Our New Home

We have a new home, come join us at WeAreSMRT (We Are Skeptical Minds & Rational Thinkers)

The Forum

Sunday, November 30, 2008

Chromosome Number 2

It occured to me that we spend a load of time having a go at creationists, but not so much time on the science which they spend so much time attacking, which is why I entered this debate in the first place. So, in an effort to turn this around, I'm going to do the occasional post on some of the more interesting bits of positive evidence I hear about, or have heard about in the past. Feel free to join me.


WARNING: SCIENCE CONTENT


Now, we all know about chromosomes: they're the things in our cells which hold our genes. Now, all the great apes have 24 pairs of chomosomes. This is fair enough, but (according to evolution) we are just as closely related to the great apes as they are to each other.
So we should also have 24 pairs of chomosomes, correct?


But we don't. Human beings only have 23 chomosomes.


Now, this isn't a massive deal: chromosome counts differ greatly within genus, and sometimes even within species. The plant genus Clarkia, for example, has species with chromosome counts of n = 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 17, 18, and 26 (Lewis 1993) (referenced from TalkOrigins). But chromosomes don't just disappear: when they do, the victim of the mutation is sterile at best, stillborn at worst. So what happened to the 24th human chomosome?


Upon discovering this, a prediction was made: at some point in our ancestory, two chromosomes must have joined. This isn't a harmful mutation: the gene's themselves are still viable, but they are now part of a single chromosome, not two.


Now, chromosomes have easily recognisable sequences at the ends, called telomeres, and another recognisable type of sequence in the centre called centromeres (0). Centromere's are where the chromosome divides during reproduction.


Here's a representation of what I'm talking about, with telomeres's represented by X's and Centromere's represented by 0's:


X----0-----X


So, geneticists realised that if humans really are decended from apes, one of their chromosomes should have two (X's) in the middle of it, with a pair of (0's) flanking them. Keep in mind that if this isn't found, common ancestory is in big trouble: falsified, even.


Here's a abstract representation of Human Chromosome Number 2, as discovered by geneticists who went looking for this pattern as a direct result of the theory of evolution.


X----0-----XX----0-----X




"Evolution has made a testable prediction and has passed."
-- Kenneth Miller


This one I learned from the Dover v Kitzmiller Intelligent Design Trial Transcripts. Kudo's to Ken Miller, who presented it during the trial.

50 comments:

  1. Quasar,

    I'm getting ready to teach this very fact to my biology class as one of the case studies in evolution. Can't ask for better proof that the genome is the history book of life...and that apes is our cousins yall!!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good explanation, and chromosome #2 is a slam dunk for evolution...

    However, I want to try to avoid bringing up things like telomeres and endogenous retro viruses because I think Creationists have a hard time understanding the value or weight of these arguments since you can't actually see DNA with a naked eye.

    Since it's not dead simple to understand, it's easy to ignore.

    So I've been thinking of dead-simple, everyday arguments for a 4.5 billion year old earth and evolution that creationists cannot ignore-. You saw my post on planetary craters. Another idea was flightless birds.

    The evidence for an old earth and evolution is all around us. We shouldn't have to resort to scientific mumbo-jumbo that creationists will just ignore to make our point. We should point at something like a volcano and say "Ah ha!"

    ReplyDelete
  3. The original study was in Nature, and I was elated to read this....they showed to the base pair where the the telomeric repeats (or vestiges of) and the fact that two centromeres (one of which had begun to drift due to neutral selection) resided on Ch2! Evolution 100,000,000,000...creationism 0

    ReplyDelete
  4. "We shouldn't have to resort to scientific mumbo-jumbo that creationists will just ignore to make our point. "

    Unfortunately, sometimes we have to point to such things...in this case, I don't think this is all that difficult to comprehend. Science is tough. If creationists get all distracted....tough.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Kaitlyn: I hear you, but you have to take into account the fact that if you make it too simple, they can call you out for "lying".

