Facts and Opinions (Karyotype Discussion)

[Gman]

Ok, now you are coming through.. Yes, that superior part is a little misleading...

Boy, we are way off the karyotype discussion now...

[Canuckster1127]

But then... where do they say "intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life..."

This is one area I think Wikipedia entirely misrepresents the Discovery Institute. When I previously read Wikipedia's whole page on Intelligent Design several months ago I strongly reacted to it and thought it belonged on the garbage heap. While Wikipedia is an easily accessible online resource, it showed me how poor they really can be as a resource and it put me off them. I certainly see this above statement you quoted of theirs misrepresents the Discovery Institude, and therefore I think it belongs on the garbage heap. I know I've come across strong, but I do not mean to cause offense. I just feel strongly whenever I see misreprestations of ID such as at Wikipedia.

Kurieuo

You're right on both points.

Wiki is valuable in some regards, but it is even more susceptible to common bias than most sites. Anyone can do anything they want without regard to educations or qualifications.

I think they've misrepresented ID to some extend as well, even though, I believe you and I hold a little different perspective on some elements of it. I do agree however with the idea consistency in terms of maintaining an equal standard to that which extends beyond hard science and in the realm of philosophy/theology. There is obviously a secular bias at work that holds evolutionary teaching to a different standard in some regards than ID or creationism.

Bart

[jacksprat]

Trisomy occurs because of non-disjunction of chromosomes during meiosis.This is a one-time aberration which is not uniformly transmitted to
subsequent generations,and is therefore useless as a tool for evolutionary conjecture of karyotype"evolution".
If a centromere were to split transversely,one or other portion of the chromosome would be lost during meiosis-alos not useful for making novel karyotypes.
If a chromosome were to split transversely the portion detached from the centromere would be lost to posterity.
If a gamete with altered chromosome number(or significant alteration of configuration of any of its chromosomes)fuses with an unaltered gamete in the course of reproduction,the zygote thus formed would be infertile since its chromosomes would not synapse properly and gametogenesis would be impossible.Not only are we and all other species very smartly designed,but the built-in mechanisms to prevent evolution are very smart-and simple enough to understand,but for external forces of confusion which are very real and very strong.

[jacksprat]

I have several references in biology textbooks which tell me that phenomena such as deletions,inversions and reciprocal translocations of portions of chromosomes lead to difficulties in synapsis in meiosis and therefore lead to sterility and which make karyotype evolution impossible.I also found one reference on the web which I attached to the original document which was quoted on this forum and which I hope will be posted in its entirety.
Evolutionism displays a phobia for facts which disprove it-facts relating to chromosome numbers of karyotypes,the impossibility of sexual reproduction of altered karyotypes etc.And such facts become hidden from general view.
I have observed that evolutionism is often accompanied by varying degrees of aggression toward opponents of evolution.I think this is a sign of desperation.

[angel]

Last night I had an idea.
I believe that the space is discrete because I need higher energies to observe smaller length scales. At some point I will be using so much energy that a black hole is produced and I cannot see smaller distances.
Assuming a discrete space will remove all the divergences from quantum field theory because the theory becomes combinatorial. No more integrals that can diverge.
This will remove the singularities from the theory of gravitation and will finally lead to a computable quantum theory of gravitation.
In such theory quantum effects could be computed and maybe such quantum effects could account for extra influences of moon gravitational effect.
Such effects could explain the never explained influences of stars on our lives and on women hormon cycle.

My question is:

is this a scientific theory?

Can I say it is a scientific theory under development?

Please notice it is testable
(You just need to resolve length smaller than Planck length to disprove it),
it makes predictions
(extra quantum effects),
it explains things that ordinary science cannot explain.
(it is foundation of astrology).

Should I receive public founds?
Should I teach it (and my original view -no continuos quantity do existys in physics-) science class?

[Gman]

I also found one reference on the web which I attached to the original document which was quoted on this forum and which I hope will be posted in its entirety.

