Chromosome challenge from Creationuts

If you answer it then we'll see if it's relevant I suppose.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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).

No, Chimp-friend. Scientific articles often contain inaccuracies, omissions, bias, and fudged data to support unscientific conclusions. If that is CreationNut hysteria, oops, guilty.

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.

Cut with the straw-dogging. I am not challenging the data, just exaggerated claims as to its significance.

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.

Since I am not a Creationist, this is especially assinine.

Yes, it is all a conspiracy, a conspiracy of the rich and powerful to stay rich and powerful. 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. That is not what the scientific theory of Evolution was meant to be. It has been hijacked by criminals, who are NOT scientists. Along with Machiavellian and Draconian Gang rules, the rich rule the earth with an immoral iron fist.

Am I a conspiracy theorist? No. But some things aren't even technically conspiracies, when the perpretrators don't even have the decency to close the door when they are 'conspiring'.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

*************
M*W: No, I understand and agree. I wasn't being fecetious with my reply about mother nurturing. I exaggerated somewhat but my sentiment was sincere.

Question: Are telemers in chimps longer than in humans?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I wholeheartedly agree. So there is no conflict here.

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.

Accusations of a delusional worldview are best backed up by unambiguous and convincing scientific evidence. That's what scientists do.

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. 

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.

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.
Thank you in advance. I trust you are a qualified solicitor. You say you have an open and shut case. I am happy to give you 50% of all awards and judgements in our favour.

 

Agreed. Here is what you said.

That is delusional. Offer me valid and validated evidence to substantiate the claim. If not, then retract.

Strawman. [You think its an important point in this discussion. I don't. You think its a fact. Prove it.]

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.

You asked for a rephrasing of this line.
"an affront to the use of any vestigial intelligence you may have."

A vestigial organ is one so atrophied it is of little or no value.
A vestigial intelligence is one rarely used and small in size.
I am prepared to concede you may have some intelligence left, shrunken as it may be.
Your attitude is affront to any use you may make of the remains of what once might have been an intellect.
I'm sorry, again, if an unfamiliar sentence structure in a foreign language caused you difficulty. Do ask for clarification of any other syntactical or lexical issues that confuse you.

 

Einstuck:

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...

You totally misrepresented not only my argument, but the original argument from my source. You obviously have a language comprehension problem, because my original source quite clearly makes the claim that humans didn't DESCEND from chimps. I myself made it quite clear that the evidence supported a COMMON ANCESTOR of humans and chimps:

I see. I'm sure that you can point out where this article contains 'inaccuracies, omissions, bias, and fudged data to support unscientific conclusions'?

In fact, I'm sure that you can provide evidence to support your claim that scientific articles 'often' do these things. And then you can explain why the vigorous peer review which scientific discoveries don't weed out false discoveries.

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?

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!

Don't worry, I was rankled when I realized that an object which was moving would continue to move unless acted on by another force. I rushed to the CSIRO, only to realize that some bloke named 'Newton' had made the discovery long before me. Nuts!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

Scientists are rich?! The biologists I know are dirt poor, and earn perhaps $40,000 to $60,000 per year (that's Australian Dollars).

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.

I notice how you have actually refused to address the 'Chromosome Challenge'. Instead, you have made unsupported claims that scientists have a habit of 'lying', and that the scientists in the article I posted are 'exaggerating'.

My question is how they are 'exaggerating' the stunning observations they made. That if the two chimp chromosomes (2p and 2q) fused, they would look amazingly similiar to human chromosome 2. Genetic sequence, telemores, centromeres and all.

If you don't accept their observations, I gladly await any scientific articles (or your own research) which demonstrates that there claims are false. Or even a scientific argument to refute their claims,which you have failed to produce. Merely cries of 'CONSPIRACY!'

Until then, put up, or shut up, chimp boy.

 

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).

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).

 

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).[/QUOTE]


So how long have chimps been around for(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?

Create a new thread if you want to discuss when 'chimps' evolved. It's rather hard to draw the line, since you have to ask 'what is a chimp?'

 

Do you find any faults with the scientific article I put forward?

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. This could quite easily be used as powerful evidence for a designer, but that would be crazy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Are you convinced that we share a common ancestor


I do wonder sometimes

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Create a new thread if you want to discuss when 'chimps' evolved. It's rather hard to draw the line, since you have to ask 'what is a chimp?'

Are you telling me you don't know what a chimp is?

 

davewhite:

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.

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.

From http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html:

Quite simply, under a creationist perspective, there would be no need for fusion in the first place. Hence, we would not observe a fused chromosome in humans, we would just observe a chromosome.

