Thread: Creation 'Science' Made Easy

Originally Posted by Syme

In the first sentence of your post, you say that two organisms with different numbers of chromosomes "cannot" procreate. Then, in the end of your post, you say that they can procreate but that a viable offspring is unlikely. Which is it?

I'll save you the effort: It's the second one. You were quite wrong when you said, early in your post, that different numbers of chromosomes prevent organisms from procreating. Organisms with different numbers of chromosomes can and do reproduce sexually and yield viable offspring. You are correct, however, insofar as viable offspring are often less likely when the parents have a mismatched number of chromosomes. That can indeed cause a problem. But of course, as any intelligent person should realize, "unlikely" isn't the same as "impossible". Bear in mind that we're talking about huge numbers of organisms mating over huge expanses of time. Even something that's "highly unlikely" to occur in any given single case becomes somewhat more likely when you give it a hundred billion chances. And in fact in many cases it's not that unlikely; it can be quite easy for organisms with different numbers of chromosomes to produce offspring that are not infertile.

As for how and when the chromosome count changes during speciation, that's no mystery either. The process of chromosomes breaking (or fusing, for that matter) is fairly well understood. In the case of breaking apart, it happens during mitosis when chromosomes with duplicated centromeres are pulled in opposite directions by the spindle fibers.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...osome_numb.php

Here's a site with a pretty easy-to-follow explanation, if you can stomach taking a science lesson from a gol'durned liberal atheist. I can't help noticing that you mocked gwahir for allegedly having a shallow grasp of the topic... but then when asked to elaborate on your objections to evolutionary theory, you chose such an elementary and easily-answered question as "where do the new chromosomes come from, huh?!"

Where did you think they come from... the invisible Hand of the Designer reaches into cell nuclei when it's time for speciation to occur and magically inserts the right number of new chromosomes?

"Can't" as in 5 trillion monkeys pounding on typewriters can't write Romeo and Juliet.

So your contention is that new chromosomes found in new species are formed by screw ups in Anaphase?

EDIT: also, meiosis is the word you meant to use.

DOUBLE EDIT: SHIT, I forgot about Robertson.

Hmm, I guess I was wrong.

The point I'm making is that I observed a problem with it, and created a hypothesis on my own.

I didn't google my facts and then defend them like a religious zealout on the internet.

But when they start to attack science...

...it's personal.

I'm not scared to admit I was wrong though, because it was a genuine problem that apparently has a solution, albeit still an iffy one. (it's too easy to say A+N is gonna be fine when in reality there's probably 50,000 Kbase pairs in each letter.)

HOWEVER,
I still think the whole, "over huge periods of time" and "millions of generations" is a crutch that proponents need to get off of. If something is ridiculously improbable, but it looks like it happened, say so.

Wish I had a class with that guy.

Originally Posted by bacon ops

"Can't" as in 5 trillion monkeys pounding on typewriters can't write Romeo and Juliet.

No, this is wrong. You are making stuff up. You are pulling probabilities out of your ass to try and pretend like you know what you're talking about, but you don't. Successful procreation by two organisms with different numbers of chromosomes is not as unlikely as you are pretending it is.

Originally Posted by bacon ops

So your contention is that new chromosomes found in new species are formed by screw ups in Anaphase?

LOL

So your counterargument is "LOL"? Do yourself, and all of us, a favor: When you're trying to argue a point, let's have a bit less "Lol hey guys im on the internet" and a bit more "actually addressing the issue".

Yes, new chromosomes are formed due to chromosome breakage, and a major cause of that is chromosomes with duplicated centromeres breaking during mitosis. And it works the other way too; e.g. different species of rodents have different numbers of chromosomes due to centromere fusion (this is pretty well-documented). Honestly, if you want to know more about this stuff (and you definitely should know more before you try to have arguments like this), go pick up any decent cytogenetics text and give it a read. You're not the first person to wonder where new chromosomes come from, you're not the first person to think they've cleverly spotted a hole in evolutionary theory by wondering where new chromosomes come from, and you're not the first person to get shut down when it turns out that the origin of new chromosomes during speciation isn't some great mystery. Really, did you seriously think you had spotted some gaping hole in the theory that all the scientists who accept evolution had overlooked?

