davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
mountainhare said:davewhite:
Why is that relevant?
If you answer it then we'll see if it's relevant I suppose.
mountainhare said:davewhite:
Why is that relevant?
Who's the chimp? I was agreeing with you on this point, but pointing out that man doesn't come from chimps (except in special cases).That's exactly the point I was making. The fact that you couldn't comprehend this is baffling. Perhaps you need to understand the point your opponent is making before you rush to hit the 'reply' button.
No, Chimp-friend. Scientific articles often contain inaccuracies, omissions, bias, and fudged data to support unscientific conclusions. If that is CreationNut hysteria, oops, guilty.Ahhh, so the scientific articles written by the scientists are... lies?
Are you wholly unaware of SCIENTIFIC research into the history and evolution of scientific ideas and dogmas? Just go to the library and read some Thomas Kuhn, and a half-dozen other scientists on how 'science' really works.I'm sure that you can actually provide evidence to support your conjecture, instead of just baseless assertions?
Cut with the straw-dogging. I am not challenging the data, just exaggerated claims as to its significance.Do you have any scientific articles which demonstrate that the structure of the chimp and human chromosomes are not as these scientists say they are?
You idiot. I am a scientist, and I don't challenge large portions of the data accumulated for the historical process of 'evolution'. Where we probably differ is in pinning down the causes and active influences on the direction of 'evolution'. It is hardly a 'blind' process in my view, and now that man has the power to gene-splice, if it ever was a 'random' uncontrolled process, it certainly isn't anymore.Ladies and gentlemen, you have just seen a Creationut in action. When presented with damning evidence that humans and chimps share a common ancestor, the Creationists proceeds to...
Since I am not a Creationist, this is especially assinine.'IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY AGAINST CREATIONISTS!'
*************mountainhare said:MW: I admit that the article is more technical than I would like it to be, but it is important that I included the detail so that the people who have an idea about genetics and chromosomes know that I am not talking shit.
To summarize, chimps have 24 chromosomes in sperm/eggs, while humans have only 23 chromsomes in sperm/eggs.
If chimps and humans share a common ancestor, you would expect that one of the human chromosomes would have the properties and sequencing of two of the chimp chromosomes which 'fused' together. Basically, all the technical jargon in the article explains what these properties are (existence of telomeres, order of genetic sequence, etc). When scientists compared the chimp and human chromosomes, one of the human chromosomes DOES INDEED have the sequence, and properties, of what we would expect two particular chimp chromosomes (2p and 2q) to have if they fused together.
I wholeheartedly agree. So there is no conflict here.Ophiolite said:Attacks on religion in the name of science are irrelevant and inexcusable. I do not condone them.
Attacks on the conclusions of religion in relation to well documented science are not only permissible, but obligatory.
It is apparent from your reply that you are unable to read plaintext without adding your own imaginative conjectures. Perhaps you'd like to draw a cartoon of what you think I look like as well.It is apparent from the tenor of your post that you are almost as contemptuous of science as I am of you and your delusional world view.
99% of genetic research is now conducted behind the closed doors of international drug companies and corporations with a vested interest in the 'management' of illness, disease, and reproduction (along ethnic lines...), and military applications.
Any 'attitude' you have falsely perceived is based upon the differences between our respective cultural background and experience, which you have failed to apply to your interpretations. The last half of your sentence appears incoherent and meaningless as a subordinate clause in English. What is your 'native' or first language? Perhaps you can rephrase your strange expression.Your attitude is an offence to any thoughtful religious person and affront to the use of any vestigial intelligence you may have.
I'd be delighted to have you assist in securing a full refund for my education by the elitist oligarchy that forced me to endure it and foot the bill too. I estimate the base costs at about one million dollars, and I'd like punitive damages and compensation in the range of another five million U.S.May I suggest that if you, or any member of your family, paid money for your education that you demand a full refund. I shall be happy to speak on your behalf in this matter.
Agreed. Here is what you said.Einstuck said:Accusations of a delusional worldview are best backed up by unambiguous and convincing scientific evidence. That's what scientists do.
That is delusional. Offer me valid and validated evidence to substantiate the claim. If not, then retract.However it is now obvious that scientists are as corrupt a bunch of liars as politicians and every other 'professional' body of criminals.
Strawman. [You think its an important point in this discussion. I don't. You think its a fact. Prove it.]Einstuck said:This is doubly unfortunate and hypocritical since you have ignored the most important factual statement in my post:
.Code:99% of genetic research is now conducted behind the closed doors of international drug companies and corporations with a vested interest in the 'management' of illness, disease, and reproduction (along ethnic lines...), and military applications.
