Re: [asa] chromasome fusion #2

Where do you get the 1/48 from? Gmail has a Google-like search
facility and I searched for the string "1/48" and the first occurrence
of it is in your reply below.

I was the one who mentioned probabilities and these were 1/2 ( 47+48
=> 47 chromosomed offspring) and 1/4 ( 47 + 47 => 48 or 46) and 1/2
(47+47 => 47).

I do wish people would read with a little more care.

Iain

On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 9:33 PM, David Clounch<david.clounch@gmail.com> wrote:
> Randy,
> In this thread you mention probabilities which are likely. Specifically
> 1/48.
>
> My question is, wouldn't you say  a figure of thumb is that a "likely
> probability"  is one which is  greater than 1 in 1x10^30?  Somewhere around
> there?  Of course 1/48 is > 1 in 1x10^3, so  its safe by  27 orders of
> magnitude according to Dave's thumb. :)
> Thats betting odds.
>
> The reason I ask is my feeling is that people do not instinctively know what
> a small number is, or what a small number means.  So its worth exploring. At
> what point does something become unbelievable?
>
> Let me ask a different way. At what point does something become unbelievable
> in everyday life where engineers make real world decisions based on the
> numbers?
>
> Thanks,
> Dave C
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 1:00 PM, dfsiemensjr <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>> Primary causes are the creative acts of God. Could also be miraculous
>> interventions. Secondary causes are what follows from natural law. This
>> is standard language. To a theist, these are under divine control at all
>> time. But we do not detect the divine through secondary causes, which is
>> what science can study. Human understanding goes beyond secondary
>> causation, but without the possibility of absolute proof. Materialism can
>> be consistent.
>>
>> I was once immersed in YEC, but found I was misinformed by some who
>> should have known better. The practice continues in the claim that all
>> the radioactive disintegration happened quickly and would raise the
>> temperature of the earth beyond the point of evaporation of every
>> substance, yet the temperature did not get above 150 C. As for the
>> chromosome fusion, Dennis gives a good summary in the post that I go\t
>> immediately before yours.
>> Dave (ASA)
>>
>> on, 13 Jul 2009 22:28:20 -0600 wjp <wjp@swcp.com> writes:
>> > Dave:
>> >
>> > I've got to get to bed, but you must understand I am not nitpicking,
>> > although I am attempting to pick your brain.  I'm interested in how
>> > you see this process.  I admit to being confused by your apparent
>> > certainty.  I would think that you could admit to the possibility of
>> > being wrong, but you don't seem to think that is possible.  I'm
>> > frankly fascinated by such confidence.
>> >
>> > But perhaps I misunderstand you.  For the first time it seems that
>> > you are making an exhaustive claim: either the chromosomal pattern
>> > came about by God's "direct" action or it did not.  This I can agree
>> > with.  You then say, it seems, that the "did not" part consists
>> > entirely of "secondary causes."  Do you mean by "secondary causes"
>> > what we generally mean by physical law, and would that entail
>> > unintentional, inanimate forces?
>> > Is it your view, then, that this logical division is entirely
>> > subsumed under either God's direct action or evolutionary processes,
>> > where evolutionary processes are here defined as any process
>> > employing unintentional, inanimate forces, known or unknown.  We
>> > might say then that you conceive of all events are being caused
>> > either directly by God or by what we call natural processes, where
>> > natural processes require no explicit reference to God.  A natural
>> > science, then, must be an evolutionary science.  There can be no
>> > other.  If this conclusion is not correct, then we have missed
>> > something in our division of possibilities.
>> >
>> > bill
>> >
>> > On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:53:33 -0700, dfsiemensjr
>> > <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:
>> > > 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.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>

-- 
-----------
Non timeo sed caveo
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is a bunny copy him into your signature so he can gain
world domination
-----------
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.