Originally Posted by Syme

When you're trying to argue a point, let's have a bit less "Lol hey guys im on the internet" and a bit more "actually addressing the issue".

I'm making up probabilities? How exactly do you calculate the probability of a new species being formed? You can't.

Dude, my hypothesis was that an organism bearing n chromosomes originated at the same time as the organism with n+1 chromosomes. Any idiot can see that. Whether they were planted here by aliens, formed seperately out of proteins and fireworks, I didn't specify.

Here's the thing; I was sitting in class one day when I used my understanding of procreation to realize that there was something wrong with it.
I didn't simply parrot out a page I googled like you did. I used my brain, and the information gleaned from words written on paper.

It turns out I was wrong, and I'm cool with that. I mean, I knew about Robertson, but I just hadn't made the connection.

I'll give you that, you understand it to a greater degree than I thought you would, but it just gets so old listening to liberal arts majors like Gwahir, Sycld, and simon go on and on about shit they've never bothered to do anything but circle jerk about.

Dude, to you guys, this is just a political issue, and/or extension of your personality.
You won't bother to think about genetics or evolution outside of those boundaries or this thread.



Also, I didn't realize saying, "Shit, I'm wrong" counted as trying to "squirm" my way out of being wrong.

Originally Posted by bacon ops

I still think the whole, "over huge periods of time" and "millions of generations" is a crutch that proponents need to get off of. If something is ridiculously improbable, but it looks like it happened, say so.

It's not a "crutch" if it's true. Do you not understand that the probability of an event occurring is intrinsically linked to the number of opportunities it has to occur? If someone has a one-in-a-million probability of occurring, it's only "ridiculously improbable" if you give it significantly less than a million chances. If you give it a million chances, then "one-in-a-million" is not that improbable at all. And if you give it a billion chances, then it's damned improbable that it won't occur. It's a pretty simple concept.

Evolutionary events that have a 1-in-X chance of occurring are ridiculously improbable in any given single case, but that does NOT mean they are ridiculously improbable in the population as a whole, over the evolutionary timescale as a whole.

Originally Posted by bacon ops

I'm making up probabilities? How exactly do you calculate the probability of a new species being formed? You can't.

Right, so I guess that would be a clue to a reasonable person not to make up arbitary claims about that probability, like you did.

Originally Posted by bacon ops

Dude, to you guys, this is just a political issue, and/or extension of your personality.
You won't bother to think about genetics or evolution outside of those boundaries or this thread.

You do not even know what you're talking about. Just like you made stupid and baseless presumptions about the likelihood of parents with a chromosomal mismatch reproducing, you are now making stupid and baseless presumptions about other people's interest in this issue.

Originally Posted by bacon ops

I was sitting in class one day when I used my understanding of procreation to realize that there was something wrong with it.
I didn't simply parrot out a page I googled like you did. I used my brain, and the information gleaned from words written on paper.

But you obviously didn't bother to check and make sure your crackpot theory was correct or even grounded in reality before you stormed into this thread and started acting like you knew what you were talking about. Forming your own hypotheses and ideas is great; but you need to make sure they aren't totally wrong before you try to argue with other people over them.

It's really ridiculous that you dreamed up your own theory, never bothered to verify it, and tried to use it in an argument as if it were fact... and now you are trying to act like you are somehow superior to people who actually tracked down the facts and educated themselves before opening their mouths, because those people may have used the internet to do so. It's also ridiculous how you think that if someone gleaned information from words displayed on a screen, that information is somehow inferior to the information that you gleaned from words written on paper... even if they were right and you were wrong. Newsflash: The veracity of facts doesn't depend on whether they were learned from an electronic medium or a printed medium.

Originally Posted by Syme

It's not a "crutch" if it's true. Do you not understand that the probability of an event occurring is intrinsically linked to the number of opportunities it has to occur? If someone has a one-in-a-million probability of occurring, it's only "ridiculously improbable" if you give it significantly less than a million chances. If you give it a million chances, then "one-in-a-million" is not that improbable at all. And if you give it a billion chances, then it's damned improbable that it won't occur. It's a pretty simple concept.

