Iain,
You're neglecting the matter of crossing over in the paired chromosomes,
apparently both during meiosis and mitosis. I don't recall seeing data on
the extent of crossing over.
Dave (ASA)
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:42:52 +0100 Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com>
writes:
> No problem. However, your question is interesting; though I think
> we've visited the issue of small probabilities before on this list.
>
> The answer is a complex one and probably deserves a thread on its
> own.
>
> It is true that incredibly unlikely things happen all the time.
> Given
> that in mitosis, 23 out of the 46 chromosomes are chosen so that
> which
> copy is used is random each time, it's like tossing a coin 23
> times.
> This happens in both the father and mother, so the chance of you
> existing rather than someone else is 1 in 2^46 or 1 in 70 trillion.
>
> Now it is also the case that a sequence of 23 heads followed by 23
> tails also has a probability of 1 in 70 trillion, the same as any
> other 46 coin-toss sequence.
>
> So the starter question is why is the 23h23t unbelievable whereas a
> random sequence from a fair coin is believable?
>
> Hint:
>
> Try and memorise and reproduce the sequence:
> tthtthhttthtththhtttthttttthththhhhtththhhtthh
> in a short space of time. Just how likely is it to get a sequence
> that is as memorable as 23heads followed by 23 tails.
>
> That might give some handle on the answer to your question.
>
> Iain
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 4:14 PM, David
> Clounch<david.clounch@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Iain,
> >
> > Thanks for pointing that out. I wasn't reading particularly
> carefully.
> > My email is overwhelming in volume and I don't pay enough
> attention to the
> > ASA postings, and often skim them.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > -Dave
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Iain Strachan
> <igd.strachan@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> 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
> >> -----------
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -----------
> Non timeo sed caveo
> (\__/)
> (='.'=)
> (")_(") This is a bunny copy him into your signature so he can gain
> world domination
> -----------
>
____________________________________________________________
The easiest way to create a blog. Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTEpPx0ILufp8wplAgVCxjYq1KzTSaooLD5mLRX9T43POKJERyfqog/
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jul 15 18:17:12 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jul 15 2009 - 18:17:20 EDT