A Primate Puzzle for Page

Dear Page,Unfortunately, I am not longer allowed to promote the GUToB. I can't think of any plausible reason since it is a special evolutionary theory (evolution within boundaries). It seems to me that this is the appropriate site to discuss an evolutionary theory.However, to prevent myself from suspension I will respect the board’s rules, and will continue the quest against evolutionism in this new thread by demonstrating the examples that demonstrate the theory to be wrong. Since Page is the ultimate defender of evolutionism I have dedicated this new thread to him. Let's see what he makes of it this time. The new example is fairly easy to understand, even for laymen.Let's first have a look here:http://www2.norwich.edu/spage/phylo-tree.htmConcentrate on the upper part of the figure: homo sapiens (human), H (Pan) troglodytes (=chimp), Gorilla gorilla, and Pongo pygmaeus (Orangutan). It should be noted that evolutionary theory holds that1) first orangutan split from the rest-group-ancestor (human, chimp and gorilla),
2) next gorilla split from chimp and human ancestor, and
3) finally human split from chimp.And all this has been accomplished by a random mechanism, so it is said. (this is data set 1)Now have a look over here: Short display for long URL
Tried to fix, and shorten the display form, of a VERY long URL - It did not work, before or after the fix - I think there may be some Peter Borger specific info in the URL - I suspect this is flat out doomed to not work right - AdminnemooseusThis Science paper demonstrates --among other things-- the inversion between human chromosome 12p12 and 12q15. This region in human chromosome 12 or in the corresponding chromosome 10 in the great apes is known to be inverted in gorilla and chimpanzee as OPPOSED to human and orangutan. (this is data set 2)It should be obvious that data set 1 is in conflict with data set 2. So, either claim 1 is false or claim 2 is false, since they cannot both be right at the same time.Let's say that the initial orientation in the common ancestor of all 4 organisms was 3'-->5', and it did not change in orangutan. Than, we have to admit that it changed orientation to 5'-->3' in the ancestor of chimp, gorilla and human. However, in human the original 3'-->5' orientation is found again, demonstrating that the orientation again changed in exactly the same spot of the chromosome. Random evolution?It should be obvious that data set 1 is in conflict with data set 2. So, either claim 1 is false or claim 2 is false, since they cannot both be right at the same time. Since claim 2 has been scientifically demonstrated to be right, claim 1 must be false.So, Dr Page it is my opinion that here we have another nice example of non-random evolution. If not please let me know why not.Best wishes,
Peter"Darwin is dead, NDT is dead, and evolutionism is pretty sick."[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-26-2003]

for insterested people here is the refernece and the abstract:1: Genomics 1998 Jun 15;50(3):368-72 Related Articles, LinksMolecular definition of pericentric inversion breakpoints occurring during the evolution of humans and chimpanzees.Nickerson E, Nelson DL.Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas 77030, USA.High-resolution G-banding analysis has demonstrated remarkable morphological conservation of the chromosomes of the Hominidae family members (humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans), with the most notable differences between the genomes appearing as changes in heterochromatin distribution and pericentric inversions. Pericentric inversions may have been important for the establishment of reproductive isolation and speciation of the hominoids as they diverged from a common ancestor. Here the previously published primate karyotype comparisons, coupled with the resources of the Human Genome Project, have been used to identify pericentric inversion breakpoints seen when comparing the human karyotype to that of chimpanzee. Yeast artificial chromosome (YAC) clones were used to detect, by fluorescence in situ hybridization, five evolutionary pericentric inversion breakpoints present on the chimpanzee chromosome equivalents of human chromosomes 4, 9, and 12. In addition, two YACs from human 12p that detect a breakpoint in chimpanzee detect a similar rearrangement in gorilla.PMID: 9676431 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

edited by Mammuthus...let Scott knock him down first [This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 03-27-2003]

Discussion of alternative theories of evolution, including GUToB, is welcomed here at EvC Forum. When GUToB is clearly defined then no limits will be placed on its discussion. The Defining GUToB thread was opened specifically for the purpose of developing a clear definition of GUToB which would then be made available on a webpage. It's still open.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

Everything can appear to be 'non-random' after the fact. That is why claims of non-random as used by Borger are meaningless.

quote:

---

This Science paper demonstrates --among other things-- the inversion between human chromosome 12p12 and 12q15. This region in human chromosome 12 or in the corresponding chromosome 10 in the great apes is known to be inverted in gorilla and chimpanzee as OPPOSED to human and orangutan. (this is data set 2)

---

Is evidence presented demonstrating a timeline for these events?If not, your most recent 'amazing fact' is just your latest fiasco.I wonder - do you still think that a 300bp locus contains more relevant information than a 15 kbp one?

