Bill Nye #2: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
361

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< I do not know which–or even if–either scenario can be true. They are hypotheses used to explain further Dr. Miller’s facile presentation. >>>[/quote]Fair enough.[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< His point was that evolution, as science, is disprovable; >>>[/quote]Indeed.[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< the explanation of “the missing chromosome” does not dis-prove evolution, and it happens to fit quite nicely with known evolutionary science. >>>[/quote]Ok, but it does the same with biblical creation. God created DNA in all it’s manifestations/configurations. Assuming Miller is correct it is in no way shocking to me that the necessary conditions (if that’s what they are, or just differences) designed by God would also be met by God in any way He reports (or not) to have met them.[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< But if there were a more plausible explanation which was in conflict with biology, or evolution science, then what? >>>[/quote]Plausibility is in the eye of the beholder. Which is precisely the point, or a component of the point, I’ve been making with DrMatt.[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< Every good study provokes more good questions, questions which may not have answers. Or some answers may challenge previously held belief. So, how did human beings acquire 2 complements of 23 chromosomes with matching fused chromosome 2s? Surely Dr. Miller, or the authors of the original study, must have asked this question. >>>[/quote]Fair enough too.[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< (I have proposed the Nobel-prize winning experiment that marries mitochondrial phylogeny to the appearance of chromosome 2. Any takers out there?) >>>[/quote]I’m not sure what you mean by “any takers?” You mean to second your nomination?[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< What I may believe, however, is uninteresting >>>[/quote]It’s interesting to me.[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< because it is unsupported. >>>[/quote]I’m not sure what you mean by this either. Why would you believe something you consider to be unsupported.[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< Asking the question is far more important.[/quote]It could be just me, but you seem to have a somewhat cryptic manner of communication. Asking questions, and the right ones, is certainly of very high importance everywhere in life, but I don’t understand how you relate this to the previous part of your post which it clearly seems to finish.
EDITED for clarity.[/quote]

In short:
–Science is about disprovable propositions, not beliefs. Faith is about beliefs which require no proof.

–Dr. Miller, despite the facile presentation, offhandedly dismisses Creationism with what amounts to Occam’s razor: Why presume that an Intelligent Designer would concern itself with the number of chromosomes in apes and men? It is too trivial and unnecessary a modification to merit consideration. (Unless it serves a Higher Purpose?)
Occam’s razor swings both ways: in order to believe the evolutionary explanation of the missing chromosome–ape 13 fuses to human 2–one must also accept the hidden assumptions, the assumptions which I have made explicit in my 2 scenarios (How do we get to 2 gametes each with 23 chromosomes and a fused-2?). These assumptions, unstated, invoke miraculously rare events to “complete the picture.”

–Which is why the Nobel Prize should go to the pathetic grunt who proves the timing of the event by using available archaeologic material.

–Which is why what I believe is not interesting; how we go about proving that in which we believe…is.

362

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< Science is about disprovable propositions, not beliefs. Faith is about beliefs which require no proof. >>>[/quote]And science depends on beliefs that require no proof and are in fact unprovABLE for the very intellectual mechanisms and methods it employs both to formulate it’s own definition of itself and to operate by it. [quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<<–Dr. Miller, despite the facile presentation, offhandedly dismisses Creationism with what amounts to Occam’s razor: Why presume that an Intelligent Designer would concern itself with the number of chromosomes in apes and men? It is too trivial and unnecessary a modification to merit consideration. (Unless it serves a Higher Purpose?)
Occam’s razor swings both ways: in order to believe the evolutionary explanation of the missing chromosome–ape 13 fuses to human 2–one must also accept the hidden assumptions, the assumptions which I have made explicit in my 2 scenarios (How do we get to 2 gametes each with 23 chromosomes and a fused-2?). These assumptions, unstated, invoke miraculously rare events to “complete the picture.”

–Which is why the Nobel Prize should go to the pathetic grunt who proves the timing of the event by using available archaeologic material.

–Which is why what I believe is not interesting; how we go about proving that in which we believe…is. >>>[/quote]What you believe is still far more interesting to me. What if the present state of both ape and human chromosomes are what they are because an all wise omniscient God designed them to be that way as Miller dismisses as the desperate ramblings of ignorant theists? What if there are 15 more levels of information that we presently don’t even know exist that render this entire scenario into flat earthism 100 years from now. This has certainly happened plenty when man was dead certain he knew what the situation was. Why is it so outrageous to think that organisms which share obviously somewhat similar physical structures should also share somewhat similar biological programming if the proposal is that a superintelligent meaninglessly powerful God designed and manufactured both? The first part above I’m sure about. The rest of all this stuff down here? I have no idea. Jist makin conversation and tryin to sound smart.