    Take Vestegial Organs. We could point to something and say "That's something which previously had a different function which has now degenerated to the point where the organ no longer serves that function." Or, we could say: "That's something which serves no useful purpose to the creature."

    The problem with the latter is that creationists will then go: "Look! The Appendix/Whale Leg Bone/Flightless Bird Wing does have this extremely minor function! It's not vestegial at all!"

    All of them are still vestegial despite the creature making taking advantage of them for a secondary function. But the creationists won't realise that: they'll just think they won and run off laughing manically.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Q,

    This is interesting info not only for those of us that get it, but I would think it would be good for those that don't so they can learn.

    Good post.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The evidence for an old earth and evolution is all around us. We shouldn't have to resort to scientific mumbo-jumbo that creationists will just ignore to make our point. We should point at something like a volcano and say "Ah ha!"

    I have no scientific background and I have a bone where my brain should be but I get this explanation of fused chromosomes. I also get ERVs because it was explained in terms I could understand.

    It doesn't matter to someone invested in creation. They're only interested in trying to poke holes or raise doubts in the evidence by any means.

    There are probably xtians that lurk here who have never been exposed to the real science. If I get it, maybe some of them will be disabused of the creation nonsense.

    I think more posts like this are a capital idea.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I enjoyed reading this, Quasar.

    I look forward to some more posts.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I suppose the trick is explaining it without using the massive vocabulary most academics feel is necessary. I assumed everyone had a basic knowledge of what a 'gene' and 'chromosome' was (including our creationist friends), and only introduced two new words, giving the definitions as I did so.

    Even though nobody will remember what a telomere or centromere is by tomorrow, (including me: I had to look the words up!) the terms shall be automatically stored in everyones short-term memory for a long enough duration for me to use them as a relatively quick way of referencing the concepts they represent.

    See that there? That's how you be wordy and confusing!

    ReplyDelete
  10. This is fair enough, but (according to evolution) we are just as closely related to the great apes as they are to each other.

    Who is this evolution guy I keep hearing about?
    Does he have a blog?

    Well, who doesn't have a blog nowadays?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Nice explanation, Quasar. I've seen people try it before and make a terrible hash of it, but that was concise and comprehensible.

    One query, however, how come the centromere in the top of the human chromosome is a different colour to the others in the diagram? If the diagram is trying to explain something in addition to what you're covering, you're going to confuse those you're trying to educate.

    If you need it, I could knock you up a version without this oddity.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "So, geneticists realised that if humans really are decended from apes, one of their chromosomes should have two (X's) in the middle of it, with a pair of (0's) flanking them. Keep in mind that if this isn't found, common ancestory is in big trouble: falsified, even."

    So, we ARE decended FROM apes?

    ReplyDelete
  13. So, we ARE decended FROM apes?

    Yes, just like all the other living ape species are. That common ancestor was a descendant of something similar to a monkey, and the monkey had another common ancestor and so on.

    What's also interesting to know is that the separation of descendancy lines of ours and chimps was between 4.6 and 6.2 million years ago. Since our modern human species isn't older than about 200,000 years, we can imagine how many different variants of pre-modern humans our ancestry went through, and how many side lines went extinct.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Nicely done, Quasar. It was concise and easy to understand.

    Kaitlyn, on some level I agree with you. On the other, it seems to me that the fundamentalists are intentionally trying to dumb-down human society. It'd be nice to appeal to the easily converted with dsimple ideas, but I personally think we need to reinforce the value of the intellect.

    On a slight tangent, I got a bag of Pepperidge Farm (Parmesan) Goldfish this weekend, and on the side of it was a cartoon fish saying something like "It's time to challenge your brain! See if you can solve the puzzles below", followed by some cartoony pictures involving number sequences and brain teasers.

    They were ridiculously, stupidly easy, and it made me angry. We (Americans) consistently appeal to the lowest common denominator - why can't puzzles intended to challenge us actually be challenging?

