afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,02:54    HUMAN-CHIMP CHROMOSOME NUMBER PREDICTION This is a common 'proof' for Ape to Human Evolution, but as is so often the case, this appears to be wishful thinking on the part of Neo-Darwinists.  There are two major problems that I see with this Neo-Darwinist assertion, which they most recently displayed in the Dover case ...   (1) No one to my knowledge has ever proposed a stepwise solution of HOW the 2A and 2B chimp chromosomes joined.  This appears to be a HUGE obstacle. (2) The join was 'head-to-head'.  If my understanding is true (stated below) that chromosomes are read in only one direction, then this would be a SECOND HUGE OBSTACLE. See Chimpanzee Genome Project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_Genome_Project for a nice picture comparing the genomes. Below is a quote from Dr. Jerome LeJeune, Discoverer of Down's Syndrome.  Notice that this was 1975, so this is old news.  Chimp and human chromosomal differences were known around 8 years before this.  (I think I read that LeJeune and his staff discovered this also) Professor Jerome LeJeune, a very distinguished French cytogeneticist and holder of the chair of Fundamental Genetics, University of Paris, claims that modern knowledge of chromosomes makes it impossible for a human to have evolved slowly and gradually from a pre-human. From other things he mentions, it appears that Prof. LeJeune is not a creationist—he appears to hover somewhere between theistic evolution and ‘progressive creation’. However, his comments denying Neodarwinism are very relevant to us [AIG], since this is the mechanism of evolution which is being taught in our schools and universities. His statements here mentioned were made at a conference of mostly Catholic doctors and theologians, entitled ‘The Quality of Life’ and dealing mainly with abortion, euthanasia and other pro-life issues. (Combined conference, Guild of St. Luke, SS Cosmos and Damian, Wairakei, N.Z. Ott 9-12, 1975, proceedings edited by D. Bonisch) For example: Quote ‘And just from what we know from primates, that is, from the gorilla, from the chimpanzee, from the orangutan and from man, we can safely say that the very ingenious simplification of Neodarwinists is now just good to put in the museum of old news—that is, the museum in which you put past discoveries that no longer have any explanation-interest.’ A little further on: Quote ‘Because from the actual structure of the chromosome we can demonstrate that the human species did not come from a progressive humanization of a prehuman. We can be as sure that the gorilla never came to be a gorilla by a progressive gorillization of a pregorilla. These things are not true. They are told as telltale in classic books, but they are not any longer true.’ Prof. LeJeune does not delve into technicalities or all his reasons for saying this, but one apparent reason seems to be as follows: A chimp has two more chromosomes than man, which two appear as if ‘homologous’ to a single one in man. The evolutionist would have to say that in the process of the chimpanzee and man’s common ancestor becoming ‘humanized’, the two chromosomes (which remained independent in the chimp) became joined in man. The strong biochemical resemblance between man and chimp would be used as further evidence to support the notion that the chromosomes are indeed homologous. The blow for Neodarwinism comes, however, with the discovery that the theoretical ‘join’ is head-to-head. Since the chromosomes are always ‘read’ in the same direction, this means that the same ‘sentence’ would be read backwards, and would make no biochemical sense! Here is another quote from Dr. LeJeune ... Quote ‘The Neodarwinist is now reaching the point of dignity in the history of science that the Ptolemaic system in astronomy, the epicycle system, reached long ago. We know that it does not work.’ (LeJeune, Jerome (Professor of Fundamental Genetics, University of Paris) Symposium volume titled ‘Quality of Life’, Ed. D. Bonisch, 1975, p.64) How would my friends here at PT answers these two objections? -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

Renier Posts: 276 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,03:19    Another thread again, yet you fail to deliver on your promise to produce evidence on other threads. Keep your promises on the other threads first before clogging the system with your ignorance.

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,03:30    I have given evidence every day as promised.  I spend at least 2 hours every day now both answering critics and producing evidence for my own assertions. Where have you been? And kindly don't clog my serious attempts to understand ND assertions--such as this one--with your polemics. -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

Renier Posts: 276 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,03:40    Quote I have given evidence every day as promised.  I spend at least 2 hours every day now both answering critics and producing evidence for my own assertions. I have been reading your threads daily, and have not seen one gram of evidence. I also did not see anyone else pointing to any evidence you posted, instead, they are all still waiting (and asking) for the promised evidence. Where have you been? Quote And kindly don't clog my serious attempts to understand ND assertions--such as this one--with your polemics. I think very few people here think you are serious (if any), or even honest in your "search" for truth. You might as well rename this thread to "AFdaves pulpit".

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,03:49    Just so I understand what you are saying fully. You think that the fusion resulted in half of the genes on the chromosome being backwards and therefore untranscribable?

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,03:50    Quote This is a common 'proof' for Ape to Human Evolution And this is a common creationist false assumption. Humans fall spang in the center of the ape clade. Genetically, you just can't get more apish than Homo Sapiens.

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,03:53    You you have not read my evidence that I have posted for my first "God Hypothesis" point?  About 'Cosmic Fine Tuning' and 'Biological Machines'? Have you not read my explanation for Cain's wife that was asked of me? Or are you telling me you don't consider this to be evidence?   I really can't help you if you don't ACCEPT my evidence.  I can only give it.  And I will not take time to answer EVERY question that I feel has no bearing on the purpose of my thread. Back to this thread, do you have any explanation for these seemingly insurmountable questions? -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

normdoering Posts: 287 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,04:03    Quote (afdave @ May 04 2006,07:54) (1) No one to my knowledge has ever proposed a stepwise solution of HOW the 2A and 2B chimp chromosomes joined.  This appears to be a HUGE obstacle. (2) The join was 'head-to-head'.  If my understanding is true (stated below) that chromosomes are read in only one direction, then this would be a SECOND HUGE OBSTACLE. Good grief! You look at a comparison of two closely related genomes with many chromosomes of exactly the same size that screams "Darwin got it right" when Darwin didn't even know DNA existed and you just miss seeing how strong that evidence is. Instead you've got some pathetic argument about a fused chromosome. Here's information on how chromosomes fuse: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2003/12_02_03.html Here's information on how creationists lie about this: http://loom.corante.com/archives/2005/08/29/the_chromosome_shuffle.php

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,04:04    Could you explain why two pieces of DNA couldn't join together and preserve the correct direction.

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5286 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,04:26    Jeezuz AFDave, what's with you? You've been given the benefit of the doubt several times now, and each time you've reacted not like someone who's interested in learning, but like a preachy YEC dolt who's only interested in flaunting his ignorance. You've left dozens of questions unanswered on the other threads you started. You refuse to do the most basic research before you post another piece of "evidence" You snap at people who keep pointing out that your actions do not jibe at all with the "honest skeptic" you claim to be. As far as this latests "evidence", you cite a study that is over 30 years old, and even then you don't understand the contents of what it says. Here is a good overview of the chromosomal fusion evidence.  Notice all the references to the primary scientific literature, including this one Quote 10. Chromosome Res 2002;10(1):55-61 Direct evidence for the Homo-Pan clade. Wimmer R, Kirsch S, Rappold GA, Schempp W. Institute of Human Genetics and Anthropology, University of Freiburg, Germany. For a long time, the evolutionary relationship between human and African apes, the 'trichotomy problem', has been debated with strong differences in opinion and interpretation. Statistical analyses of different molecular DNA data sets have been carried out and have primarily supported a Homo-Pan clade. An alternative way to address this question is by the comparison of evolutionarily relevant chromosomal breakpoints. Here, we made use of a P1-derived artificial chromosome (PAC)/bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) contig spanning approximately 2.8 Mb on the long arm of the human Y chromosome, to comparatively map individual PAC clones to chromosomes from great apes, gibbons, and two species of Old World monkeys by fluorescence in-situ hybridization. During our search for evolutionary breakpoints on the Y chromosome, it transpired that a transposition of an approximately 100-kb DNA fragment from chromosome 1 onto the Y chromosome must have occurred in a common ancestor of human, chimpanzee and bonobo. Only the Y chromosomes of these three species contain the chromosome-1-derived fragment; it could not be detected on the Y chromosomes of gorillas or the other primates examined. Thus, this shared derived (synapomorphic) trait provides clear evidence for a Homo-Pan clade independent of DNA sequence analysis.                       PMID: 11863072 [PubMed - in process] All this information is easily available for those who are intellectually honest enough to seek it. Strike two Dave. -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,04:48    Quote Good grief! You look at a comparison of two closely related genomes with many chromosomes of exactly the same size that screams "Darwin got it right" when Darwin didn't even know DNA existed and you just miss seeing how strong that evidence is. But that's standard Creationist/ID 'argumentation': find one scientific datum that's unexpected or unexplained, noisily crow about 'scientists can't explain this!', ignore everything scientists CAN explain, and claim that since there's this one unexpected factoid, the entire theory of evolution must therefore be thrown overboard. The inevitable next step is the magical leap that all this therefore proves ID or Biblical Creation. A quintessential example is the UD clowns obsessing over the apparent red blood cells being found in the T-Rex bones: instead of assuming that this means there's things we don't understand about the long-term preservation of tissue, they imply that ALL THE OTHER PROOF we have about an old earth must be thrown out. Other evolutionary evidence, geological evidence, astronomical evidence -- to the creationist, it must all be thrown out, because we found some red blood cells in a dinosaur!! And of course, this all proves the Book of Genesis, too. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,05:16    Norm wrote: Quote Good grief! You look at a comparison of two closely related genomes with many chromosomes of exactly the same size that screams "Darwin got it right" when Darwin didn't even know DNA existed and you just miss seeing how strong that evidence is. Afdave wrote: Quote really can't help you if you don't ACCEPT my evidence. I wrote: Norm was writing about actual evidence, Afdave wants us to accept pseudoscientific BS as "evidence" we should accept.  Unfortunately, Afdave doesn't know the difference, and is utterly incapable of differentiating between evidence and tendentious apologetics. And that is really how it stands.  The only thing I have to add is that those of us who understand science cannot be affected by Afdave's "evidence", something he needs to learn at some point.  An uneducated buffoon is not going to teach anything to the educated, so he may as well find people ignorant enough to persuade.  Right now he's just the whipping boy here, standing in for all of the ignorant creationists/IDists of the world. -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,05:22    Dave, head-to-head fusion is as possible as head-to-tail. We are not talking about a chimairic event of the past here: Head to head fusions are observed in other species by genetic research today, as well as in our own body cells, in many pre-neoplasmatic conditions: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez....bstract http://www.genomics.princeton.edu/botstein/Articles/1990/kunes.pdf http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=52649 http://www.ncc.go.jp/en/nccri/annrep/2004/10gen.html (look at "Alternative Mechanisms of Gene Amplification in Human Cancers") http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2003/12_02_03.html http://www.bx.psu.edu/miller_lab/dist/chr2.4.pdf (look at page six for the explanation) A simple google search would have led you to all those from the first pages. And you'll notice I didn't cite any "evilutionist" sites... Remember what I told you about those who lie to you? -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,05:31    Quote Back to this thread, do you have any explanation for these seemingly insurmountable questions? Have you figured it out yet Dave? If you don't know this I really don't understand how you can critique any other aspect of biology.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,05:48    Dave, this is exactly what happens when amateurs get in over their heads. Here you are, talking about a very esoteric field of human knowledge (genetics), citing 25-year-old research that's completely out of date and has been completely supplanted by newer research in a rapidly-advancing field. No offense, Dave, but you're an electrical engineer. Do you really believe you're qualified to go head-to-head with research geneticists with decades in the field? Did you honestly think you were going to find errors in their work? That would be like me expecting to find errors in Stephen Hawking's math. And, let's not forget, you still have not presented any evidence for a young earth, or for any of your other assertions, for that matter. To take an example, your "explanation" for Cain's and Abel's wives didn't present any "evidence" whatsoever. Claiming that Cain and Abel must have married their sisters, without even any reference to Biblical passages (which wouldn't have been evidence anyway), shows how little you understand about the way science works. In the same vein, citing outdated research to attempt to disprove one tiny piece of evidence in favor of evolution doesn't even get you one baby-step closer to proving your claims. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,05:50    There you go Dave, here's a plain explanation, with a nifty pic too: http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hbooks....ns.html Check "centric fusion". Now, the picture is not exactly the way the fusion was made in the human chromosome (that is more like a "Robertsonian translocation", also mentioned there but not shown), but the mechanism is pretty much the same and it may help you understand the head-to-head bit. And genetic researchers see that happening all the time. Anyone who (claims to be) a biologist, and says it's impossible, is a liar. -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