363

Great posts Dr Skeptix. Would you mind providing any source material to further expand my knowledge on these subjects that you know so intimately?

364

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Great posts Dr Skeptix. Would you mind providing any source material to further expand my knowledge on these subjects that you know so intimately?[/quote]

Oh…I make it up as I go along.
But you provide the inspiration.

365

I’d like to ask DrSkeptix to peruse the conversation between DrMatt and I (and Groo) over the last few pages and give me his thoughts if any. I could be wrong but I have a feeling he deems me unfit for such an engagement.

366

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< Note that the event–the fusion of gametes with 23 chromosomes of which one is fused chromosome 2–cannot happen over millions of years. It must happen as a singular event, or in a very limited demography (a very few individuals living in proximity at one time.) >>>[/quote]Which of these do you believe happened? Or doesn’t it matter as long as it was one of them? Serious question.
[/quote]

I do not know which–or even if–either scenario can be true. They are hypotheses used to explain further Dr. Miller’s facile presentation.

His point was that evolution, as science, is disprovable; the explanation of “the missing chromosome” does not dis-prove evolution, and it happens to fit quite nicely with known evolutionary science. But if there were a more plausible explanation which was in conflict with biology, or evolution science, then what?

Every good study provokes more good questions, questions which may not have answers. Or some answers may challenge previously held belief. So, how did human beings acquire 2 complements of 23 chromosomes with matching fused chromosome 2s? Surely Dr. Miller, or the authors of the original study, must have asked this question.

(I have proposed the Nobel-prize winning experiment that marries mitochondrial phylogeny to the appearance of chromosome 2. Any takers out there?)

What I may believe, however, is uninteresting because it is unsupported. Asking the question is far more important.[/quote]

I asked a human neurogeneticist (trained in Italy and germany) the question. She did not think of the mosaicism psosibility and did not think much of it either. But she did agree that Scenario 2 is thinkable. But it depends on a provable assumption, that ape chromosome 13 has highly mutable regions, and therefore there is some likelihood of two individuals at the same time and place could produce gametes with the fusion-2 chromosome.

Bingo? Note the assumption about frequency of translocation at chromosome 13. So the Nobel Prize could be shared with another pathetic grunt who investigates generations of the great apes, or who observes the frequency of in vitro fusion of chromosome 13 into something that resembles human chromosome 2. It could be done with mucosal mouth swabs, I think.
Any takers?

367

“The essence of science is that it is always willing to abandon a given idea for a better one; the essence of theology is that it holds its truths to be eternal and immutable. To be sure, theology is always yielding a little to the progress of knowledge, and only a Holy Roller in the mountains of Tennessee would dare to preach today what the popes preached in the thirteenth century.”
â?? H L Mencken, Minority Report (1956), quoted from James A Haught, editor, 2000 Years of Disbelief

368

Yer a blast man. LOL!! You are just not gonna REALLY engage me on epistemology are ya? (although maybe. Ya dipped a pinky toe in there for a minute. I was prouda ya.) Unlike DrSkeptix who won’t do it because he thinks I’m a waste of his time, low hanging fruit, like called you earlier in this thread, you’re actually afraid.

369

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
(I have proposed the Nobel-prize winning experiment that marries mitochondrial phylogeny to the appearance of chromosome 2. Any takers out there?)
[/quote]

So the appearance of euk. mitochondria somehow affected or caused the fusion? If that’s what you’re proposing, I don’t think we would have been mammals or apes if we didn’t already have our mitochondrial “powerhouses”, or no? I’d like to hear a more in-depth or as far as you’re willing to explain about your experiment.[/quote]

To be clear, there is no need to posit a connection between mtDNA and fusion-2.

What I was inferring was using maternally-inherited mtDNA “clock” to time the archaeologic appearance of fusion-2.
So, for example, if Lucy has no fusion-2; she is not a hominid. But if she has it, then look farther and farther back along the hominid line until you find no fusion -2, but a 48 chromosome ape. This would be a candidate for Common Ancestor, and the mtDNA “clock” would put a time on the event.

If only.[/quote]

Well whaddyaknow? It looks like I can un-pack my bags for Stockholm this year. The mitochondrial clock trick has not been proven:

But, science is about disproving the proposition. So it is still possible to time the event…if only we had more archaeologic dna.