    That example is my way of saying: it's time we stop assuming people are stupid. I know that *I* am impressed with stuff that requires a little effort from me in order to understand it. I think there are lots of folks just like me in this respect.

    Personally, I think Quasar did an excellent job of doing this very thing. He put recognizable words next to ideas that actually enhance the understanding of those words.

    Edumacation. We need moar of it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Baldy,

    You said,
    "If you need it, I could knock you up a version without this oddity."

    Better be careful about "knocking up."
    That is a euphimism for getting a girl pregnant over here!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Quasar,
    I hope you do post on some this.
    Very interesting for us non-biologists.

    Thanks, and same goes for you, Felix.

    ReplyDelete
  17. WEM,
    On the Bag of Goldfish:

    "They [questions] were ridiculously, stupidly easy, and it made me angry. We (Americans) consistently appeal to the lowest common denominator - why can't puzzles intended to challenge us actually be challenging?"

    I agree with you completely, but in the case of the Goldfish, perhaps the questions were intended for the target market of the product; 5 year old kids! :>

    ReplyDelete
  18. CrocoDuck said...
    Plus you gots me for proof 2.

    Croco, Can I call you that? Not to toot my own horn but I'm part man, part horse.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Froggie suggested perhaps the questions were intended for the target market of the product; 5 year old kids!

    That's a reasonable idea, Froggie - but it's still not excusable. We should be challenging our kids, not feeding them pablum and then congratulating them on having eaten it.

    I know: I'm ranting about something fairly harmless, and the example could have been better. But it really does seem to me that this "catering to the lowest common denominator" applies both to kids and adults. It's almost as if we (America) are trying to make everyone feel better about themselves, at the expense of actually giving them something to feel good about.

    Meh :)

    ReplyDelete
  20. WEM,

    I totally agreed with your premise. I'm just feeling a bit snarky today!

    So, I have devised a question to put on the Goldfish bag.

    Please describe in 1000 words or less how the military industrial complex has been supported by religion and what do you think the future ramifications of that will be?

    Picture a cute little 5 y/o girl looking at you like you with that quizzical little kid look. :>

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Now Suzie, no crackers until you have the first 500 words written..."

    ReplyDelete
  22. WEM,
    I hate to have to admit this after all that, but I love those fish in good tomato soup.

    I could never figure out though, why they are smiling!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Froggie wondered I could never figure out though, why they are smiling!

    I think it's the Prozac...

    ReplyDelete
  24. Yes! Yes indeed! The happy fish on their Prozac! In my tomato soup!

    It shall never be the same.

    ReplyDelete
  25. BaldySlapHead wrote:
    "Nice explanation, Quasar. I've seen people try it before and make a terrible hash of it, but that was concise and comprehensible.

    One query, however, how come the centromere in the top of the human chromosome is a different colour to the others in the diagram? If the diagram is trying to explain something in addition to what you're covering, you're going to confuse those you're trying to educate.

    If you need it, I could knock you up a version without this oddity."


    Ah, someone did notice! Congratulations! Here's the explanation:

    I mentioned that a centromere is where a chromosome divides during reproduction? Well, although having two in a chromosome isn't fatal or even particulary harmful, it's still less efficient than having one per chromosome. So, it would be beneficial (and thus selected for by evolution) for one of these centromere's to be deactivated by a future mutation.

    The different coloured centromere is just that: the genetic remains of a deactivated centromere!

    ReplyDelete
  26. I didn't add that to the original explanation because it would have made it longer, wordier and more confusing!

    But I got the image via Google. :)

    ReplyDelete
  27. Dani'El,

    This is fair enough, but (according to evolution) we are just as closely related to the great apes as they are to each other.

    Is this supposed to be a problem with evolution? I do not see how. Besides, you are wrong. The chimp and the bonobo are closer to each other, then we are closer to either of them than to the gorilla ... you get the idea.

