Chromosome Fusion Disproves Evolution
All-seeing-I
of the finished human genome sequence, reducing the estimated number
of human protein-coding genes from 35,000 to only 20,000-25,000, a
surprisingly low number for our species.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041021075155.htm
-----------
one year ago on 6 April 2005, researchers from the National Human
Genome Research Institute announced that, A detailed analysis of
chromosomes 2 and 4 has detected the largest �gene deserts� known in
the human genome and uncovered more evidence that human chromosome 2
arose from the fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes.
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/06/9033.aspx
-----------
It is also the second largest chromosome we possess and it seems to
make no sense why 2 primordial chromosomes should have merged to make
us human, if this new chromosome gives us no apparent advantage for
survival.
So when we read in the Sumerian tablets that humans were cloned as a
sub-species between Homo erectus and a more advanced human-like
species that arrived on Earth some 400 000 years ago, it suddenly
makes a little bit more sense. The tablets describe how our maker
removed certain parts of the �Tree of life� to trim the ability of the
new �creature� and how they struggled to make the perfect �primitive
worker� so that it could understand commands but not be too smart to
question their existence.
Similar suggestions of genetic cloning are made in The Koran and Hindu
Laws of Manu.
The Koran:
Ya Sin: �Is man not aware that We created him from a little germ?�
The Believers - God says almost verbatim what the Sumerian tablets
tell us. �We first created man from an essence of clay; then placed
him a living germ in a secure enclosure. The germ we made a clot of
blood, and the clot a lump of flesh. This we fashioned into bones,
then clothed the bones with flesh��
Laws of Manu:
19. But from minute body (-framing) particles of these seven very
powerful Purushas springs this (world), the perishable from the
imperishable.
20. Among them each succeeding (element) acquires the quality of the
preceding one, and whatever place (in the sequence) each of them
occupies, even so many qualities it is declared to possess.
Some species use as much as 98% of their DNA.
This flies directly in the face of the principles of evolution.
Here are some examples of the predictions for total number of genes in
species.
Fruit Fly 21 000
Zebrafish 50 000
Chicken 76 000
Mouse 81 000
Chimp 130 000
Human 68 000
Can you see the problem here?
The Chimp is our closes know genetic relative and yet it has almost
twice as many genes as humans.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vida_alien/slavespecies02.htm
-------
So the fusion of 2 and 4 did not give any advantage for survival
Chimps have far more genes then we have
And we have various world wide texts that say "man was created"
That equals man did not evolve but was created.
--
Modified apes with....
The All Seeing I
jillery
> Department of Energy (DOE), today published its scientific description
> of the finished human genome sequence, reducing the estimated number
> of human protein-coding genes from 35,000 to only 20,000-25,000, a
> -----------
>
> one year ago on 6 April 2005, researchers from the National Human
> Genome Research Institute announced that, A detailed analysis of
> chromosomes 2 and 4 has detected the largest �gene deserts� known in
> the human genome and uncovered more evidence that human chromosome 2
> -----------
>
> It is also the second largest chromosome we possess and it seems to
> make no sense why 2 primordial chromosomes should have merged to make
> us human, if this new chromosome gives us no apparent advantage for
> survival.
Who said this fusion made us human? I mean, other than creationists
setting up yet another strawman?
From all that I have read about it, it's unknown what changes this
fusion might have caused.
Be sure to give specific names and cite your sources.
<snip>
Devils Advocaat
> Department of Energy (DOE), today published its scientific description
> of the finished human genome sequence, reducing the estimated number
> of human protein-coding genes from 35,000 to only 20,000-25,000, a
> -----------
>
> one year ago on 6 April 2005, researchers from the National Human
> Genome Research Institute announced that, A detailed analysis of
> chromosomes 2 and 4 has detected the largest �gene deserts� known in
> the human genome and uncovered more evidence that human chromosome 2
>
> Zebrafish �50 000
>
> Chicken � 76 000
>
> Mouse � � 81 000
>
> Chimp � 130 000
>
> Human � �68 000
>
> Can you see the problem here?
>
> The Chimp is our closes know genetic relative and yet it has almost
> twice as many genes as humans.
>
> http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vida_alien/slavespecies02.htm
> -------
>
> So the fusion of 2 and 4 did not give any advantage for survival
> Chimps have far more genes then we have
> And we have various world wide texts that say "man was created"
>
> That equals man did not evolve but was created.
>
> --
> Modified apes with....
