Chromosome challenge

[Jack31081]

Originally posted by: Terumo
Nice try at deflection. No cigar.

Astronomy, along with cosmology, is around to answer the larger question of the existence of the universe. Much more complicated than one species in a sea of species.

Very much on topic!!

I have to disagree here. This topic is about that species in a sea of species. There's no use in getting into the larger topic of the existence of the universe.

Can't help it if all you can do when questioned, is go "duh". Once the bible of Talkorigins is removed, you TCOE members babble like idiots, as that's all you have of your message -- words written from someone else.

All anyone has, except for the scientists that do the actual research, is words written from someone else. What do you expect? The reason the publish their papers is so others can use the knowledge they garnered through their research.

And every moron is a fundie. Look in the mirror.

Just because he's lowering himself to personal insults doesn't mean you can do it just the same. It's not helping your case.

 

[abj13]

Originally posted by: Terumo
Can't help it if all you can do when questioned, is go "duh". Once the bible of Talkorigins is removed, you TCOE members babble like idiots, as that's all you have of your message -- words written from someone else.

Hmmm. Throughout this entire discussion, you've dodged and avoided arguments that actually used evidence. And how? Claim a website is biased, and that is a perfectly adequate rebuttal. Unfortunately, your underlying premise is painfully obvious. Logic and argument transcend whoever is supplying the argument. It doesn't matter if Saddam Hussain, Stephen Hawking, or Jeff Foxworthy is giving the argument. If the author biases the argument, then their argument should be easily exposed and refutted. How has talkorigins biased their argument?

Instead, you gambled on people assuming that if a website is biased, their argument is flawed. Sadly, that doesn't cut it. The evidence supplied by the primary literature, rehashed by talkorigins remains untouched in this thread.

I would figure with a website like talkorigins and their "obvious" bias, then it should be a breeze to refute them. Even using "cookie-cutter" posts would be welcomed from someone who has spent "8" years doing this, not some vain attempt in misdirection.

So what is wrong with evolution? I haven't heard one specific item. When people throw primary literature out, you gamble that making some broad accusations will suffice. Sorry, it doesn't work.

Originally posted by: Terumo
I don't know what they're teaching kids in school/college these days, but if they don't understand the politics of science they're clueless in what is considered "credible" in science today. It's a popularity contest now, which side has the most PR folks, not the best science itself.

Since you might not know, my speciality is forensic anthropology. No need to point to me about EB. Furthermore, don't skip past the politics side of the scientific Establishment. EB is plagued with non hard scientists, it's basically half biologists/biochemists and half of those with degrees in the humanities (sociology; cultural anthropology, etc.).

Another common example of the fallcies involved in this thread. In this case, no evidence suffices, rather a claim to being an authority on a subject. If you are knowledgeable enough in the field, you don't need to appeal to others by claiming you are an authority. If you actually know what is going on, you post on and supply evidence. Instead, the argument is "the scientific method is bad today... how do I know? I'm an aurthority." And then thump your chest. A better argument would be " the scientific method is bad today... how do I know? XYZ (Cite)." Interesting, that's what really occurs in the primary literature.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Terumo

Originally posted by: Terumo
Man hasn't seen a new species (naturally) evolve, so it's not observable.

Originally posted by: cquark

Yes, we have. Check the scientific literature:

Actually you haven't.

Scientists have observed speciation. I've read the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and provided a wide variety of citations to it, along with some review articles and books. If you won't read journals like Science and Nature, then you're refusing to listen, and that I can't help you with.

 

[Gilby]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Yahoo-Wahoo (2pts for whoever gets that reference)

Yahweh?

Well, the consonants with different vowels. Larry Gonick used it as part of a gag in his Cartoon History of the Universe.

 

[canadageek]

lol......
it's funny 'cause this argument has been going on for what? 200 years?
people need to not read the bible quite so seriously...it lays out a good set of guidelines for living your life, but it also goes a bit far in the whole "god/son of god" thing. it's a book written waay after the actual events, by the followers of the followers of christ, who were amongst the very few who were able to write at the time. the bible is not some holy artwork, it belongs in the fiction section, along with the shroud of turin.
evolution is for real. almost any microbiologist can support this for you. bacteria, for example, reproduce extremely quickly. if their environment becomes unfavourable, the population will change and adapt to it's surroundings. this is what has brought us from virus-like entities to single celled monerans, to protists, then finally multicellular organisms which became ever more complex. eventually, my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-
great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-
great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-
great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-
great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-
grandfather crawled out of the sea, and life has never been the same since.
people are 99.9% equal. humans and chimpanzees are 98.5% equal.
point of all this being, evolution is a completely viable theory, much more so than creationism, but we may never know which is real. maybe neither sides are right. maybe it's some as-of-yet-unrealised theory that holds the truth. until we put together that Delorean with a Flux capacitor, we'll never know
if i'm wrong about something, please back it up and correct me. better to be wrong than to have a misconception about science.
thank god i'm an atheist

 

[Peter]

Advice for all the brain-using people here: DNFTT. Tekumo's skull is devoid of any skills. Don't bother.

