Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

Science Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong, A Case Study in Pseudoscience

views
     
dkk
post Apr 14 2012, 09:48 AM

10k Club
Group Icon
Elite
11,400 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(MyDaddy67 @ Apr 13 2012, 09:39 PM)
Because pseudo-scientific thinking often looks and sounds like real science, it can be quite hard for non-scientists or casual readers to tell them apart. Luckily, there are certain criteria of pseudoscience that any educated person can use to distinguish it from true science, including the following: unsure.gif 

·         1. Does it make claims that are not testable?
·         2. Does it make claims that are inconsistent with well-established scientific truths?
·         3. Does it explain away or ignore falsifying data?
·         4. Does it use vague language that almost anything could be counted as confirming it?
·         5. Does it lack of progressiveness?
·         6. Does it involve no serious effort to conduct research using scientific method?
The quoted example's problem is not because it suffers from any of these. But rather, it's starting assumption is simply incorrect. Please refer to the bolded part in the first post above.

A quick google search, the first hit at yahoo, turns up this ..

Actually there is plenty of evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes (and chromosomes don't occur "within" DNA). We even know the mechanism by which this happens ... a runaway gene translocation that effectively copies an entire chromosome onto the end of another (thus fusing two chromosomes together). While this is often fatal or leads to infertility ... it doesn't *have* to do either ... as long as the genes are still line up, the males and females can still interbreed, and even produce fertile offspring.

For example, the domestic horse has 64 chromosomes, while the wild horse (Przewalski's horse) has 66. The two can not only interbreed, but produce fertile offspring.


This post has been edited by dkk: Apr 14 2012, 09:49 AM
dkk
post Apr 14 2012, 10:01 PM

10k Club
Group Icon
Elite
11,400 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(norther @ Apr 14 2012, 04:17 PM)
Why did 'we' evolve and lose our fur?
Did we have fur to begin with?

Let me generalize the question a little. Why would an animal that previously had fur, evolve into one that does not have fur? The "evolutionary" answer is that it lives in an environment that favours those offspring with fewer/no fur. At each generation, those that carry the genes for less fur, reproduce better and have more offsprings. This is why elephants today do not have fur.
dkk
post Apr 17 2012, 02:14 PM

10k Club
Group Icon
Elite
11,400 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(3dassets @ Apr 17 2012, 12:01 AM)
Animals don't need to look different or unique individually but why human does?
It's in the eye of the beholder. You think humans look different because you're the one doing the looking.

When I was a kid, my parents raised chickens. About 50 of them. And I know each one by sight. smile.gif To a city dweller, all chickens look alike. A chicken is a chicken. Especially if they're all white, they''ll be impossible to tell apart. But to a chicken, all humans look alike.

Second example. My mom says all black africans look alike. I think she has a point. They could be a bit hard to tell apart. But that is only because we grow up not seeing a lot of them. I'm sure they also say that all Asians look alike.

I suspect, it's not that humans look different individually. But as we grow up, our brains are wired to pick up certain cues to enable us to tell human faces apart. If you grow up in a farm with 100 sheep, you'll be able to tell sheep apart by sight as well.

 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0159sec    0.97    6 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 30th November 2025 - 07:09 AM