|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Are your actions relevant to environmental degradation/global warming? |
| Yes |
|
51% |
[ 17 ] |
| No |
|
48% |
[ 16 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 33 |
|
| Author |
Message |
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:00 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Globutron wrote: |
Ah yes, Chromosome fusion, have we covered this? I don't think so...
Chromosome fusion is the ultimate proof that we come from a common ancestor with other great apes. |
Hardly.
"For the sake of argument, let us assume that evolutionists are correct and a distant human ancestor with 48 chromosomes did evolve into a new species with 46 chromosomes via the chromosome 2 fusion event. Did this event occur in a single individual or simultaneously in an entire population? Mutations of this nature are certainly rare, but they do occur occasionally. However, the probability that this mutation would occur simultaneously in multiple individuals is so staggeringly low that we can assume its impossibility. At best, the mutation occurred in a single individual. How then was it propagated from one individual to his or her offspring and eventually to every human? Chromosomal rearrangements of this nature are not easily passed to offspring. When mutations of this magnitude occur, they pose serious problems for an organism when the process of gamete production occurs. Gametes are the egg and sperm cells used to form a new individual during sexual reproduction. The process of generating gametes is a special form of cell division known as meiosis. During this process, a specific alignment of chromosomal pairs always occurs and is essential for meiosis. This alignment is dependent on the near-identical structure and sequence of chromosomal pairs. If an individual carries a mutation such as a chromosomal fusion, then he or she will often be unable to produce gametes, because meiosis will fail to occur properly due to improper alignment of the now non-identical chromosome pairs. Today, we know chromosomal fusion to be one cause of infertility. In some cases, meiosis can find a way to complete despite non-identical chromosomal pairs. However, the gametes that result, or the offspring produced by fertilization with these gametes, usually have a short lifespan due to genetic problems. Problems associated with chromosomal alignment lead to spontaneous miscarriages and genetic abnormalities such as Down�s Syndrome.
A third problem with the hypothesis of a chromosomal fusion in human ancestry lies in the complete absence of humans with 48 chromosomes. If it were true that a chromosomal split occurred in human evolution, then two distinct human groups would have been generated: one containing 48 chromosomes which were not altered by any genetic change, and a second containing 46 chromosomes including the fusion of chromosome 2 (Figure 2). The problem is, however, that no humans have 48 chromosomes. The only possible historical explanation is that an entire population of 48-chromosome humans became extinct and was replaced by a 46-chromosome human race. For this scenario to have occurred, a very strong positive selection must have favored the diploid number of 46 over that of 48 (Bowers, 2003). Unfortunately for evolutionists, the paradox is that the same selection would be expected for the other apes as well. Apes, however, maintained a chromosome number of 48. Because of the known problems of infertility that go along with large genomic rearrangements, natural selection would actually operate against this proposed chromosomal fusion. The fitness for survival for such individuals would be extremely low. Taken together, no evidence supports common ancestry between humans and chimpanzees via chromosome 2 fusion.http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240254
Regarding the mountain of other stuff you posted, they are fallacies but it takes a long time to rebuff them. I'm not sure I can be bothered anymore because people are obviously ignoring what I write, and my links. The deniers just keep hand waving. Nobody is going to change their minds here no matter the evidence.. are they? So there's no point going to all the trouble and effort.
Last edited by nautilus on Mon Jul 19, 2010 11:20 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| I'm finished. |
Yes, we've known that for a while.
| Noodleman wrote: |
| but, you gotta have faith |
To believe that an amoeba accidentally spawned a blue whale? Indeed.
I didn't realise the ape-cult had cheerleaders. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you'd rather I continue to slaughter your position, by all means keep making snarky comments.
| nautilus wrote: |
| yes but they've calibrated their whole system to match pre-existing dates they've posted for other stuff. If they hadn't then they'd be free to assign more realistic timelines. |
You obviously don't understand what they did. Read the article again. Here's the relevant part:
| Quote: |
Human geneticist Lynn B. Jorde and colleagues studied parts of the genome containing mobile elements called Alu sequences, which are sections of DNA around 300 base-pairs long that randomly insert themselves into the genome. This is a rare occurrence, but once inserted, they tend to stay in place over generations, and act as markers, rather like fossils, for ancient parts of the genome. On average, regions containing Alu insertions are older than other regions, and because they are old these regions have been shaped more by the forces that applied to ancient populations than to recent bottlenecks (such as Toba) and expansions.
The researchers studied mutations in the DNA near these Alu markers in two modern human genomes that have been completely sequenced. Older regions containing Alu sequences have more mutations because they have been in existence longer, and the researchers used the nucleotide diversity to estimate the age of the region of the genome. They then compared these regions with the overall diversity in the two genomes to estimate the differences in effective population size, and thus the genetic diversity between modern humans and our ancestors. |
You suggest their time scale is off, that it is in fact much, much shorter than what their math tells them. If the ages were determined by the number of mutations that had occurred, in order for the time scale to be as short as your theory requires, these mutations had to have occurred far more frequently than is already suggested.
But, let's give you the benefit of the doubt. OK, their time scale doesn't go back to 1.2 million years, it only goes back 6000. Assuming it's still linear, according to the genetic evidence, you oh so fervently insist is correct, the most recent population bottleneck of as few as 15'000 was about 350 years ago. (1.2million/70'000 = 17, 6000/17 = 350) Hmm, Descartes might have had something to say about a super volcano nearly wiping out humanity during his lifetime, you think?
Ahh, but maybe the time scale needs to be exponential or logarithmic to fit those bottlenecks in before recorded history, but not before the magical 6000. Guess what? You've now upped the frequency of mutations required to meet your dates by a couple of decimal places at least. This is bad for evolution and creation since neither can account for the amount of mutation you're suggesting. The X-Men are hardly as far-fetched.
Bring on the snarky comments. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pangaea
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
nautilus wrote:
| Quote: |
I didn't realise the ape-cult had cheerleaders. |
You obviously don't realize this, but arrogant, snide comments do not prove your point, nor do they impress or intimidate anyone. Neither does referring to people of the opposing viewpoint with insults that you apparently think are clever, but any 12-year-old could think up. Every time you post something like this, you are only undermining your own credibility. Mud slinging and juvenile insults are only signs of a weak position. If you can't argue your position without resorting to name-calling and insults, then you need to bow out of this debate because you are obviously not a worthy opponent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NYC_Gal
Joined: 08 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Guys, guys... He's part of the god cult. There's no reasoning with the brainwashed. Just leave the thread and let him believe in his boogeyman. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 3:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pangaea wrote: |
| arrogant, snide comments do not prove your point, nor do they impress or intimidate anyone. Mud slinging and juvenile insults ...name-calling and insults. |
Lighten up...quit being so deadly serious.
In any case you weren't exactly "polite" when you first jumped onto this thread.
| NYC Gal wrote: |
| Guys, guys... He's part of the god cult. There's no reasoning with the brainwashed.. |
Wow... And I never insulted you whatsoever. Thats pathetic.
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| Older regions containing Alu sequences have more mutations because they have been in existence longer, and the researchers used the nucleotide diversity to estimate the age of the region of the genome. |
Like I said, I think they are over-estimating the rarity of mutations and have thus calibrated the timelines wrongly. Looks like they weren't aware of other relevant studies. Such as this:
Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock
Ann Gibbons
Science 2 January 1998:
Vol. 279. no. 5347, pp. 28 - 29
DNA studies of the remains of the last Russian tsar, Nicholas II illustrate troubling questions in forensics and the dating of evolutionary events. The Tsar inherited two different sequences of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from their mother, a condition known as heteroplasmy that was previously considered rare but which new studies show may occur in at least 10% and probably 20% of all humans. This may mean that mtDNA mutates perhaps as much as 20-fold faster than expected, according to two controversial studies. Since evolutionists had assumed that mtDNA mutations occur at a steady rate, these studies cast doubt over the dating of such events as the peopling of Europe. The new results are already prompting changes in DNA forensics procedures.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/279/5347/28
Its a similar case with the mitochondrial Eve- the common ancestor of all humans. The date for for her was originally based on guesses at mitochondrial mutation rates..which were based on assumptions from evolutionary theory.
however research showed this to be faulty. See for example:
The Mutation Rate in the Human mtDNA Control RegionSigru�n Sigur�ardo�ttir,1 Agnar Helgason,
Institute of Biological Anthropology and 3Department of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford
"This study is substantially larger thanothers published, which have directly assessed mtDNA mutation rates on the basis of pedigrees, and the estimatedmutation rate is intermediate among those derived from pedigree-based studies. Our estimated rate remains highert han those based on phylogenetic comparisons.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1378010/pdf/10756141.pdf
the new date for mitochondrial eve was re-calculated at only 6500 years ago. Which is what Creationism predicts..
The Mitochondrial Clock:
The story of Mitochondrial Eve.
Molecular History research Center, 1998
Does our mitochondrial DNA show that all humans came from the same mother? If so, did this mitochondrial Eve live 200,000 years ago or did she live at the calculated value of 6500 years ago? Portions of Mitochondrial DNA appears to mutate much faster than expected yet there has been a lot of opposition to this possibility because it goes against the calculated speed of the molecular clock that is based on having chimpanzees and humans diverge 5 million years ago.
http://www.mhrc.net/mitochondria.htm
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| in order for the time scale to be as short as your theory requires, these mutations had to have occurred far more frequently than is already suggested. |
You hit the nail on the head. Science confirms the mutation rate is faster. A lot faster. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NYC_Gal
Joined: 08 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ah but you did when calling us an ape cult. I've started to like the name since, though.
You're right. It IS pathetic that you keep spouting convoluted talking points in an attempt to disprove something so scientifically sound.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| All of your references are over ten years old and contained on a few dubiously-objective creationist websites that mostly reference 12 to 16 year old journal articles. The study we're talking about came out this year. I think it likely there's a good reason they're not aware of (or more likely are and not concerned with) the "relevant" studies that you mentioned... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| All of your references are over ten years old |
Being ten years old does not make research redundant. The controversy over mitochondrial clocks is still going on btw.
| Quote: |
| and contained on a few dubiously-objective creationist websites |
It doesn't matter who cites them, they're scientific papers by secular scientists in completely non-creationist journals.
Is pointing out flaws in procedure or holding a different viewpoint a "dubious objective" to you? Maybe you should join the Kim Jong Il administration and just crush all dissent.
Dude of course I reference creationist websites. I'm a creationist. You reference evolution websites. You're an evolutionist. To me your websites are "dubious". Yet you expect me to make an argument using only your websites?
There is plenty of sound criticism against your ideology. Ignoring it all simply because you don't like your opinion being challenged is a little childish don't you think? Hardly the way to arrive at objectivity now is it.
You seem to be assuming evolution must be correct simply because it is believed by the majority. If truth was subject to popularity vote then the world was actually flat a few centuries back.
| Quote: |
| I think it likely there's a good reason they're not aware of (or more likely are and not concerned with) the "relevant" studies that you mentioned |
No. What happened is that initially they calibrated their clocks based on guesswork to conform to prevailing evolution theory. In other words they based everything on an unproven assumption-that humans had a common ancestor 5 m years ago.
When more accurate evidence arose showing that in fact mutation rates were much higher than imagined, they threw it out because it didn't conform to the theory.
This is what evolutionists do constantly. Reject evidence that doesn't support the theory and then impose their own pre-held ideas on it. Real science does not constantly attempt to force a key into a lock that does not fit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| All of your references are over ten years old |
Being ten years old does not make research redundant. The controversy over mitochondrial clocks is still going on btw. |
Where is the current research on the subject?
| nautilus wrote: |
| Dude of course I reference creationist websites. I'm a creationist. You reference evolution websites. You're an evolutionist. To me your websites are "dubious". Yet you expect me to make an argument using only your websites? |
I think I cited Wikipedia once. I don't need references to point out your logical fallacies; however, if you insist. Here's a nice, fairly recent debunk of the 6500 year old mitochondrial eve:
http://www.evolutionpages.com/Mitochondrial%20Eve.htm
| nautilus wrote: |
| There is plenty of sound criticism against your ideology. Ignoring it all simply because you don't like your opinion being challenged is a little childish don't you think? Hardly the way to arrive at objectivity now is it. |
Oh the irony of you accusing others of ignoring criticism!
Evolutionary theory is by no means perfect, I've never made the claim. There are many valid criticisms; however, yours throughout this thread are some of the weakest.
| nautilus wrote: |
| You seem to be assuming evolution must be correct simply because it is believed by the majority. If truth was subject to popularity vote then the world was actually flat a few centuries back. |
I've barely mentioned evolution at all, I'm just here to put down your faulty logic.
| nautilus wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I think it likely there's a good reason they're not aware of (or more likely are and not concerned with) the "relevant" studies that you mentioned |
No. What happened is that initially they calibrated their clocks based on guesswork to conform to prevailing evolution theory. In other words they based everything on an unproven assumption-that humans had a common ancestor 5 m years ago.