Evolutionary events that have a 1-in-X chance of occurring are ridiculously improbable in any given single case, but that does NOT mean they are ridiculously improbable in the population as a whole, over the evolutionary timescale as a whole.



Right, so I guess that would be a clue to a reasonable person not to make up arbitary claims about that probability, like you did.



You do not even know what you're talking about. Just like you made stupid and baseless presumptions about the likelihood of parents with a chromosomal mismatch reproducing, you are now making stupid and baseless presumptions about other people's interest in this issue.



But you obviously didn't bother to check and make sure your crackpot theory was correct or even grounded in reality before you stormed into this thread and started acting like you knew what you were talking about. Forming your own hypotheses and ideas is great; but you need to make sure they aren't totally wrong before you try to argue with other people over them.

It's really ridiculous that you dreamed up your own theory, never bothered to verify it, and tried to use it in an argument as if it were fact... and now you are trying to act like you are somehow superior to people who actually tracked down the facts and educated themselves before opening their mouths, because those people may have used the internet to do so. It's also ridiculous how you think that if someone gleaned information from words displayed on a screen, that information is somehow inferior to the information that you gleaned from words written on paper... even if they were right and you were wrong. Newsflash: The veracity of facts doesn't depend on whether they were learned from an electronic medium or a printed medium.

And let me repeat my question: What WAS your theory, exactly? I haven't seen you present a hypothesis ITT about the origin of new chromosomes. Again, it seems like the closest you've come is asking "Who's to say God didn't do it?"

Dude, my completely wrong idea had these imbeciles stumped until you googled the shit out of it.

You can say it's not true, but it is.
You can't learn kung fu from Rush Hour, and you can't learn Genetics on the internet.
You can't back someone into a corner by saying, "Where's your dissertation on your new hypothesis" either. Oh wait, yes you can.

Originally Posted by bacon ops

Dude, my completely wrong idea had these imbeciles stumped until you googled the shit out of it.

...and you can't learn Genetics on the internet...

Just for the record, I didn't use Google to discover why you were wrong; I knew why you were wrong as soon as I read your post, because I have a working knowledge of how evolution works. What I used Google for was to find a website that would explain the facts in a way that everyone reading the thread could understand, since providing links to other websites is obviously the only practical way to show other people information in an online discussion. It seems like your automatic assumption about everyone else is that they couldn't possibly know anything about a scientific topic, and if they do demonstrate any knowledge of a scientific topic, then it must be because they Googled it 30 seconds earlier and just parroted what they found. This may come as a shock to you, but you are not the only person in the universe who has ever taken a class or read a book. Every other person besides yourself does not necessarily get 100% of their knowledge from Google on an as-needed basis. My degree isn't scientific, but I do have a strong interest in science, and I read a lot. Consequently, I have some scientific knowledge that wasn't gained via a Google search made for the express purpose of arguing with Intelligent Design advocates on the internet.

Originally Posted by bacon ops

I'll give you that, you understand it to a greater degree than I thought you would, but it just gets so old listening to liberal arts majors like Gwahir, Sycld, and simon go on and on about shit they've never bothered to do anything but circle jerk about.

I have a bachelors in physics and am getting my PhD in engineering, you stupid fuck.
If you didn't have your head firmly up your asshole, you'd have seen that I presented at the last American Physical Society conference.

I'm just not going to talk to you anymore. You're just a stupid little wanker, and saying anything to you is clearly a waste of time.


Oh and I'm going to add that you're a typical little prick of an undergrad; what are you, a fucking sophmore? You take two or one and a half semesters of biology and you think you're so fucking smart and clever.

And one more thing:

This message is hidden because bacon ops is on your ignore list.

There, much better.

Originally Posted by Mr. E

You are not british

He could've said twat. That would've been worse.

Also, LOL at his nerd rage.




EDIT: just noticed he signs his reps with a squiggly line instead of a dash.

like this:

~ sycld

As opposed to

-name


LOLWUTAFAG

Originally Posted by bacon ops

An organism with n chromosomes cannot procreate with an organism with n + x number of chromosomes.
You can only fit so much new information on a single chromosome before it would be too much, and too prone to malfunction.


Now, I agree natural selection is proven, etc... but where in time in the development of new species, and how praytell, is the new chromosome formed?