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: Jack31081
I have to disagree here. This topic is about that species in a sea of species. There's no use in getting into the larger topic of the existence of the universe.

But that's our true origin. It'll always lead back to how we even are alive.

All anyone has, except for the scientists that do the actual research, is words written from someone else. What do you expect?

That people read at least a quarter what they're posting.

The reason the publish their papers is so others can use the knowledge they garnered through their research.

Yes, but it's easy to copy and paste articles, but if no one bothers to read them how do they know what they're posting is true, let alone concludes what the copy and paster is implying?

Ignorance begets ignorance.

Just because he's lowering himself to personal insults doesn't mean you can do it just the same. It's not helping your case.

Every moron IS a fundie, pure and simple. Extremists can't think straight, let alone try to be unbiased. Just look at the political scene for an example of how wide and deep the moronic behavior goes.

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: abj13
Hmmm. Throughout this entire discussion, you've dodged and avoided arguments that actually used evidence.

What evidence? Copying and pasting links wholesale doesn't conclude evidence. What it concludes it's a lot of titles that 99% of the population cares not to read to verify they're revelence.

And how? Claim a website is biased, and that is a perfectly adequate rebuttal.

It is biased. It's biased in promoting one idea as some truth and becoming as dogmatic as the religious side (because it's a religion in itself).

Unfortunately, your underlying premise is painfully obvious.

Is it? What is my "underlying premise". Please tell, let's see that you acquired that wonder of the ability to read minds.

Logic and argument transcend whoever is supplying the argument. It doesn't matter if Saddam Hussain, Stephen Hawking, or Jeff Foxworthy is giving the argument. If the author biases the argument, then their argument should be easily exposed and refutted. How has talkorigins biased their argument?

Because the people who's doing the preaching don't even know what they're preaching. None of us here are paleoanthropologists. None of us here are engaged into studies on species specialization let alone evolutionary science.

It's like folks are trying to explain how to put up a Cisco firewall, but never trained in how to do it, how to maintain it, let alone have a clue to turn the darn thing on, and those who do, are agreeing the dummies are as learnt as them and qualified to install and maintain them.

When it's at the level of opinions it's one thing, but when lay folks drag in material they have no clue what they're posting, they're truly out of their element and offbase. It's like trying to practice medicine without ever studying and training to be one.

Instead, you gambled on people assuming that if a website is biased,

They clearly are, because they won't even fathom of alternatives. One sided idea = blindness.

their argument is flawed. Sadly, that doesn't cut it. The evidence supplied by the primary literature, rehashed by talkorigins remains untouched in this thread.

Read above on why. None of us are qualified to claim it false, let alone factual. And trying to find those sources of 1972 papers, is very difficult (further complicating the endeavor).

I would figure with a website like talkorigins and their "obvious" bias, then it should be a breeze to refute them. Even using "cookie-cutter" posts would be welcomed from someone who has spent "8" years doing this, not some vain attempt in misdirection.

Look at the Intel vs. AMD, MS vs. Linux fights. None of them are easy to refute (on merit), how do you expect the conflict of lack of evidence between the Evolution and Creation camps to be fully resolved?

So what is wrong with evolution?

So what's wrong with reading comprehension? You assume too much, as I have no beef with Evolution or Creationism.

I haven't heard one specific item. When people throw primary literature out, you gamble that making some broad accusations will suffice. Sorry, it doesn't work.

It works, especially when folks with at least a 3rd grade reading level can figure it out.

Another common example of the fallcies involved in this thread. In this case, no evidence suffices, rather a claim to being an authority on a subject.

Now you're coming around. But I don't believe you can *see* it, even if it landed in your lap on fire!! lololol

Here: who are we to be any authority to claim something we don't know?

If you are knowledgeable enough in the field, you don't need to appeal to others by claiming you are an authority.