As for Scenario 2…wherein 2 apes have a simultaneous fusion of 13 during reductive meiosis, and mate…lookee here:

Humans have one fewer pair of chromosomes than other apes, since the ape chromosomes 2 and 4 have fused into a large chromosome (which contains remnants of the centromere and telomeres of the ancestral 2 and 4) in humans.[3] Having different numbers of chromosomes is not an absolute barrier to hybridization. Similar mismatches are relatively common in existing species, a phenomenon known as chromosomal polymorphism.
The genetic structure of all the great apes is similar. Chromosomes 6, 13, 19, 21, 22, and X are structurally the same in all great apes. 3, 11, 14, 15, 18, and 20 match between gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans. Chimps and humans match on 1, 2p, 2q, 5, 7â??10, 12, 16, and Y as well. Some older references will include Y as a match between gorillas, chimps, and humans, but chimpanzees (including bonobos) and humans have recently been found to share a large transposition from chromosome 1 to Y that is not found in other apes.[4]

If chimps have 48 chromosomes, but there are areas of homology between chimps and humans on chimp 2p and 2q, this means that at some point, chimps had translocations from chimp 13 to chimp 2, and maintained these, generation after generation.
I posit that that area of homology is where one must look to find the “hypermutable” regions of ape 13 which eventually fused to form human 2.

I am re-packing my bags for Sweden!

Also, trib, come up with a dis-provable statement so I can consider a conversation. I don’t get engaged on a first date.

370

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< Also, trib, come up with a dis-provable statement so I can consider a conversation. I don’t get engaged on a first date. [/quote]See what I mean folks? I’m still waitin for you to come up with a single provable one. BTW, we’ve been engaged since long before we met. I never forfeit the very first volley to my opponent.
EDIT: I think you were mistakenly responding to my post to Headhunter.

371

Very interesting posting spree, Doc.

372

I didn’t understand a word what DrSkeptix was talking about, I can only talk about the formation of science, but it seems that it was needed that DrSxeptix brought the conversation about evolutionary science to a level that only a few can talk about. Just listen to that language, fuck it, I give up, I don’t understand it. Too specialized. Is that good or bad and where will it lead to?

373

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:<<< I didn’t understand a word what DrSkeptix was talking about, [/quote]Me either. I’m hopelessly lost.[quote]kaaleppi wrote:<<< Too specialized. Is that good or bad and where will it lead to? [/quote]Everything leads to the same place. It can’t possibly be otherwise.

374

Here’s an article that might offer some insight into our fusion confusion:

If you follow the link to the article on China’s 44 chromosome man, you can access some other articles that discuss this.

375

[quote]anonym wrote:
Here’s an article that might offer some insight into our fusion confusion:

If you follow the link to the article on China’s 44 chromosome man, you can access some other articles that discuss this.[/quote]

Spooky.
I did not know of this article, and yet it recapitulates some of the points I make: fusion is not sufficient an explanation, there must be a mate at the same place and time with the same constitutive haplotype, consanguinity, etc. Throw in a bottleneck, and poof! an explanation and an example in a Chinese man with 44 chromosomes.

But…is this explanation also sufficient? Perhaps. Mitochondrial evidence indicates that there may have been as few as 4 maternal progenitors. Perhaps similar evidence exist for males; if one is interested one can check the National Geographic websites and trace the ancestral patterns of the male haplotype to just a few individuals.

And more importantly, none of this requires an Intelligent Designer.

376

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
I didn’t understand a word what DrSkeptix was talking about, I can only talk about the formation of science, but it seems that it was needed that DrSxeptix brought the conversation about evolutionary science to a level that only a few can talk about. Just listen to that language, fuck it, I give up, I don’t understand it. Too specialized. Is that good or bad and where will it lead to? [/quote]


“Too many facts!” Kaaleppi, a common gripe,
When one discusses the fused human haplotype,
Search as we might the human-ape homology,
Trib asserts a predicate cosmology.

377

Is this the national geographic thing you’re talking about Dr Skeptix?
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/lan/en/atlas.html

378

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Is this the national geographic thing you’re talking about Dr Skeptix?
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/lan/en/atlas.html[/quote]

Yes. Go to the page “Atlas of the Human Journey.”

There are a couple dozen male “haplogroups” defined. Mine is J1 (M267), which reflects the history of my forefathers, and perhaps the “bottlenecks” visited upon them.

But M91 is Adam’s haplogroup, according to the National Geographic, if not the Intelligent Designer as well.

379

1749×623 283 KB

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< Trib asserts a predicate cosmology.[/quote]If this is what education does to people, I do believe I’ll pass. I haven’t mentioned cosmology to you once. _____________ology is dictated and governed by epistemology which IS what I’ve been smearing all over DrMatt’s face to no avail. Now I’m inching toward dirty tactics in an attempt to goad you into that arena too, but I fear once again that I’d be talking to somebody who’s standing right in the middle of it and have no idea they were. You keep stealin my tools from my toolbox to turn your nuts (No pun intended) and refusing, not just to recognize that they’re mine, but that they even exist at all. You can’t even eke out the first fraction of an oh so disprovable scientific thought without having already assumed my God.

380

^

Why your God in particular? If you don’t mind me butting into this conversation.