The probability of a servicable new species of organism (A) randomly being selected for is already slim, correct?

Add to that that another organism(B) must contain a relatively similar "trait" that has to have resulted in the same number as chromosomes as the original, and the probabilities become ridiculously small.




Think of it this way:


Chromosomes are like lego blocks.


The parents each contribute n number of blocks.

If one parent somehow aquires a new trait, which results in n+1 number of chromosomes, as opposed to the species' current n, then it the blocks won't fit, and a viable offspring is highly unlikely.

get it?

(Okay, I thought you were just here to act as a foil to show how we mere lay people shouldn't even think about science, as none of us can understand anything anyway, but now I realize you're a supporter of creationism.)

And an intelligent design proponen's (i.e. your) answer to this is "It's too hard to hard to understand, so it must be impossible, and thus I'm going to simply throw away all the strong evidence that supports evolution and simply say God dun it according to genesis because it's easier for me to believe?"

Originally Posted by bacon ops

"Can't" as in 5 trillion monkeys pounding on typewriters can't write Romeo and Juliet.

So your contention is that new chromosomes found in new species are formed by screw ups in Anaphase?

EDIT: also, meiosis is the word you meant to use.

DOUBLE EDIT: SHIT, I forgot about Robertson.

Hmm, I guess I was wrong.

The point I'm making is that I observed a problem with it, and created a hypothesis on my own.

I didn't google my facts and then defend them like a religious zealout on the internet.

Now what the fuck are you talking about?

You're proud of yourself for asking a question you didn't know the answer to and standing up to someone who wasn't as ignorant as you are about what scientists have discovered? What "religious zealotry" are you talking about? He knew or found the answer and explained it to you.

And what the fuck hypothesis are you fucking talking about here? I didn't read a hypothesis, just a proud declamation of ignorance.

It's good that you admitted you were wrong. It's moronic that you then say that you're the better one here for lacking knowledge.

I'm not scared to admit I was wrong though, because it was a genuine problem that apparently has a solution, albeit still an iffy one. (it's too easy to say A+N is gonna be fine when in reality there's probably 50,000 Kbase pairs in each letter.)

HOWEVER,
I still think the whole, "over huge periods of time" and "millions of generations" is a crutch that proponents need to get off of. If something is ridiculously improbable, but it looks like it happened, say so.

Wish I had a class with that guy.

Jesus Christ. That's a crutch even though there's empirical evidence that these processes did occur over huge periods of times and over millions of generations?

Also, yes, these exceedingly rare ridiculously improbably events did occur and are what drove speciation.


EDIT: Oh, so this was your "hypothesis":

Originally Posted by bacon ops

I'm making up probabilities? How exactly do you calculate the probability of a new species being formed? You can't.

Dude, my hypothesis was that an organism bearing n chromosomes originated at the same time as the organism with n+1 chromosomes. Any idiot can see that. Whether they were planted here by aliens, formed seperately out of proteins and fireworks, I didn't specify.

No you didn't. What you said was that it's "impossible" for an an organism with n chromosomes to evolve from an organism with m chromosomes.

Here's the thing; I was sitting in class one day when I used my understanding of procreation to realize that there was something wrong with it.
I didn't simply parrot out a page I googled like you did. I used my brain, and the information gleaned from words written on paper.

Again, it's good that you admitted you're wrong. I'm just so surprised that you think you're better for

And everything you know you're "parroting" from lectures and textbooks. See we can play this stupid, immature game too.

Originally Posted by sycld

(Okay, I thought you were just here to act as a foil to show how we mere lay people shouldn't even think about science, as none of us can understand anything anyway, but now I realize you're a supporter of creationism.)

And an intelligent design proponen's (i.e. your) answer to this is "It's too hard to hard to understand, so it must be impossible, and thus I'm going to simply throw away all the strong evidence that supports evolution and simply say God dun it according to genesis because it's easier for me to believe?"



Now what the fuck are you talking about?

You're proud of yourself for asking a question you didn't know the answer to and standing up to someone who wasn't as ignorant as you are about what scientists have discovered? What "religious zealotry" are you talking about? He knew or found the answer and explained it to you.

And what the fuck hypothesis are you fucking talking about here? I didn't read a hypothesis, just a proud declamation of ignorance.

