Fw: Re: [asa] chromasome fusion #2

--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
To: wjp@swcp.com
Cc: asa@clavin.edu
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:53:43 -0700
Subject: Re: [asa] chromasome fusion #2
 
Randy's post answers some of the questions. The other part is that the
development of the chromosomes we observe, if produced by a creative
miracle, must be an act intended to deceive. What is the probability that
God is the deceiver? that Satan is the creator? As to certainty being
found only in deductive logic, note that every proof absolutely depends
on the axioms provided as the basis of proof. Otherwise, which of the
geometries has a grip on absolute truth? Euclid, Riemann and Lobachevsky
do not agree.
Dave (ASA)
 
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 07:30:53 -0600 (MDT) Bill Powers <wjp@swcp.com>
writes:
> Dave:
>
> I take it that you believe you have an exhaustive set of
> possibilities
> for the genetic sequence of humans with regard to chromosome 2.
> There
> are, then, no other possibilities. I also take it that you regard
> possibilities 2 and 3 to be highly unlikely, if not impossible.
> This
> means that you believe of all the possibilites there is only one.
>
> The only way that I've ever seen such a conclusion to be the case is
>
> when we are dealing with logical truth. I take it then that you
> believe
> it to (nearly) be deductively certain that the human genetic
> sequence with
> regard to chromosome 2 developed by an evolutionary process.
>
> What can we say of this evolutionary process as you conceive it.
> Whatever
> it is, it must be different from possibility 2, wherein God created
> the
> human genetic sequence to look like the first possibility. It seems
> that
> we can at least distinguish possbility 1 and 2 by process. In the
> second,
> God (or some other cause) established the human genetic sequence
> without
> fusion and in the first by fusion. That fusion took place, as I
> indicated
> previously, does not entail that it occurred by any "standard"
> evolutionary process. If this is to make sense, then, you must
> believe
> (if what I've said is correct) that if it took place by fusion, then
> it
> must have taken place by an "evolutionary" process. I take it,
> then, that
> by "evolutionary" you mean "by steps in time," which is just what
> any
> notion of fusion would entail. Hence, by referring to the human
> genetic
> sequence with regard to chromosome 2 as a fusion it is a tautology
> that it
> took place according to an "evolutionary" process.
>
> If this makes sense, it seems that you can imagine only two
> possibilites.
> Either the sequence regarding chromosome 2 took place according to
> some
> evolutionary process (by steps?) or miraculously.
>
> It also seems since you are certain (or as certain as anyone can be)
> that
> this sequence of human genetic coding can only have arisen according
> to an
> "evolutionary" process, then you are equally certain at least some
> of
> biological history must have occurred in this manner.
>
> Let me be clear by what I mean by "certain." While what you say is
> not as
> certain as a deductive conclusion like, All men are mortal, Socrates
> is a
> man, therefore Socrates is mortal, it seems that you in effect take
> it to
> be equally as certain, since you offer the "only" other two
> possibilites
> as a jest.
>
> If all, or most, of what I have said here is correct, I can
> understand why
> so many people on this list find the attitudes of YECs and perhaps
> even
> IDers to be so utterly frustrating, stubborn, and ignorant. It is
> as if
> you were trying to explain fractions to a small child and they
> simply
> could not grasp, or even stubbornly refused to grasp, that 3/4 was
> the
> same as 6/8. And no matter how many times you went over it, no
> matter how
> many pictures, and no matter how many object lessons, they would
> simply not
> believe it.
>
> It seems to me that a contingent science of a contingent world could
> never
> make such claims, but perhaps I am wrong.
>
> bill
>
> dfsiemensjr wrote:
>
> > Bill,
> > You are giving generalities, but there are specific reasons why
> the
> > single human chromosome came from two in the earlier ape line. The
> human
> > chromosome has two centromeres, one functional and one degenerate.
> The
> > sequence of DNA is the same in the two halves of the human
> chromosome as
> > in the two ape chromosomes. So we have either the development of
> the one
> > chromosome from two during evolution or else the Creator made it
> look, to
> > all honest investigators, as if that happened. I forgot, there is
> one
> > other possibility, Satan, in opposition to God, is the one who
> created
> > man in such a way that human beings would be led away from God.
> >
> > To the best of my knowledge, the fusion of chromosomes is very
> unusual.
> > There are small parts, genes, that move from one part to another
> (jumping
> > genes), or viral genes that become incorporated in the genomes of
> more
> > advanced creatures. There are deletions, duplications and
> rearrangements
> > within chromosomes and genomes, along with trisomy and polyploidy.
> But
> > these also lead to the essential certainty of evolution or to the