It was a warning, not an appeal. I'm nice I give warnings because the butt whipping isn't nice.

If you actually know what is going on, you post on and supply evidence.

I don't care too. This isn't a meeting of paleoanthropologists presenting papers and lectures. This is a thread discussing/debating a topic no one alive will know the answer too. This is theory talk no better than trying to prove or disapprove aliens are being warehoused at Area 51.

Instead, the argument is "the scientific method is bad today... how do I know? I'm an aurthority." And then thump your chest. A better argument would be " the scientific method is bad today... how do I know? XYZ (Cite)." Interesting, that's what really occurs in the primary literature.

I'm not into link wars. But I do hope folks are smart enough to use their noggin and do some studying on their own (I did), not be lemmings or be spoonfed. I'm not the one seeking converts, and I have nothing to lose in either argument.

Watching one side beat their chests in seculsion is both funny and sad. Funny because the plucky nerve of those who's claiming their brilliance are doing it without a reply (other than myself); and sad that they must do it in a safe environment. What's a challenge in talking to yourself?

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: Peter
Advice for all the brain-using people here: DNFTT. Tekumo's skull is devoid of any skills. Don't bother.

Taking the easy way out. Thank you.

Who's next?

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: cquark
Scientists have observed speciation. I've read the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and provided a wide variety of citations to it, along with some review articles and books. If you won't read journals like Science and Nature, then you're refusing to listen, and that I can't help you with.

Check the last link in my sig. Where does that link take you?

I don't just read abstracts, I buy photocopy cards and camp out at the medical school library reading and copying journal articles (especially forensic and pathology journals) and rare medical books on things like starvation. So what was your idea again?

When did Nature become a professional journal? Do you claim Scientific American is a professional journal, too?? :shocked:

Jesus A. Christ these people think peer review is what's comes off the pages of Discover magazine!!

<No wonder why they worship talkorigins!>

 

[dgevert]

I ask again for everyone to respect my request and not aid Terumo further in derailing this thread. Until he stops poisoning the well and blindly disbelieving anything that talkorigins has to say, it's a waste of time dealing with him.

My question for creationists: why, from a design standpoint, would we see evidence that one of OUR chromosomes is so eerily similiar to what it would look like if you merged two chromosomes from a chimp, orangutan, or gorilla?

 

[Terumo]

Her.

And I won the challenge with simple logic.

Pssst....I believe in creation and evolution.

Oh, and your comparison is like comparing cats to dogs to people. Have you notice some similiarities in cats/dogs and man too? Like the septum of the nose is similar? The tongue is split down the center? Toe pads refer to finger pads? That the vomeronasal organ in animals isn't a "dead" nerve center for scent, where in man it is? What does that all mean, dg? That we're closer related to the cat or dog (probably the cat, due to the similiarites in blood)?

Most of our DNA is junk, dg. In that junk is the key to tell who our common ancestor was, and chances it's not an ape or monkey. Too many similiarities across the animal kingdom to claim we're evolved from apes.

 

[abj13]

Originally posted by: Terumo
It is biased. It's biased in promoting one idea as some truth and becoming as dogmatic as the religious side (because it's a religion in itself).

How? You continue to spout these claims that have zero support behind them. Where have they biased their arguments? Your posts are getting as dogmatic as they can get. Simply repeating yourself over and over that it is biased is hardly the logic from someone who has spent "8" years on this.

Originally posted by: Terumo
Because the people who's doing the preaching don't even know what they're preaching. None of us here are paleoanthropologists. None of us here are engaged into studies on species specialization let alone evolutionary science.

People aren't? *Looks around anandtech, then notices authorities exist on the forums*

Your gambit on people not being within the field of question it exposed as simple misdirection. You can continue to lie and hope people won't notice, but not with me.

Originally posted by: Terumo
They clearly are, because they won't even fathom of alternatives. One sided idea = blindness.

And how? I'm reminded of a post earlier in this thread:

Originally posted by: Terumo
So take these cookie cutter replies and take them back to Talkorigins where the spam belongs.

Not only has there been zero evidence on the flawed points of talkorigins, but now there's contradictions, using and abusing "cookie-cutter" posts. You complain about spam?

Originally posted by: Terumo
Read above on why. None of us are qualified to claim it false, let alone factual. And trying to find those sources of 1972 papers, is very difficult (further complicating the endeavor).