>
> The All Seeing I
For your information it is now known that chimps and humans have very
much the same number of protein coding genes.
http://psychcentral.com/news/archives/2005-08/wuso-ncc082905.html
"Both the chimpanzee and the human genome contain approximately
20,000-25,000 protein-coding genes in 3 billion base pairs of DNA. The
current sequences of the human and chimp genomes are directly
comparable over approximately 96 percent of their lengths, and these
regions are 99 percent identical."
What interests me is how you come to the conclusion that chromosome
fusion disproves evolution.
Oh thats right, you think that some other person's interpretations of
the ancient texts shows this to be the case.
Perhaps you should try and read some real books on evolution and
genetics someday soon.
Caranx latus
<snip>
> So the fusion of 2 and 4 did not give any advantage for survival
> Chimps have far more genes then we have
> And we have various world wide texts that say "man was created"
>
> That equals man did not evolve but was created.
"Hey, Rocky! Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!"
Steven L.
news:3eb76d1e-0e0c-4ae4...@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
> For your information it is now known that chimps and humans have very
> much the same number of protein coding genes.
>
> http://psychcentral.com/news/archives/2005-08/wuso-ncc082905.html
>
> "Both the chimpanzee and the human genome contain approximately
> 20,000-25,000 protein-coding genes in 3 billion base pairs of DNA. The
> current sequences of the human and chimp genomes are directly
> comparable over approximately 96 percent of their lengths, and these
> regions are 99 percent identical."
>
> What interests me is how you come to the conclusion that chromosome
> fusion disproves evolution.
But seriously, folks:
Are there other known examples of chromosome fusions (i.e. telomeres
found in the middle of a chromosome) in other species?
Are there any theories as to how a chromosome fusion like this took
place? Telomeres don't naturally combine, so how did this happen?
It does seem like a highly unusual type of mutation. And yet it was
that mutation that helped separate genus Homo off from genus Pan. So
does that mean that the evolution of genus Homo was a fluke?
--
--
Steven L.
sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the "NOSPAM" before sending to this email address.
Erwin Moller
> Department of Energy (DOE), today published its scientific description
> of the finished human genome sequence, reducing the estimated number
> of human protein-coding genes from 35,000 to only 20,000-25,000, a
> surprisingly low number for our species.
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041021075155.htm
> -----------
Why 'surprisingly low for our species'?
Does more genes equal 'better' in your opinion?
>
> one year ago on 6 April 2005, researchers from the National Human
> Genome Research Institute announced that, A detailed analysis of
> chromosomes 2 and 4 has detected the largest �gene deserts� known in
> the human genome and uncovered more evidence that human chromosome 2
> arose from the fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes.
> http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/06/9033.aspx
> -----------
Correct.
>
> It is also the second largest chromosome we possess and it seems to
> make no sense why 2 primordial chromosomes should have merged to make
> us human, if this new chromosome gives us no apparent advantage for
> survival.
Our friend Sapient Fridge wrote a piece about that:
http://www.sapientfridge.org/chromosome_count/advantages.html
I tried to explain earlier to you that linking/coupling of certain genes
can have huge advantages compared to the (extreme) 25.000 chromosomes
(one for each gene).
Give that some thought.
>
> So when we read in the Sumerian tablets that humans were cloned as a
> sub-species between Homo erectus and a more advanced human-like
> species that arrived on Earth some 400 000 years ago, it suddenly
> makes a little bit more sense.
I seriously doubt that.
Why is it that old texts always have some serious scientific
implications in *retrospect*?
Why don't they ever explain something upfront?
I think I know why, but I really would like to hear your opinion on that.
> The tablets describe how our maker
> removed certain parts of the �Tree of life� to trim the ability of the
> new �creature� and how they struggled to make the perfect �primitive
> worker� so that it could understand commands but not be too smart to
> question their existence.
Well, you could use such vague notions for a lot of other things.
On a sidenote: I think Nostradamus wrote better texts, even vaguer en
thus fitting for more contexts. Try that one day to do science.
>
> Similar suggestions of genetic cloning are made in The Koran and Hindu
> Laws of Manu.
>
>
> The Koran:
>
> Ya Sin: �Is man not aware that We created him from a little germ?�
> The Believers - God says almost verbatim what the Sumerian tablets
> tell us. �We first created man from an essence of clay; then placed
> him a living germ in a secure enclosure. The germ we made a clot of
> blood, and the clot a lump of flesh. This we fashioned into bones,
> then clothed the bones with flesh��
And what has that to do, even remotely, to fusing chromosomes?
>
> Laws of Manu:
>
> 19. But from minute body (-framing) particles of these seven very
> powerful Purushas springs this (world), the perishable from the
> imperishable.
