JustIgnoreMe's Waterfall
If you don't think they are vestigial, then tell us what the purpose would be of a second centromere and extra telomeres would be on a chromosome.
And, why they just so happen to line up where one would expect during the process of a chromosomal fusion.
While you're at it, explain the benefits of wisdom teeth - perhaps they are where you get your wisdom...
Are you? Then I guess you haven't tried the capture experiment...
Are Democrats saying that CO2 levels are at 50,000 parts per million (the level where you suffocate), or just over 400ppm?
Which democrats have said that increased CO2 or global warming stops photosynthesis?
No evidence or any line of rational thought can explain how a single human underwent a genetic chromosomal fusion and passed that alteration to all of mankind
As I already pointed out, there is evidence of the fusion:
- Vestigial centromere.
Chromosomes generally have one centromere - human chromosome 2 has two.
- Vestigial telomeres.
Telomeres are, by definition, generally found at the ends of chromosomes, but human chromosome 2 has telomeres in the middle.
-The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes.
Here is a comparison showing the number and banding between human and chimpanzee chromosomes for people to judge for themselves.
It would not be intelligent to create people with 48 chromosones, it would be stupid because they would be apes and not people.
In your previous post, you say "It takes a lot more than a number 2 fusion to get a human from an ape" and here you seem to say that all it takes is chromosome count - you should probably pick one.
As I've already mentioned - not all people have 46 chromosomes. I'll add, not all monkeys have 48. Some have less than 30 and some have more than 60 ref
You should also take a look at the Muntiacus muntjac - the male has 7 chromosomes and the female has 6 - while a different species, the Reeve's muntjac, has 46.
Yes. Because it is far simpler to make up falsehoods than to disprove them.
And the current media has little room for longer discussions.
The shorter the discussion - facebook, twitter, bumper-stickers, etc. - the more idiots believe they are right.
A problem with the hypothesis of a chromosomal fusion in human ancestry lies in the complete absence of humans with 48 chromosomes.
Uh - no. not since the fusion happened before the emergence of the species homo sapien.
Also, lots of people have 47 (Down syndrome) and we've found a healthy person with 44 ref
The first explanation is that an intelligent designer created humans with 48 chromosomes
The old - whatever happened, God did it - idea.
It explains how something you (actually the site you copied it from) said couldn't happen definitely could have happened and gives the evidence that supports that it did happen. It was you who made incorrect assumptions.
Since you avoided the question - show how "adding DNA and adding new DNA to the genome of an organism are two different things" - I'll assume that you figured out that you were wrong.
Haldane’s dilemma
1. Haldane's "cost of natural selection" stemmed from an invalid simplifying assumption in his calculations. He divided by a fitness constant in a way that invalidated his assumption of constant population size, and his cost of selection is an artifact of the changed population size. He also assumed that two mutations would take twice as long to reach fixation as one, but because of sexual recombination, the two can be selected simultaneously and both reach fixation sooner. With corrected calculations, the cost disappears (Wallace 1991; Williams n.d.).
Haldane's paper was published in 1957, and Haldane himself said, "I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision" (Haldane 1957, 523). It is irresponsible not to consider the revision that has occurred in the forty years since his paper was published.
2. ReMine (1993), who promotes the claim, makes several invalid assumptions. His model is contradicted by the following:
• The vast majority of differences would probably be due to genetic drift, not selection.
• Many genes would have been linked with genes that are selected and thus would have hitchhiked with them to fixation.
• Many mutations, such as those due to unequal crossing over, affect more than one codon.
• Human and ape genes both would be diverging from the common ancestor, doubling the difference.
• ReMine's computer simulation supposedly showing the negative influence of Haldane's dilemma assumed a population size of only six (Musgrave 1999).
evolution is good for nothing
Whether it is good for something or not doesn't determine whether it is true.
I want you to get off my back and leave me alone, I don't want to talk to you any more, all you are doing is harassing me.