Pffft. I would figure you would at least go to JSTOR to find some of the older ones, here's one from 1950:

https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/ab.../web/naturalhybrid.pdf
Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499

Need help on others? Or are you going to continue to hope people are just "laypeople" around here.

Originally posted by: Terumo
Look at the Intel vs. AMD, MS vs. Linux fights. None of them are easy to refute (on merit), how do you expect the conflict of lack of evidence between the Evolution and Creation camps to be fully resolved?

Sorry, not everyone lacks evidence and knowledge around here. But people do try to pass off arguments that don't have any support behind them.

Originally posted by: Terumo
So what's wrong with reading comprehension? You assume too much, as I have no beef with Evolution or Creationism.

You sure do have a beef when you continue to claim a website like talkorigins is biased, when you shown not an ounce of evidence. Your attempt to play the middle has fatefully skewed your own comprehension of what is out there.

Originally posted by: Terumo
It works, especially when folks with at least a 3rd grade reading level can figure it out.

Not with me.

Originally posted by: Terumo
Here: who are we to be any authority to claim something we don't know?

So you are an authority to tell everyone that they know nothing? Assumptions, what people do when they cannot argue the actual debate.

Originally posted by: Terumo
I don't care too. This isn't a meeting of paleoanthropologists presenting papers and lectures. This is a thread discussing/debating a topic no one alive will know the answer too. This is theory talk no better than trying to prove or disapprove aliens are being warehoused at Area 51.

That's rather funny, why should you care? You go out of your own way to shove your own agenda that talkorigins is garbage, yet cannot even show that. Playing the argumentum ad temperantiam card has gotten old fast. Cookie-cutter posts? People have spammed this thread with the middle ground junk.

 

[Terumo]

The basis of this thread is this....

http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/21.Models.HTML

Chromosomal speciation: Consider a diploid with 2N = 4 chromosomes. If two such individuals failed to undergo the reduction division of meiosis their gametes would be 2N=4. If these gametes were used in fertilization of one another, a new chromosomal number would be established: 4N = 8. If this became stabilized as a new chromosomal type (and this is common in plants), this new type can be reproductively isolated from the original 2N = 4 species. The reproductive isolation would be due to an imbalance of chromosome sets in the new zygote: N = 2 gamete crossed to an N = 4 gamete results chromosomal type of 3N = 6. There can be two consequences with this imbalance: i) inviability due to failure during development or ii) instability during chromosome segregation could result in gametes with an incomplete set of chromosomes (aneuploidy). These consequences could have the effect of a reproductive barrier between the original 2N = 4 and the polyploid 4N = 8 type. Speciation can be nearly instantaneous when such chromosomal events are involved (multiples of even numbered ploidy levels: can produce gametes with some exceptions; multiples of odd numbered ploidy levels: usually cannot produce gametes due to imbalance of haploid complements) => speciation. Thus polyploid hybrids are frequency genetically isolated from their progenitors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

Punctuated equilibrium, or punctuated equilibria, is a theory of evolution which postulates that changes such as speciation can occur relatively quickly, with long periods of little change?equilibria?in between. This theory is one of the proposed explanations of the evolutionary patterns of species as observed in the fossil record, particularly the relatively sudden appearance of new species in a geologically short time period, and the perhaps typical lack of substantial change of species during their existence.

[...]

MISCONCEPTIONS
Punctuated equilibrium is often confused with saltationism and catastrophism, and thus mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism; it is actually more properly understood to be a form of gradualism. This is because even though the changes are considered to be occurring relatively quickly, they are still occurring gradually, with no great changes from one generation to the next. This can be understood by considering an example: Suppose the average length of a limb on a particular species grows 50 centimeters (a large amount) over 70000 years (a geologically short period of time). If the average generation is 7 years, then the given timespan corresponds to 10000 generations. Thus, on average, the limb grows at the minute, gradual rate of only 0.005 cm per generation (= 50 cm / 10000 generations).

The theory is often misstated as being an explanation for purported "gaps in the fossil record", i.e. the so-called "missing links". However, this confuses two levels of evolution. It merely explains the small jumps that are observed in fossil lineages within or between closely related fossil species, not the transitions between major categories of organisms. Due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that speciation occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of time, transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record. However, transitional fossils at higher taxonomic levels are abundant.

And it's found in higher levels because of BIAS on classification. When a humanoid fossil is found they will type it according to their ideas of gender. Larger jaw = male. Smaller brow ridge = female. That's not scientific testing, that's guess work. You can't assume XYZ species is male or female when the fossil record is so incomplete, and using modern humans as an example is stretching integrity.