> 20. Among them each succeeding (element) acquires the quality of the
> preceding one, and whatever place (in the sequence) each of them
> occupies, even so many qualities it is declared to possess.
>
Are you even trying to be serious here?
> Some species use as much as 98% of their DNA.
>
> This flies directly in the face of the principles of evolution.
>
> Here are some examples of the predictions for total number of genes in
> species.
>
> Fruit Fly 21 000
>
> Zebrafish 50 000
>
> Chicken 76 000
>
> Mouse 81 000
>
> Chimp 130 000
>
> Human 68 000
>
> Can you see the problem here?
Yes I see the problem: First you state (correctly) humans have
20.000-25.000 genes, now you say it has 68.000.
Where do these 'predictions' come from?
It is hard to follow your line of thought, ancient vague texts, then a
list of numbers for 'predicted number of genes' without a reference, etc.
Try to write a coherent text next time.
>
> The Chimp is our closes know genetic relative and yet it has almost
> twice as many genes as humans.
Do you have a RELIABLE source for that claim (eg, not
www.bibliotecapleyades.net)?
>
> http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vida_alien/slavespecies02.htm
> -------
>
> So the fusion of 2 and 4 did not give any advantage for survival
I kind of miss the logic in the above 'so'.
It sounds like a conclusion, but I missed the argument.
What reason did that website give for the impossibility of the fusion?
> Chimps have far more genes then we have
> And we have various world wide texts that say "man was created"
The above two sentences are worth a Chez Watt.
>
> That equals man did not evolve but was created.
Like this?
"A galon more volume than a raindrop.
And we have various world wide texts that say "man was created"
That equals man did not evolve but was created."
>
> --
> Modified apes with....
You and me are not modified apes.
We share a common ancestor (that maybe can be called an ape, I wouldn't
know).
>
> The All Seeing I
>
Blinded by the Holy light, as usual.
Stop your silly crusade against evolution.
It is settled a long time ago.
You are wrong and biology is right.
Tip1:
Here is a free tip: Stop trying to find your God by bashing evolution
because that is hopeless and you fail all the time.
Why don't you try to put your god into another gap of our knowledge?
Like the creation of the universe? In that way you have some time to
keep up your silly believes before science catches up with you (again).
Tip2: If you really give a damn about evolution, why don't you learn
what modern evolutions means from a textbook written by a normal
biologist? Why use professional liarwebsites all the time?
Or is it that you DON'T give a damn about evolution and just need our
attention?
Regards,
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
Ernest Major
<sdli...@earthlink.net> writes
>"Devils Advocaat" <mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:3eb76d1e-0e0c-4ae4...@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
>
>> For your information it is now known that chimps and humans have very
>> much the same number of protein coding genes.
>>
>> http://psychcentral.com/news/archives/2005-08/wuso-ncc082905.html
>>
>> "Both the chimpanzee and the human genome contain approximately
>> 20,000-25,000 protein-coding genes in 3 billion base pairs of DNA. The
>> current sequences of the human and chimp genomes are directly
>> comparable over approximately 96 percent of their lengths, and these
>> regions are 99 percent identical."
>>
>> What interests me is how you come to the conclusion that chromosome
>> fusion disproves evolution.
>
>But seriously, folks:
>
>Are there other known examples of chromosome fusions (i.e. telomeres
>found in the middle of a chromosome) in other species?
There are several rodent and shrew species out there which are
polymorphic for chromosome number - the Israeli mole rat, the house
mouse, some South American species, etc. Whether any has been sequenced
to the point of identifying intrachromosomal telemore sequences is
another question - it may depend on which house mouse strain had its
genome sequenced. On the other hand, perhaps FISH would detect such
sequences, and it's probably cheaper than sequencing a genome.
Among plants, Brassica rapa has 20 chromosomes, Brassica oleracea 18 and
Brassica nigra 16. As these are palaeotetraploid it is possible that the
differences are due to loss of chromosomes, but I suspect that the cause
here is fusion or fission.
>
>Are there any theories as to how a chromosome fusion like this took
>place? Telomeres don't naturally combine, so how did this happen?
>
>It does seem like a highly unusual type of mutation. And yet it was
>that mutation that helped separate genus Homo off from genus Pan. So
>does that mean that the evolution of genus Homo was a fluke?
>
We don't know that the chromosome fusion was a mutation that helped
separate genus Homo from genus Pan. The chromosome fusion could have
occurred any time after the split. It could even be unique to Homo
sapiens.
>
>--
>--
>Steven L.
>sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
>Remove the "NOSPAM" before sending to this email address.
