NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, I feel Evolution is almost certainly true. However, there is one useful argument I've seen popping up in the more intelligent of creationist think-tanks, one that I haven't yet found the refutation for. I was hoping someone could provide me with a link.
The argument made is that they haven't been able to show any species gaining more chromosomes, or explain it. How do critters form new chromosomes? Has it been observed to happen yet?

if I'm asking this like an idiot it's because I'm not a biologist.

Generally, a chromosome accidentally divides, or something similar. I'm probably wrong. It's late and I am tired. All I know is that there's an excellent explanation that I cannot remember.

Generally, a chromosome accidentally divides, or something similar. I'm probably wrong. It's late and I am tired. All I know is that there's an excellent explanation that I cannot remember.

Actually, you're right, it 'divides'. I'm also tired; I'll try to find something right quick before I rack out.

Actually, you're right, it 'divides'. I'm also tired; I'll try to find something right quick before I rack out.

OK, this is the best I'm going to be able to do tonight. Research "Karyotype Comparisons"; specifically, look for how the banding patterns of Human Chromosome 2 correspond to to those of two different, much smaller chimpanzee chromosomes, and how that leads to us having 23 pairs, and they have 24 pairs. Essentially, one of 'ours' is split into two of 'theirs'.

Ok, I feel Evolution is almost certainly true. However, there is one useful argument I've seen popping up in the more intelligent of creationist think-tanks, one that I haven't yet found the refutation for.

One thing thing worth remembering is: Just because something cannot be explained for the moment doesn't immidiatly mean a divine hand controls it.
When a phenomena seems unexplainable one should aspire to understand it and gain a piece of greater understanding of existance as a whole.

One thing thing worth remembering is: Just because something cannot be explained for the moment doesn't immidiatly mean a divine hand controls it.
When a phenomena seems unexplainable one should aspire to understand it and gain a piece of greater understanding of existance as a whole.

To build on this comment, I would also posit that just because 'God' can't be quantified (or even qualified, for that matter) doesn't mean he/she/it doesn't exist.

Anthropologists get a bit of a bad rap, IMHO...and I am one (well, I have a degree...I'm not practicing). I've met many who do believe in both evolution and God (or god, if you prefer). The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Heck, even Pope JP II saw the light on that...

Anthropologists get a bit of a bad rap, IMHO...and I am one (well, I have a degree...I'm not practicing). I've met many who do believe in both evolution and God (or god, if you prefer). The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Heck, even Pope JP II saw the light on that...

Time and again the debate falls in to a false dichotomy of "God of the Gaps" vs. "No God", when in reality there is no conflict between science and faith if interpreted properly. There are so many possible interpretations of God that it becomes impossible to even remotely say there is a necessary conflict between faith and science.

It's more accurately a conflict between specific faiths and science rather than a broad generalization.

Time and again the debate falls in to a false dichotomy of "God of the Gaps" vs. "No God", when in reality there is no conflict between science and faith if interpreted properly. There are so many possible interpretations of God that it becomes impossible to even remotely say there is a necessary conflict between faith and science.

It's more accurately a conflict between specific faiths and science rather than a broad generalization.

I agree. Hence the 'not mutually exclusive' part of my post.

Admittedly, I was thinking of Richard Dawkins as I wrote that. The man has forgotten more anthropological/scientific data than I've ever known...yet he never fails to piss me off...pompous ass...

Actually treating various plants with colchicine they have created ones with more chromosomes, I forget all of them but I recall a type of roses due to this. I don't really have a solid recall of the mechanisms for creation of new chromosomes but one method was when two disomal gamytes (disjunction in meiosis) combine they can either form a tetrasomal chromosome or 2 chromosome pairs. Another I recall is chromosomal fragmentation - it seems that sometimes chromosomes break and these fragments become seperate chromosomes. Also apparently it is possible for a fertilized gameyte to have it's genetic material (chromosomes) absorbed by another fertilized gamyte, although I don't recall if this is naturally occuring, just that it happened with some grain variant in the 50s or 60s. Probably a few other ways I don't recall, been a long time since I studied it - just think of the shear number of bacteria, insects and animals that are reproducing at any given moment and realize that one-in-a-billion gentic mistakes occur all the time.


---edit : mishaps in final sentence is probably better than mistakes, anyay when the chromosomes don't act the way they normally do

I agree. Hence the 'not mutually exclusive' part of my post.

Yeah, I was just building on what you said because it's a very good point.

Admittedly, I was thinking of Richard Dawkins as I wrote that. The man has forgotten more anthropological/scientific data than I've ever known...yet he never fails to piss me off...pompous ass...