    Who is this evolution guy I keep hearing about? Does he have a blog?

    Do you mean Ken Miller? I do not know if he has a blog, but there is a youtube video where he shows lots of evidences for evolution in a very clear way. Check it out. By the way, he believes in a god. The same as you, whether you like his particular Christianity or not.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Quasar,

    Nice job. I think I will post scientific stuff too.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Thanks for the clarification, Quasar!

    To Froggie - knocked up is the same euphemism here as well. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  30.      So, if the fusion had not been found, would that have falsified evolution? Of course not. While its presence is supportive of the idea, and of genes as the mechanism, its absence would probably have gone by without a mention. After all, the chromosome differences from Clarkia get a big yawn. The general public never even heard that they were looking for some type of chromosome fusion until after it was found. So, no, that would be a "confirm or ignore" prediction.

    ReplyDelete
  31. So, if the fusion had not been found, would that have falsified evolution? Of course not. While its presence is supportive of the idea, and of genes as the mechanism, its absence would probably have gone by without a mention.

    I beg to differ. It's absence would have meant that the genetic difference between Chimps and humans would have been a whole lot larger than the 90-100% range (indeed, the chromosomal difference has been used to "refute" this figure by creationists in the past). It would have been clear cut evidence that either an entire chromosome had somehow been surgically removed from our genetic code, or that we were a lot more distantly related to apes than previously thought. I can't see legitimate scientists ignoring that, no matter how 'indoctrinated' they are.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Is this supposed to be a problem with evolution? I do not see how. Besides, you are wrong. The chimp and the bonobo are closer to each other, then we are closer to either of them than to the gorilla ... you get the idea.

    Actually, he was quoting me. I said that.

    And you are right: I was merely making a blanket statement to summarise the fact that if they all have something like this, so should we.

    ReplyDelete
  33. @pvblivs

    "The general public never even heard that they were looking for some type of chromosome fusion until after it was found."

    Right, so you think that we sit around all hush-hush, denying "the general public" from our findings, which are in a locked vault rather than online or in accessible scientific journals, and then once it is "safe", we parade our discovery around....otherwise, we spin the dial and the vault stays shut forever!!! This is a total conspiracy theory. What the general public in America doesn't know about science....well, just read this:

    "The NSF survey of more than 1,500 adults found that only about 55 percent of the respondents knew how long it takes for the Earth to orbit the sun and whether antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria. About 20 percent of the respondents also answered incorrectly when asked if the Earth orbits the sun or the sun orbits the Earth."

    I can tell you that just by some of the questions I get by students...my own age or older would astound you. That the public didn't know that human and chimp karyotypes was different is not a surprise in the least (ask 100 random people what a karyotype is and I will be surprised if 1 person knows this). Quasar is correct, there is no way we would have ignored this fact. Furthermore, this information was readily available before the Nature paper came out with the sequence for Chr2. You are wwwaaaaayyyyy out there, pvblivs.

    ReplyDelete
  34.      No, I think it was regarded as insignificant until it was a "confirm." It was not (as far as I know) some big secret. But it looks like it was a case of "no big deal if we don't find anything."

    ReplyDelete
  35.      "Right, so you think that we sit around all hush-hush, denying "the general public" from our findings, which are in a locked vault rather than online or in accessible scientific journals, and then once it is "safe", we parade our discovery around....otherwise, we spin the dial and the vault stays shut forever!!!"
         Oh, and Clostridiophile, I wish to commend you. You are as good at misrepresenting positions as Ray is. Every single time you speak against me, you set up a straw man.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Pvblivs,

    You are the ultimate skeptic. Which is quite healthy to the whole system. Yet, I think you yourself are not clear about your own objections (I know you do not object evolution per se).