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Sapient Fridge
<madman-6eea0ec3-0e17-...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
<snip>
>So the fusion of 2 and 4 did not give any advantage for survival
We don't know what the advantage was (if there was one) but that is not
the same as there not being an advantage. Not knowing something is not
the same as it not existing.
Potential advantages are covered on my web page:
http://www.sapientfridge.org/chromosome_count/advantages.html
Actually there doesn't even have to be an advantage, it could have
happened just by neutral drift. It's less likely though.
>Chimps have far more genes then we have
Rubbish. Chimps have around the same number of genes as us. The
figures you quote even say they are "predictions", wrong ones at that.
>And we have various world wide texts that say "man was created"
Yep they do say that. Now all you have to show is that they aren't
works of fiction.
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
John Stockwell
> Department of Energy (DOE), today published its scientific description
> of the finished human genome sequence, reducing the estimated number
> of human protein-coding genes from 35,000 to only 20,000-25,000, a
> -----------
>
> one year ago on 6 April 2005, researchers from the National Human
> Genome Research Institute announced that, A detailed analysis of
> chromosomes 2 and 4 has detected the largest �gene deserts� known in
> the human genome and uncovered more evidence that human chromosome 2
> -----------
>
> It is also the second largest chromosome we possess and it seems to
> make no sense why 2 primordial chromosomes should have merged to make
> us human, if this new chromosome gives us no apparent advantage for
> survival.
It apparently is not to our detriment.
[Zecharias Sitchin nonsense deleted ]
> Here are some examples of the predictions for total number of genes in
> species.
>
> Fruit Fly � 21 000
>
> Zebrafish �50 000
>
> Chicken � 76 000
>
> Mouse � � 81 000
>
> Chimp � 130 000
>
> Human � �68 000
>
> Can you see the problem here?
>
> The Chimp is our closes know genetic relative and yet it has almost
> twice as many genes as humans.
You are forgetting the pseudogenes that humans have that correspond to
functioning
genes in other species.
>
> http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vida_alien/slavespecies02.htm
> -------
>
> So the fusion of 2 and 4 did not give any advantage for survival
> Chimps have far more genes then we have
> And we have various world wide texts that say "man was created"
>
> That equals man did not evolve but was created.
Ancient text mean nothing in scientific discussions.
>
> --
> Modified apes with....
>
> The All Seeing I
-John
Steven L.
news:OL7HJXLE...@meden.invalid:
Thank you!
See, there is some value in All-Seeing-I's posts. They at least
stimulate some thinking by the rest of us.
Gadflies can be useful.
Ron O
> In message <oJGdnWzMrMGe4tHWnZ2dnUVZ_j-dn...@earthlink.com>, Steven L.
> <sdlit...@earthlink.net> writes
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Devils Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >Remove the "NOSPAM" before sending to this email address.
>
> --
As far as I know this is the only chromosome fusion event like it that
has been characterized at the DNA sequence level. About the only
reason for this is because a lot of work and millions of dollars have
to be spent to get the data to demonstrate it. Once whole genome
sequences become common and we can compare the sequences of closely
related individuals and species, more of these will be uncovered. In
this case we have the case where billions of dolars were spent to get
the human DNA sequence and 10s of millions spent to get the chimp
sequence. This has not happened for closely related species of
rodents or equids that show a lot of this type of chromosome fusions.
Human cancer tumors often show signs of these events happening, and
several groups are now sequencing tumor genomes. Get your predictions
in on what will be found. As Ernest indicates chromosome number
variants are common among various species. They are known to be
segregating within a species. This just means that a bunch of members
of a species, likely inherit the chromosome fusion from a common
ancestor and then produce more individuals with the fusion the old
fashion way. The bottom line is that these events are just another
type of mutation. They happen. They do not block reproduction,
although they may reduce the number of viable gametes. By the 19040s
Wright had already written a paper on the probability of fixation of
these types of events (the probablility that all the individuals of a
population would have the fusion event just like humans). Fixation
can occur by genetic drift without a selective advantage. Just like
any other mutation fixation is more likely if there is a selective
advantage, but there are likely millions of mutations that have been
differentially fixed between humans and chimps without any selective
advantage. Just look up neutral theory. The work to look for any
selective advantage has just not been done. We don't know that
answer, but who cares? Someone will likely run it down by looking at
expression patterns of surrounding genes etc., but direct experiments
are currently unethical. No one has gotten around to doing it.
Only the ignorant incompetent and or dishonest would depend on this
addledman argument. Ignorance isn't so bad. It is the other two
adman attributes that make him such a loser.
Ron Okimoto
Greg G.
