Oh, I see. OK, that explains it. Glad you were able to edit your post. Thanks.

Chris OConnor wrote:Oh, I see. OK, that explains it. Glad you were able to edit your post. Thanks.

No problem Chris. Hopefully now Ant will address my concerns.

Whilst I also hope the above, in parallel as I just got off the sublime motorways:

Circumstancial evidence: how is the C2 fusion, perfectly as per others now also linked several descriptions, circumstancial... and to what? I am increasingly failing to see what is this actually after? It was queried (mistaking number vs. protein sequence being the central point) whether it is observation or hypothesis, and was answered several times that it was observation. Now we are riding same horse with saddle backwards, saying it is circumstancial - to something...

"If circumstantial evidence is included in the weaving of sets of facts to build a complete theory, I am unaware of that being a part of the definition. ": it seems it depends on what you thought is circumstancial and what is your understanding of circumstancial. Logical deduction from ABC demonstrating D is not making A B and C circumstancial. Again, we started from the specific point and then there is this huge fog created that again digresses completely. Let me re-state, despite my promise of not doing it for the N+1st time, but this is becoming truly hilarious: the specific context was that several empirical facts fit the timeline that previously theory / theories stated. Again, did you read that 2nd page to flesh it out more, or we go around in circles and totally out of context labelling things at random, then retrofitting it to questions that changed half-way through ?

Let me bring an example, that again will not be grasped (I say that based on induction... pretty certain by now of it): the theory about an impossible to observe cosmic object can not be helped, let alone validated, because observations on how that object makes other things wobble in its vicinity are indirect evidence to its existence?

It is rhetorical question in a simple example (again), because the answer is obvious.

Also, may I ask: do you believe that theories are first and then data follows always, or sometimes you can see that a theory is driven by observed data that existed first?

"How is our theory incomplete without knowledge of the 2 missing C's? "
Again, what are we actually asking here? And how did you arrive at the very opposite logic just 2 lines below, asking that missing C's are inconsequential? Who ever said that it was inconsequential? Wasn't the whole point the very opposite of that?
--> Can we please get to terms of what, on just this one specific point, the science actually says and what it observed.
Let me ask back, because clearly explanations and links and references don't work: without this specific evidence, how would the common ancestor theory be so objectively demonstrated?

"okay - no evidence. it's a claim with no evidence. ": I honestly feel this came in from a parallel Universe, or again demonstrating deliberate noise injection.

Why? Because so far 4 times I stated and you actually underlined: what I said in *example*, for a *specific time period* was to *illustrate* with a simple *reduction* that factors that come from higher intelligence in exposure to extreme climate condition's radically alter the oversimplified mechanical inferences some try to make. And in *that context* it has , in the time period I stated and referenced, evidence - an entire species appeared that is timed, and specific to clothing. You may call it again indirect, but is it understood that direct evidence is not a fur coat found in a cave? (it is absurd of course). How indirect is the well-timed and objectively proven appearance of a new species that only exists and spreads with clothing?

So as I emphasised again, marking with stars above, just in the very sentence for the 4th time in 2 days: it is not about clothing over the mentioned >1.5million years as a general claim.

An ancient method is reduction ad absurdum and you find it a lot in maths, too: take what you call circumstancial evidence in this particular case and what results from it. Negate the latter. See how it renders the starting point absurd. Not spelling it out, again hoping that someone actually does the mental exercise (and again pointing to that link repeated too many times).

It is demonstrated again, that you did not even look at the article I linked for the 3rd time in that post. So please, why build again the solid perception that this is NOT about building your knowledge / clarity as you claimed? Otherwise we would not be yanking out a very specifically contextual example into the wilderness and then make invalid logical generalisations.

"We both agree I think that we are missing something more "like" us than chimps. " You mean something in-between genetically? or intelligence-wise? Not sure here.