jstockwell Posts: 10 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,06:19    afdave, I think you've confused a chromosome with an unpaired DNA strand.  DNA is indeed only read in a single direction, from 3' to 5' end, but since there are 2 strands, and both are 'read', an inversion causes very little problem. To illustrate: 3' ATGCA 5' 5' TACGT 3' inverted: 3' TGCAT 5' 5' ACGTA 3' Notice that a polymerase reading the top strand of my first example will produce an identical product as one reading the bottom strand of the inversion.   Hope that helped.

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,06:27    Don't tell him, I wanted to see if he could work it out. This is really elementary stuff, biology 101 as they say in the US (on tv at least). You see Dave this is why people have very little patience, if you say that this is an insurmountable obstacle, you obviously don't know a great deal about biology.

jstockwell Posts: 10 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,06:29    Ah.  Sorry about that.  Though from what I've seen while lurking here it's doubtful either of our approaches will work.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,06:30    Quote Remember what I told you about those who lie to you? You mean how lies make Baby Jesus cry?   -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,06:58    afdave, do you think Mr Potato Head could be the intelligent designer? -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,08:43    Quote (Flint @ May 04 2006,08:50) And this is a common creationist false assumption. Humans fall spang in the center of the ape clade. What do you mean? In a cladogram you can freely 'rotate' any sub-clade so that every taxa can be at the 'center' or at the 'edges', without changing the topology.

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,08:51    Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 04 2006,09<!--emo&) Could you explain why two pieces of DNA couldn't join together and preserve the correct direction. Different genes in a chromosome can be read in different directions, so there is no 'correct direction' And given that transcription occures during the interphase, when chromosomes are not condensed (is this the correct term in English?), the direction of a particular locus is meaningless.

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,09:03    Yes that's the right word. It was AFDaves question not mine. Again, no one here is a 'neo-Darwinist'.

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,09:15    jeannot: I know. I wasn't talking about the topology, exactly. I wish I could draw diagrams in this little box. But a cladistic outlier would be one that branched off early, without subsequent branchings. Hominids don't have a common ancestor with other apes long ago at the base of the diagram, suggesting a large genetic distance between them and other apes. Instead, hominids share common ancestors recently, and with chimps just less recently, etc. To the extent that the ape clade has been branching, humans are recently and closely related to many other apes, So I guess that's what I was trying to say - if you took all of the genes of all the apes and did a factor analysis, humans would lie in the largest, "apiest" factor. And I wanted to contrast this with the creationist caricature of humans having ape ancestors, which we outgrew and left behind in all their hairy smelly distasteful glory.

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,09:40    Ok flint, I get your point. You could have said for instance that Homo and Pan share a more recent ancestor than Pan and Gorilla do.

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,09:43    Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 04 2006,14:03) It was AFDaves question not mine. That question is in your post (May 04 2006,094). ??

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,09:49    So this statement from AIG would definitely be incorrect? Quote The blow for Neodarwinism comes, however, with the discovery that the theoretical ‘join’ is head-to-head. Since the chromosomes are always ‘read’ in the same direction, this means that the same ‘sentence’ would be read backwards, and would make no biochemical sense! What about the other statements from Dr. LeJeune?  These are strong statements from the discoverer of Downs Syndrome ... no?  Were not the 2 structures of chimp and human chromosomes well known even back in 1975?  Would this not put him in a postion to make an authoritative statement? -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

Seven Popes Posts: 190 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,10:03    AFDave... 1975. Nineteen seventy five. (heeeee) AIG was fact-mining.    * January 1 - Watergate scandal: John N. Mitchell, H. R. Haldeman, John D. Ehrlichman are found guilty of the Watergate cover-up    * January 2 - The Federal Rules of Evidence are approved by Congress    * January 5 - The Tasman Bridge in Tasmania, Australia, is struck by the bulk ore carrier Lake Illawarra, killing twelve people.    * January 7 - OPEC agrees to raise crude oil prices by 10%.    * January 8 - Ella Grasso becomes Governor of Connecticut, becoming the first woman to serve as a Governor in the United States who did not succeed her husband       * January 29 - Weather Underground bombs US State Department main office in Washington D.C.    * January - Altair 8800 is released, sparking the era of the microcomputer Why would someone quote a paper this old?  Perhaps subsequent papers disagreed with it and produced inconvenient results? Lying for Jesus by omission. -------------- Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

jstockwell Posts: 10 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,10:07    That statement is not only incorrect, it shows such a lack of understanding that I would question the scholarship of wherever you found that.   And you should look it up yourself as well.  Basic knowledge of how DNA transcription and replication work would help you understand why your arguments don't work.  Although really, you should have learned that before claiming to have found a 'major obstacle'.

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,10:07    Quote So this statement from AIG would definitely be incorrect? Yes it was either written by someone with no knowledge of biology or was intentionally meant to mislead. Or both. Quote What about the other statements from Dr. LeJeune? More out of date with every paper that comes out.

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,10:08    jeannot: Quote You could have said for instance that Homo and Pan share a more recent ancestor than Pan and Gorilla do. Yes, I suppose so. But I was trying to emphasize that we are solidly and thoroughly apes ourselves, and phrasing it your way might be construed as saying we "graduated out of apehood" more recently. So my target was the tendency to distinguish between humans and apes, a distinction as impossible as distinguishing between starlings and birds.

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,10:17    Dave, you must learn that authority is no substitute for learning the issues involved yourself. why don't you pick up a basic biology textbook sometime and learn these things for yourself? You could have learned how transcription actually works, for example, or how cells divide, or how chromosomes are constructed, rather than relying on "authorities" to tell you how it is. Of course, I suppose you should only bother if the issues you raise are actually important to you. If they aren't, then why do you keep coming here? It's not anybody's job here to continually educate you about basic biology. and you really aren't even that amusing.