> "Devils Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:3eb76d1e-0e0c-4ae4...@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > For your information it is now known that chimps and humans have very
> > much the same number of protein coding genes.
>
> >http://psychcentral.com/news/archives/2005-08/wuso-ncc082905.html
>
> > "Both the chimpanzee and the human genome contain approximately
> > 20,000-25,000 protein-coding genes in 3 billion base pairs of DNA. The
> > current sequences of the human and chimp genomes are directly
> > comparable over approximately 96 percent of their lengths, and these
> > regions are 99 percent identical."
>
> > What interests me is how you come to the conclusion that chromosome
> > fusion disproves evolution.
>
> But seriously, folks:
>
> Are there other known examples of chromosome fusions (i.e. telomeres
> found in the middle of a chromosome) in other species?
http://www.wild-about-you.com/GameOkapi.htm
The okapi has been the subject of considerable genetic interest ever
since chromosome research revealed that individuals having 2n=45 were
more common than those having the expected 2n=46. This anomaly has
been related to the Robertsian fusion phenomenon (Bodmer 1992).
>
> Are there any theories as to how a chromosome fusion like this took
> place? �Telomeres don't naturally combine, so how did this happen?
>
> It does seem like a highly unusual type of mutation. �And yet it was
> that mutation that helped separate genus Homo off from genus Pan. So
> does that mean that the evolution of genus Homo was a fluke?
I read somewhere that a chromosome fusion is not that unusual -
something like 1 in 1000 individuals. It is rare that such a mutation
would become fixed in a species. It has only happened once in all the
extant ape species in at least 10 or 12 million years ago.
Rather than separating us from chimpanzees, the fusion may have become
fixed during a bottleneck in the last 100,000 years.
The evolution of new genera are inevitable but the evolution of any
particular genus is a fluke. If the Mediterranean had filled 5 million
years sooner, ape migration back to Africa might have been blocked so
there wouldn't be gorillas, chimps, bonobos, or humans.
Desertphile
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
> It is also the second largest chromosome we possess and it seems to
> make no sense why 2 primordial chromosomes should have merged to make
> us human, if this new chromosome gives us no apparent advantage for
> survival.
Idiot.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
All-seeing-I
> "Devils Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
You understood the post.
The fusion of the chromosome is not a beneficial mutation nor would it
be naturally selected as something for species survival. If anything,
the gene's natural Telemers -critical to DNA repair during mitosis --
would repair the defect.
Unless there is a clear and verifiable natural process that fused the
genes, then the fusion itself is evidence of a supernatural process --
thereby creating man.
It also suggest there was an outside influence that was not natural in
scope.
I looked for other known examples of chromosome fusions. None that I
can find.
Couple this fusion with the fact that we have ancient texts clearly
say man was created and the picture of the puzzle begins to emerge.
Man was created. Not evolved. Man may be part ape, but there is no
real evidence of speciation divergence by natural selection,
mutations, gene frequencies and time.
Today we see many variations of man through the natural processes of
evolution.
Speciation does not seem to happen. It is not observed. It is not
testable. It can not make predictions that can be verified at a latter
date.
All-seeing-I
> In message <oJGdnWzMrMGe4tHWnZ2dnUVZ_j-dn...@earthlink.com>, Steven L.
> <sdlit...@earthlink.net> writes
>
>
>
>
>
"could be" "could have"
IOW you guys do not know but you allow speciation divergence to be
sold as if it were a fact.
>
>
> >--
> >--
> >Steven L.
> >sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
> >Remove the "NOSPAM" before sending to this email address.
>
> --
> alias Ernest Major- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
All-seeing-I
Sorry. But you do not get to pick and choose in formation. You can
either address that information or you can ignore it.
For the most part, the evolutionist choses to ignore it.
But that still does not make it go away.
Boikat
<snip>
> -------
>
> So the fusion of 2 and 4 did not give any advantage for survival
> Chimps have far more genes then we have
> And we have various world wide texts that say "man was created"
>
> That equals man did not evolve but was created.
Gosh! A non-sequirur argument. Gee, I haven't seem one of those in
well, at least a day or so.
>
> --
> Modified apes with....
"modified" in the same way as a chimp is a "modified ape", or a
gorilla is a "modified ape", or an Orangutan is a "modified ape".
Modified by evolution.
>
> Bugs Bunny
I corrected your sig for you.