If you find debate/disagreement harassing then this might not be the right place for you.
Who cares if there is convincing evidence for god?
I thought you did...
Copying the same argument will get the same response:
"Dawkins pulls a bait-and-switch and defines information as "Shannon information"—a formulation of "information" that applies to signal transmission and does not account for the type of specified complexity found in biology."
This is duplicitous as they go on to describe Shannon information as measuring only the information capacity whereas Dawkins actually touches on 3 things aspects of information - total information capacity, the information actually used, and the non-redundant information used - the latter largely maps up to the ID definition for specified complexity.
It is important to note ID proponents did not invent the notion of "specified complexity,"
They didn't invent the phrase, but they did invent the meaning for it that they now use.
you have to cling to belief that mutation causes things like reptiles to morph into birds
And you seem to believe that mutations can't add anything to the genome and are somehow limited by something that you haven't yet described.
If evolution (and radiometric dating and the geologic column) were unreliable, then scientists should not be able to determine a period of time when one animal transitioned into another animal, then look for fossils in relevant strata and find transitional fossils.
However, scientists did date fish fossils and tetrapod fossils, set out to look in a part of the geologic column between those dates and found a transitional fossil - Tiktaalik.
http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/
This is evidence for evolution (and radiometric dating and the geologic column).
This is exactly why I say that basically all fossils are transitional fossils. Fish didn't give birth to lizards. Their children were slightly different, and different environments favored or disfavored some of those differences, repeat.
Human attempts at general classification have issues dealing with this pattern, but that doesn't make it untrue.
It's no different from the bacteria it came from any more than dogs are different from wolves.
If differences in body shape/size, fur/skin color, hearing, sight, sense of smell, intelligence, temperament, dentition, etc., etc. are all allowed, then:
Is the Coelacanth different from Eusthenopteron any more than dogs are different from wolves?
Is the Eusthenopteron different from Panderichthys any more than dogs are different from wolves?
Is the Panderichthys different from Tiktaalik any more than dogs are different from wolves?
Is the Tiktaalik different from Acanthostega any more than dogs are different from wolves?
Is the Acanthostega different from Ichthyostega any more than dogs are different from wolves?
Is the Ichthyostega different from Tulerpeton any more than dogs are different from wolves?
Changing the expression of information is not adding information
Does adding nucleotides to the DNA strand add information? Is improved functionality in a given environment added information?
the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground
How does that dispute what I said: "P.S. the bible says people came from dust."
Why do you believe in evolution?
Because there is convincing evidence for it. There is not convincing evidence for god.
Are you saying "increase in information" equals evolution?
As I have told you many times:
Evolution = mutation + heritability + selection
Some of those mutations are insertion mutations which add nucleotides to the DNA.
Are you going to dodge the question?
It is you who has repeatedly dodged the questions:
Do insertion mutations exist?
Do beneficial mutations exist?
Explain how:"adding DNA and adding new DNA to the genome of an organism are two different things"
then it is likely that they are a product of a separate evolution
Is "separate evolution" evidence against evolution?
Eggs on day 5, Milk on day 6
Where does Genesis mention milk and eggs again?
Reptiles lay eggs. Seems to still line up with Genesis
Land reptiles preceding birds does not line up with Genesis at all.
creatures that give birth by egg were day 5
Are whales sea creatures? were they created on day 5? do they lay eggs?
creatures who incubate their eggs in their bodies and deliver full developed young and then nurture by milk are a creature found on day 6.
Do you think no land animals lay eggs? how about lizards, spiders, etc.? did dinosaurs lay eggs? do even some mammals like the platypus lay eggs? Are chickens, ostriches, penguins, etc. birds that "fly above the earth" (day 5), or "creatures that move along the ground" (day 6)? do they lay eggs?
Dogs did not evolve from wolves, they were selectively bred from wolves.
Whether the selection is done by the natural environment or by people (part of the environment), it is still a selection done among heritable mutations.