Be careful, Dave... I'm actually setting a trap for you with the above comment. Think carefully before you respond...

In fact, read the new thread I just posted.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=50566

When does a puppy become a dog, Davewhite? Please answer in a NEW thread, because you're hijacking this one with red herrings.

 

Read carefully what you just quoted by me.
It states that scientists represent the same basic traits as the general population from which they were taken.

If you are making the elitist claim that 'scientists' are somehow 'smarter' and more 'ethical' than other professional groups, like doctors, lawyers, professors etc., then it is you who are 'delusional'.

There is no evidence to suggest that 'scientists' represent a higher I.Q., or a specialized subset of the population that somehow as a result now reflect a higher moral standard than other professional groups.

The most plausible scientific position to start from is that scientists will reflect quite closely the ethics and mores of the general population from which they are taken. If somehow a process of differentiation has taken place that results in a higher ethical standard of behaviour among scientists, you should be able to discover the following:

(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' 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.

Until you have shown some evidence or even credible reason to believe scientists are of higher ethical caliber than other professional groups, no retraction is required at all.

It is not up to me to prove that scientists are like everyone else, it is up to you to prove that they aren't.

My personal overall evaluation of ALL professional groups is irrelevant to my clear statement, which claims equality. If it is my opinion that generally, ALL professional groups exhibit a low or inadequate ethical standard, I am free to say so. And many who have been burned by the actions of said groups will agree with me.

But I don't think even scientists will tolerate your suggestion that somehow judges or professors are stupider or have lower ethical standards than themselves, or at least they won't dare openly make such assinine claims.

 

Einstuck:

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. ”

In otherwords, the burden of proof rests with YOU to support it. He who asserts must prove. So I'm sure that the rest of us will enjoy watching you doing the following:

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.

Oh, but silly me. You still have to support your assertion that scientists are as dishonest as lawyers. Once you've done that (using your own advice to support your generalization), we can go from there.

 

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.

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 don't neglect the claim that scientific discoveries go through a vigorous (rigorous?) peer review process, I laugh out loud at the absurdity of the claim.

 

Einstuck:

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?

Quite simply, he who asserts must prove. Anyone who has attended Philosophy 101, or even a court case (Prosecution bears burden of proof) knows this.

http://www.locksley.com/6696/logic.htm
http://www.theology.edu/logic/logic23.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(logical_fallacy)

Thank you for demonstrating your complete ignorance of logic fallacies, Einstuck.

Now, can you demonstrate that scientists are as dishonest as lawyers? After all, as I have demonstrated with independent sources that he who asserts must prove.

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."

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.” ?

Remember, according to your OWN standards, you have to do the following before your above statement is adequately supported...

Go right ahead, Einstuck. Either put up, or shut the fuck up.

 

I will be happy to bankroll a scientific investigation into the comparative ethical standards of 'scientists'
..right after you complete your investigation of the 'rigorous peer review process'.

'He who believes in a flawed course of philosophy 101,
must demonstrate why anyone should pay any attention to his lecture notes."

Your bogus appeal to the 'authority of philosophy/rules of rhetorical fallacies'
is itself the common fallacy of appeal to authority.
Let me wipe my ass with your Cole's Notes, I've run out of paper.

 

Einstuck, if you would just assume that I said much the same as Mountainhare, but said 'fuck' several times and was personally insulting, then it will save me a lot of time. Thank you for your co-operation.

I will make one point. In your original quote it was in no way clear that 'professional' criminals related to lawyers, judges, doctors, etc. I took it to refer to criminals. I hadn't appreciated the full depth of your delusions. I suppose you have such a negative view of humanity since you are such a sorry representative of the species. Don't be too depressed. Evolution will eventually take care of this too.

Now, would you like to get back to the central point of the thread, or are you just going to run away, or continue with this obfuscation and misdirection?

 

It is absurd and inefficient to try to conduct detailed investigations of this nature in a forum thread. Instead I recommend the following course:

Go to the library and take out any or all of the following well-written books on 'rigorous peer review':

Error and Deception in Science by Jean Rostand, eminent biologist.

Abusing Science The case against Creationism by Philip Kitcher

Voodoo Science The Road from Foolishness to Fraud by Robert Park

But is it Science? The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy Edited by Michael Ruse


Any impartial investigator reviewing the copious evidence presented in these volumes would henceforth avoid the phrase 'rigorous peer review'.

Thomas Kuhn is also highly recommended reading to those interested in how and why scientific theories and paradigms go in and out of fashion.

Nor apparently, the full depth of your own.

 

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.

 

wah. waaaaaaaaah. He said Kuhn first. wah. waaaah.