Boikat
John Stockwell
> On Jan 12, 9:21 am, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 12, 4:13 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > Department of Energy (DOE), today published its scientific description
> > > of the finished human genome sequence, reducing the estimated number
> > > of human protein-coding genes from 35,000 to only 20,000-25,000, a
> > > surprisingly low number for our species.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041021075155.htm
> > > -----------
>
> > > one year ago on 6 April 2005, researchers from the National Human
> > > Genome Research Institute announced that, A detailed analysis of
> > > chromosomes 2 and 4 has detected the largest �gene deserts� known in
> > > the human genome and uncovered more evidence that human chromosome 2
> > > arose from the fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes.http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/06/9033.aspx
> > > -----------
>
> > > It is also the second largest chromosome we possess and it seems to
> > > make no sense why 2 primordial chromosomes should have merged to make
> > > us human, if this new chromosome gives us no apparent advantage for
> > > survival.
>
> > It apparently is not to our detriment.
>
> > [Zecharias Sitchin nonsense deleted ]
>
> > > Here are some examples of the predictions for total number of genes in
> > > species.
>
>
> > > Zebrafish 50 000
>
> > > Chicken 76 000
>
> > > Mouse 81 000
>
> > > Chimp 130 000
>
>
> > > Can you see the problem here?
>
> > > The Chimp is our closes know genetic relative and yet it has almost
> > > twice as many genes as humans.
>
> > You are forgetting the pseudogenes that humans have that correspond to
> > functioning
> > genes in other species.
>
> > >http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vida_alien/slavespecies02.htm
> > > -------
>
> > > So the fusion of 2 and 4 did not give any advantage for survival
> > > Chimps have far more genes then we have
> > > And we have various world wide texts that say "man was created"
>
> > > That equals man did not evolve but was created.
>
> > Ancient text mean nothing in scientific discussions.
>
> Sorry. But you do not get to pick and choose in formation. You can
> either address that information or you can ignore it.
>
> For the most part, the evolutionist choses to ignore it.
>
> But that still does not make it go away.
We ignore noise. How about posting some information that
is correct for a change?
-John
archie dux
You are just declaring this, by fiat?
> the gene's natural Telemers -critical to DNA repair during mitosis --
> would repair the defect.
"Telemers" -- which the rest of us call "telomeres" -- do not
repair anything.
You just make this up as you go along, don't you?
archie
Erwin Moller
You obnoxious stupidity keeps shocking me.
The facts are:
1) Chromosome 2 gives a lot of clues away concerning it origin, strongly
indicating a fusion of two chromosomes found in our relatives.
2) We don't know WHY that fusion happened.
There comes Madman along, missing the whole point, and concludes
speciation never happens.
If you see a carwreck against some tree, would you refuse to conclude a
car hitted the tree because *you don't know how it happened*?
How stupid can you be, mate?
John Stockwell
Telomeres are the little endcaps on the chromosomes that
keep them from unraveling. Kind of like the plastic on a shoelace.
-John
John Stockwell
You didn't search very hard then.
Let's see: this is called "Robertsonian Translocation"
Cattle:
http://homepage.usask.ca/~schmutz/chromosome.html
Pigs:
http://homepage.usask.ca/~schmutz/chromosome.html
Dogs:
http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/77/2/127
Deer:
http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110006366873/en
http://www.springerlink.com/content/hx77889966710558/
In fact, you can google:
Robertsonian translocation <put animal name here>
and probably not come up empty for many species.
>
> Couple this fusion with the fact that we have ancient texts clearly
> say man was created and the picture of the puzzle begins to emerge.
Yes. That you don't practice critical thinking.
-John
John Harshman
> Department of Energy (DOE), today published its scientific description
> of the finished human genome sequence, reducing the estimated number
> of human protein-coding genes from 35,000 to only 20,000-25,000, a
> surprisingly low number for our species.
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041021075155.htm
> -----------
>
> one year ago on 6 April 2005, researchers from the National Human
> Genome Research Institute announced that, A detailed analysis of
> chromosomes 2 and 4 has detected the largest �gene deserts� known in
> the human genome and uncovered more evidence that human chromosome 2
> arose from the fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes.
> http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/06/9033.aspx
> -----------
>
> It is also the second largest chromosome we possess and it seems to
> make no sense why 2 primordial chromosomes should have merged to make
> us human, if this new chromosome gives us no apparent advantage for
> survival.
False assumption #1: that the merger of these two chromosomes made us
human, when in fact it didn't do anything. Some things happen for no
particular reason. The chromosomal fusion was a random mutation, and its
fixation was by random drift.
> So when we read in the Sumerian tablets that humans were cloned as a
> sub-species between Homo erectus and a more advanced human-like
> species that arrived on Earth some 400 000 years ago, it suddenly
> makes a little bit more sense.
