Comment on Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists” by Sean Pitman.
The Fusion of Human Chromosome 2
The arguments against the fusion of human chromosome 2 (HC2), in particular, do not seem to me to be remotely convincing and I don’t think that it is wise to use this argument against evolutionists.
First off, the fusion models for HC2 are not dependent upon the local configuration of bases at the proposed fusion site. The main evidence for HC2 fusion has always been the fact that the two pieces of HC2 are nearly identical to chimpanzee chromosome 13 (equivalent to human 2p), and chimpanzee chromosome 12 (equivalent to human 2q). The chromatin binding patterns line up, the sequence analysis confirms, and FISH studies show the correspondence between the genetic sequences. The genes are almost entirely in the same order, the inter-genic regions are very similar along the entire lengths of these segments – millions of bases.
Given this evidence a prediction was made that there ought to be fragments of telomeres (the end caps of chromosomes) in the middle of chromosome 2, at the fusion site – which was then examined. And, surprise surprise, the prediction was been confirmed. Bergman and Tomkins (who published the original argument against the fusion of HC2) simply ignore all of this evidence. Instead, what they do is focus on just the region of the fusion, and complain that it is a tangled mess – which is only to be expected since the fusion event. It is simply unrealistic to expect a pristine fusion site and every paper published on the structure of the fusion region makes the point that it is degenerate. The fact that the fusion site has suffered some modifications since the fusion event does not effectively counter the evidence for fusion nor is it unexpected. The chances are so infinitesimally small that HC2 would so closely resemble those of other primates by random chance that it is pretty much an impossibility that this hypothesis is actually true.
In short, don’t get sidetracked by this argument, promoted by Bergman and Tomkins (2011 and 2012), against the fusion of HC2.
For further discussion of the relevance of the fusion of human chromosome 2 to the creation/evolution debate see: Link
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”
I have no fear, thanks to God and His mercy, and no one is free of bias – not even you. You’ve simply traded one religion for another. It is still possible that your current bias blinds you to what would otherwise be obvious.
Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”
No, I think science would have discredited them if their ideas were not supported by observation and experimentation.
Exactly, so why not at least try to do the same for my ideas, which are quite easily falsifiable?
I know, you can’t do it yourself, but you’re quite sure that if I publish my ideas in a mainstream science journal that someone out there will know how to shoot my theory all to shreds. Right? This sounds like a no-brainer! Why not just published my ideas and test them against the big boys? It must be that I’m afraid to get shot down! and that’s why I don’t publish… Don’t you think?
I guess that’s why I went on live radio to debate Jason Rosenhouse? – because I was afraid that he’d show me how silly my ideas are on public radio? – how the Darwinian mechanism is so clearly capable of creating all kinds of things regardless of their level of functional complexity? If I was so afraid of getting smashed to pieces by some of these Darwinian big shots, why take such public risks? – even in their own blogs and public forums? Why not just hide out in my own little ghetto?
Come on now. You have to know that I’d love to be able to publish my ideas on the statistical limits to the Darwinian mechanism in a science journal like Nature or Science or any mainstream science journal. I really would. The problem, as I’ve already explained, is that no one is going to publish, in any mainstream science journal, any argument for intelligent design or creative intelligence (even if the intelligence were a “natural” intelligence like some kind of intelligent alien life form) as the origin of various kinds of biological machines. It just doesn’t happen these days without someone getting fired over it. So, the next best thing is to take the argument directly to them and challenge them in their own blogs, on the radio, and on television, etc. There’s nothing else I can do. My hands are tied.
In any case, do let me know when you’re willing to reasonably define what it would take for you to recognize a phenomenon as a true “miracle” or when you’re able to present something, anything, that explains how the Darwinian mechanism of RM/NS can actually work beyond very low level of functional complexity.
Until then, what are you really contributing here? What are you trying to say? – that you don’t know but someone else probably does? That you’re skeptical about everything and nothing could possibly convince you of the existence of God or any other designer of life? – not even if you were to personally witness some of the most fantastic miracles described in the Bible? Good luck with that… but you’re just fooling yourself in your efforts never to be tricked by anything. You’re missing out on a great deal that life has to offer.
Still, I wish you all the best.
Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”
All the best to you… yet again 😉
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!
The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…
The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…
Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?
Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.
Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).
Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.
