Re: [asa] chromasome fusion #2

Bill,
You're nitpicking because what I and others are noting is not what you
want to accept. Indeed, I take it as a matter of fac\t that anyone
determined not to believe something can find a "reason" not to believe
it. As a matter of experimental fact, the attitude of an individual
biases radically his acceptance of information. Indeed, bias can be
induced by the emotional load of pictures presented before other pictures
or claims. Any argument I give has to be tremendously restricted, but let
me note the high points.

The observed chromosomal states of apes and humans came about either by
direct action of the Creator or by mediate action through secondary
causes. Can this be proved? No, but it is basic to a theistic position.

The ape pair and human individual chromosomes match in their order. The
argument that they could not match enough for reproduction is false
because all kinds of duplications, transpositions, deletions, etc. do not
prevent meiosis and mitosis. So all investigators who do not have an ax
to grind recognize here (and in the genes from bacteria through higher
plants and animals) that it looks as though the pattern is evolutionary.

If the deity produced these results directly and miraculously, it would
mislead all honest investigators.

Dave (ASA)

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:01:33 MDT "Bill Powers" <wjp@swcp.com> writes:
> Dave:
>
> When you use the word "must" in
> "the development of the chromosomes we observe, if produced by a
> creative
> miracle, must be an act intended to deceive." what kind of "must" do
> you mean.
>
> Do you mean that it is impossible that "the development of
> chromosomes we
> observe" could have been caused by a creator who had no intention to
> deceive?
> Putting this another way, if God does not deceive, the development
> of
> chromosomes certainly occurred by some evolutionary process, a
> process that
> still has not been specified. Do you mean to leave the process
> unspecified,
> other than that God didn't creatively "intervene," or do you think
> that the
> process is more certain and specific than that?
>
> Surely any deductive conclusion need be not only valid, but sound to
> be true.
> It seems, however, that you are certain the premises of this
> deduction are
> true, and therefore the conclusion, if valid, is absolutely true.
>
> It is not completely clear what those premises are. But it is
> pretty clear to
> me that you believe the conclusion is both deductively valid and
> sound.
>
> I suggest that even should we leave out God or any other
> supernatural being
> that the premises of your argument will be questionable.
>
> Can you take a run at proposing what those premises might be?
>
> thanks,
>
> bill
>
>
> dfsiemensjr <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> said:
>
> > 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 23:57:16 2009