I feel the same way. I recall more than a few scientists mentioning that Dawkins has converted more people to Intelligent Design than any of its proponents. Now mind you, I also have a slight Gouldian bias when it comes to this issue.

His beliefs are nothing more than some kind of weird, dogmatic atheism based upon pseudoscientific conclusions drawn from legitimate science. Frankly, that religion scares the hell out of me, especially given his evangelistic zeal and dogmatic thinking. It's dangerous to science, and threatens to tarnish the reputation he built on some very well written and incredibly intelligent works on evolutionary biology.

Hell, if he stuck just to battling creationism and avoided this evangelical atheist stuff we probably would've finished off most of the IDers by now, because most of his scientific work is downright incredible and understandable to the average layman. When it comes to evolution, I would say only Thomas Huxley approaches him in his ability to defend it.

I feel the same way. I recall more than a few scientists mentioning that Dawkins has converted more people to Intelligent Design than any of its proponents.

Yes, I agree. He's not much different than Fred Phelps or Jerry Falwell when it comes to idiotic, divisive rhetoric.

Now mind you, I also have a slight Gouldian bias when it comes to this issue.

Are you talking about Punctuated Equilibrium, or some deeper philisophical trend that I'm not picking up on? I never understood the problem with PE...it makes more sense, even if it's best demonstrated with trilobites...

His beliefs are nothing more than some kind of weird, dogmatic atheism based upon pseudoscientific conclusions drawn from legitimate science. Frankly, that religion scares the hell out of me, especially given his evangelistic zeal and dogmatic thinking. It's dangerous to science, and threatens to tarnish the reputation he built on some very well written and incredibly intelligent works on evolutionary biology.

Hell, if he stuck just to battling creationism and avoided this evangelical atheist stuff we probably would've finished off most of the IDers by now, because most of his scientific work is downright incredible and understandable to the average layman. When it comes to evolution, I would say only Thomas Huxley approaches him in his ability to defend it.

Agreed. And Huxley is a King...we could use another TH, with Dawkins' common-man literary ability (if not pompous attitude)...SJG did a lot in that field, gone before his time:( ...

Yes, I agree. He's not much different than Fred Phelps or Jerry Falwell when it comes to idiotic, divisive rhetoric.

All you do is alienate people...it just doesn't work.

Are you talking about Punctuated Equilibrium, or some deeper philisophical trend that I'm not picking up on? I never understood the problem with PE...it makes more sense, even if it's best demonstrated with trilobites...

I'm talking more about the concept of non-overlapping magisteria, which Gould advanced as a way of reconciling faith and religion and Dawkins rejected. As a result, I tend to agree more with Gould's interpretation of the philosophy of science.

Agreed. And Huxley is a King...we could use another TH, with Dawkins' common-man literary ability (if not pompous attitude)...SJG did a lot in that field, gone before his time:( ...

It was a shame that he died...truly a great man of science there. :( Thankfully, however, he survived his prior bout with mesothelioma in 1982 so that he was still able to contribute for another 20 years.

I think we need more people like him, like Huxley, even Dawkins (for all his flaws) to keep science alive, interesting, and open to people. There is a lot of cool, interesting stuff in science and the more people are exposed to it and open their minds to it they'll realize how much it has to offer. It's wrong to allow something as amazing and as complex as the process of evolution to be trampled on and denigrated in the name of an unnecessary conflict between faith and science.

We get new chromosomes via reproductive errors in the old ones.

When a cell splits to reproduce, each of the chromosomes within it "unzips". Basically, it splits in half, then each half grows back the half that it "lost". Then half of the chromosomes go with the new cell and half stay with the old one.

Usually.

Sometimes something goes very wrong. A Chromosome fails to split, leaving one cell a chromosome down, or it can split multiple times. Even more uncommonly, two "unzipped" chromosomes may come into contact - and zip back up, despite being two halves of different chromosomes!

Generally, these types of mutations are lethal to the cell, and it dies. But if it happens in a sex cell, AND the mutation is benign - then you may see a new species start to develop (or just the same old one with a different number of chromosomes).

I'm talking more about the concept of non-overlapping magisteria, which Gould advanced as a way of reconciling faith and religion and Dawkins rejected. As a result, I tend to agree more with Gould's interpretation of the philosophy of science.

Thanks for the clarification...I do seem to recall there being some acrimony between Gould & Dawkins (like that's anything new between evolutionary theorists!), but I've never really studied Gould from that angle...maybe I should break out 'Bully for Brontosaurus' again? Is there another one of Gould's works that goes into the meta-physical better than that one? I have another one of his books, can't remember which one...most of my 'Science of Philosophy' edu-ma-cation wasn't really anthropologically-specific; more like 'Positivism vs. Realism' & 'Is the Moon really there when nobody looks' type-stuff...