Tom Ames Posts: 238 Joined: Dec. 2002 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,10:18    To answer these points of AFDave's directly: Quote (1) No one to my knowledge has ever proposed a stepwise solution of HOW the 2A and 2B chimp chromosomes joined.  This appears to be a HUGE obstacle. (2) The join was 'head-to-head'.  If my understanding is true (stated below) that chromosomes are read in only one direction, then this would be a SECOND HUGE OBSTACLE. 1. Chromosome fusions happen all the time. A colleague of mine specializes in following them in microbial evolution: they are a ubiquitous response to selective pressure. 2. Chromosomes have no polarity. The "head-to-head" directionality is arbitrary. Next "obstacles"? -------------- -Tom Ames

normdoering Posts: 287 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,10:26    Quote (afdave @ May 04 2006,14:49) What about the other statements from Dr. LeJeune?  These are strong statements from the discoverer of Downs Syndrome ... no? The statements from Dr. LeJeune are ironically wrong because Downs syndrome is caused by fused chromosomes and Downs patients can live and reproduce. Downs syndrome may not have any obvious evolutionary edge -- but it's not a killer mutation, (maybe a hopeful monster in minature Gouldian form). Dr. LeJeune had a lapse of vision -- it happens some times. Yes, the statement from AIG is definitely incorrect. It's dated speculation. I linked information on how creationists lie about this: http://loom.corante.com/archives/2005/08/29/the_chromosome_shuffle.php Now let me quote some of what you missed: Quote Eldon Gardner summed it up as follows: “Chromosome number is probably more constant, however, than any other single morphological characteristic that is available for species identification” (1968, p. 211). To put it another way, humans always have had 46 chromosomes, whereas chimps always have had 48. There's a lot that's wrong here, and it can be summed up up with one number: 1968. Why would someone quote from a 37-year-old genetics textbook in an article about the science of chromosomes? It's not as if scientists have been just sitting around their labs since then with their feet up on the benches. You have to ask yourself why is so much creationist information so often more than a couple decades old? It's because they have to quote mine decades worth of literature to find things they can take out of context or find such lapses of vision.

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,10:27    Google's faster my friend ... and it got me as far as this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_Genome_Project but I could not find anything about chromosome reading being directional ... so I thank "whoever-it-was" for that! -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

Seven Popes Posts: 190 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,10:35    Quote (afdave @ May 04 2006,15:27) Google's faster my friend ... and it got me as far as this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_Genome_Project but I could not find anything about chromosome reading being directional ... so I thank "whoever-it-was" for that! AFDave, you are one step away... now all you have to do is Google before you cut and paste an inane quote from AIG, and you can answer your own questions.  AIG knowingly lied to you, AFDave.  What did that feel like? -------------- Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,10:36    Quote It's because they have to quote mine decades worth of literature to find things they can take out of context or find such lapses of vision. It's also because older material is much better at highlighting what science "doesn't understand."

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,10:47    Because chromosomes have two strands, it doesn't matter whether they have a direction or not, they can still join up at either end.

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,10:55    Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 04 2006,15:47) Because chromosomes have two strands, it doesn't matter whether they have a direction or not, they can still join up at either end. I don't get you argument. Could you elaborate? Are you talking about chromatids?

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,11:11    Yes, I just mean that two pieces of double stranded DNA will line up to preserve the 3'-5' direction. I think AiGs argument was that if the chromosomes joined up face to face half of the new chromosome would run in the opposite direction and the codons would be backwards. I was just pointing out this wouldn't happen.

Tom Ames Posts: 238 Joined: Dec. 2002 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,11:44    Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 04 2006,14:11) Yes, I just mean that two pieces of double stranded DNA will line up to preserve the 3'-5' direction. I think AiGs argument was that if the chromosomes joined up face to face half of the new chromosome would run in the opposite direction and the codons would be backwards. I was just pointing out this wouldn't happen. I'd like to try to clarify your point, if I may. In fact, not only do chromosomes not have polarity, but double-stranded DNA does not either. It's composed of two complementary antiparallel strands: one goes 5'->3', the other goes 3'->5'. Flip it around and you'll get the same thing. But AiG's stupidity does not stop here. They seem to be suggesting that genes run along the double strand in one direction only, that this implies some polarity and that this matters. In fact, there are genes on both strands, transcribed in either direction. Furthermore, the process of transcription has nothing to do with replication. Even if the genes DID all point in one direction, it wouldn't matter one bit. The DNA replication machinery just sees 2 strands of DNA. It works in an antisense direction just as easily as in a sense direction. This whole line of argumentation could only have been made by someone who has never taken a single semester of modern undergraduate biology. Indeed, the person who makes these arguments could not have paid any attention in his high school biology class (assuming he took biology after 1960 or so). -------------- -Tom Ames

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,11:56    Exactly.

Henry J Posts: 5760 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,12:36    Re "In fact, not only do chromosomes not have polarity, but double-stranded DNA does not either. It's composed of two complementary antiparallel strands: one goes 5'->3', the other goes 3'->5'. Flip it around and you'll get the same thing." Hey, a thread with an interesting discussion in it! What happened? Henry

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,15:32    Quote Hey, a thread with an interesting discussion in it! What happened? What happened? ... you guys finally got one over on AIG after many years of trying ... Your welcome! -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

normdoering Posts: 287 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,15:38    Quote (afdave @ May 04 2006,20:32) ... you guys finally got one over on AIG after many years of trying ... Thanks for reminding us that no matter what we do, the light of reason will never penetrate your religion darkened brain.

Seven Popes Posts: 190 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,16:15    Quote (afdave @ May 04 2006,20:32) Quote Hey, a thread with an interesting discussion in it! What happened? What happened? ... you guys finally got one over on AIG after many years of trying ... Your welcome! AFDave, that was soo sad.  That was your argument, not ours.  One of the few pieces of proof you have posited.  It was blown to confetti.  Try again, but Google first. -------------- Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,16:17    dave does have a point. It's rather unusual for creationists to make straightforward fact-based statements, because they are so easy to refute directly, with the actual facts. Usually, those who provide the grist for creationists to parrot are much more careful to make statements correctly implied by false assumptions. Wrong: You beat your wife. Right: It was only yesterday that you denied not beating your wife, which is suspiciously recent.

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,17:13    Quote Thanks for reminding us that no matter what we do, the light of reason will never penetrate your religion darkened brain. ... Man you guys are uptight ... it was a joke! Norm ... you succeeded in getting some good info into my 'religion darkened' brain.  The chimp thing is the best one I've heard so far.  I'm really interested in studying it more.  You guys did good today!  There ... is that better? Go celebrate!  Send the drink bills to me! -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,19:58    Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 04 2006,16:11) Yes, I just mean that two pieces of double stranded DNA will line up to preserve the 3'-5' direction. I think AiGs argument was that if the chromosomes joined up face to face half of the new chromosome would run in the opposite direction and the codons would be backwards. I was just pointing out this wouldn't happen. I think we’re not talking of the same thing. Yes, transcription can only occur in the 5’ -> 3’ direction. But as far as I understand, AfDave was not referring to that. He was unconsciously implying that there was one definite master strand for a whole chromatid, since all genes were supposed to be read in the same direction, for some odd reason. If it were an absolute rule, the way chromosomes join would matter a lot. They would have to fuse both master strand and coding strand with their analogues, and not a master strand with a coding strand. The fact that DNA has two strands in both direction doesn’t change anything. Am I correct?

Alan Fox Posts: 1552 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,22:56    In transcription only one strand of DNA (the master strand, as Jeannot puts it) is copied to nRNA. The reverse complement does not produce the same sequence if read in the opposite direction. I.e. If you produced  a back-to-front mRNA from the complement strand it would not be the same. Is the issue that individual codons can be in either DNA strand as once the strands are unwound the RNA polymerase attaches to whichever strand is the master at that point, so it would not matter which way chromosomes fused as it is individual codons that are transcribed, and which strand is the master can swap from codon to codon?

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,23:13    Quote He was unconsciously implying that there was one definite master strand for a whole chromatid, since all genes were supposed to be read in the same direction, for some odd reason. Oh ok I thought he meant that it would join up the 5'-3' direction the wrong way. You are right, I'm giving AiG too much credt.

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,00:19    Quote (afdave @ May 04 2006,22:13) Go celebrate!  Send the drink bills to me! Dave, I will drink a whole bottle of fine Arcadian wine (and each glass to you and your family's health) if you tell me that this has made you question, even slightly, the "authority" of AIG in these issues- and that you'll try to check and cross-examine their claims before believing them from now on (even with a simple google search). Because if you do, believe me, this was only your first surprise... -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,02:14    Quote (Alan Fox @ May 05 2006,03:56) Is the issue that individual codons can be in either DNA strand as once the strands are unwound the RNA polymerase attaches to whichever strand is the master at that point, so it would not matter which way chromosomes fused as it is individual codons that are transcribed, and which strand is the master can swap from codon to codon? I'm not sure about the question (your sentence is a bit too complicated for me), but for one gene, there is one physical master strand. Of course, in a chromatid, different genes can have different master strands (that is they are read in different directions). I hope it helps.

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,02:28    But what the AiG article seems to be suggesting is that the chromatids fused so that one strand would run 5'-3' up to the join, and then 3'-5' after the join. So what they are saying is that half the genes on the chromosome would be backwards. My guess is that whoever wrote that didn't realise that there are two pairs of double stranded DNA.

Alan Fox Posts: 1552 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,02:51    Jeannot It was Quote In fact, not only do chromosomes not have polarity, but double-stranded DNA does not either. It's composed of two complementary antiparallel strands: one goes 5'->3', the other goes 3'->5'. Flip it around and you'll get the same thing. that made me ask, as I read this as suggesting that if you transcribe the complement strand from stop to start you get the same mRNA as if reading the master strand from start to stop, which I don't think is right. Then I wondered if the master strand has to be continuous just for each codon, or for the complete strand. You tell me yes. OK. So is it hypothetically possible for the master strand to alternate in a gene so long as codon is continuous. Oooh, I think I see a problem. the codons that alternate would have to be of the same number of nucleotides or master/complement will not work.

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,03:16    Indeed, even if the RNA polymerase could transcript the complementary strand of a given gene backward (it can't because this strand lacks a promoter) the resulting mRNA, if translated, would be completely different. Just try it on a piece of paper and see. And the polymerase can't swap the strands during transcription, they are oriented in opposite directions ( 5'-3' ) (and certainly for other biochemical reasons). A gene or an operon is read all in once (not sure of the expression). If the polymerase fails before the end, it has to start again from the beginning.