It's good that you admitted you were wrong. It's moronic that you then say that you're the better one here for lacking knowledge.

Jesus Christ. That's a crutch even though there's empirical evidence that these processes did occur over huge periods of times and over millions of generations?

Also, yes, these exceedingly rare ridiculously improbably events did occur and are what drove speciation.

The simple truth is that you don't, in actuality, understand the processes at work here to a fraction of the degree that I do.

Sure, it's easy to toss everyone aside and say that they're a stupid "creationist"

The truth is that everyone who supports whatever you want to call intelligent design isn't a fundamentalist christian, and doesn't dismiss everything about evolution.

That's what science is about, dude: asking questions.
It isn't about watching youtube and feeling smug.


I'm saying you're the religious zealout.

You have blind faith in evolution.

Originally Posted by bacon ops

The simple truth is that you don't, in actuality, understand the processes at work here to a fraction of the degree that I do.

Sure, it's easy to toss everyone aside and say that they're a stupid "creationist"

The thing is, everyone who supports whatever you want to call it isn't a fundamentalist christian, and doesn't dismiss everything about evolution.

That's what science is about, dude: asking questions.
It isn't about watching youtube and feeling smug.


I'm saying you're the religious zealout.

You have blind faith in evolution.

Well do you have "blind faith" in quantum mechanics, in gravity, in relativity?

You have to question ALL of these theories and listen to the ALL the alternatives. Otherwise, you have "blind faith" too.

And why is it only evolution vs. creationism? Why don't we consider the other dozens and dozens of other alternative theories out there too?


What attitude should I have towards evolution? Why the hell should I believe in intelligent design being at all possible when the ONLY ARGUMENTS THAT I HAVE EVER HEARD IN SUPPORT OF ID ARE ARGUMENTS AGAINST EVOLUTION?

That's the thing: there is no positive empirical evidence that supports ID. None.

You're right about one thing here: everyone who supports creationism isn't a fundamentalist Christian. They are also Muslims, Jews, etc. They all have an agenda whose origins are from a religious viewpoint and not a scientific one.

So here's why I believe in evolution:

1) I might not have a huge knowledge of biology, but I have an intimate knowledge of how science, in general, works.

2) Evolution is supported by the vast majority of biologists. It is the one theory that can explain empirical evidence, the fossil record, etc.

3) Yes, evolution may very well be wrong. But their is not a single theory out there that experts tell us can explain empirical evidence or give a coherent narrative in light of empirical evidence.

4) It's patently obvious that most, if not all, of the arguments put forth by creationists are THOSE THAT REFUTE EVOLUTION, not arguments that show how creationism fits empirical evidence better than evolution.



Finally, I don't give a shit that you know more than I do. The fact is that everything you know was in classroom instruction. So why can't I say that your education in biology wasn't merely indoctrination?

Originally Posted by bacon ops

So you admit you're a fuckface with no real understanding of what we're arguing about, right?

I understand why I'm wrong in this instance.

If you were proven to be wrong, you'd have no idea why.

I'm not an idiot; if something I said were wrong, and I were given an explanation as to why I'm wrong, I would accept it. We're speaking about a hypothetical here that hasn't happened.

And thanks for completely ignoring what I said and not addressing a single point of what I said. You're simply impossible to talk to. I have an understanding about what we're talking about even if it is not as deep as some people's understanding of it.

Also, I think that I can be pretty certain that you don't question most of things you're taught with the same vigor as you question evolution. I wouldn't be surprised ifyou're going to say "oh, but I do," but I know that's not true.

I'm going to say this one more time. I recognize that not everything is understood about evolution. Not everything is understood about any field of science. That doesn't mean it's wrong.

Finally, you never said what was wrong about the video. Its argument is correct, and it has to start at such an elementary level because the vast, vast majority of creationism supporters don't understand science. I don't understand how you can say all these things about us, when almost all the people in the creationism camp are not experts or scientists themselves who aren't qualified to say the things they do.


You're not saying a damn thing except that we're all a bunch of ignorant idiots and that we should just believe what you're saying, some bachelors student in biology, that evolution as the VAST majority of researchers embrace, really can't explain all the empirical evidence. I'm not going to make that "leap of faith."