RE: [asa] chromasome fusion #2 (how vs. did, YEC/OEC's proved wrong)

Bill said:
"If that is the case, what is the significance of having a different number
of chromosomes?"

I'd suggest stepping back and look at the big picture, rather than getting stuck in the details then trying to explain the details to fit a preconceived viewpoint. You are the judge on this case determining who is right and wrong- so you have to know 1) the claim 2) the evidence to make 3) the verdict.

Big picture:

There are two competing hypotheses for human creation:
1. Unique creation (fiat) (YEC/OEC)
2. Descent from an earlier ancestor (TE). Evolution. This is also macroevolution.

(I can't tell you the ID position because they have no position- some accepting fiat and some accepting human evolution.)

Predictions are made for hypothesis 1 and 2, as to what you'd expect to find when discovering the DNA code and comparing it across all kinds of plant and animal life genomes.

Given the discovery of thousands of pseudogenes in the human genome, and the evidence that human chromosome #2 looks fused, the data corresponds very nicely with hypothesis 2 and has major dissonance with hypothesis 1.

The confusion comes in big time when one loses focus of the big picture, and just focuses on the details and how they can manipulate them or justify them. I think if one keeps in mind the big picture- the hypotheses, then looks to see which one the data conforms to, it really helps.

I can be more specific on your detailed question- I gave a big-picture answer to see if that would help. Are you thinking of this from a top-down perspective (thesis -> data)? That is the scientific way. 1) Make a hypothesis 2) collect data 3) analyze data 4) adjust theory as necessary in light of the data. (Randy pretty much wrote the same thing, in different words, in his post today, subject "RE: [asa] (testing evolution) TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry".)

Noble people can do step 4 even though they are changing something they are really attached to. I guess the secret is not to get attached so one can better follow the truth wherever it leads... assuming that truth-following is an overriding concern (above following the particular God we have currently formed in our mind).

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: wjp [mailto:wjp@swcp.com]
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 12:12 PM
To: "" Dehler@ame8.swcp.com; Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] chromasome fusion #2 (how vs. did, YEC/OEC's proved wrong)
Importance: Low

Bernie:

Actually I do have a question.

I gather from what you say that the "same" genetic information is in
genome before fusion as after fusion.

If that is the case, what is the significance of having a different number
of chromosomes?

thanks,

bill

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 10:43:28 -0700, "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
> "Now, it may very well be that the interpretation of the evidence as
> fusion is plausible or even likely, but how do you (or anyone) make
> such a judgment?"
>
> It is the same thing as observing footprints in the snow and then knowing
> from that that someone walked across your yard. Pseudogenes and fused
> chromosome 2 are 'footprints' in the DNA. DNA preserves a historical
> record in this way.
>
> " As I understand it there are generally some kind of markers at the
> beginning and ending of a chromosome. In human chromosome #2 these
> markers exist, but not at the end and beginning of the chromosome.
> For this reason, it is argued that two chromosomes were fused."
>
> There are markers at the ends and the middle. If two chromosomes fuse,
> then you see the end, middle, end, end, middle, end (in that order) on one
> chromosome. That's what we see. That's why it is obvious they were fused.
> The gene content on those two pre-joined chromosomes is the same gene
> content as is on the joined one, also (exactly as you'd expect from a
> evolutionary prediction of a fusing hypothesis). That's how I understand
> it.
>
> Let me know if you have more questions- because I seriously do think there
> is no reasonable objection and the evidence is now obvious for
> macroevolution (apelike creature to human evolution).
>
> " Now this is probably utter nonsense, so I hope your not
> laughing so hard that you might hurt yourself."
>
> That would be rude, prideful, and immature of me to do that... certainly
> wouldn't be Christ-like.
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wjp [mailto:wjp@swcp.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 8:37 PM
> To: "" Dehler@ame7.swcp.com; Dehler, Bernie
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: RE: [asa] chromasome fusion #2 (how vs. did, YEC/OEC's proved
> wrong)
> Importance: Low
>
> Bernie:
>
> I've been steering clear of this discussion, lacking time and expertise.
>
> But I've just got ask you something again because I don't believe I ever
> received a clear answer.
>
> You've been discussing the possibility that there can be evidence
> that something has happened without knowing how it happened,
> e.g., the Resurrection.
> It seems to me that this ought to be clear, although it is not
> always simple to separate an explanation from the recognition of
> an event occurring. Quite often when we detect an event, we already
> have something of an explanation in mind.
>
> You say:
>
> "Fused human chromosme #2 clearly demonstrates descent of humans from an
> apelike creature."
>
> Since you are speaking of an event as happening prior to knowing how
> it happened, you must be referring to the fusion as the event.
> However, the fusion is NOT the evidence. Fusion is an interpretation
> of the evidence.
>
> Now, it may very well be that the interpretation of the evidence as
> fusion is plausible or even likely, but how do you (or anyone) make
> such a judgment? It seems to me that it is in the context of an
> explanation that you already have in mind. But I will let you answer
> for yourself.
>
> As I understand it there are generally some kind of markers at the
> beginning and ending of a chromosome. In human chromosome #2 these
> markers exist, but not at the end and beginning of the chromosome.
> For this reason, it is argued that two chromosomes were fused.
>
> This understanding is probably false in many details. In fact it
> doesn't make clear sense to me since if it were to make sense, there
> must be some independent means of determining chromosome boundaries
> other than these markers.
>
> But let's assume that it makes some rough sense.
>
> The argument would then be something like the following
> 1) Chromosomes always have markers at the beginning and
> ending.
> 2) Chromosome boundaries are determined by property C.
> 3) Chromosome markers may not always coincide with those
> boundaries determined by property C.
> 4) When the markers do not coincide with boundaries
> determined by property C, a process called "fusion" has
> occurred.
> 5) The existence of internal markers is always an indication
> that "fusion" has occurred, and that there was a time when
> the genome was not fused.
>
> Now this is probably utter nonsense, so I hope your not
> laughing so hard that you might hurt yourself.
>
> But it hopefully indicates the kind of answer that I'm looking
> for, one that will make it clear what you mean by "clearly."
>
> Thanks,
>
> bill
>
>
>
> 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.
Received on Mon Jul 20 14:39:14 2009