Tom Ames Posts: 238 Joined: Dec. 2002 (Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,03:27    I'd recommend that anyone with a real interest in this poke around on some of the online tools for biologists. An example: the "Synteny Viewer" for yeast shows gene direction and order for genes in 4 species of budding yeast. (Note that the divergence among these species is MUCH greater than thet separating humans and other great apes.) This link is to a small region of  chromosome 11 in yeast. Some genes have arrows poining to the left, some to the right. This indicates the direction of transcription which, again, is independent of the direction of replication. If you browse around you'll also notice massive evidence of the kinds of chromosomal rearrangements that AiG seems to think should be problematic. (Alan: I'm not quite sure what you mean by "master strand" or its degree of being "continuous". Sorry.) And to AFDave: keep in mind that AiG has not simply been shown to be wrong in this instance. We didn't "get one over on AiG once in many years". The claim that AiG made was shown to exhibit such a depth of fundamental ignorance about molecular biology as to demolish ALL credibility of the people making it. They might as well have claimed that the sun orbits the earth. They aren't just being refuted. They've demonstrated either profound stupidity or stunning mendacity. All claims from AiG should be seen in this light. By passing them on, you're sharing in AiG's reputation. -------------- -Tom Ames

Alan Fox Posts: 1552 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,05:07    Thanks Jeannot and Tom (All at once, or all in one go, Jeannot, you seem to have had a recombination event ) Is the key the promoter, which after following your link, appears to specify start of transcription and which direction, ie which strand, to transcribe. Whilst I'm clear that for each codon for a particular protein, mRNA polymerase reads off in one direction off one strand (which is what I was calling the master strand), I still just wonder if for all codons in one chromosome, is it always the same strand of DNA that is read  when any codon is transcribed?

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,05:20    Quote And to AFDave: keep in mind that AiG has not simply been shown to be wrong in this instance. We didn't "get one over on AiG once in many years". Tom, thanks.  But I was kidding.  I do realize what you are saying and I will take AIG with a grain of salt and I know they have been wrong before, and I plan on confronting them with this when I have been completely educated on the topic myself.   And I hope no one thinks that I am trying here to demonstrate my superior biological knowledge by slinging AIG quotes around, because obviously I have very little.  I was simply showing all of you an assertion made by them and I wanted to hear your side. And I am really enjoying the dialog here ... I am learning a lot about a process that is MOST fascinating to me from people who evidently know a lot about it. I am wondering about what Alan Fox meant by this ... Quote Oooh, I think I see a problem. the codons that alternate would have to be of the same number of nucleotides or master/complement will not work. Maybe it will become clear as the dialog continues.  I will also look at your links ... thanks! -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,05:27    Another layman question ... what's the meaning of 5' and 3' ... what do the numbers designate and what do the single quote marks indicate? -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

Alan Fox Posts: 1552 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,05:48    Dave asks: I am wondering about what Alan Fox meant by this ... Quote Oooh, I think I see a problem. the codons that alternate would have to be of the same number of nucleotides or master/complement will not work. Let me anwer by saying it was a stupid remark. Codons will, of course have the same number of bases in both strands, so the remark is not even wrong.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,05:53    Quote Another layman question ... what's the meaning of 5' and 3' ... what do the numbers designate and what do the single quote marks indicate? They indicate that the person who said this-- Quote (1) No one to my knowledge has ever proposed a stepwise solution of HOW the 2A and 2B chimp chromosomes joined.  This appears to be a HUGE obstacle. (2) The join was 'head-to-head'.  If my understanding is true (stated below) that chromosomes are read in only one direction, then this would be a SECOND HUGE OBSTACLE. ... The blow for Neodarwinism comes, however, with the discovery that the theoretical ‘join’ is head-to-head. Since the chromosomes are always ‘read’ in the same direction, this means that the same ‘sentence’ would be read backwards, and would make no biochemical sense! --hasn't got so much as a freshman's understanding of biology, yet shoots his mouth off about it.

Alan Fox Posts: 1552 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,05:54    afdave From here Quote Each strand has polarity, such that the 5'-hydroxyl (or 5'-phospho) group of the first nucleotide begins the strand and the 3'-hydroxyl group of the final nucleotide ends the strand; accordingly, we say that this strand runs 5' to 3' ("Five prime to three prime")

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,06:26    Let me give you an analogy, AFDave. Imagine you were interested in the question of whether we were nearing the Peak Oil point, so you hung out on Peak Oil blogs with geologists. And one day, somebody showed up there and posted Quote "You're all wrong, there's infinite gasoline, we'll never ever ever run out of gasoline, just look at this link to SomeCompleteCrank.com. And by the way, what the heck is "petroleum"? Do you see how that guy looks? Well, that's what you look like, here.

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,06:26    Quote Dave, you must learn that authority is no substitute for learning the issues involved yourself. why don't you pick up a basic biology textbook sometime and learn these things for yourself? I have to agree.  The problem with Dave is not that he doesn't know what 5' and 3' prime are, for example, but that he has no interest in learning for learning's sake--at least not with regard to evolution.   And he cannot learn biology and evolution by giving him the answers.  That is superficial, and is the sort of "knowledge" that Dave already confuses with scientific learning.  It is probably not best to feed his mistaken beliefs by "filling in the gaps" of a "knowledge base" that is fundamentally predisposed against any objective analysis of the evidence. -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,06:50    Quote why don't you pick up a basic biology textbook sometime and learn these things for yourself?   Thanks for the tip but Google's faster. -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,07:07    Quote Thanks for the tip but Google's faster. And much less thorough.  That's the problem with you, DAve, you don't care to get an integrated education, but prefer to pick of "facts" to bolster your prejudices. This was the point of my post, but as usual, you fail to understand even what it is that you lack. -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

Carol Clouser Posts: 29 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,07:08    See folks, as I have maintained all along, creationists CAN be reasoned with. It just takes patience and perseverance. Now, if we could only nail down their misguided reading of the Bible. That would obviate the need for Panda's Thumb and we could all go home.

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,07:58    Quote what's the meaning of 5' and 3' This is a good illustration of the DNA backbone: You can see from this that there is clearly a direction thats runs from the 5 prime carbon of one sugar to the 3 prime carbon of the other. The 'prime' is used to number the carbon atoms.

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,08:28    Thanks.  When is uni-directional reading important?  And when is it not?  I think I saw someone say that it is important for some things.  I'm trying to understand where exactly the AIG author went wrong. (other than the jokes about they woke up that morning, they went Creo, etc.)  :-) -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,08:43    Quote I'm trying to understand where exactly the AIG author went wrong. But the jokes have a barb in them, yes? The AIG author went wrong in his initial conviction that reality simply *could not* be true, since it contradicts his convictions. And so he went searching for some example of how reality got it wrong. Ignorance of the topic is a great assistance in this search. Taking it for granted that God approves of lies intended to trick the audience into correct beliefs also helps a lot. Now, armed with righteous ignorance backed by righteous dishonesty, the AIG person can defeat every windmill reality presents to him, at least in his own mind. The chromosome error is an entirely typical example, not exceptional in any way.

Rilke's Granddaughter Posts: 311 Joined: Jan. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,08:48    Quote (Carol Clouser @ May 05 2006,12:08) See folks, as I have maintained all along, creationists CAN be reasoned with. It just takes patience and perseverance. Now, if we could only nail down their misguided reading of the Bible. That would obviate the need for Panda's Thumb and we could all go home. But Carol, you exist as the perfect counter-example. And since the Thumb has nothing to do with religion, your point is meaningless.

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,08:58    Quote (afdave @ May 05 2006,13:28) Thanks.  When is uni-directional reading important?  And when is it not?  I think I saw someone say that it is important for some things.  I'm trying to understand where exactly the AIG author went wrong. (other than the jokes about they woke up that morning, they went Creo, etc.)  :-) It's always important. Replication and transcrition only occurs by 'reading' the master strand from 3' to 5' (therefore, DNA and RNA are synthetised in the opposite direction 5' -> 3'.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,09:46    Dave, here's the problem. You're not equipped to understand biology well enough to understand why AiG's arguments are without merit. The writers at AiG are counting on their other readers having the same problem. Unfortunately, unless you're willing to take the time and effort to at least take a few undergraduate biology classes, you're never going to be equipped to understand why these arguments are incorrect. So what should you do? Well, you should do what the rest of us non-specialists do: you should place credence in the work of people who actually do have the competence to understand this stuff. In other words, the scientists who are doing the work. You should basically stay away from sites like AiG, because those guys most emphatically are not doing any actual research. They either honestly don't know what they're doing, and are leading you astray, or they do know what they're doing and are counting on you not knowing what they're doing, and leading you astray. If the AiG guys really were doing any research, they'd be publishing it (and I mean in peer-reviewed scientific journals, not on some website intended for naive non-specialists). In science, dishonest research is always eventually uncovered. The history of science is littered with examples, and there's even an annual prize awarded—the IgNobel Prize—for the most ludicrously wrong research (awarded by the Journal of Irreproducible Results). On the other hand, bad, wrong, dishonest, deceitful claims are never retracted by groups like AiG. Dembski's another example. His work has been refuted again and again and again, and yet somehow he never issues retractions. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