    I semi agree with you on this one. However, it is because the way this is explained (had they not found the fused chromosome evolution would be falsified) is over-simplified. If a chromosome is missing it would not falsify evolution, it would mean that chromosomes can be be lost even at this close range and not be mortal. Highly improbable, but so it would seem. However, if we do look at the antecedents:

    When the karyotypes were compared people noticed that humans had an extra big chromosome while chimps and other non-human-apes had two small chromosomes that humans did not. It is obvious that scientist could have hypothesized that a big chromosome could correspond to the two smaller ones in other apes. So, this is a good test. If there is no such correspondence, big trouble.

    1. They were able to make the correspondences to the rest of the chromosomes.

    2. They had these two to one remaining to see what the hell

    3. The big one had to be a fusion of the other two, otherwise what the hell!

    4. You have to be able to undoubtedly identify such thing (the fusion), as they showed by lots of lines of evidence (such as the degraded centromere, but also the genes present at either side, and such).

    Had they found that the big chromosome is not the result of the fusion of the other two, big trouble, and big guns for the creationists. I agree that maybe evolution would not have been discarded completely, but a big blow, sure thing. It is not possible to explain in any way the sudden appearance of a huge chromosome, which is not a duplication of other chromosomes already present, nor a fusion of the "missing" ones. You see? WOld scientists come with ideas about what the heck? Yes, would that be enough to discard this problem? hell no! Would the scientists not publish their findings? Are you crazy? I would have published them damn sure! I would not bypass the possibility of a Nobel prize! Nobody would!

    That the public did not know about this "search" for the "missing chromosome" is not surprising. For one thing, few people know what each scientist is looking for. I have no doubts that more people would know about the "bad" result than the number that know about the fusion.

    Anyway, the fact is: this chromosome proves evolution beyond any doubt, as many other sources of evidence.

    However, nobody is making safe bets Pvblivs. Neither on purpose, nor unconsciously, nor in any way. The theory just happens to be way too robust. Of course, this is true only after lots of advances in genetics and molecular biology, which gave evolution the hardest tests, but those days are long gone. Now we mostly have details. That is not our fault, is it?

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Hum, sorry to continue after such a long one Pvblivs.

    But you said:

    No, I think it was regarded as insignificant until it was a "confirm." It was not (as far as I know) some big secret. But it looks like it was a case of "no big deal if we don't find anything."

    Let us say, for the sake of argument, that the problem was just the number of chromosomes (as wrongly presented by Miller). Even then, it would not be "no big deal if we do not find anything." It would rather be "we need to reassess what we think is possible in chromosomal variability within closely related species." And it would also be a very prominent publication in a top journal. No scientist dismisses huge facts about human evolution. So, a big deal about human evolution Pvblivs.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Pvblivs,

    (I hope I am not giving you excuse to now say that I am peer-pressing you)

    After all, the chromosome differences from Clarkia get a big yawn.

    Of course! But only because we have found time and again that plants do not care too much about chromosome numbers.

    But look at what happens with humans that have an extra chromosome, or even just a little bit of an extra chromosome ...

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Get_education:

         Let's look at what I can see. We have similar sets of measurements but the positive data are considered a big deal and the negative data are considered immaterial. You should be able to see that it looks like counting the hits while ignoring the misses. The fact is, I do not see any tests where any conceivable result could have refuted evolution (with possibly unknown mechanism.)
         By the way, there is no historical claim (and large-scale evolution is an historical claim) that I regard as beyond any doubt. Now, if the issue of chromosome 2 had turned out differently, there may well have been a re-think of what is known about genes. But I believe the concept of large-scale evolution would have been salvaged. Sure, if there could be some observation that was actually inconsistent with evolution, and such an observation was found, it would be published. But evolution appears to be consistent with all possible observations. No one has ever actually given me an observation that would be inconsistent with evolution. When people have tried to present such, they give something that would be inconsistent with knowledge not dependent on evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  40. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  41. OK Pvblivs,

    You should be able to see that it looks like counting the hits while ignoring the misses.