"But for now, it's "logical" given evidence and circumstantial evidence, that a theory can do without evidence that is based on observation, and is able to be tested to be replicated and confirmed in a controlled setting.
Unfortunately, nature is not a controlled stage in the manner we would like it to be for the purpose of prediction. "

While totally confused here what are we after again, I agree of course, obviously, nature is not a controlled stage.

"it's "logical" given evidence and circumstantial evidence, that a theory can do without evidence that is based on observation" --> I failed to understand this, because as per many examples, we are fundamentally failing in this so-called discussion to grasp what observation and evidence is with relation to a theory. All the referenced material is about observation, and that is on one tiny corner on one tiny aspect of the whole, since for 2 days we moved in circles despite all the inputs from numerous people.

As I stated before, let's first get on top of something like this: http://www.qualitative-research.net/ind ... /1851/3497

It is, as thread shows, impossible to go on any other than a firmly circular path without seeing how the various hypotheses, direct and indirect evidences, lemmas and self-correcting processes (thrown in for good measure) fit together in a system of reasoning.

geo wrote:

ant wrote:
Humans have 46 C's. Our closest relatives have 48.
What is the scientific explanation for why the missing 2 have vanished without a trace.
Or have they? I honestly do not know..

Well, I just posted this yesterday—telltale evidence involving human chromosome 2. The author offers this as the most "powerful evidence of evolution that you can imagine."

This looks pretty direct as evidence goes.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... mosome-two

Plus the first article . . .

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... -evolution

I deleted my original post because it was not constructive.

the fusing of the missing chromosome is without controversy. Thanks for pointing that out.

However, there is no answer for why the fusion to 46 took place in humans while chimps to this day still have 48, correct?
Maybe L can chime in here well.

we are fixed on similarities while bypassing key differences, I think.
what I have said seems to be one.
where is the evidence for why the fusion in humans is logically predictable within the theory?

Thanks

L,

See above.
Questions there are related to the predictability of the theory.

I will read your latest post in due time. Thx

L,

Please,

If you are going to quote me please do so by using the option that is available to us, by bracketing it.
It will avoid any confusion that might be the result of you not quoting appropriately.

I was thrown off a couple of times while reading your lengthy reply.

Thanks

sorry about the quotes, I just very hastily in a zombie post-motorway-jam state found it quicker to just madly type and quote at same time;

Yes differences are important - note that the same "mechanics" of rearranging of genes happens in about 0.1% of births. It is just something that happens, and may have shall we say interesting consequences. There is no special "why" as such, and some result in fusion.
But the result of it can be interesting - not in the sense that the person with the fused Cs has a problem, many lead a normal life and they look fine ... but then having babies can run into major trouble.
By pure chance, the person may have a baby or a miscarriage... in latter case, the missing part or the extra bit of the C is inherited. Major trouble.

Now going to the "why not" in chimps: there is the founder effect, maybe this is not the standard English term for it? others may comment?
It just means, and it is incredibly strong in small populations, that such random positive or negative mishap may have a much greater effect than what the pure probabilistic picture says.
So again as *example*, again big difference from "claim": if the fusion occurred in this way, it may have been on "our" branch the rapidly becoming dominant set of Cs. And on the other branch, eventually chimps etc. kept theirs.

One key thing is , which perhaps was not emphasised enough before and goes to direction of logical inference: the C difference between the two species is quite possibly not *the* difference, in other words it is not what made us different. It just means that there is a common ancestor from which both branches evolved on their own path and one branch is genetically different (a reminder is that the C fusion does not lose information, it just organised it in a different way). But, not to confuse this more, some such chance re-arrangings can be advantageous and then they spread like mad... Otherwise similar change may affect a gene that just gets in the wrong place, used at the wrong time for the wrong thing etc... - even if not major oops, it can make vast difference especially with the "founder effect". We don't have time machine, but we have DNA sequencing, phew.

And heading to the future so in opposite direction: a prediction is that this could still happen. As mentioned it still does, and can have nasty consequences for the offspring of that person, while the person may be perfectly fine.
Now the proof happened to come from China, where there is a chap who not only had a re-arranging of things without losing much information, but ended up with 44 (i.e. 22 pairs of chromosomes). It kinda happened in front of our eyes we could say...