incorygible Posts: 374 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,11:00    Quote (afdave @ May 05 2006,13:28) Thanks.  When is uni-directional reading important?  And when is it not?  I think I saw someone say that it is important for some things.  I'm trying to understand where exactly the AIG author went wrong. (other than the jokes about they woke up that morning, they went Creo, etc.)  :-) Afdave, As to where the AIG author went wrong, Flint's answer above is probably most accurate.  More superficially, however, he seems to have confused a chromosome with a single strand of DNA. DNA strands are paired in chromosomes, but only single strands are transcribed (as the AIG author notes, in one direction only).  The author's elementary mistake (a high-school student would know better) led him to the wrong conclusion about a "head-to-head" fusion being read "backwards". Let's work it out so you can see for yourself. Our simplistic AIG author (erroneously) imagined two single strands of DNA, say, ACGCTA and GGAACT, and realized that if these two strands were fused "head-to-head" vs. "head-to-tail", ACGCTAGGAACT would transribe a different product than ACGCTATCAAGG. Of course, this simplification was completely wrong, as any high-school biology student could point out: chromosomes are paired strands of DNA that only 'fit together' in 5' to 3' backbones. Here is the correct situation. Suppose we start with two simplified "chromosomes" of 6 base-pairs each, with each of those 6 base units coding for a protein product (1-4): Chromosome a: 3' ACTGAG 5' (Protein 1) 5' TGACTC 3' (Protein 2) Chromosome b: 3' CGCAGT 5' (Protein 3) 5' GCGTCA 3' (Protein 4) So our four 'proteins' are 'read' (3' - 5' remember) from the sequences ACTGAG (1), CTCAGT (2), CGCAGT (3), and ACTGCG (4). Note that the DNA backbone fits together 5' - 3' (see the above diagram), so if these two chromosomes were to fuse, it would be by matching a 5' end with a 3' end. Here's where the AIG author goes wrong -- he notices that our new fused chromosome has two potential forms (assuming it fuses in the order a - b, otherwise it's four, but I'll stick to two because it makes no difference). I've noted the point of fusion with a dash. By matching 5' to 3', chromosome ab could look like: 3' ACTGAG-CGCAGT 5' 5' TGACTC-GCGTCA 3' OR the "inverted" (note this term has no real meaning, nor does "head-to-head" in the AIG Author's sense) 3' ACTGAG-ACTGCG 5' 5' TGACTC-TGACGC 3' Looking at the proteins transcribed by each of the potential fused chromosomes, you'll see that they would result in identical gene products (read the sequences from 3' to 5', and substitute our protein numbers above): 3' 1-3 5' 5' 2-4 3' vs. 3' 1-4 5' 5' 2-3 3' So you can see, all the 'genes' are read correctly and transcribed for the chromosome as a whole, and our AIG author didn't think too hard (at all?) about the windmill he was tilting at. Of course, this is all very simplistic (I've kinda skipped the whole RNA thing, etc.).  If you want a more accurate picture, sketch out 'chromosomes' that are more than one 'protein' long.  Or better yet, as you've been advised before, open a biology textbook and really learn how this stuff works (knowing more than an AIG author doesn't cut it).  You'll also figure out all kinds of interesting things, like why chromosomal recombination (mixing up heads and tails happens relatively frequently during sex ) can be severe if it occurs in the middle of a coding region (as opposed to outside it).  Open the book, sketch it out, and see for yourself.  (Hint: how would the result be different if 1, 2, 3 and 4 weren't independent genes/gene-products, but parts of the same gene/product? What would that mean for the 1-3 vs. 1-4 chromosomal arrangements shown above?) (Edited a few times to make it as clear as possible.)

ltracey Posts: 4 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,14:29    Quote (afdave @ May 05 2006,11:50) Quote why don't you pick up a basic biology textbook sometime and learn these things for yourself?   Thanks for the tip but Google's faster. Google may be faster but it's only helpful if you: a) know what sources are reliable vs. those that aren't trustworthy b) have a basic understanding of the topic you're looking to find more about c) Are willing to wade through some chaff to get to the wheat. It may be faster, but it's like feeding your brain Mickey D's too much.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,14:46    Quote Google may be faster but it's only helpful if you: a) know what sources are reliable vs. those that aren't trustworthy Quoting AiG pretty much means the quoter can't tell science from jargon-heavy babbling.

Tom Ames Posts: 238 Joined: Dec. 2002 (Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,15:29    Quote (afdave @ May 05 2006,08:27) Another layman question ... what's the meaning of 5' and 3' ... what do the numbers designate and what do the single quote marks indicate? I don't feel that it's appropriate to pile on afdave, but something needs to be pointed out. This quote of his ought to be contrasted with an earlier quote: Quote I can see that the Flank and Davidson have read the book ‘How to Win Friends and Influence People’ … I have an idea for a simple, fun exercise. I’m an Electrical Engineer and business man and I used to fly AF jets. I like simple, uncomplicated arguments and I like people to cut to the chase … fast. Let’s say I was undecided about where life on earth came from or how it began. I hear the YECs and the ID people saying it came from an Intelligent Agent/God or whatever. I hear the Darwinists saying it happened by chance evolution. And everybody quotes all these long-winded academic sources. I would love to hear from each of you, everybody in YOUR OWN WORDS, not referring to a single outside source what YOUR theory is and WHY you believe it in 5 simple statements, i.e. the top 5 reasons for your belief. Take me from when and how it all began to where you think its going and why … very short and simple so my pea brain can understand it … try explaining it nicely and politely. The point being that complicated technical subjects cannot be transmitted to uneducated listeners in "5 simple statements". Someone who's never come across the 5'->3' convention for DNA strand direction is simply not equipped to understand the molecular arguments for evolution. There's no shame in this: it is, after all, a specialized and technical body of knowledge. But I would not presume to say to afdave "I've never understood why airplanes don't need to flap their wings. Could you teach me how to fly a jet next week?" The DI and AiG's pseudoscientific truthiness encourages people to expect that the principles of molecular evolution are within the grasp of everyday uninformed intuition. But intelligent readers ought to be able to appreciate why this is not so. If they want to become informed they'll start by assuming the humility of the novice. If they simply want to continue pushing a partisan or sectarian agenda, they'll not let ignorance be a barrier to expressing their opinion. -------------- -Tom Ames

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,15:36    Tom Ames said: Quote blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Tom, I like to cut to the chase. Please explain what that post means in three words. And no outside sources. And then I'll tell you why I don't believe you.

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,18:18    Quote "I've never understood why airplanes don't need to flap their wings. Could you teach me how to fly a jet next week?" I'm not asking anyone to teach me to BE a molecular biologist.  I'm just trying to find the truth about certain biological realities by relying on supposed experts on both sides of the controversy.  I think people on both sides are necessarily a little biased toward their own viewpoint, but I trust that each strives for the truth as best they know how.  I enjoy hearing from you guys, and up until this little incident, I have found AIG to be reliable.  One would think a medical doctor at AIG would be a reliable source, and in all fairness to him, he may be reliable in many areas.  And I'm not ready to call him a liar until I hear his side of the story.  We have seen that Dr. LeJeune was mistaken about Down's syndrome as well--it happens. Thanks 'incorygible' for the detailed explanation.  I would be interested to hear Alan Fox and Jeannot's comments on incorygible's explanation and also would like to know what your specialties are. Thanks! -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,19:04    Quote (afdave @ May 05 2006,23:18) I'm not asking anyone to teach me to BE a molecular biologist.  I'm just trying to find the truth about certain biological realities by relying on supposed experts on both sides of the controversy. But therein lies the rub, Dave. In order to evaluate the evidence in favor of evolution, if you're not going to take the word of the scientists doing the research, you need to be a molecular biologist. Or, you could do some research into the backgrounds of the people making the claims. If you're looking at, e.g., DNA evidence connecting humans and chimps, you're going to want to read stuff written by people who work in the relevant field. Especially people who have left a long paper trail of peer-reviewed articles in their field of expertise. One thing you'll quickly find is that the people with AiG and the Discovery Institute have not left such a paper trail, at least not in the relevant fields. A prime example would be William Dembski. Demski has a graduate degree in mathematics (which is the only remotely relevant field; his other degrees are in philosophy and religion), but he's published virtually no peer-reviewed articles in mathematics, and none in the field in which he is supposedly an expert: information theory. Dembski has absolutely no formal training in biology, which is why little he says about the field has much credibility. Granted, there's more to science than credentials. But when you have one person, e.g., Michael Behe, who has published virtually nothing of note in peer-reviewed articles on the topic of "irreducible complexity" contradicted by people who publish a dozen or more papers a year in the relevant fields, it should be obvious who has more credibility. Quote  I think people on both sides are necessarily a little biased toward their own viewpoint, but I trust that each strives for the truth as best they know how. I doubt it. Members of the DI and AiG have been caught again and again in flagrant misrepresentations of the research of others, while at the same time performing virtually no research of their own. You can't simply do a "he said, she said" balance between the statements of evolutionary biologists and ID/Creationists. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

incorygible Posts: 374 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 06 2006,00:18    Quote (afdave @ May 05 2006,23:18) 'm not asking anyone to teach me to BE a molecular biologist.  I'm just trying to find the truth about certain biological realities by relying on supposed experts on both sides of the controversy.  I think people on both sides are necessarily a little biased toward their own viewpoint, but I trust that each strives for the truth as best they know how.  I enjoy hearing from you guys, and up until this little incident, I have found AIG to be reliable.  One would think a medical doctor at AIG would be a reliable source, and in all fairness to him, he may be reliable in many areas.  And I'm not ready to call him a liar until I hear his side of the story.  We have seen that Dr. LeJeune was mistaken about Down's syndrome as well--it happens. Thanks 'incorygible' for the detailed explanation.  I would be interested to hear Alan Fox and Jeannot's comments on incorygible's explanation and also would like to know what your specialties are. Thanks! *sigh* You recognize your question is one of "biological realities", and yet still insist on investigating "both sides of the controversy". You don't need expert opinion or punditry here, afdave; you need education. I (and others) tried to point you in the right direction, showing you why the source of your argument was woefully in error when it came to the absolute basics. That direction was to a biology textbook for the mechanics of DNA transcription, etc. Your question isn't about origins, ID, or evolution; it's about basic microbiology (sorry...I think AiG would term it "operational science" as opposed to "historical science", right?). If, after all this, you insist on playing "he said, she said" with a biology text and an AiG screed, well, best of luck. If it's credentials you're after, I'm sure AiG has a few touted PhDs in something or other that will put my lowly and damning MSc in evolutionary ecology to shame and justify your ignorance.