I'm sorry. Mine is English. I didn't realise you were struggling so through the process of translation. That would certainly account for the obscurity that hangs around your words like mist around the mangrove roots on a warm tropical morning.Einstuck said:The last half of your sentence appears incoherent and meaningless as a subordinate clause in English. What is your 'native' or first language? Perhaps you can rephrase your strange expression. .
No, you did not agree with my 'point' originally. In fact, you totally misinterpreted my whole argument, claiming that I was pushing the view that chimps and gorillas were ancestors of man. In fact, this is what you said...Who's the chimp? I was agreeing with you on this point, but pointing out that man doesn't come from chimps (except in special cases).
The first problem with your evidence, is the confusion about what the standard phylogenetic tree says, and what you are trying to suggest.
If the phylogenetic tree is accurate, then chimps and gorillas are not ancestors of man, but some other species is a common ancestor of all modern primates.
But your 'evidence' suggests, or at least your presentation of it suggests, that *oopsy* two chromosomes got fused in some gorillas or proto-gorillas, and voila! Man.
Mountain Hare said:
This is very powerful evidence that human and chimps share a recent common ancestor, but also a very well supported explaination of how humans and chimps branched out from that common ancestor.
I see. I'm sure that you can point out where this article contains 'inaccuracies, omissions, bias, and fudged data to support unscientific conclusions'?No, Chimp-friend. Scientific articles often contain inaccuracies, omissions, bias, and fudged data to support unscientific conclusions. If that is CreationNut hysteria, oops, guilty.
Ahh, what qualifications do you have? And in what fields? What university did you attend? How many scientific articles have you submitted to scientific journals? Have you ever passed through the peer process which all scientists must go through if they are to have their papers published in scientific journals?You idiot. I am a scientist,
Congratulations! You have just agreed with the vast majority of scientists all over the world. Evolution isn't a random process, it's guided by 'natural selection'. It's a pity that you're just 150+ years too late, or you could have written a book called 'Origin of Species', and been quite famous!and I don't challenge large portions of the data accumulated for the historical process of 'evolution'. Where we probably differ is in pinning down the causes and active influences on the direction of 'evolution'. It is hardly a 'blind' process in my view, and now that man has the power to gene-splice, if it ever was a 'random' uncontrolled process, it certainly isn't anymore.
No offense, but you have the trademark of a typical Creationut, which includes replying in zeal to your opponent before even grasping the argument he is trying to make.“ 'IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY AGAINST CREATIONISTS!' ”
Since I am not a Creationist, this is especially assinine.
Scientists are rich?! The biologists I know are dirt poor, and earn perhaps $40,000 to $60,000 per year (that's Australian Dollars).Yes, it is all a conspiracy, a conspiracy of the rich and powerful to stay rich and powerful.
What exactly does this have to do with my Chromosome Challenge? Nice try, red herring Pete, but can we return to discussing the fact of evolution, not how it is applied to stupid ethical codes.By very definition Evolution demands it to be a conspiracy of competition over resources. The super-rich have taken Evolution as a personal philosophy and excuse for the complete lack of an ethical or moral standard.
No. What this 'challenge' demonstrates is that chimps and other primates share a recent common ancestor (with chimps sharing the most recent ancestor with us).Am I correct in thinking that the first Chimp arose about the same time as us(according to this challenge)?
The 'split' occurred about 5-8 million years ago. This does not mean that the chimps we see today existed 5-8 million years ago. What it means is that 5-8 millions ago, the 'human-like' ANCESTORS of humans (with the 23 chromosomes in their gametes) split off from the 'other monkey-like' ANCESTORS of the other primates, including chimps (24 chromsomes in their gametes).If not, how long have they been on the planet(according to the latest scientific data)?
Why don't you google it? You're just engaging in a red herring. 'How long chimps have been around for' has nothing to do with the fact that we share a common ancestor. Do you want to address the Chromosome Challenge, instead of erecting smokescreens? Do you find any faults with the scientific article I put forward? Are you convinced that we share a common ancestor, based on the damning evidence I posted? If not, why?So how long have chimps been around for(according to the latest scientific data)?
Well done, Dave. This is what we would exactly predict if humans and chimps shared a recent common ancestor. If we looked at the chimp genome, and found that it was NOT two human chromosomes merged together, common descent would have been blown out of the water.No. As far as I see it doesn't mention that this is powerful evidence that chimps and humans share a common ancestor, it says that it's predictions were correct.
Yes, it is crazy. It also displays that you didn't actually read the link I provided, because if you had, you wouldn't be saying something so bloody stupid.This could quite easily be used as powerful evidence for a designer, but that would be crazy
Now, the question has to be asked - if the similarities of the chromosomes are due only to common design rather than common ancestry, why are the remnants of a telomere and centromere (that should never have existed) found at exactly the positions predicted by a naturalistic fusion of the chimp ancestor chromosomes 2p and 2q?