Did amoeba evolve from rocks?
Evolution says that from the lesser can come the greater.
P.S. the bible says people came from dust.
You are implying "increase in information" equals evolution.
I am saying that you are incorrect in claiming information does not increase.
The bacteria in the subject video of this debate are the same bacteria they started out as
No, it is not "the same" - it has different DNA and different functionality.
Your whole equation cannot be shown in nature
What part of mutation, heritability, or selection do you need more evidence for?
What is the survival mechanism limited by?
You said: The bacteria in the subject video adapted. There was something in their genes which allowed for this as a survival mechanism which is limited.
The "something" here is mutation, heritability, and selection. - what are those limited by?
you imply adaptations are beneficial mutations when it is programmed survival mechanisms in the organism
An "adaptation" is a heritable mutation that is favored in a given environment.
your conclusions of mutations equaling evolution
Evolution = mutation + heritability + selection
There was something in their genes which allowed for this as a survival mechanism which is limited
limited by what?
I assumed the ability to click a link and read - perhaps I overestimated.
"Evolution has been caught in the act, according to scientists who are decoding how a species of Australian lizard is abandoning egg-laying in favor of live birth.
Along the warm coastal lowlands of New South Wales (map), the yellow-bellied three-toed skink lays eggs to reproduce. But individuals of the same species living in the state's higher, colder mountains are almost all giving birth to live young.
Only two other modern reptiles—another skink species and a European lizard—use both types of reproduction.
Evolutionary records shows that nearly a hundred reptile lineages have independently made the transition from egg-laying to live birth in the past, and today about 20 percent of all living snakes and lizards give birth to live young only.
But modern reptiles that have live young provide only a single snapshot on a long evolutionary time line, said study co-author James Stewart, a biologist at East Tennessee State University. The dual behavior of the yellow-bellied three-toed skink therefore offers scientists a rare opportunity.
"By studying differences among populations that are in different stages of this process, you can begin to put together what looks like the transition from one [birth style] to the other."
Eggs-to-Baby Switch Creates Nutrient Problem
One of the mysteries of how reptiles switch from eggs to live babies is how the young get their nourishment before birth.
In mammals a highly specialized placenta connects the fetus to the uterus wall, allowing the baby to take up oxygen and nutrients from the mother's blood and pass back waste. (See related pictures of "extreme" animals in the womb.)
In egg-laying species, the embryo gets nourishment from the yolk, but calcium absorbed from the porous shell is also an important nutrient source.
Some fish and reptiles, meanwhile, use a mix of both birthing styles. The mother forms eggs, but then retains them inside her body until the very last stages of embryonic development.
The shells of these eggs thin dramatically so that the embryos can breathe, until live babies are born covered with only thin membranes—all that remains of the shells.
This adaptation presents a potential nourishment problem: A thinner shell has less calcium, which could cause deficiencies for the young reptiles.
Stewart and colleagues, who have studied skinks for years, decided to look for clues to the nutrient problem in the structure and chemistry of the yellow-bellied three-toed skink's uterus.
"Now we can see that the uterus secretes calcium that becomes incorporated into the embryo—it's basically the early stages of the evolution of a placenta in reptiles," Stewart explained.
Evolutionary Transition Surprisingly Simple
Both birthing styles come with evolutionary tradeoffs: Eggs are more vulnerable to external threats, such as extreme weather and predators, but internal fetuses can be more taxing for the mother.
For the skinks, moms in balmier climates may opt to conserve their own bodies' resources by depositing eggs on the ground for the final week or so of development. Moms in harsh mountain climates, by contrast, might find that it's more efficient to protect their young by keeping them longer inside their bodies.
In general, the results suggest the move from egg-laying to live birth in reptiles is fairly common—at least in historic terms—because it's relatively easy to make the switch, Stewart said.
"We tend to think of this as a very complex transition," he said, "but it's looking like it might be much simpler in some cases than we thought."