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 06 2006,15:04    Quote justify your ignorance bingo. that's the only reason dave and tdiddy are here. they want us to justify their ignorance for them, so they can feel better about themselves. they don't want us to tear down their irrational defenses, they want us to reinforce them. Now, only the truly desperate will stick it out here week after week, when again and again they are given nothing to prop their defenses up with. Rather than answering their moronic questions, you all should be directing them to seek treatment from a mental health care professional.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 06 2006,15:41    SHHHHHHH! The Ghost of Paley who's getting therapy isn't the Ghost of Paley who will make me laugh with a childish geocentricity model. Hush you. I want him to put forth a model so I can get all a = g + T/m - 2w x v* on his a55. *: equation of motion for Foucault's pendulum, in a rotating reference frame, neglecting the x' and y' terms.

normdoering Posts: 287 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 06 2006,16:58    Quote (afdave @ May 05 2006,23:18) ... up until this little incident, I have found AIG to be reliable. That's almost funny. What you mean is that you know so little of the subjects they discuss that you haven't figured out how unreliable they are yet. But I had to check them out to see. First article I  find on their site today is this: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0506comet.asp The tale of a comet by Mark Looy Astronomers found a comet, called Schwassmann-Wachmann 3, breaking apart. AiG claims this is evidence that our solar system is young because the comet goes around the sun every 5.4 years, “it could not have lasted billions of years. It would have shed so much material at each pass around the sun that it could not last for millions—not to mention billions—of years." But who said it was grazing the sun in its orbit every 5.4 years for a billion years? Comets don't have stable orbits like the planets. Crazy and highly unwarranted assumption they make there. They even noted that Hubble has shown other comets (such as Shoemaker-Levy 9) breaking up. Of course they don't tell you that Shoemaker-Levy broke up because it got caught in Jupiter's gravity well and then crashed into Jupiter. They also link an article that attacks "Oort cloud theory." I think some more astronomically astute people here could tear that article up even more.

Alan Fox Posts: 1552 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 06 2006,22:49    In a (possibly vain) attempt to prove I am not quite as stupid as my few earlier posts might indicate: My main error was to confuse codon (which I did know - but forgot when posting - refers to a triplet of nucleotides coding for a particular amino-acid) with gene (meaning that  to indicate a nucleotide sequence staring with a promoter, containing exons and introns, finishing with a stopcode, that is transcribed by mRNA polymerase to produce mRNA,, which, after any necessary snipping out of introns, becomes the template for the translation of the encoded sequence into a particular protein.) Very simplistically, then, could one imagine genes as extension leads with a 5' plug and 3' socket. Imagine  two leads of identical length laid out so each plug is next to each socket and twist  together, and pairs of leads can then be joined to extend the line infinitely, plug connecting to socket, socket to plug. The process can be carried on infinitely. Take one pair of leads, unplug both pairs of  leads, reverse (flip over end to end) the pair of leads by swapping the ends over and reconnect, no problem. Imagine one lead of the pair is blue and the other red, blue represents the coding or master strand of DNA and red the complement. Flipping one pair of leads means instead of a continuum of red and blue leads there will be a section where red plug connects to blue socket etc and the two runs of connected leads will have one section of lead of the opposite colour. When the particular gene is unwound to be transcribed the mRNA polymerase will attach as indicated by the promoter so will automatically find the coding strand and read off in the right direction. So in a chromosome, is the coding strand continuous or can it alternate from one individual gene to individual gene? Tom Ames' link  seems to indicate this is so for yeast at least. (Ducks head under parapet hoping not to appear even more stupid!

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 06 2006,23:48    Quote (Alan Fox @ May 07 2006,03:49) In a (possibly vain) attempt to prove I am not quite as stupid as my few earlier posts might indicate: My main error was to confuse codon (which I did know - but forgot when posting - refers to a triplet of nucleotides coding for a particular amino-acid) with gene (meaning that  to indicate a nucleotide sequence staring with a promoter, containing exons and introns, finishing with a stopcode, that is transcribed by mRNA polymerase to produce mRNA,, which, after any necessary snipping out of introns, becomes the template for the translation of the encoded sequence into a particular protein.) Very simplistically, then, could one imagine genes as extension leads with a 5' plug and 3' socket. Imagine  two leads of identical length laid out so each plug is next to each socket and twist  together, and pairs of leads can then be joined to extend the line infinitely, plug connecting to socket, socket to plug. The process can be carried on infinitely. Take one pair of leads, unplug both pairs of  leads, reverse (flip over end to end) the pair of leads by swapping the ends over and reconnect, no problem. Imagine one lead of the pair is blue and the other red, blue represents the coding or master strand of DNA and red the complement. Flipping one pair of leads means instead of a continuum of red and blue leads there will be a section where red plug connects to blue socket etc and the two runs of connected leads will have one section of lead of the opposite colour. When the particular gene is unwound to be transcribed the mRNA polymerase will attach as indicated by the promoter so will automatically find the coding strand and read off in the right direction. So in a chromosome, is the coding strand continuous or can it alternate from one individual gene to individual gene? Tom Ames' link  seems to indicate this is so for yeast at least. (Ducks head under parapet hoping not to appear even more stupid! Ok, I didn't get what you meant by the RNA poly using different strands between two codons. But you're not reading. I said (page 2 of this thread): Quote Of course, in a chromatid, different genes can have different master strands (that is they are read in different directions). There is no reason preventing a strand to be either master or coding for different genes. The RNA poly just detects a promoter and starts the job.

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2006,01:52    Thanks to Alan Fox, Jeannot, Tom Ames and Incorygible for enlightening me on this truly fascinating subject.  I do sincerely appreciate the effort you have put forth. Apparently, we have +1 for the "Evos " and -1 for the "Yecs."  So for all of you that like to keep score, you have my hearty congratulations!  I'm looking forward to having that hard conversation with Dr. Carl Wieland from AIG about why he is a medical doctor and yet made such an elementary mistake.  I will post that result here for you all to see, as I believe in rewarding everyone fairly for honest victories, whether they agree with my worldview or not. I do appreciate all the suggestions to "go out and get a biology book," but the fact is, I do not wish to become a biologist, or a genetic research scientist, or anything similar.  We have plenty of those, and thanks to the internet, much information is a few mouse clicks away.  Some have said that this gets you incomplete information and you should still go read a book.   Well certainly, in some cases, you should go read a book ... all of Behe's and Denton's work, Dan Brown's novels (albeit with a shaker of salt), and David Barton  and Henry Morris titles have certainly been favorites of mine. (here come the rotten tomatoes) But reading books don't work for everything and I will throw this advice out there for those wise enough to grab it and learn ... All of my success in life can be traced to what you might call "Highly Focused, Targeted Learning.  Let's call it HFTL for short." While many of my friends got MBA's and now have very stressful jobs working for someone else, I took the alternative approach and applied "HFTL" to the world of business, and as a result, retired last year at age 42.  I applied this same strategy to Marriage, Family and Parenting, which I knew nothing about when I got married, and I can tell you that today, after almost 17 years of marriage, it is hard to describe the happiness that my wife and my children bring into my life.  I have 5 natural children and they are so much fun that we are adopting a sixth. (we're stopping there though ... I do have limits).   Now I am applying the HFTL strategy to the Creation/Evolution debate (I know ... some of you think there IS NO debate), but I think there is and I intend to sort the fact from the fiction on both sides in short order.  I understand it will take some time, but I am not about to subject myself to the laborious and inefficient process of getting an advanced degree in Genetics or such.  I think this kind of thing would serve you well if you are trying to teach or get published or get government research grants or other goals, but these are not my goals. So I say all this to say "thanks, but no thanks" to those of you here who want to give me direction in life.  I truly believe it is the Creator God of the Christian Bible (maybe you will prove me wrong .. we'll see) who has guided my footsteps so far and I trust that He will continue to do so.   I do know what I am doing and I have clear goals.  I think if you stay with me, it will become clear to you what my goals are (actually, they are no secret ... stated clearly on my other thread).  It is also no embarrassment to me to lack knowledge in a particular area.  For those of you trying to embarrass me or demean me, you are wasting your time.  I have very thick skin earned in Air Force barrooms and the harsh realities of the business world.  I am very single-minded, passionate, and hard driving toward my goals and no amount of silly comments will deter me from what I am trying to accomplish. What you WILL accomplish with silly comments is discrediting yourself.  I think everyone here wants to be viewed as fair-minded, balanced, rational scientists working hard for the good of humanity.  May I submit to you that if the Neo-Darwinist view of Origins is to prevail in Western Civilization and beyond, hurling stupid insults will not help it prevail.  You can hurl them if you like.  No one will stop you.  And selfishly, I could say "Go ahead and hurl insults" because it actually HELPS my cause.  But I want to give you a fair chance at promoting your view, and as a minority viewpoint holder on this forum, I can tell you that this approach does NOT help your cause.  And any of you that HAVE discredited yourself already by hurling insults, you can easily repair the damage, simply by stopping.  I don't plan on embarrassing you back or singling you out and I am happy to hear what you have to say, especially if it is substantive and sounds intelligent. In any case, my investigations into the ape/human questions have only just begun.  Stay tuned for more on Monday! And in the mean time, I invite you all to hop on over to my "AF Dave's Creator-God Hypothesis" thread and join the fun!  It's an interesting (for me anyway) mix of Science, Philosophy, Theology and soon Biblical Studies and who really knows where it will end up! I'm headed for church, so I'll see you all on Monday!  May the God who you may not believe in bless you anyway! -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2006,02:34    Oh ... an afterthought ... another reason to not hurl insults at me ... WE'RE CLOSELY RELATED ... don't we share something like 98.5% of our genetic info, you and I? (OK, OK, I know ... I realize that could be spun both ways) -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

Alan Fox Posts: 1552 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2006,02:34    Quote Ok, I didn't get what you meant by the RNA poly using different strands between two codons. My fault, mixing up "codon" with"gene". Quote But you're not reading. My wife's fault. She sometimes gets irritated about all the time I spend blogging, so I do tend to rush through threads, and thus miss the odd salient point. (More than the odd one, probably.)