Dear Dr Page,In response to my brilliant analysis you say:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Science paper demonstrates --among other things-- the inversion between human chromosome 12p12 and 12q15. This region in human chromosome 12 or in the corresponding chromosome 10 in the great apes is known to be inverted in gorilla and chimpanzee as OPPOSED to human and orangutan. (this is data set 2)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Page: Is evidence presented demonstrating a timeline for these events? If not, your most recent 'amazing fact' is just your latest fiasco.PB: That's it? No scientific rebuttal? Well, than I'll take it as evidence for NRM. As demonstrated, NRM can be expected on all levels of the genome.Page: I wonder - do you still think that a 300bp locus contains more relevant information than a 15 kbp one?PB: Yep. With respect to position and rate of mutations a 300 bp locus obtained from 15 distinct ancient humans (range 0-60000 bp) is MUCH more informative.best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 03-27-2003]

Scott Page...Shave the mustache, guy. You look like a military hick.But it:s nice to learn that our tax dollars are being spent to support your religious belief in the rock god, that is, molten rocks create life.That:s unconstitutional you know. That is, to teach as dogma your religious belief that God did not create life.Having been in the military myself, I know it to be true one must swear to uphold the constitution. How about modifying your behavior to be more consistent with the those attributes more becoming of a soldier?I wont hold my breath, but I will seek an audience with your commander now that I know where you are. He/she should be aware of your activities during the workday. Those who pay taxes I am sure would object to your being paid to argue against the relevance of god on a daily basis.Little constitutional problem here.

Hey Scott,Tenzephapplesai is onto you! It's unconstitutional to "preach" accepted scientific facts in & out of work hours! I wonder if the rest of "real" America sees it that way?Mark

PB: PB: That's it? No scientific rebuttal? Well, than I'll take it as evidence for NRM. As demonstrated, NRM can be expected on all levels of the genome.M: Why is it when a sentence like this comes along I think PB should stand for Pea Brain? First, absence of evidence for one thing does not make what you say true.PB:Yep. With respect to position and rate of mutations a 300 bp locus obtained from 15 distinct ancient humans (range 0-60000 bp) is MUCH more informative.M: If you really believe this (as opposed to just trying to be contradictory to Scott) then you need some serious remedial biology and statistics courses...like kindergarten level.Now to the issue at hand, since you don't know anything about population genetics I will just tell you rather than ask you....Not every mutation that occurs in a population or species becomes fixed. The last common ancestor of chimps, gorillas, and humans was in all liklihood had both an inverted and non-inverted form of the chromosome in the population. That one form was fixed in chimp and gorilla and another in human is relevant why??? There are dozens of HERVs that also show this pattern. The vast majority are specific to chimp and human. And then a smaller subset is specific to each genus..or I guess you have now jumped on to salty's semi-idiotic meiotic hypothesis LOL!

Z: Shave the mustache, guy. You look like a military hick.M: Ah the wonderful wit and relevant commentary of Zephan/Ten-sai/appletoast...obvious genius at workZ: But it:s nice to learn that our tax dollars are being spent to support your religious belief in the rock god, that is, molten rocks create life.M: Do you have evidence that this is Scott's belief? Oh wait...the guy who brings coffee to lawyers refuses to define evidence Z: That:s unconstitutional you know. That is, to teach as dogma your religious belief that God did not create life.M: Luckily since evolution is science and does not deal with the supernatural or in fact with abiogenesis he is still within the boundaries of the constitution.Z: Having been in the military myself, I know it to be true one must swear to uphold the constitution. How about modifying your behavior to be more consistent with the those attributes more becoming of a soldier?M: How about demonstrating that you are capable of debate....I won't hold my breatheZ: I wont hold my breath, but I will seek an audience with your commander now that I know where you are. He/she should be aware of your activities during the workday. Those who pay taxes I am sure would object to your being paid to argue against the relevance of god on a daily basis.M: If his commander is worth beans he/she will laugh you off the phone line...and those who pay your salary I am sure would object to your being paid to troll on the internet.Z: Little constitutional problem here.M: More like a lack of education on your part and mental instability..up the dosage dude

Hey Mark,I didn't realize abiogenesis was an accepted scientific fact.Finally learned something from this forum.Although you aren't a "real" scientist, are you? Perhaps I should get a second opinion?Page, whaddya say to Mark24?You teaching abiogenesis as fact???Anybody...anybody?

Scott does not teach abiogenesis at all (at least looking at his course offerings)...he does teach evolution though...and you are hardly in any position to state who is or who is not a scientist...remember breathe deeply and stick to you medication.

Zephan, you dropped our discussion in the "Faith and Belief" forum, "Let Us Reason Together" thread like a hot potato. There are lots of questions that you have not answered (big surprise).My last reply to you in that thread is #138. Still waiting.------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

The paper contains the answer:"A comparison of karyotypes of chromosome 12 in the hominoids does not suggest that the 12p breakpoints of chimpanzee and gorilla would be identical. Additionally, the 12q15 YAC detecting the inversion in chimpanzee does not show similar results on the chromosome 12q equivalent of gorilla, suggesting that the two events may share common breakpoints in the p arm, with distinct breakpoints on the q arm."So the inversion is different in chimpanzees and gorillas which suggests that it is not the same event in these two species. Finding distinct mutations in chimpanzees and gorillas does not disprove the current interpretation of primate phylogeny.