False assumption #2: that we read anything of that sort in any Sumerian
tablets. What you (or Sitchin) has actually done is to make up a story
that has some resemblance to a Sumerian story. But the actual story has
nothing at all about apes, clones, or aliens.
By the way, wouldn't apes and aliens be different "kinds"? How is it
possible for different kinds to hybridize? And as I've mentioned before,
shouldn't there be clear signs of this in the human genome? Half the
genome should be chimp-like, and half should be nothing like any other
species on earth. What happened to that other half?
> The tablets describe how our maker
> removed certain parts of the �Tree of life� to trim the ability of the
> new �creature� and how they struggled to make the perfect �primitive
> worker� so that it could understand commands but not be too smart to
> question their existence.
The Tree of Life isn't DNA; it's a tree.
> Similar suggestions of genetic cloning are made in The Koran and Hindu
> Laws of Manu.
>
>
> The Koran:
>
> Ya Sin: �Is man not aware that We created him from a little germ?�
> The Believers - God says almost verbatim what the Sumerian tablets
> tell us. �We first created man from an essence of clay; then placed
> him a living germ in a secure enclosure. The germ we made a clot of
> blood, and the clot a lump of flesh. This we fashioned into bones,
> then clothed the bones with flesh��
That's nothing like cloning. More like a golem, really. Get your legends
straight.
> Laws of Manu:
>
> 19. But from minute body (-framing) particles of these seven very
> powerful Purushas springs this (world), the perishable from the
> imperishable.
> 20. Among them each succeeding (element) acquires the quality of the
> preceding one, and whatever place (in the sequence) each of them
> occupies, even so many qualities it is declared to possess.
And that means...what?
> Some species use as much as 98% of their DNA.
>
> This flies directly in the face of the principles of evolution.
Why?
> Here are some examples of the predictions for total number of genes in
> species.
>
> Fruit Fly 21 000
>
> Zebrafish 50 000
>
> Chicken 76 000
>
> Mouse 81 000
>
> Chimp 130 000
>
> Human 68 000
>
> Can you see the problem here?
No.
> The Chimp is our closes know genetic relative and yet it has almost
> twice as many genes as humans.
That's just not true. You have received your estimates from a bad
source. Chimps don't have twice as many genes as humans. And had you
already forgotten what you cut and pasted at the start of your post when
you cut and pasted this? Humans have only 20-25,000 genes, and so do
chimps. Unfortunately, your idiot source doesn't give a source for those
bizarre estimates. My estimate is that they all have about the same,
with the possible exception of the zebrafish, which might have a few
more owing to the extra round of whole-genome duplication in its ancestry.
> http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vida_alien/slavespecies02.htm
> -------
>
> So the fusion of 2 and 4 did not give any advantage for survival
> Chimps have far more genes then we have
> And we have various world wide texts that say "man was created"
>
> That equals man did not evolve but was created.
That equals nothing. Your first factoid is irrelevant; your second is
untrue; and your third is pointless. I've told you the prediction of
human-alien hybridization: first, that it would be impossible, and
second, if it were somehow possible, it would leave an unmistakable
signal in the genome, one that isn't there.
hersheyh
Even a simple search will show that end-to-end fusion of telomeres is
quite possible. Under certain *physiological* conditions (disruption
of telomerases and other telomere sustaining proteins), the telomeres
are recognized as double-strand breaks and undergo end-to-end fusion
through the non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ) repair pathway. Except
in acrocentric fusion, this produces a dicentric chromosome, which is
unstable.
http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/gkm472v1
> Unless there is a clear and verifiable natural process that fused the
> genes, then the fusion itself is evidence of a supernatural process --
> thereby creating man.
The non-homologous end-joining repair pathway is not a supernatural
process.
>
> It also suggest there was an outside influence that was not natural in
> scope.
>
> I looked for other known examples of chromosome fusions. None that I
> can find.
Apparently you did not look very hard. Or you are unable to type in
"chromosome fusion" into google or some other search engine.
> Couple this fusion with the fact that we have ancient texts clearly
> say man was created and the picture of the puzzle begins to emerge.
>
> Man was created. Not evolved. Man may be part ape, but there is no
> real evidence of speciation divergence by natural selection,
> mutations, gene frequencies and time.
>
> Today we see many variations of man through the natural processes of
> evolution.
>
> Speciation does not seem to happen. It is not observed. It is not
> testable. It can not make predictions that can be verified at a latter
> date.
Speciation mechanisms are quite testable and do make specific testable
predictions. Claiming otherwise is simply wishful thinking.
John Harshman
> "Devils Advocaat" <mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3eb76d1e-0e0c-4ae4...@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
>
>> For your information it is now known that chimps and humans have very
>> much the same number of protein coding genes.