And this thread is a boring TCOE's rehash of the idea of rapid speciation is the so-called "missing link" (and why there's holes in the fossil record).

<They don't even understand what they're advocating. The above happens already in another process, and it must be one bitter, bleak world they live in to suggest -- as a species we were worse than an accident>

 

[abj13]

Originally posted by: Terumo
And it's found in higher levels because of BIAS on classification. When a humanoid fossil is found they will type it according to their ideas of gender. Larger jaw = male. Smaller brow ridge = female. That's not scientific testing, that's guess work. You can't assume XYZ species is male or female when the fossil record is so incomplete, and using modern humans as an example is stretching integrity.

Of course its guess work. However, scientists who later cite a study that proclaims various speciation also note of the assumptions and problems in the previous research. They do not suddenly take that information as cut and dry evidence and assume its correct. Its only after further research by the original team and other teams can those assumptions be supported by evidence, and no longer be "guess work."

Once again, you are butchering science into fitting only your argument, even if that means misdirecting and leaving out how science fixes that problem.

Originally posted by: Terumo
And this thread is a boring TCOE's rehash of the idea of rapid speciation is the so-called "missing link" (and why there's holes in the fossil record).

That is not even close to the orignal point of the homology of the chromosomes. The chromosomes are not to be used as clear cut proof for rapid speciation, puncuated speciation, or what ever straw man you want. If you read Yunis and Prakash 1982, they hardly make that point.

The correct point, is the similarity between primates. While on the surface, people could cite problems with "lower" primates with 24 pairs of chromosomes and humans with 23 pairts. But once you look into the actual structure and follow what Yunis and Prakash 1982 did, the apparent homology is strikingly increadible. Not only are the genomes close in primates, but the karytypes follow the same homology. This does further the idea of common decent, particularly genomic mutations (if you can really define what is "normal") that guided the evolution within the Family Hominidae.

Originally posted by: Terumo
They don't even understand what they're advocating. The above happens already in another process, and it must be one bitter, bleak world they live in to suggest -- as a species we were worse than an accident

Another straw man. Only people who butcher evolution turn it into making philosophical proclaimations. Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. However, the evidence overwhealming supports that evolution, via natural selection, mutations and fercundity, governed how the present organisms arrived from their ancient ancestors.

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: abj13
Of course its guess work.

It's more than guess work. Do you actually know what they're doing in paleoanthropology??

However, scientists who later cite a study that proclaims various speciation also note of the assumptions and problems in the previous research.

But tha lay public (you) don't or refue to acknowledge it.

They do not suddenly take that information as cut and dry evidence and assume its correct.

Yes they do. Happens a lot in anthropology in general. It's one thing with modern humans, it gets really dicey when the remains are like 1,000,000 years old.

Its only after further research by the original team and other teams can those assumptions be supported by evidence, and no longer be "guess work."

Maybe you live in a dream world, but that doesn't happen in bone classification.

Once again, you are butchering science into fitting only your argument, even if that means misdirecting and leaving out how science fixes that problem.

Actually, you're not abreast in the matter.

There's no hard science involved in classifying paleo bone samples, they're guessing out of they're kazoo. Large browridge = male; flanged occipital bone = subspecies A, etc. (it's why our family tree is so messed up).

That is not even close to the orignal point of the homology of the chromosomes. The chromosomes are not to be used as clear cut proof for rapid speciation, puncuated speciation, or what ever straw man you want. If you read Yunis and Prakash 1982, they hardly make that point.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Someone looked in a Wiki and decided this would be a good topic to argue their cleverness.....YAWN.

The correct point, is the similarity between primates. While on the surface, people could cite problems with "lower" primates with 24 pairs of chromosomes and humans with 23 pairts.

Yeah, because you realize what 24 pairs of chromosomes will do to us? How many genetic deformations and illnesses are done by even 1 extra chromosome, again?

But once you look into the actual structure and follow what Yunis and Prakash 1982 did, the apparent homology is strikingly increadible. Not only are the genomes close in primates, but the karytypes follow the same homology. This does further the idea of common decent, particularly genomic mutations (if you can really define what is "normal") that guided the evolution within the Family Hominidae.

Karyotyping is not a basis to find similiarity, but deformity (where the research and the money for that research is at). They're all racing to find a cure for genetic disorders -- that's more important than waxing philosophical about our origins.