    I do not see such thing. I have not witnessed a single "ignored miss." The problem is that the theory is way too robust as of now. As I said, I semi agreed on your claim that the chromosome problem, as presented, would not be enough to deny evolution. But had it been an inexplicable big chromosome, then the theory would certainly be in trouble. Not unsolvable perhaps, but big trouble. And the news would have been everywhere, not a "discounted miss." And this is where I completely disagree with you. You perceive this the way you do perhaps because you are not working on science.

    As I told you once, molecular biology happened to be a test of evolution. DNA and protein sequences diverge after the separation of species. My DNA is not identical to yours, but it has much more in common with yours than with that of chimps, and more in common with chimps than with gorillas. Was comparing these molecules a safe bet? I do not think so. Had these molecules disagreed with what we knew from the many other sources of evidence, evolution would have been in huge trouble.

    Anyway, as I said, now we are left with fewer and fewer problems. But, again, that is not our fault. The good ol' times of opportunities for falsifying the whole thing might be gone. And, again, that is not my fault, is it? Maybe there will be another good opportunity, I do not know. Actually, this is an excellent question for the celebration of Darwin's 200th and The Origin's 150th. Are there realms where we could still falsify evolution out there, or are we truly left with the detail from now on?

    I hope there are other opportunities. Since grand scale evolution is not my research area, I might not know of something out there that has people thinking and obsessively testing with greed in their eyes. If I find out I will let you know. In the meantime, let us have a beer.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  42. OH, just one more, and sorry, but evolution is not a historical claim. There is lots of evidence, hard core clear clues that evolution has left all over the place. Much better evidence than historical claims pvblivs. Lots of things we can see that show the evidence. Anyway, back to the beer.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Get_education:

         The chromosome differences from Clarkia would be the ignored miss. Sure, you give reasons why it's unimportant. But... pseudosciences do the same. Without making a presupposition in favor of large-scale evolution, how can one tell the difference?
         I think it's a worthwhile comparison. The claims of pseudo-scientists are published in works that review each other. It is an effective peer review; but it is rejected by the larger scientific community. In an alternate world, in which (say) ESP was accepted by the larger scientific community, the corresponding journals would be regarded as respected. There is a great question. If a pseudoscience was mistakenly accepted as valid by the larger scientific community and was not falsifiable, how would a correction ever be made? How would one recognize it? A falsifiable pseudoscience would eventually be falsified. But something consistent with all possible observation would be rooted.
         Any claims about what happened millions of years ago are historical. Artifacts may be more reliable than human records; but there is forever the possibility of incorrect interpretation.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Pvblivs,

    The chromosome differences from Clarkia would be the ignored miss.

    Nope, nobody has proposed, ever, that plants cannot change their chromosome numbers without large effects. You have to see the antecedents before making such judging.

    Sure, you give reasons why it's unimportant. But... pseudosciences do the same.

    Nope, the reasons come from the previous knowledge, the antecedents to the problem. This might be why you do not get it. Nobody went crazy looking for the missing chromosome in these plants because it is well established knowledge that plants do crazy things with them.

    Without making a presupposition in favor of large-scale evolution, how can one tell the difference?

    By being involved and truly understanding science.

    Now this is way too wrong. To me it looks more like you have limited knowledge, and are too willing to find fault, rather than listen to any explanations. Evolution is falsifiable. But the big tests are in the past. It is not a matter of presuppositions. There is no way that the scientific community would accept something and perpetuate it for nothing. Evolution explains lots of thing, even things that have appeared AFTER it was proposed.

    What about another beer and we leave it at that?