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2006,03:10    Dave, when you talk to this doctor, don't forget to also remind him of this: Although the process of gnetic coding and codons and transcription and 5'-3' orientation can be unknown or forgotten to an MD (heck, I hardly remembered any of it), arguing against centric fusions and Robertsonian translocations as an impossibility can not be attributed to ignorance. It's standard textbook genetics, and highschool material, for crying out loud. Anyone who disregards that is either lying, or too ignorant to discuss genetics in the first place. Or both. Quote May the God who you may not believe in bless you anyway! Funny... You reminded me of something H.L.Borges wrote in a story of his, about a medieval Arab philosopher and poet, who was also fascinated by mathematics: [...]A sudden discomfort -or a premonition- makes him stop reading. He gets up, marks the page his eyes will never again see, and makes amends with God, that God that might exist, and whose Grace he begged for, through the intricate pages of his algebra. He dies the same day, around sunset. Now why am I quoting this? As a reminder: That, for many people, the way of finding "god" (a god, their god, any god) is, not by trying to verify their beliefs at all costs, but by actually looking for the truth. They may succeed or fail; but for them, that is the only path available. Give this some thought. -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2006,08:47    Quote Although the process of gnetic coding and codons and transcription and 5'-3' orientation can be unknown or forgotten to an MD (heck, I hardly remembered any of it), arguing against centric fusions and Robertsonian translocations as an impossibility can not be attributed to ignorance. It's standard textbook genetics, and highschool material Might have been high school material for you ... I must have been sleeping in that class!  The ignorant one on centric fusions was ME, not Dr. Wieland.  Only the paragraphs starting with "Professor Jerome LeJeune, a very distinguished French cytogeneticist ..." were from him.  I should have made that clear by enclosing it. Now I see why you think he was lying !!  I thought that was strange that you should think that. -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

normdoering Posts: 287 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2006,11:28    Quote (afdave @ May 04 2006,07:54) The blow for Neodarwinism comes, however, with the discovery that the theoretical ‘join’ is head-to-head. Since the chromosomes are always ‘read’ in the same direction, this means that the same ‘sentence’ would be read backwards, and would make no biochemical sense! Afdave never linked the AiG article he quoted. I found it here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v2/i1/cytogenetics.asp The quote is from Dr Carl Wieland the author of the article. This guy's Biography states: "Dr. Carl Wieland is the author of several popular creation books and booklets, some of which have been translated into multiple languages.  Although his formal qualifications are in medicine and surgery, Carl has not practiced in the medical profession since 1986.  He is a past president of the Christian Medical Fellowship of South Australia."

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2006,11:50    Dave, let's see what this doctor says: Quote The blow for Neodarwinism comes, however, with the discovery that the theoretical ‘join’ is head-to-head. Since the chromosomes are always ‘read’ in the same direction, this means that the same ‘sentence’ would be read backwards, and would make no biochemical sense! So, he says that "head to head" fusion is a biochemical impossibility. Right. So, how hard is it to check any textbook in genetics and see that this "impossibility" happens all the time, with little consequense save a drop in fertility? He is arguing about genetics, after all, and he knows what the other side says. What would be the first thing you'd do in his place? There's no way around it... He's either both arrogant and clueless enough to think he can argue against fundamental knowledge in genetics with no prior information, by making stuff up, or he knows he's wrong, and he's lying. You can decide yourself which is worse. -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2006,16:14    Quote So, he says that "head to head" fusion is a biochemical impossibility. Right. No.  He does not say that.  His mistake is this ... Quote Since the chromosomes are always ‘read’ in the same direction, this means that the same ‘sentence’ would be read backwards, and would make no biochemical sense! -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

normdoering Posts: 287 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2006,16:32    Quote (afdave @ May 07 2006,21:14) Quote So, he says that "head to head" fusion is a biochemical impossibility. Right. No.  He does not say that.  His mistake is this ... Quote Since the chromosomes are always ‘read’ in the same direction, this means that the same ‘sentence’ would be read backwards, and would make no biochemical sense! I think afdave is starting to get it. The AiG article says because the fusion is head to head it will be read backwards. That's what is wrong. The fusion and the reading are unrelated. The DNA is unzipped and floats free in shorter strands before it's read for protein production. The ends are marked by telemers. But don't depend on us -- get an edited textbook on the subject. We're bloggers, not teachers or textbook writers. What we're all agreed on here is that the AiG sentence is in error.

Alan Fox Posts: 1552 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2006,21:00    Quote The ends are marked by telemers. Did you mean telomeres? Telomeres are a region of repeat sequences at the end of a chromosome that act like a biological clock, limiting the number of cell divisions, as a sequence is lost on each division, until there are none left and the cell can no longer divide. Promoters mark the beginning of a gene and the stop codon signals the end of the coding sequence.

Jay Ray Posts: 92 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2006,23:28    Alan Fox says: Telomeres are a region of repeat sequences at the end of a chromosome that act like a biological clock, limiting the number of cell divisions, as a sequence is lost on each division, until there are none left and the cell can no longer divide. ---------- No kidding?   That's all there is to the natural lifetime of a cell?  What an interesting factoid.  I never learned that in my bio or A and P classes.  My teachers were remiss in forgoing its mention.

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2006,23:36    Quote (afdave @ May 07 2006,21:14) Quote So, he says that "head to head" fusion is a biochemical impossibility. Right. No.  He does not say that.  His mistake is this ... Quote Since the chromosomes are always ‘read’ in the same direction, this means that the same ‘sentence’ would be read backwards, and would make no biochemical sense! Excuse me? Can you explain to me where the difference in context lies? This guy says that there could not have been a "head-to-head" fusion, because that would mean the genes would be read backwards and that makes "no biochemical sense". Is this true or false? Does he accept the fusion event as possible, yes or no? You already know the answers. Don't play with words, Dave. We're not children. -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2006,23:42    Quote I think afdave is starting to get it. Actually, I understood this back on page 1 when 'jstockwell' explained it.  The only piece still hanging to me was Faid thinking that Dr. Wieland is a liar.  This was due to the fact that Faid thought it was Dr. Wieland who was questioning 'stepwise fusion of chromosomes'.  This was ME that had this question, not Dr. Wieland.  Dr. Wieland's problem was that he thought there could be a 'backwards' way to join the chromosomes.   Relevant to this, Faid (an MD himself) notes ... Quote Although the process of gnetic coding and codons and transcription and 5'-3' orientation can be unknown or forgotten to an MD (heck, I hardly remembered any of it) My conclusion is that AIG made an understandable mistake in this case, but that there is no evidence of lying. -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2006,23:52    Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,04:42) Dr. Wieland's problem was that he thought there could be a 'backwards' way to join the chromosomes.   Dave, Wieland says there couldn't be a "backwards" way to join the chromosomes. In spite of the fact that what he refers to as 'backwards way' is common genetic knowledge. I said that this displays either voluntary ignorance, or deliberate deceit. Can you think of another possibility? Oh and, yes, I remembered little about genetic coding, it's true (although I did kind of remember something about fusions, and a lot came back to me). But then, I'm not the one writing an article trying to dispute elementary stuff in genetics... -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

normdoering Posts: 287 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,00:59    Quote (Alan Fox @ May 08 2006,02:00) Quote The ends are marked by telemers. Did you mean telomeres? Telomeres are a region of repeat sequences at the end of a chromosome that act like a biological clock, limiting the number of cell divisions, as a sequence is lost on each division, until there are none left and the cell can no longer divide. Promoters mark the beginning of a gene and the stop codon signals the end of the coding sequence. Yea, what he said. Too much genetic terminology floating around in my head to keep things straight -- especially when lack of sleep starts creeping up on me. I goofed.

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,01:06    Quote (Jay Ray @ May 08 2006,04:28) No kidding?   That's all there is to the natural lifetime of a cell?   Not exactly. A cell lineage can live very long after its last division. Most neurons don't divide, but some can live many years. I don't know much about the subject, but apoptosis (programmed cellular death) is tiggered by many factors, not just telomeric segments.

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,01:17    Quote Dave, Wieland says there couldn't be a "backwards" way to join the chromosomes. ? I cannot find where he says this. Here is what he says ... Quote Since the chromosomes are always ‘read’ in the same direction, this means that the same ‘sentence’ would be read backwards, and would make no biochemical sense! He is talking about READING the Chromosome backwards, not JOINING it backwards. -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

normdoering Posts: 287 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,01:42    Quote (Faid @ May 08 2006,04:52) Dave, Wieland says there couldn't be a "backwards" way to join the chromosomes. It's not quite wrong to say Wieland believes the join is impossible. He certainly doesn't believe it happened. The problem you guys are having is that Wieland doesn't believe in evolution or the fusion in this case. All that similarity between Chimp and Man is lost to Wieland because Wieland doesn't believe the fusion event happened. He says the "theoretical ‘join’ is head-to-head." Using theoretical and putting ‘join’ in quotes speaks to it not happening. But it does not speak to the impossibility of joins ever happening (he thinks that backward join would be a killer I imagine because it would be read as nonsense). The real evidence against Wieland is that there is lots of evidence for all sorts of fusions in all sorts of species, mice, flowers, insects etc. and sometimes with little effect. Fusions have been observed to happen in yeast.