Another straw man. Only people who butcher evolution turn it into making philosophical proclaimations.

Actually even those who believe in evolution question evolution -- that's the who basis of PEER REVIEW.

That you don't accept and grasp that basic tenent, you're truly butching the scientific process of seperating the wheat from the chaffe.

Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive.

They are mutual, but if you're Dawkin's or Gould's hawker, you'd say so (both being admanant atheists, and Dawkin being the militant type. Perfect demi-god for alt.atheism.

However, the evidence overwhealming supports that evolution, via natural selection, mutations and fercundity, governed how the present organisms arrived from their ancient ancestors.

And evidence is overwhelming how man tries to shape what he wants to believe into some "fact". It's the same process those on the religious side goes through.

 

[Gibsons]

Yeah, because you realize what 24 pairs of chromosomes will do to us? How many genetic deformations and illnesses are done by even 1 extra chromosome, again?

There are examples of overtly normal people with severe karyotypic anomolies.

Then there are the artificially engineered "balancer chromosomes."

Karyotyping is not a basis to find similiarity, but deformity (where the research and the money for that research is at). They're all racing to find a cure for genetic disorders -- that's more important than waxing philosophical about our origins.

One of the ways to find out about genetic disorders is to know how karyotypes compare across species. So knowing about the evolutionary derivations is intrinsically helpful in learning about genetic disorders. Evolutionary theory leads to specific useful (and testable) predictions when you're trying to track down genes and their possible role in a disease.

 

[fishmonger12]

Originally posted by: abj13
Hmmm. Throughout this entire discussion, you've dodged and avoided arguments that actually used evidence.

that's the way this person argues. slicker than a politician.

i wish i knew more about this subject so i could argue. interesting thread .

as to this question, i think i may be able to answer it:

"why, from a design standpoint, would we see evidence that one of OUR chromosomes is so eerily similiar to what it would look like if you merged two chromosomes from a chimp, orangutan, or gorilla?"

common descent. prove God didn't make that first single celled critter floating around in the primordial soup, and THEN you will have an argument. until then... you have nothing .

remember, you need to define the argument. you basically said that creationists didn't believe in common descent... which isn't true :\. creationists believe in MANY different things

 

[abj13]

Originally posted by: Terumo
But tha lay public (you)

I am?

Originally posted by: Terumo
don't or refue to acknowledge it.

What did I type in my post?

Originally posted by: Terumo
Yes they do. Happens a lot in anthropology in general. It's one thing with modern humans, it gets really dicey when the remains are like 1,000,000 years old.

Maybe you live in a dream world, but that doesn't happen in bone classification.

Yet another cookie-cutter post. What is with up with making claims but never supporting them with anything? The schtick is getting old.

Originally posted by: Terumo
Actually, you're not abreast in the matter.

There's no hard science involved in classifying paleo bone samples, they're guessing out of they're kazoo. Large browridge = male; flanged occipital bone = subspecies A, etc. (it's why our family tree is so messed up).

Once again, you are taking everything out of context. When classifying a bone, it isn't done randomly, or simply an attempt to put labels on the fossil. Instead it is compared to everything else out there, and classified in relation to all other relevant fossils.

But now you're claiming I don't have a clue and you actually understand it, when instead you continue to misdirect. The sheer lack of evidence and assumptions you make, speak larger than claiming someone isn't "abreast" of the subject.

Originally posted by: Terumo
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Someone looked in a Wiki and decided this would be a good topic to argue their cleverness.....YAWN.

Its a fairly good topic until someone decides to mischaracterize it, just so it can fit some preconceived notions...

Originally posted by: Terumo
Yeah, because you realize what 24 pairs of chromosomes will do to us? How many genetic deformations and illnesses are done by even 1 extra chromosome, again?

The 2004 human is different from a human 100,000 or 1 million years ago. Saying an abnormal (if there is such a word for this situation) number of chromosomes was deleterious back then is nothing but an assumption.

Even today chromosome fusion is observable:
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/ab...ski/web/chromosome.pdf"><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/abjanowski/web/chromosome.pdf">https://mywebspace.wisc..........chromosome.pdf</a></a>

Molteni, L., De Giovanni-Macchi, A., Succi, G., Cremonesi, F., Stacchezzini, S., Di Meo, G.P., Iannuzzi, L. 1998. A new centric fusion translocation in cattle. Hereditas 129(2):177-180.