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  45.      "By being involved and truly understanding science."
         Well, that was a non-answer. It looks, to me, remarkably like a christian fundamentalist saying that you could tell the difference between the bible being right and wrong by truly understanding the bible. So I will ask again. What test can be conducted to distinguish between large-scale evolution being a true science and it being an unfalsifiable pseudoscience that has been accepted as a science.
         "Nope, the reasons come from the previous knowledge, the antecedents to the problem. This might be why you do not get it. Nobody went crazy looking for the missing chromosome in these plants because it is well established knowledge that plants do crazy things with them."
         Nobody went crazy looking for chromosome 2 either. If they had gone crazy looking for it, there would have been a public announcement well in advance. There might have been news reports of an important search that could make or break evolution. That's not what I see. I see it becoming "important" after the data are positive.
         "There is no way that the scientific community would accept something and perpetuate it for nothing."
         Again, it's the same as with the pseudosciences. They really believe it. I'm not suggesting that this is some hoax. I think it looks like an claim that is consistent with all possible observations that has come to be believed scientific. The scientific community is composed of humans. It is not inconceivable that they could mistake an unfalsifiable pseudoscience for a true science. (There is no perfect way to distinguish.) It is also possible that there is an experiment (of which I am unaware) where a "negative result" could not be explained away.
         Understand, I am looking at it with the science/pseudoscience question open. If large-scale evolution had been declared a pseudoscience, that consideration of the variation of chromosome numbers in the plant genus would definitely be counted as a miss. And pseudosciences do have explanations for all their misses. Their proponents really believe, too.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Pvblivs,

    Nobody went crazy looking for chromosome 2 either. If they had gone crazy looking for it, there would have been a public announcement well in advance. There might have been news reports of an important search that could make or break evolution. That's not what I see. I see it becoming "important" after the data are positive.

    Actually yes, people went crazy to test whether this big chromosome was a fusion and whether there would be enough evidence to show it is a fusion. Progress was slow because of money and time problems. I have to tell you too that it did not become important after the positive finding. It was important before. Otherwise these scientists would not have had the money to do the several studies it took to gather the evidence (whichever way it went). Now the thing is, you know about this because you ave been reading the debates and because Ken Miller presented it at that trial. Otherwise, most of us would not know (I knew before, but that is because I live surrounded by very smart and curious people). So, you are plainly wrong. The importance is properly given whatever the results.

    Not being able to recognize science from pseudoscience? Come on Pvblivs, you know better than that.

    When I said "by being involved and truly understanding" you compare this to the religious claims. Well, no, what I am claiming is that your evident lack of knowledge shows up. You did not know why the plant example is nothing and why humans losing an entire chromosome would be huge news (and I would have published the finding sure thing). You and me would know about this true miss because we are in the debate. But people at large would not. Would that mean that it became important only AFTER the miss?

    I would give you a better answer, but too busy now.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  47. What test can be conducted to distinguish between large-scale evolution being a true science and it being an unfalsifiable pseudoscience that has been accepted as a science.

    So, will be this a competition to see which of us sounds more like a fundie?

    If so, this statement makes you sound exactly like that. A fundie who believes that evolution is indistinguishable from pseudoscience. Why would I say this despite I wanted to keep it respectful? Because it seems obvious you did not read the previous posts I made for you (not just here). I told you, the big tests and the many sources of evidence easily set apart evolution from unfalsifiable pseudoscience. Big tests: the discovery that fossils appear the way they should if evolution were true. The rediscovery of genetics with genetics showing compatibility with evolution. The sequencing of proteins and the result that the sequences diverge according to what would be expected from evolution if it happened, and if it happened as predicted by other sources.

    Anyway, I rather stop truly here.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  48. G.E.

    I think he is just fucking with us. We've been over all this a hundred times with him. Fuck em, let him think that evolution is a big conspiracy and pseudoscience. He clearly thinks that we can't know things about the past (I have you saying this on my blog pvblivs) and clearly has a skewed sense of how science is actually performed. This is understandable not being a scientist-particularly not being a biologist.

    ReplyDelete

Unlike Ray we don't censor our comments, so as long as it's on topic and not spam, fire away.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.