Hi Jack,

Bart has already posted your original document at the beginning of this thread. It's on page one... Just click on the page 1 there on the top of this post (near the title)... Anyone can download it...

Thanks..

[Canuckster1127]

I have several references in biology textbooks which tell me that phenomena such as deletions,inversions and reciprocal translocations of portions of chromosomes lead to difficulties in synapsis in meiosis and therefore lead to sterility and which make karyotype evolution impossible.I also found one reference on the web which I attached to the original document which was quoted on this forum and which I hope will be posted in its entirety.
Evolutionism displays a phobia for facts which disprove it-facts relating to chromosome numbers of karyotypes,the impossibility of sexual reproduction of altered karyotypes etc.And such facts become hidden from general view.
I have observed that evolutionism is often accompanied by varying degrees of aggression toward opponents of evolution.I think this is a sign of desperation.

jacksprat,

I'm sympathetic to your cause in one sense. I believe there are issues in evolution that currently are unprovable and represent a lot of presumption and philosophy rather than facts.

However, I'm also very leary of statements that claim that evolution is disproven. My experience has led me to observe that often times creationists (and I am a creationist myself) in their zeal to affirm their faith in God and belief in their particular understanding of the Bible (whether Old or Young) will attempt to place evolution beyond all doubt.

Absolute language is a domain of religious thinking and it belongs there. God is Love. He is the creator. He is infinite.

Science, however, by its nature doesn't allow for many Laws or absolutes. All you can say is what has been tested, the scope of the testing and experimentation that have been done, the conclusions drawn, and depending on the field of study whether the data is falsifiable, meaning that the theory or premise is formed in such a manner that the theory or hypothisis could be proven wrong if data came back and then of course you would have to either start over or modify your theory. It's a constant process.

On what basis do you project your absolute statements in this regard? Do you honestly believe that your understanding of these issues on a scientific level are so complete that information and results in the future could not require you to modify you current understanding?

I do not profess to possess the depth of understanding that you appear to have in this area as I am not a biologist or medical praticioner. I do know extraordinary claims however when I see them and I believe you are making some.

What if you're wrong in some of these areas either in your current thinking or if additional data comes forth in the future that provide plausible explanations? Does that mean that your position of creationism is itself suspect? Could God have either used evolution as a method in whole or part or could it exist on a smaller scale than what you're currently allowing?

Is there enough data and understanding in this area to support your very strong claims as to what is possible or not possible? Is it possible you're overstating your case and in doing so perhaps doing some damage to your position in terms of creationism?

I'd be interested in your response to these thoughts.

Blessings,

Bart

[jacksprat]

Dear Bart,
Unfortunately the attachments were not posted with my original.
The attached chromosome numbers satisfied me that evolution was entirely implausible,because they conradict evolutionary phylogenies so entirely.But in the document itself I have given reasone for my absolute satisafaction that evolution is impossible.We easily focus on one issue when the impediments to evolution include not only contradictory karyotypes,obstacles of meiosis requirements,integrated chromosome functions which demand fixed karyotypes,but also the environment and the myriads and myriads of symbiotic absolute requirements which all summate to make evolution sublimely ridiculous.
It is not difficult to feel browbeaten by evolution's overbearing insistence,but there comes a point where one can see that it is just baloney.

[David Blacklock]

Jackspratt: It is not difficult to feel browbeaten by evolution's overbearing insistence,but there comes a point where one can see that it is just baloney.

DB: JP, I respectfully suggest your preconceived bias is so strong, you don't allow any contradictory data to enter on the "yes, I might consider this" parts in your brain. You make strong arguments - arguments I'm not educated enough to engage. I know, however, that a professional in the areas your touching on would have little trouble successfully answering you.

Even Behe, in his "Black Box" speculated that the designer might have assembled the first cell, essentially solving the problem of irreducible complexity, after which evolution might well have proceeded by more or less conventional means (random mutation and natural selection).

[jacksprat]

Evolution cannot link up with karyotypes.
Meiosis obstructs sexual reproduction of altered karyotypes.
Integrated functions of chromosomes absolutely require inheritance of complete and original karyotypes.
Evolution cannot work.