Originally posted by: Terumo
Karyotyping is not a basis to find similiarity, but deformity (where the research and the money for that research is at). They're all racing to find a cure for genetic disorders -- that's more important than waxing philosophical about our origins.

As it should be, instead of making science more than it is, or whatever manipulated form you want for your "arguments," especially for someone who done this for "8" years.

Originally posted by: Terumo
Actually even those who believe in evolution question evolution -- that's the who basis of PEER REVIEW.

When did I ever say it doesn't happen? So now the game is making up quotes, and assigning them as the end all straw man arguments? Next time, please find an actual quote instead of making up disingenuous posts.

Originally posted by: Terumo
That you don't accept and grasp that basic tenent, you're truly butching the scientific process of seperating the wheat from the chaffe.

LOL! So you cannot argue what is being said, so you argue what was never said? I'm reminded of a quote:

Originally posted by: Terumo
don't put up a challenge if you guys can't deliever

Hilarity insues.

Originally posted by: Terumo
They are mutual, but if you're Dawkin's or Gould's hawker, you'd say so (both being admanant atheists, and Dawkin being the militant type. Perfect demi-god for alt.atheism.

I'm not hawking anything. I'm reminded of another quote from this thread:

Originally posted by: Terumo
If anyone question your belief they're automatically Christians

Replace Christians with whatever you want to label me. Add another contradiction to the list.

Originally posted by: Terumo
And evidence is overwhelming how man tries to shape what he wants to believe into some "fact". It's the same process those on the religious side goes through.

Who said it was a "fact?" Not me. I said it "overwhealming supports."

 

[Gilby]

Originally posted by: Terumo
<They don't even understand what they're advocating. The above happens already in another process, and it must be one bitter, bleak world they live in to suggest -- as a species we were worse than an accident>

Hmmm. Perhaps I'm wrong on Terumo. She might be a Scientologist, not an adherent of Velikovsky's ideas.

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: abj13
I am?

Yes.

Originally posted by: abj13
What did I type in my post?

You stll don't acknowledge it.

Yet another cookie-cutter post. What is with up with making claims but never supporting them with anything? The schtick is getting old.

It's old because you don't have a clue of the problems, the politics, and backbiting in paleoanthropology. If you did, you'd at least acknowledge the problems, and not make untrue statements.

There is NO gold standard in judging the classification of paleo remains. It's based on hunch, speculation and guess work. It's not a HARD science.

Once again, you are taking everything out of context.

I'm not, I've said it repeatily: there's a problem with classification when it's nothing but guesswork.

Lick your thumb and hold it up to measure the wind, "science".

[qb]When classifying a bone, it isn't done randomly, or simply an attempt to put labels on the fossil. Instead it is compared to everything else out there, and classified in relation to all other relevant fossils.[/quote]

AAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

You don't "get it." Let me put it down into an elementary level: you have to type the bones accurately, or the results are false. Remember the Piltdown Man? How many scientists accepted it as human again? How long did it take before the hoax was finally known? Do you realize how many more disarticulated remains are misclassified?

Identification is very critical.

But now you're claiming I don't have a clue and you actually understand it, when instead you continue to misdirect.

It's clear that you don't. Do you release Science has all the bad elements any other field of study has? Do you realize it has it's share of fakes, liars, propagandists, and even sociopaths? Science isn't pure, it's prone to the same mistakes of religion.

The sheer lack of evidence and assumptions you make, speak larger than claiming someone isn't "abreast" of the subject.

I don't need to provide it because someone can easily do their own homework. I did. Stop being lazy and do your OWN research.

BTW, do you know the short comings of meta-analysis (which talkorigins does with reviewing reams --doubt reading half of them -- of other people's studies)?

Its a fairly good topic until someone decides to mischaracterize it, just so it can fit some preconceived notions...

What "preconceived notions" on the creationist bashing wagon idea again? You have no clue what I believe in, but you want to react to me like I'm a Christian.

Life isn't simple.

The 2004 human is different from a human 100,000 or 1 million years ago. Saying an abnormal (if there is such a word for this situation) number of chromosomes was deleterious back then is nothing but an assumption.

What you're not willing to see -- :knock, knock --- HELLO ANYONE HOME??: -- that your premise has man being born diseased.

Tell us, what's cancer? What does it affect? Why does it kill? What does cancer need to reproduce?

This is why you guys are lay folks. Heck, I'm no MD, but knew this long ago. I wouldn't go down this 24 chromosomes road with a tyicycle, let a lone Mack truck.