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,01:45    You seem to be missing the main point. I have no problem with people not understanding this stuff. It's taken me years of reading to understand evolution properly. The point is when you made this mistake you described it as an unsurmountable obstacle. I suspect the AiG article uses similar language. It is very rare for scientists to make those kinds of mistakes without someone pointing them out. It is this arrogance that annoys people, and you will find that most of the problems that you think you have found with evolution are also easily answered if there is someone with the appropriate knowledge listening. You will find scientists will be a lot more receptive if you say 'could someone please answer this question' instead of 'Ha, how will the Darwinists overcome this obstacle!'.

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,02:36    Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,06:17) Quote Dave, Wieland says there couldn't be a "backwards" way to join the chromosomes. ? I cannot find where he says this. Here is what he says ... Quote Since the chromosomes are always ‘read’ in the same direction, this means that the same ‘sentence’ would be read backwards, and would make no biochemical sense! He is talking about READING the Chromosome backwards, not JOINING it backwards. If a chromosome fragment cannot be read backward, how could two chromsomes fuse head to head? If it isn't a biochemical constraint, it's a selective constraint, and the probem would still be impossible to overcome.

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,03:39    Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,06:17) Quote Dave, Wieland says there couldn't be a "backwards" way to join the chromosomes. ? I cannot find where he says this. Here is what he says ... Quote Since the chromosomes are always ‘read’ in the same direction, this means that the same ‘sentence’ would be read backwards, and would make no biochemical sense! He is talking about READING the Chromosome backwards, not JOINING it backwards.       Dave, what exactly are you trying to argue about here? Wieland says that the proposed evolutionary pathway recieves a "blow", because that requires a "head-to-head" fusion, and if you have a head to head fusion, then the 'sentence' would be "read backwards", and that "makes no biochemical sense". I mean, seriously, what is the meaning you make out of that? does he say that "head-to-head" fusions are possible, or not? Again, please don't play with words. -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

Renier Posts: 276 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,03:42    I wonder if Dave will admit that the Chromosome fusion is STRONG evidence for evolution..... anyone want to take a bet?

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,04:56    Quote Dave, what exactly are you trying to argue about here? That Carl Wieland is mistaken, but not necessarily a liar.  There is a big difference. Quote I wonder if Dave will admit that the Chromosome fusion is STRONG evidence for evolution..... anyone want to take a bet? Yes.  I'll take you up on a bet.  How about $1000?  Will you take the position that I WILL NOT say chromosome fusion is strong evidence for evolution and pay me $1000 if I do?   Before you commit to that, you might want to hop over to my new "Ape Questions" thread. As far as I'm concerned, this thread has accomplished its purpose.  Thanks for your participation! -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,06:57    Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,09:56) Quote Dave, what exactly are you trying to argue about here? That Carl Wieland is mistaken, but not necessarily a liar.  There is a big difference. Dave, the guy @ AIG basically said "the chromosome fusion was impossible, yet it happened" Silly mistake indeed. How do you call something that is impossible but yet happens? I think religious people have a word for that. And BTW, what is your theory about the chromosomal fusion in our lineage?

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,08:50    Well ... I didn't quite read the AIG guy quite that way ... but whatever ... I don't really care about that anymore. The important thing is that I was corrected in some erroneous thinking regarding this topic and I am glad for that. You might want to check out my new thread "Ape Questions" ... where I concede many things that evolutionists are saying about Ape/Human issues. I have maintained from the first that I am a fairminded guy and will give up my position readily when it is proven wrong. I do wonder if anyone else here will ever concede anything, though.  Haven't seen it yet, but then ... I've only just begun, really.  Who knows! -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

thurdl01 Posts: 99 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,08:52    You've provided nothing worthy of concession.  This isn't a negotiation.  It's not encumbant upon us to concede something just because you have.

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:02    Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,13:50) I have maintained from the first that I am a fairminded guy and will give up my position readily when it is proven wrong. Creationism can't be proven wrong (that is not falsifiable, in scientific terms) so why should we bother?

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:40    Quote Carl Wieland is mistaken, but not necessarily a liar.  There is a big difference. To make athorititive statements like that to an audience you know is going to believe you when you are ignorant of even the basic science is at the very least dishonest.

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,11:16    Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,13:50) I do wonder if anyone else here will ever concede anything, though.  Haven't seen it yet, but then ... I've only just begun, really.  Who knows! What exactly do you think should be conceded to your point of view?  Which specific afdave point are the biologists and other scientists here not getting?   Which notion were you promoting, I forgot.  Was it the space alient theory, or the time traveler?  Or perhaps it was the Mr Potato Head as the architect of the "fine tuned universe" theory?  Which scientific point were you hoping these know nothing biologists and scientists here would concede? The nice thing about science (versus creationism aka intelligent design) is that evidence trumps personalities and lies and fabrications don't have a very long shelf life.  No matter how revolutionary or consensus destroying an idea might be, an evidence based notion is going to gain intellectual/scientific currency regardless of the consequences.  So if you have a scientific idea that is backed by evidence and gives a better explanation for things no one here can stop you. As much as you and your AIG buddies would like to believe otherwise, there is no "darwin conspiracy".  All you have to do to get any or all of your points conceded is provide a better explanation and better evidence than what currently exists.  But moronic ramblings like "fine tuned universe" is not only unscientific, it is in layman's terms, utterly stupid and only for the intellectually weak. All you have done on this forum is recycle ancient, mistaken, or even dishonest id/creationist claims that have all been addressed and proven mistaken for decades.  Yet you still think you are on to something... And you honestly wonder why none of the biologists and scientists present in this forum have conceded anything to a person completely ignorant on matters of science and biology?  They have not conceded a #### thing to someone who anytime he opens his mouth he makes an admission he is completely clueless on matters of biology and science.  To someone who gets their "science education" from the lying AIG and the intelligent design creationism camps? Dude, you crack me up :-)  Seriously. If you were someone who was actually looking for a good understanding of biology you'd knock off your agenda and childish, unscientific "theories" and start asking questions and listening.  Knowing full well you posess a hard core creationist (anti-scientific) bias, you'd spend a few weeks on the talk origins page to clear your head of the nonsense you have uncritically accepted. But you, you keep making the same old mistaken and proven idiotic points and challenging those around you here to overcome them.  F*** that. I am astonished anyone here gives you two seconds of their time.  Astonished. There is a handful of brilliant minds that frequent this forum, it is amazing to watch how quickly you ignore those minds in favor of advancing/justifying your AIG/IDC/creationist nonsense.  As fas I can tell, you're a dishonest jerk, afdave.  If you had an ounce of integrity you'd be thanking people here for giving you those two seconds, stop all the stupid afdave hypothesis nonsense, and spend your time studying at talk origins. You belong on William Dembski's forum, not on this one.  His is a haven for the intellectually dishonest, misguided, prejudiced, and ingorant.  They would agree with most everything you say.   I do not buy your notion that you are seeking the truth.  I don't but it for one second. -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,11:30    Quote I do not buy your notion that you are seeking the truth.  I don't but it for one second. He already HAS the Truth. Now he's seeking the optimum rationalization for it. He's open-minded enough to recognize that the most transparently incorrect claims are suboptimal. At least some minimal obfuscation seems to be required.

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,11:44    Quote He already HAS the Truth. Very good, Flint.  Now if we could just get you to have it, wouldn't life be grand ... :-) -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,11:54    afdave: Quote You might want to check out my new thread "Ape Questions" ... where I concede many things that evolutionists are saying about Ape/Human issues. I have maintained from the first that I am a fairminded guy and will give up my position readily when it is proven wrong. I do wonder if anyone else here will ever concede anything, though.  Haven't seen it yet, but then ... I've only just begun, really.  Who knows! Nope. To compromise is to admit that your opponent has a reasonable point of view and that his needs are worth considering. To the liberal, a conservative doesn't argue from a principled position that may sometimes be misguided, but crafts smokescreens to hide his inherently wicked nature. The facts only count when they support the liberal's side; otherwise it's "lies, #### lies, and statistics". That's why liberals remain unfazed when their policies implode - the policies are not a means, but rather the end. Flint: Quote He already HAS the Truth. Now he's seeking the optimum rationalization for it. He's open-minded enough to recognize that the most transparently incorrect claims are suboptimal. At least some minimal obfuscation seems to be required. That's a very good description of liberalism. Well, you might want to toss out the "open-minded" part....... -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,11:56    You would find a lot of like minded people over at www.uncommondescent.com. For one thing, they support Intelligent Design, for another thing they're mostly really Young Earth Creationists like yourself, they know as much as you do about biology, which is nothing, and finally, they think they know better than the experts. You'd really prefer it over there.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,12:10    stevestory: Quote You would find a lot of like minded people over at www.uncommondescent.com. For one thing, they support Intelligent Design, for another thing they're mostly really Young Earth Creationists like yourself, they know as much as you do about biology, which is nothing, and finally, they think they know better than the experts. You'd really prefer it over there. See? Steve doesn't realise that people who think differently than himself may also contribute something valuable to the discussion. I bet I could find living Young Earth Creationists who have made more significant contributions to science, technology and/or society than he has, but that doesn't matter. It also doesn't matter that Steve's dismissive attitude is opposed to the very Western values that he purports to champion. Steve has his unevidenced beliefs, you see, and that's all that matters. Oh yes, and getting the moderator/government to censor non-Steve-like points of view. But ole Wes, he's still naive enough to believe in that fair-minded poppycock, so Steve has to be content with bullying others for now.   -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.