I'm talking more about the concept of non-overlapping magisteria, which Gould advanced as a way of reconciling faith and religion and Dawkins rejected. As a result, I tend to agree more with Gould's interpretation of the philosophy of science.


Thanks for the keyworks 'non-overlapping magisteria'...lead to this (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html).
Pretty much what you were talking about...although they do, in fact, overlap...oh, why can't anything ever be simple ? :p

Again, thanks for the lead...:)

if I'm asking this like an idiot it's because I'm not a biologist.

Neither am I; but I can predict what will happen in this topic.

How it should go
Curious person: How does [insert hithero unexplained aspect of life here] occur ?
Scientifically minded person : We do not know yet.
Religious person: So it could be that a supreme being devised it ?
Scientifically minded person : That is a possibilty, yes.
Religious person: I like that possibility. So I will choose to believe it.
Scientifically minded person : Fair enough. I myself will continue looking for an answer.
Religious person: Good luck :)

How it actually goes
Curious person: How does [insert hithero unexplained aspect of life here] occur ?
Stupid scienceworshipper: Like this [inserts obviously wrong explanation]
Truly Scientifically minded person : We do not know yet.
Stupid Religious person: See ? Your "science" is flawed. GOD did it !
Scientifically minded person : That is a possibilty, yes.
Stupid scienceworshipper: No, your religion is worthless.
Stupid Religious person: Possibility ? Your idiotic lies are just a theory after a few 100 years ! OF COURSE GOD DID IT ! The evidence is EVERYWHERE!
Scientifically minded person : Which God ?
Stupid Religious person: The only true one ! All the others are silly ! Die infidels !
Stupid scienceworshipper: Jesus did not even exist ! Your religion is all lies

Ad nauseam.

OK, I haven't read through the whole thread, but here's how it works in a nut shell....

When you have a sperm/egg it in theory has only half the amount of Chromosomes in it, ie the original cell gives birth to two groups of disimilar sex cells. Occasionally though this cocks up and they don't divide properly, so something will happen like Chromosome 14 appears twice in the same cell.

Usually if a cell like this breeds you get a monstrous cock up, down syndrome being a prime example. An animal just can't function with the wrong number. Sometimes the animal lives quite happily, but can't breed because of the weird number (similar to what you get with mules), occasionally though, it works.


Also I'm going to point out that there are plenty of people who are both scientifically minded and religious.

To build on this comment, I would also posit that just because 'God' can't be quantified (or even qualified, for that matter) doesn't mean he/she/it doesn't exist.



True, but then again it also means it is possible that God doesn't exists.
If you cannot quantify something then it means you cannot in any way disprouve your theory.

In risque of sounding blasphemous: I can argue that the entire universe is ruled by a psychotic pirate squirle who delegates his powers to a featherless parrot.

Behold I cannot quantify them therefor there is a possibility they exist? Painfully enough yes, but this can be hardy considered fact for the obvious reason you can never prouve it. (not to mention that it's ever so silly)

The discussion for the existance of God is therefore irrelavant in the realm of science.

PS: Hrm, unknowingly I have implemented the spaghetti monster argument here though my point still stands.

True, but then again it also means it is possible that God doesn't exists.
If you cannot quantify something then it means you cannot in any way disprouve your theory.

In risque of sounding blasphemous: I can argue that the entire universe is ruled by a psychotic pirate squirle who delegates his powers to a featherless parrot.

Behold I cannot quantify them therefor there is a possibility they exist? Painfully enough yes, but this can be hardy considered fact for the obvious reason you can never prouve it. (not to mention that it's ever so silly)

The discussion for the existance of God is therefore irrelavant in the realm of science.

PS: Hrm, unknowingly I have implemented the spaghetti monster argument here though my point still stands.

Indeed, now you just have to come up with a name and a made up mythology, and soon enough you may appear in a Wikipedia article!

Anyway, thanks to all you wonderful people, I now have the intellectual ammunition I need!

Chromosomes are divided during cell division..

The discussion for the existance of God is therefore irrelavant in the realm of science.

Bingo. It's a completely different topic that science doesn't consider; it's neither plausible or implausible, just irrelevant. That's why a scientist can believe or disbelieve in God.

I mean, it's possible that this universe is either a giant illusion or every single phenomena is controlled by God, but science only deals with the empirical evidence and so those options aren't relevant. It looks like the Earth orbits the sun due to gravity, and so that's the reasoning we use because that's the only one that can be used to make predictions or have a useful effect on other fields.