The skink-evolution research was published online August 16 by the Journal of Morphology."
Land Reptiles before birds and mammals.
So, land animals before birds.
Leviticus deals with clean vs unclean - not order of creation.
The link describes current examples of animals in transition. Eggs certainly came first.
Egg layers
Then amniotes
then viviparity (live birth)
That is what they think because they havn't found birds.
Not only because they haven't found birds earlier in the fossil record, but also because they have found evidence for the transition from dinosaurs to birds.
It is not as conclusive as you think.
It is not as inconclusive as you think...
Since you obviously don't plan to answer - the bible says sea animals and birds were created on day 5 and that land animals were created on day 6.
Evolution says:
1) land animals preceded birds
2) land animals evolved from sea animals (and marine mammals are sea animals that later evolved from land animals).
The biblical account and the evolution account cannot both be true - there is evidence for the evolution account (for example, the chain of pairs I previously provided.)
I had read that before giving you Dawkins' response and thought it was so poor (and agrees to things that you do not) that you would not use it, but here ya go.
"Dawkins pulls a bait-and-switch and defines information as "Shannon information"—a formulation of "information" that applies to signal transmission and does not account for the type of specified complexity found in biology."
This is duplicitous as they go on to describe Shannon information as measuring only the information capacity whereas Dawkins actually touches on 3 things aspects of information - total information capacity, the information actually used, and the non-redundant information used - the latter largely maps up to the ID definition for specified complexity.
"during the actual gene-duplication process, a pre-existing gene is merely copied, and nothing truly new is generated."
Duplicitous again as it ignores Dawkins' actual argument - that the process of duplication (along with the mutations that occur during the process) can increase the information capacity, but that it is natural selection that adds the non-redundant information to the gene pool.
Both of the above are proved duplicitous later on when they admit:
"Dawkins would argue that the information in the environment is transferred into the genome of the organism. Fair enough."
and "We all know that mutations must provide the raw fuel upon which natural selection can act."
At the end of the day, even the ID supporters are forced to admit:
"I believe the evidence strongly supports common descent." - Behe
and "Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution" - Gilbert, Opitz, Raff
and "Natural selection can (given the right population circumstances, etc.) preserve traits that confer a survival advantage, and it is very effective at weeding out traits that are disadvantageous." - Luski (the response author)
So, they believe in beneficial mutations, common descent, and microevolution, and, as Dawkins points out, they believe that information is added, they just believe an intelligent designer adds it rather than mutation and natural selection.
Do you also believe the evidence strongly supports common descent, microevolution, and beneficial mutations?
Also, I've given examples of observed increases in functionality and the creation of new genes - no matter which definition you use, these would be an increase in information.
Maybe you should try to think for yourself rather than copying/pasting the arguments used against you.
We can't get past the basics, because you don't admit they are true.
Do you now admit insertion mutations exist?
Do you now admit beneficial mutations exist?
Anything you can show me in observable science is not in dispute.
As long as you're saying things like: "adding DNA and adding new DNA to the genome of an organism are two different things", then, yes, there is still dispute.
nothing past bio 101
If you can't get past the bio 101 topics, it would be useless to discuss things that depend on you understanding them.
the basic stuff you harp on
I harp on the basics because your arguments still don't agree with them.
I have studied it more than you
Then, here's your chance professor - show us all how wise you are by making sense of your claim:
"adding DNA and adding new DNA to the genome of an organism are two different things"
I don't think your questions are worth me looking up
So, other people are supposed to "investigate instead of shutting down", but not you?
Are you the one "stepping back and taking in all the info" - if someone asks you to take a look at info and you say it isn't worth it?
I don't limit things in one direction
You just decide that the other directions aren't worthwhile.
I raise my view to take more in
until challenged.
I'm not a biologist
You seemed sure enough to pronounce that a wolf is a kind of dog without being a biologist.