> > deliberate misleading of humans. I don't know whether the lie by
> the
> > deity or by the devil is worse.
> > Dave (ASA)
> >
> > On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 19:55:41 -0600 wjp <wjp@swcp.com> writes:
> >> Apparently chimpanzees, and other primates, have 48 chromosomes
> >> while humans only have 46.
> >>
> >> From an evolutionary standpoint this is suppose to be a problem.
> >> Why is that?
> >>
> >> It is presumed that chimps and humans have a common ancestor.
> >> So I suppose the reasoning is that if one ancestor of the
> >> common ancestor has 48 chromosomes and another has 46 there
> >> is a problem in believing they had the same ancestor.
> >>
> >> The reasoning might be that since chromosome number is
> >> directly related to inherited traits that it might be
> >> difficult to see how an ancestor with 48 chromosomes could
> >> produce (in no matter the number of steps) an offspring
> >> with only 46.
> >>
> >> Now I, being naive, don't see why this is suppose to be so
> >> great, or insurmountable a problem.
> >> After all, if evoultion is correct, something like this must
> >> be commonplace. Presumably the earliest of creatures had fewer
> >> chromosomes than later species. So somehow chromosomes must be
> >> added and I'm not certain why it should any more mysterious how
> >> chromosomes can be added than that they can be taken away.
> >>
> >> In any case, Ken Miller asserts that this is so great a problem
> that
> >> unless it were resolved evolution must be wrong.
> >> I am astonished by this statement and can hardly believe that he
> >> really
> >> means it. In fact, it seems far more obvious that the reason he
> >> says this is because he believed at the time of the statement
> that a
> >> resolution was already at hand.
> >>
> >> In any case, the resolution supposedly is that the second
> chromosome
> >> fused
> >> with another chromosome, and since chromosomes come half from
> each
> >> parent,
> >> this would result in 46 chromosomes instead of 48.
> >>
> >> All I want to say about the supposed evidence that a chromosome
> had
> >> fused
> >> is that it does not entail that evolution occurred, rather it is
> >> merely
> >> consistent with an evolutionary development.
> >>
> >> The story, I suppose, would be something like that the ancestor
> of
> >> both
> >> man and chimp has 48 chromosomes, but somehow one chromosome in
> man
> >> became fused to another, while that of the chimp and other
> primates
> >> did
> >> not.
> >>
> >> The notion of fused chromosomes is not necessarily associated
> with
> >> an
> >> evolutionary process, unless one means by evolution that
> something
> >> that existed previously was used in the creation of something
> new.
> >> Such a view of evolution could as well be the work of an
> intelligent
> >> designer, which is why I am confused by Ken Miller's apparent
> >> confidence that evolution is clearly a superior explanation.
> >>
> >> The very notion of fusion appears to entail a process whereby
> >> something
> >> changed from not being fused to being fused. The notion appears
> to
> >> entail that there was a time when they were not fused and
> somehow
> >> became
> >> fused. It is true that if we presume that such processes must
> take
> >> place,
> >> then fusion would be consistent with that presumption. But does
> the
> >> evidence for fusion really entail that a fusion has taken place?
> >> In order for fusion to have taken place we must have a time when
> >> they were not fused. But the mere fact that they appear to be
> fused
> >> does not entail that they were ever not fused.
> >>
> >> It seems then that here, as in all of science, we proceed
> >> abductively,
> >> from theory to evidence and then back again to theory.
> >> But in all cases the science finds a theory that is consistent
> with
> >> the
> >> evidence. There is no way to argue from the evidence to a
> unique
> >> theory. The supposed discovery of the fusion of chromosome #2
> is
> >> consistent with an evolutionary story, but it could just as well
> be
> >> consistent with other theories and explanations. This is, of
> >> course,
> >> true of all our knowledge of the physical world.
> >>
> >> What is surprising to me is that some think that this discovery
> is
> >> of great importance. Yet it seems to me that the result is more
> >> or less assured by the supposed discovery that chimp DNA and
> >> human DNA are so very similar.
> >>
> >> I do not understand, I confess, why chromosomes are so
> important.
> >> It seems to me that they are mostly an artifact from an earlier
> >> state of biological science. Hence, I don't understand why
> fusion
> >> would
> >> seem so important. But, then again, I probably don't understand
> why
> >> the bunching of DNA that can be observed under a microscope
> should
> >> be so
> >> important.
> >>
> >> bill
> >>
> >>
> >> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> >> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >>
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > Get your dream car or truck. Click here.
> >
>
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTLa8tUKKlJe20hbqoACsgvh
irkGmEuZlbfaRJBehRLyfffQgi77eI/
> >
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jul 13 18:37:08 2009