Of course, we have many very different genes between us and our contemporaries on the other branch - this is where a whole chapter of fascinating genetic research comes in. I'm not a geneticist, so can only watch it and hope that it has more juicy revelations

ant wrote: what is this reposted quote add to the discussion???

to me it is nonsense from you
an attempt at distraction from the conversation currently in progress.
troll -like.

You did not respond to my response to these questions, but I'll let my previous response stand for itself and address something else.

It was called to my attention, Ant, that on another thread you thought I said something about my father that was a contradiction. About his vocation and such. Apparently you asked me outright about it but I missed it. So here I will explain about my father, and hopefully it will clear things up.

My father grew up in Mecklenburg, County, Virginia, right near Chase City and within 30 minutes or so from the North Carolina line. He grew up on a tobacco farm, and to this day he still does a little farming on the side, raising hay and such.

Upon graduating high school, he went to Nashville and received mechanic training. He worked for VDOT for a long while repairing their equipment, before he decided in his thirties to become a minister. While going to licensing school (in the Methodist faith at this point), he went back to college, starting his way at community college and then going through William & Mary for a Bachelor's in English, and then to Union Theological for his Master's in Theology. Along the way he also took in summer classes at Duke University.

He's no longer with the Methodist church, but switched his credentials over to Southern Baptist, for personal and political reasons. At this point in time, he fills in for various churches to preach, and he does funerals and weddings for friends and other people who ask him. While he was still in the Methodist church and going back to school, he preached at a small church for close to 10 years, and soon he hopes to have his own church again.

OK, so that is the story about my dad in a nutshell. Hopefully this helps disspell any and all confusion regarding my dad, who currently is an ordained minister who also does a little farming and mechanical work on the side. Sometimes I do reference his various jobs from over the years in my posts, so that's that.

If there was any confusion in anything I've said, i do apologize, but I will not apologize for any of your insults you've thrown at me because of your confusion. The fact of the matter is, I have felt I have contributed to the forum in a postive manner, and this thread in particular. If you don't care for anything I've said on a religious level, then I'm sorry but I haven't done anything to attack you personally so I don't appreciate you attacking me so personally.

Regards,
Movie Nerd

L wrote;

Now going to the "why not" in chimps: there is the founder effect, maybe this is not the standard English term for it? others may comment? 
It just means, and it is incredibly strong in small populations, that such random positive or negative mishap may have a much greater effect than what the pure probabilistic picture says. 
So again as *example*, again big difference from "claim": if the fusion occurred in this way, it may have been on "our" branch the rapidly becoming dominant set of Cs. And on the other branch, eventually chimps etc. kept theirs. 

We do not know the population sizes or the location of the populations to determine "these" hominids would experience C fusion and "these" would not have.
Correct?
"Example" and "if" can not be tested and verified as it relates to this, correct?

Location is better known then population size. I'm bit confused again, as the 'founder effect' and its brief description (I wouldn't call it explanation) is just stating a ubiquitous mechanism - the results of which we know. Maybe my language got in the way, presenting it as if it were a thought experiment.
The exact, and full story in nice pictorial form is here - and it is all nicely tracked with sequencing, with nice patchwork colours, too: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/ ... eationists
The title is as it is, but it's the most concise easy for the eye tracking of the whole genetic adventure.
Of course there was a "debunking" of the evidence by Klinghoffer, which was proven to be a hotchpotch of 10 year old papers from which they cherry picked bits, ignored key parts of sentences and they even lied about the exact sequences seen in the ends and centres of the chromosomes. Funny thing was the geneticist chap then chased them up, cornered them and in the end even provided links for everyone to see how they lied about the protein sequences... oops. This latter story is a superb example of nonsense presented in a way that seems scientific and convincing until one doesn't look up the evidence that is misquoted, modified and/or lied about
Anyway, excuse the side note, but this is when science becomes like a good Agatha Christie novel