[Canuckster1127]

Evolution cannot link up with karyotypes.
Meiosis obstructs sexual reproduction of altered karyotypes.
Integrated functions of chromosomes absolutely require inheritance of complete and original karyotypes.
Evolution cannot work.

1. Evolution cannot link up with karyotypes is not a scientific claim or a logical one. The best one can assert, based on what you appear to be promoting, is that no-one has to this point demonstrated the link. It might prove to be the case, but stating it in the manner you do indicates that have closed your mind to any contrary evidence and already made you conclusion. That's not a particularly effective means of learning or communicating.

2. Meiosis may obstruct sexual reproduction of altered karyotypes. Again I will not claim strong knowledge in this area. However, this is not the only means by which evolution on a lower scale has been shown to function and so this claim in and of itself, even if it were proven or could be proven to be true.

3. Integrated functions of chromosomes absolutely require inheritance of complete and original karyotypes, again asserts positive knowledge of what cannot be scientifically and objectively proven. The best you could say, again if all you are saying is true.

4. Evolution cannot work? What are you defining as evoltion here? Most creationists, even Young Earth Creationists accept evolution at lower levels. In fact, some forms of Young Earth Creationism actually require reliance upon evolution to explain the proliferation of animals following the Flood. Further, some make claims for evolution in that regard that far exceed any claims that the scientific community does.

Jack, here's the questions I have for you that I believe need to be addressed in your claims.

1. I suspect your theological beliefs are driving your statements to a great extent. For the record, would you please briefly explain your view of origins and creation.

2. Have your claims or assertions in this field been submitted for publication in a peer reviewed journal or academic setting? I believe even Creation Magazine which would be sympathetic to your goals and position would be an appropriate venue where you could have it examined by those with similar or greater knowledge in the field than you have.

3. What would be the result to your faith personally should your thoughts in this areas prove not to be correct? Is your faith based upon God and His Word first and foremost or does this issue hold such importance for you that you believe your foundation of faith would be shaken if your thinking in this field was anything less that absolutely right? If so, then I have to tell you that you're bringing some very emotionally driven issues to a field that doesn't allow for emotion to that degree. I wonder if that is why you appear to need to overstate the components and implications of your position. Of course only you can answer that.

Please accept these thoughts from someone who is a Creationist and a Christian and has deep doubts in terms of the higher levels of evolution that are appealed to by many in the Scientific fields and carried over into philosophy. It is my belief that claims and constructs similar to yours in an effort to try and place all doubt on an issue aside, do more to harm the cause of Christ and Creationism than to help it. We need to be intellectually honest and consistent. The continuous appeals to your own authority in this field coupled with the "absolute" statements you make which despite my limited knowledge, I still know cannot be substantiated to the degree you claim, are hurting your claim in my opinion.

Blessings,

Bart

[jacksprat]

Thankyou,
I am simply stating rudimentary biological facts

[Canuckster1127]

Thankyou,
I am simply stating rudimentary biological facts

You're also avoiding my very direct questions.

Are you not interested in a dialogue here to help people understand better where you are coming from or to defend what you have to say by direct interaction instead of simply repeating your previous assertions?

Sincerely Curious and hoping you will respond to my questions and set me straight where I'm off course or ask me some questions of your own.

Bart

[jacksprat]

Karyotypes were obviously created,and they were obviously created in such a way that we can see there is no way they could have evolved.

[Canuckster1127]

Karyotypes were obviously created,and they were obviously created in such a way that we can see there is no way they could have evolved.

Alright Jack. Have it your way. Ignore my questions and those that others have asked of you and simply repeat your position.

We are a Christian board and I suspect many could be sympathetic to your claims. Frankly, I have to tell you, I'm not impressed with the claims or the support and interaction you are offering.

Maybe others will see it differently. I wish I could support your position and conclusion based on what you've presented, but I cannot at this time.

Blessings,

Bart