When does a puppy become a dog, Davewhite? Please answer in a NEW thread, because you're hijacking this one with red herrings.Are you telling me you don't know what a chimp is?
Read carefully what you just quoted by me.Here is what you said.
“ However it is now obvious that scientists are as corrupt a bunch of liars as politicians and every other 'professional' body of criminals. ”
That is delusional. Offer me valid and validated evidence to substantiate the claim. If not, then retract.
Ophiolite doesn't need me to defend him, since he has already given you an ass reaming, but you're commiting a 'shifting the burden of proof' logic fallacy. YOU made the claim that it is "now obvious that scientists are as corrupt a bunch of liars as politicians and every other 'professional' body of criminals. ”When YOU have done your scientific experimental design, and have accrued the evidence required to show that 'scientists' DON'T reflect the same ethical standards as the rest of the population of professional groups, but a measurable HIGHER ethical standard, you will have proven me 'delusional' for believing what is on current evidence the most plausible belief to hold.
(1) A differentiation process takes place that singles out a unique group of individuals who do NOT reflect the traits of the general population from which they are taken.
(2) The resultant group as a side-effect also has a higher ethical/moral standard than the general population, and an objective standard or series of tests can be performed which is able to measure this.
(3) A causal theory which explains plausibly WHY some special set of sub-traits results in a measurable ethical difference in standards.
(4) A well designed series of double-blind tests to ensure that any corrolations taken as evidence are not artifacts of the experimental or measurement process, and a clear set of precautions that can effectively and efficiently exclude any bias introduced inadvertantly or purposefully by the investigators.
When YOU have done your scientific experimental design, and have accrued the evidence required to show that 'scientists' DO reflect the same ethical standards as the rest of the population of professional groups.
What crap. You are one doing the "the commiting a 'shifting the burden of proof' logic fallacy. "the burden of proof rests with YOU to support it. He who asserts must prove.
Your imaginative religious faith in a 'rigorous peer review process' would be laughable, if it were not so tragic. The suggestion that lawyers' arguments, which generally are carefully reviewed by seasoned judges are somehow inferior to the 'peer review' of popular science magazines is a sad one.I notice that you neglect to mention that scientific discoveries go through a vigorous peer review process, whereas a lawyer's statements do not. Hence, even if scientists are inherently MORE biased than other professional groups, this bias will be weeded out via the peer review process.
Wrong again, Einstuck. The problem here is that since neither Ophiolite nor you have provided evidence to back up your opposing claims (which both have predictive power, and are both falsifiable), so each is equally valid. How can you dare say that your statement is more plausible if you haven't provided any evidence to show that it is so?What crap. You are one doing the "the commiting a 'shifting the burden of proof' logic fallacy. "
It is not "He who asserts must prove", but rather :
He who asserts the unlikely and implausible must prove.
He who asserts the obvious and/or plausible may relax. "
your cleverness is too stupid by half.
SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF
Description: The burden of proof is always on the person making the assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of "argumentum ad ignorantium," is a fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.
Reversing the burden of proof is a logical fallacy whereby the normal burden of proof is reversed.
For example, it may be asserted that carrying a rabbit's foot improves luck on the grounds that it cannot be proved that it does not.
This is fallacious for two reasons: first, it requires proof of a negative, and second, it places the burden of proof on the challenger, not the proposer of the idea. Formally, before a claim is made, it should be proven, not asserted until disproven.
I never claimed to have religious faith in the peer review process. Of course, it remains to be seen that the peer review process which all scientific discoveries must go through is severely flawed, as you seem to imply. Once again, "He who asserts must prove."Your imaginative religious faith in a 'rigorous peer review process' would be laughable, if it were not so tragic.
(1) A differentiation process takes place that singles out a unique group of individuals who do NOT reflect the traits of the general population from which they are taken.
(2) The resultant group as a side-effect also has a higher ethical/moral standard than the general population, and an objective standard or series of tests can be performed which is able to measure this.
(3) A causal theory which explains plausibly WHY some special set of sub-traits results in a measurable ethical difference in standards.
(4) A well designed series of double-blind tests to ensure that any corrolations taken as evidence are not artifacts of the experimental or measurement process, and a clear set of precautions that can effectively and efficiently exclude any bias introduced inadvertantly or purposefully by the investigators.
Once again, Einstuck, can you support your initial statement, which was, " However it is now obvious that scientists are as corrupt a bunch of liars as politicians and every other 'professional' body of criminals.” ?
Nor apparently, the full depth of your own.I hadn't appreciated the full depth of your delusions.
wah. waaaaaaaaah. He said Kuhn first. wah. waaaah.Ophiolite said:Stop bringing up strawmen and get back to the point of this thread. Or, is that too frightening for you?
I too recommend Thomas Khun. Perhaps you should read his seminal work again. This time you might understand it.