Even today chromosome fusion is observable:

Who are you trying to convert? No conversions here.

As it should be, instead of making science more than it is, or whatever manipulated form you want for your "arguments," especially for someone who done this for "8" years.

We'll versed on this topic.

When did I ever say it doesn't happen? So now the game is making up quotes, and assigning them as the end all straw man arguments? Next time, please find an actual quote instead of making up disingenuous posts.

There's a definition from Abnormal psychology that applies here. Do you know it?

It's called: projection identification.

And you have a fixation on that word straw man. Is that a "Freudian slip"?

LOL! So you cannot argue what is being said, so you argue what was never said? I'm reminded of a quote:

Originally posted by: Terumo
don't put up a challenge if you guys can't deliever

Hilarity insues.

What now the last resort: spelling flames? lololol

But I'll let you deal with my gallbladder then, and the lack of sleep!

I'm not hawking anything. I'm reminded of another quote from this thread:

Originally posted by: Terumo
If anyone question your belief they're automatically Christians

Replace Christians with whatever you want to label me. Add another contradiction to the list.

You are hawking something: your fanatical belief in Evolution. It almost becomes your God.

I didn't label you a Christian, but if you're confused by now that's fine (I only just started, too).

Who said it was a "fact?" Not me. I said it "overwhealming supports."

You'll defend it as so, but I'm more unbiased: prove me wrong.

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: fishmonger12
that's the way this person argues. slicker than a politician.

Six months on the Evolution/Creation thread at the old Fox News forums at Delphi, and you'll learn how to shadow box well (not counting the ones sparing with alt.atheism over).

 

[Gibsons]

What you're not willing to see -- :knock, knock --- HELLO ANYONE HOME??: -- that your premise has man being born diseased.

No, there are direct observations of large genetic anomolies with overtly normal phenotypes.

Tell us, what's cancer?

Uncontrolled growth of (a) cells.

What does it affect?

Growth rate of cells? Ability to live?

Why does it kill?

The nuts and bolts depends greatly on the type of cancer. But the root cause is that some cell(s) acquired one or more mutations and and thus started reproducing uncontrollably.

What does cancer need to reproduce?

Do you mean what changes a normal cell into a cancerous cell? The simple model is activation of a proto-oncogene and deactivation of a tumor suppressor/anti-oncogene, but that doesn't describe every cancer well by any means.

This is why you guys are lay folks.

This is where you move to attempted insults instead of dialogue and argument.

Heck, I'm no MD, but knew this long ago.

Knew what, exactly?

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Terumo

Originally posted by: cquark
Scientists have observed speciation. I've read the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and provided a wide variety of citations to it, along with some review articles and books. If you won't read journals like Science and Nature, then you're refusing to listen, and that I can't help you with.

I don't just read abstracts, I buy photocopy cards and camp out at the medical school library reading and copying journal articles (especially forensic and pathology journals) and rare medical books on things like starvation.

That's very nice, but we can all read here and the question wasn't whether you had read journals on topics topics to this discussion.

So what was your idea again?

The question was whether you had read any of scientific articles on speciation.

If you haven't read the relevant literature, how can you object to the observation of speciation?

If you have read the relevant literature, what's your refutation of it?

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: cquark
That's very nice, but we can all read here and the question wasn't whether you had read journals on topics topics to this discussion.

A nightly forlay in the stacks produces......
Microbiology and Disease - Tuberculosis

Disease Process of the Spine - TB - Pott's Disease

You'll find quickly that I don't bluff on these things.

Don't judge a book by it's cover, cquark. I'm not Establishment.

The question was whether you had read any of scientific articles on speciation.

Click on the second link in my sig. That should tell you how much I've read, let alone studied -- and why the pics above aren't just for show.

Don't let me start on the adapation of Clostridia bacteria to environmental extremes (and what it can do to chocolate), either.

If you haven't read the relevant literature, how can you object to the observation of speciation?

Are you a botanist? Pray tell, are you a zoologist? If not, you haven't read the relevant literature, as it's not your speciality. It's like if you were willing to spend 3wks studying Pott's Disease, if you don't have a specific interest in it to study, you do what?????

If you have read the relevant literature, what's your refutation of it?

Simply: no one knows the unknown, and to speculate over it is a tail chasing (which is what this thread is, since none of us research speciation and certainly not polymorphism).

My interest is with the bones and pathology (which I thought someone would bring up by now!!).