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?Cabal_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
01:45 AM
1
01
45
AM
PDT}

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.DATCG_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
12:34 AM
12
12
34
AM
PDT}

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.SingBlueSilver_{August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
10:50 PM
10
10
50
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply