Of FOXP2, Human Chromosome 2 and Allen MacNeil
Over on Uncommon Descent Allen MacNeil is trying to demonstrate that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor. So far he has used FOXP2 and the alleged fusion that led to human chromosome 2 as the data that supports that premise. However far, very far, from demonstrating his point it actually demonstrates mine- that the alleged evidence is indeed circumstantial and relies heavily on one's predisposition.
FOXP2 @ Wikipedia- I post this because Wiki is a known to be pro-evolution. And if there wqas convincing data it would be there. However all we get from Wiki is implications and speculations. We also find out what led to those.
I will just say this- just because random mutations can damage a once nicely functioning system does NOT equate to random mutations putting that functioning system together in the first place.
And just to say it again- HOX genes (clusters) to me are a very good example of Common Design. Also as Denton tells us, although genes may influence every aspect of development they do not determine it.
Chromosome 2 fusion- Allen states the the alleged fusion would have caused some genetic isolation. If true that means that at least TWO, one male, one female, would have to have the same configuration or that config would not get passed on.
So I asked:
“Would this fusion event have to occur within at least two members- one male, one female- of the same population in order for it to have any chance of getting passed on?”
Allen responded with:
In a word, no. All that would need to happen to make this possible would be for two first-degree relatives carrying the translocation to mate and have offspring.
"In a word, no" but then he agrees with me!
FOXP2 @ Wikipedia- I post this because Wiki is a known to be pro-evolution. And if there wqas convincing data it would be there. However all we get from Wiki is implications and speculations. We also find out what led to those.
I will just say this- just because random mutations can damage a once nicely functioning system does NOT equate to random mutations putting that functioning system together in the first place.
And just to say it again- HOX genes (clusters) to me are a very good example of Common Design. Also as Denton tells us, although genes may influence every aspect of development they do not determine it.
Chromosome 2 fusion- Allen states the the alleged fusion would have caused some genetic isolation. If true that means that at least TWO, one male, one female, would have to have the same configuration or that config would not get passed on.
So I asked:
“Would this fusion event have to occur within at least two members- one male, one female- of the same population in order for it to have any chance of getting passed on?”
Allen responded with:
In a word, no. All that would need to happen to make this possible would be for two first-degree relatives carrying the translocation to mate and have offspring.
"In a word, no" but then he agrees with me!
posted by Joe G @ 9:26 AM
23 Comments:
At 11:16 AM,
Anonymous said…
hi Joe G,
I've noticed two things in this debate coming from evolutionists.
First is, automatic "no" to every argument coming from ID side usually but not always followed by ad hominem attack.
Second, their own arguments are for the most part loaded with metaphysics (they always deny it) and sometimes totally irrelevant or at worst illogical.
This Allen McNeil's post at UD is point in case regarding this second feature of the debate. It is not always easy to detect metaphysics in arguments like his as they are wrapped in scientific language. However, I must commend him for keeping tone quite civil which is an exception of the "rule" in this debate.
For those who really enjoy examining the logic of Darwinian arguments, I would strongly recommend David Stove's book, Darwinian Fairytales
At 11:33 AM,
Joe G said…
Keeping the debate civil is perhaps the only way to "flesh-out" an idea.
Allen has an idea. Let's see if it makes sense.
If I am wrong I want to know it. But it is going to take much more than just saying "Joe, you are wrong."
At 2:09 PM,
Joe G said…
OK I may now understand Allen's point.
Over on UD I asked and presented the following:
Would your original mutant have 47 or 46 chromosomes?
If 47 we would have a 47 mating with a 48 to get some combination of 47s and 48s.
The surviving 47s (group A) could mate with each other or the 47 parent. The resulting ofspring would then give some possible combination of 46s, 47s and 48s.
The same surviving 47s (group A) could also mate with the existing 48s to give new combinations of 47s and 48s.
Somewhere along the line the 47s disappeared, except now we see 47 in some Down’s cases.
Which demonstrates why he said "no" to my question about two requiring the fusion event. Said event occurs in one then gets passed on.
We still don't have chimps and humans but Allen is on his way to explaining the chromosome difference.
At 2:25 PM,
Joe G said…
The following is an interesting article:
FOXP2 and the Evolution of Language
At 2:54 PM,
Joe G said…
More thoughts on human chromosome 2:
The best that anyone can hope to accomplish by demonstrating (today's) human chromosome 2 is the result of the fusing of two once separate chromosomes, is that the common ancestor(s) to modern humans (most likely) had more chromosomes.
However that does not mean said ancestor(s) shared a common ancestor with chimps.
At 8:23 AM,
Zachriel said…
In a way, Joseph is correct.
At 11:25 AM,
Joe G said…
I am always open to data that contradicts what I post.
And until someone starts to explain the differences observed in the populations (chimps and humans), I have no choice but to say that I am correct.
Do twigs on a tree contain the SAME DNA as all other twigs, branches and trunk?
If the branches of a tree disappear do the twigs it had remain attached to the tree?
At 1:10 PM,
Zachriel said…
I don't think answers come with questionmarks. Anyway ...
At 2:34 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel is in a way, correct.
However one should notice his total lack of response to explaining the differences.
He then "answers" my questions with the following drivel:
Do twigs on a tree contain the SAME DNA as all other twigs, branches and trunk?
1. The DNA of the twigs, branches and trunk have nearly identical DNA; however, any occasional mutations during cell-replication will form a nested hierarchy matching the pattern-of-growth.
I call your bluff by asking you to provide one reference to your claim. Ya see there isn't any reason why the same mutation couldn't occur on separate branches or twigs. And there certainly isn't any reason to suspect the mutations could be placed in any sort of nested hierarchy.
If the branches of a tree disappear do the twigs it had remain attached to the tree?
2. If a branch is cut, then the twigs on that particular line-of-growth will no longer be attached and will wither. That's the nature of a nested hierarchy. Each twig is attached to the root through only a single line-of-growth.
And when the roots are missing the tree falls. Your alleged "tree of life" is missing its roots. It is missing its trunk. All it really has are branches floating in mid-air. With its "single-line of growth" existing only in some imaginations.
One more time- Chapter 6 of "Evolution: A theory in crisis" thoroughly refutes the idea of NH and Common Descent. Ignoring that reference will not make that refutation go away.
Another reference would be- Patterson, C. (1980) "Cladistics", Biologist, 27: p 239
I would expect to see nested hierarchy of living organisms if there were a Common Design. However, just as Darwin implied, if all the allged transitionals were still alive we would NOT have distinct classes. That is basic sh!t known 150 years ago. That Zachriel still doesn't get it tells me he never will, regardless of reality.
At 3:04 PM,
Zachriel said…
In other words, you refuse to answer the questions.
Oh, well.
At 3:11 PM,
Joe G said…
Charles Darwin in "On the Origins of Species..."
"Extinction, as we have seen in the fourth chapter, has played an important part in defining and widening the intervals between the several groups in each class. We may thus account for the distinctness of whole classes from each other- for instance, of birds from all other vertebrate classes from each other- by the belief that many ancient forms of life have been utterly lost, through which the early progenitors of birds were formerly connected with the early progenitors of the other and at that time less differentiated vertebrate classes."
IOW keep the transitionals and nested hierarchy becomes anarchy.
Agassiz:
"What we call branches expresses, in fact, a purely ideal connection between animals, the intellectual conception which unites them in creative thought. It seems to me the more we examine the true significance of this kind of group, the more we shall be convinced that they are not founded upon material relations."
I will take two scientific giants of their time, even though that time was over 100 years ago, over Zachriel, any and every day.
At 3:31 PM,
Zachriel said…
Oh my Goodness!!
At 3:33 PM,
Joe G said…
An imaginary tree can do anything one wants it to, including form a nested hiearchy.
Zachriel may like to play with imaginary trees with imaginary branches with imaginary twigs, but I prefer reality. And reality say that one would not expect a nested hierarchy of living organisms in a Common Descent scenario for the many reasons already provided.
I really hope someone follows Zachriel back here and explains all this to him. He doesn't listen to me...
At 3:39 PM,
Joe G said…
BTW I NEVER doubted that Darwin was a scientific giant of his time. I think what he did was great- that being taking the Church out of science.
However I do find it ironic that Zachriel would ignore Darwin just because Darwin and I agree. That is just another momma's boy approach.
It also demonstrates that Zachriel does not understand what makes a nested hierarchy- that being DISTINCT and SEPARATE groups.
I also understand why Zachriel feels he needs to play "tag" on separate forums. Insecurity.
At 3:59 PM,
Zachriel said…
A tree cannot do anything "one wants it to". Trees regularly form nested hierarchies.
At 6:53 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
A tree cannot do anything "one wants it to".
I said an IMAGINARY tree. Now I know why you need another forum. That way you can do as you please regardless of reality.
Zachriel:
Trees regularly form nested hierarchies.
No they don't for the reason already provided.
Also I see you continue to misrepresent Common Descent by cherry picking an irrelevant portion- that being nested hierarchy within a family.
Now we have Charles Darwin agreeing with what I have claimed. We have Agassiz agreeing with what I have claimed.
We also have Mayr and Simpson agreeing with me.
Who supports Zachriel? Zachriel!
The problem with using trees as an analogy is you have to demonstrate your tree exists!
The problems with using NH as evidence for Common Descent is that traits can be gained or lost at no specific interval along the way. The total loss of transitionals is as importatnt as Darwin states for without the distinct characteristics of extant groups we would be hard-pressed to form them.
Nested hierarchy has always been used in design scenarios.
Go play with yourself on every other forum you can find. I can't waste my time with someone who refuses to face reality.
At 6:57 PM,
Joe G said…
Oops nested hierarchy just got a little twist:
What about the platypus?
At 4:18 PM,
Zachriel said…
You dropped on of my posts, I'm talking about actual trees. Nor have you yet responded to my specific questions regarding the nested hierarchy. Meanwhile, you started a new thread, you can see an additional comment there.
At 3:13 PM,
Joe G said…
From the link Zachriel provided (his spewage dump):
Zachriel: A tree cannot do anything "one wants it to".
Joseph: I said an IMAGINARY tree.
Zachriel:
I'm talking about actual trees, which form a specific pattern.
Actual trees form a multitude of patterns.
Zachriel:
This pattern is characterized such that you can group twigs into stems and stems into branches.
The sad part is you are serious.
Zachriel:
Each branch can have multiple stems, but each twig traces a single line back to the trunk.
One single line, per twig- I will look that up
Zachriel: Trees regularly form nested hierarchies.
Joseph: No they don't for the reason already provided.
Zachriel:
You didn't provide a reason.
Just because you refuse to listen to reason, means what, to me?
Zachriel:
And the only definition you offered disagreed with your interpretation.
Your twisted and again provide NO support. Distinct and separate groups. What part about that don't you understand?
Joseph: The problems with using NH as evidence for Common Descent ...
Zachriel:
There is absolutely no point discussing Common Descent...
I know that. There is absolutely no way the premise even belongs in science.
Zachriel:
... until you learn what constitutes a nested hierarchy.
I have learned that, many years ago and it was presented by professionals more qualified than you will ever be. Because you are a wannabe.
Zachriel:
It's the pattern of a tree. It's the pattern of your paternity.
Show me one tree that goes on forever? All you provide is a very small snapshot, but from where did the top guy come from? Certainly he had parents, so did his mate, and so on, and on, and on... IOW you are a very deceptive screamer.
With actual trees the trunk is the widest part. In your imagined tree with braches and twigs into infinity- wait a minute- just what is the trunk in your imagined tree of life?
Or is it really a bush, with no specific pattern whatsoever?
Bushes in the Tree of Life
The bottom-line is you can take ALL of your circumstantial nonsense and stick it up your arse until you are prepared to start accounting for the differences observed between alleged "node-sharers" in your imagined tree with bushes...
At 3:05 PM,
Smokey said…
Joe wrote:
"I am always open to data that contradicts what I post."
Then why don't you read the PNAS paper cited by your favorite Web site, so that you realize that the 86.7% figure comes from measuring differences in a different way than the one that gives you the 98.6% figure:
"Interestingly, once the indels are taken into account, the above-observed 98.6% sequence identity drops to only 86.7% (substitution, 1.4%; indels, 11.9%)."
They are measuring THE SAME PIECES OF DNA, just using different criteria. The parts that line up are 98.6% identical, there are just gaps. Incidentally, this says a lot about mutational mechanisms driving primate evolution.
"And until someone starts to explain the differences observed in the populations (chimps and humans), I have no choice but to say that I am correct."
How can you assume that you are correct when you won't even look at the actual data?
At 7:43 AM,
Joe G said…
Smokey:
Then why don't you read the PNAS paper cited by your favorite Web site, so that you realize that the 86.7% figure comes from measuring differences in a different way than the one that gives you the 98.6% figure:
I read the paper. That 86.7% has nothing to do with what I am talking about. Neither does any alleged 98.6%. Similarities can be explained by Common Design and/ or convergence.
Seeing that Smokey still refues to understand my point I will have to spell it out for him:
Regardless of any alleged genetic similarities we observe between chimps and humans there are a number of obvious physiological differences.
The main difference is bipedal, upright walking. Humans do this effortlessly because our bodies are "designed" for it (whether that design was intentional or not). Chimps are knuckle-walkers and even Smokey can't change that.
Then we have structural changes to the feet, legs and arms.
The eyes are also different.
Brains are different.
IOW when I am talking about explaining the differences I am talking about the PHYSICAL differences.
At 4:25 PM,
Smokey said…
"I read the paper."
I doubt it.
"That 86.7% has nothing to do with what I am talking about."
The 86.7% figure is prominently displayed on the Web page that you asked us to explain, which is what you were talking about.
"Neither does any alleged 98.6%. Similarities can be explained by Common Design and/ or convergence."
Then explain the myosin tree.
"Regardless of any alleged genetic similarities we observe between chimps and humans there are a number of obvious physiological differences."
There are a far greater number of obvious physiological identities and similarities. For example, can you name one organ that you have that a chimp doesn't, Joe?
"The main difference is bipedal, upright walking."
Not really.
"Humans do this effortlessly because our bodies are "designed" for it (whether that design was intentional or not)."
We do it less than effortlessly. Walking is one of the first functions to break down upon aging.
"Chimps are knuckle-walkers and even Smokey can't change that."
When did I claim that I could?
"Then we have structural changes to the feet, legs and arms."
Minor ones. Any different bones?
"The eyes are also different."
How, exactly?
"Brains are different."
In any sort of engineered way, or is there just a massive increase in the size of the telencephalon?
"IOW when I am talking about explaining the differences I am talking about the PHYSICAL differences."
Then you shouldn't just point to the Web page. But since you read the paper, you now know that the Web page misrepresents the DNA data. Why would you cite it as authoritative on anything else?
At 5:01 PM,
Joe G said…
"I read the paper."
Smokey:
I doubt it.
That's it? That's your rebuttal? I am devastated. How can I hope to respond to such intellect?
You can f$@k yourself for all I care Smokey. But don't you dare start that BS here.
And again everytime I reference that website it is because of the physiological/ anatomical differences.
Now if Smokey would like to stop puffing out his imagined chest and actually start explaining those differences, it would help his suffering credibility a great deal.
So far all he/ she has done is confirm why it is reasonable to doubt Common Descent. Thanks.
Post a Comment
<< Home