When more accurate evidence arose showing that in fact mutation rates were much higher than imagined, they threw it out because it didn't conform to the theory. |
Except this more "accurate" information "arose" 12 to 16 years before this study occurred. That's hardly "arising". And anyhow, see my debunk link above to why they didn't take it into account.
| nautilus wrote: |
| This is what evolutionists do constantly. Reject evidence that doesn't support the theory and then impose their own pre-held ideas on it. Real science does not constantly attempt to force a key into a lock that does not fit. |
Oh please! You've described word for word what you've been doing for this entire thread. Yes, evolution certainly hasn't fit in all the pieces, but it's the best model for the existing empirical evidence, certainly far superior to creationism at least. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
-A lot of misleading doublespeak which is of course rebutted by simple logic, as here:
[url]http://creationwiki.org/(Talk.Origins)_Mitochondrial_Eve_lived_only_6500_years_ago[/url]
| Quote: |
| Evolutionary theory is by no means perfect, I've never made the claim. There are many valid criticisms |
Bit of a climb-down now for you isn't it? You seem to have lost that raving evolutionary zeal.
| Quote: |
| Yes, evolution certainly hasn't fit in all the pieces, but it's the best model for the existing empirical evidence |
They're examining evidence with a whole lot of prior assumptions which they impose onto it. If evidence is contrary to the theory, then it must be wrong. The theory must be right. This is the attitude. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
-A lot of misleading doublespeak which is of course rebutted by simple logic, as here:
[url]http://creationwiki.org/(Talk.Origins)_Mitochondrial_Eve_lived_only_6500_years_ago[/url] |
Which is also debunked on the link I provided. If it's too "confusing", maybe you'd better leave the subject alone.
| nautilus wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Evolutionary theory is by no means perfect, I've never made the claim. There are many valid criticisms |
Bit of a climb-down now for you isn't it? You seem to have lost that raving evolutionary zeal. |
What?
| me wrote: |
| Evolutionary theory is by no means perfect, I've never made the claim. There are many valid criticisms |
You seem to be rebuking a statement other than the one I made. Are you OK?
| nautilus wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Yes, evolution certainly hasn't fit in all the pieces, but it's the best model for the existing empirical evidence |
They're examining evidence with a whole lot of prior assumptions which they impose onto it. If evidence is contrary to the theory, then it must be wrong. The theory must be right. This is the attitude. |
Got a pre-Cambrian rabbit yet? Didn't think so.. The fact is, there hasn't been sufficient evidence contrary to the theory to dismiss it yet. Science has no trouble discarding what doesn't work anymore. Where was Newton's grand conspiracy when his theories were being overwritten by quantum mechanics? Can you say the same of creationism? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
Got a pre-Cambrian rabbit yet? Didn't think so.. |
Found any fossils of stuff that has actually evolved yet? didn't think so...
| Quote: |
| The fact is, there hasn't been sufficient evidence contrary to the theory to dismiss it yet. |
never mind dismissing it, there hasn't been sufficient evidence to to believe it yet.
Oh well i suppose you can't disprove that pigs flew to mars..so we better just believe it.
| NYC Gal wrote: |
| you keep spouting convoluted talking points in an attempt to disprove something so scientifically sound.. |
I wouldn't expect a primitive cave girl to understand such intellectual things. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
Got a pre-Cambrian rabbit yet? Didn't think so.. |
Found any fossils of stuff that has actually evolved yet? didn't think so... |
What do you mean by a fossil of something that has evolved? Every fossil is of something that evolved. If you mean transitional fossil, there are plenty. Every time we show you one, you move the goalposts.
| nautilus wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The fact is, there hasn't been sufficient evidence contrary to the theory to dismiss it yet. |
never mind dismissing it, there hasn't been sufficient evidence to to believe it yet.
Oh well i suppose you can't disprove that pigs flew to mars..so we better just believe it. |
Check out the first link on this page:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46
If it seems a bit patronizing, that's because it is. You're badly in need of a primer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
They must think you are really gullible if you fall for all that. Hold on...you are.
Dude all that stuff is easily debunked, trust me. If you can get off your a$s and actually put forth an articulate argument instead of spamming my thread with links, then I might care enough to educate you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