If wolves and dogs are related by mutation, then mutation can change: body shape/size, fur color, hearing, sight, sense of smell, intelligence, temperament, dentition, etc., etc.
Don't the pairs I mention fall within the same level of mutation or less?
Maybe if you looked at scripture with your science mind
you wouldn't even consider the possibility just because it doesn't fit in your box
So instead why don't you take what you know and investigate
This is exactly what I'm asking you to do. If you have a broad view of science and the bible, then investigate and impart your wisdom by answering the questions.
again, if dogs and wolves are the same kind:
isn't Coelacanth the same 'kind' as Eusthenopteron?
isn't Eusthenopteron the same 'kind' as Panderichthys?
isn't Panderichthys the same 'kind' as Tiktaalik?
isn't Tiktaalik the 'kind' as Acanthostega?
isn't Acanthostega the same 'kind' as Ichthyostega?
isn't Ichthyostega the same 'kind' as Tulerpeton?
Why?
Um, why not??
I actually don't dispute principles of evolution.
good - then answering should be no problem for you.
again, if dogs and wolves are the same kind:
isn't Coelacanth the same 'kind' as Eusthenopteron?
isn't Eusthenopteron the same 'kind' as Panderichthys?
isn't Panderichthys the same 'kind' as Tiktaalik?
isn't Tiktaalik the 'kind' as Acanthostega?
isn't Acanthostega the same 'kind' as Ichthyostega?
isn't Ichthyostega the same 'kind' as Tulerpeton?
But what about everything else?
We can get to everything else right after you answer the initial questions.
again, if dogs and wolves are the same kind:
isn't Coelacanth the same 'kind' as Eusthenopteron?
isn't Eusthenopteron the same 'kind' as Panderichthys?
isn't Panderichthys the same 'kind' as Tiktaalik?
isn't Tiktaalik the 'kind' as Acanthostega?
isn't Acanthostega the same 'kind' as Ichthyostega?
isn't Ichthyostega the same 'kind' as Tulerpeton?
If it doesn't prove you wrong, then you have no reason not to answer, right?
again, if dogs and wolves are the same kind:
isn't Coelacanth the same 'kind' as Eusthenopteron?
isn't Eusthenopteron the same 'kind' as Panderichthys?
isn't Panderichthys the same 'kind' as Tiktaalik?
isn't Tiktaalik the 'kind' as Acanthostega?
isn't Acanthostega the same 'kind' as Ichthyostega?
isn't Ichthyostega the same 'kind' as Tulerpeton?
three Stone structures
Presumably you mean this or some other silliness.
Nice dodge - again, if dogs and wolves are the same kind:
isn't Coelacanth the same 'kind' as Eusthenopteron?
isn't Eusthenopteron the same 'kind' as Panderichthys?
isn't Panderichthys the same 'kind' as Tiktaalik?
isn't Tiktaalik the 'kind' as Acanthostega?
isn't Acanthostega the same 'kind' as Ichthyostega?
isn't Ichthyostega the same 'kind' as Tulerpeton?
I answered it, you don't like the answer.
You specifically did not.
isn't Coelacanth the same 'kind' as Eusthenopteron?
isn't Eusthenopteron the same 'kind' as Panderichthys?
isn't Panderichthys the same 'kind' as Tiktaalik?
isn't Tiktaalik the 'kind' as Acanthostega?
isn't Acanthostega the same 'kind' as Ichthyostega?
isn't Ichthyostega the same 'kind' as Tulerpeton?
Answer the questions and then I will elucidate.
again, if dogs and wolves are the same kind:
isn't Coelacanth the same 'kind' as Eusthenopteron?
isn't Eusthenopteron the same 'kind' as Panderichthys?
isn't Panderichthys the same 'kind' as Tiktaalik?
isn't Tiktaalik the 'kind' as Acanthostega?
isn't Acanthostega the same 'kind' as Ichthyostega?
isn't Ichthyostega the same 'kind' as Tulerpeton?