>>
>> http://psychcentral.com/news/archives/2005-08/wuso-ncc082905.html
>>
>> "Both the chimpanzee and the human genome contain approximately
>> 20,000-25,000 protein-coding genes in 3 billion base pairs of DNA. The
>> current sequences of the human and chimp genomes are directly
>> comparable over approximately 96 percent of their lengths, and these
>> regions are 99 percent identical."
>>
>> What interests me is how you come to the conclusion that chromosome
>> fusion disproves evolution.
>
> But seriously, folks:
>
> Are there other known examples of chromosome fusions (i.e. telomeres
> found in the middle of a chromosome) in other species?
There are many known examples of chromosome fusions. But you spot them
by looking at karyotypes (numbers, sizes, banding patterns), not looking
for telomeres, which requires sequencing. I don't know that anyone has
gone looking for telomeres in any fused chromosomes. We know about them
in humans because the whole genome was sequenced.
> Are there any theories as to how a chromosome fusion like this took
> place? Telomeres don't naturally combine, so how did this happen?
Telomeres do naturally combine, at a low frequency.
> It does seem like a highly unusual type of mutation. And yet it was
> that mutation that helped separate genus Homo off from genus Pan. So
> does that mean that the evolution of genus Homo was a fluke?
You're buying into Madman's error here. Chromosomal fusion had nothing
to do with the evolution of Homo, any more than any other mutation
without phenotypic effect. Nor did it have anything to do with
speciation, if that's what you were thinking. It's just something that
happened, somewhere after humans separated from chimps. It doesn't mark
any special point in evolution.
John Harshman
John Harshman
> On Jan 12, 7:54 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> "Devils Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> news:3eb76d1e-0e0c-4ae4...@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> For your information it is now known that chimps and humans have very
>>> much the same number of protein coding genes.
>>> http://psychcentral.com/news/archives/2005-08/wuso-ncc082905.html
>>> "Both the chimpanzee and the human genome contain approximately
>>> 20,000-25,000 protein-coding genes in 3 billion base pairs of DNA. The
>>> current sequences of the human and chimp genomes are directly
>>> comparable over approximately 96 percent of their lengths, and these
>>> regions are 99 percent identical."
>>> What interests me is how you come to the conclusion that chromosome
>>> fusion disproves evolution.
>> But seriously, folks:
>>
>> Are there other known examples of chromosome fusions (i.e. telomeres
>> found in the middle of a chromosome) in other species?
>>
>> Are there any theories as to how a chromosome fusion like this took
>> place? Telomeres don't naturally combine, so how did this happen?
>>
>> It does seem like a highly unusual type of mutation. And yet it was
>> that mutation that helped separate genus Homo off from genus Pan. So
>> does that mean that the evolution of genus Homo was a fluke?
>
> You understood the post.
Oddly enough, *you* don't.
> The fusion of the chromosome is not a beneficial mutation nor would it
> be naturally selected as something for species survival. If anything,
> the gene's natural Telemers -critical to DNA repair during mitosis --
> would repair the defect.
No sense at all. Most mutations that become fixed in a population are
not beneficial; they're neutral. This is probably true of the
chromosomal fusion. Species survival has nothing to do with selection,
which is a process dependent on individual advantage. Telomeres (note
spelling) have nothing to do with DNA repair. What they do is prevent
chromosomes from unraveling and losing sequence off the end. They don't
"repair the defect". Which isn't a defect anyway.
> Unless there is a clear and verifiable natural process that fused the
> genes, then the fusion itself is evidence of a supernatural process --
> thereby creating man.
There is a clear and verifiable natural process. Chromosomal fusions
happen fairly often in the human population. Most of them are quickly
lost. Some of them are deleterious, and are lost for that reason. Most
are lost just because that's the usual fate of a new, neutral mutation.
Beyond that, your "logic" is absurd: we don't (supposedly) understand
how something happens, therefore goddidit.
> It also suggest there was an outside influence that was not natural in
> scope.
>
> I looked for other known examples of chromosome fusions. None that I
> can find.
That's because you are very, very bad at looking. Posters in this thread
have already mentioned several.
> Couple this fusion with the fact that we have ancient texts clearly
> say man was created and the picture of the puzzle begins to emerge.
>
> Man was created. Not evolved. Man may be part ape, but there is no
> real evidence of speciation divergence by natural selection,
> mutations, gene frequencies and time.
It's been pointed out several times that "speciation divergence" is your
own private phrase, and nobody else is quite sure what you mean by it.
> Today we see many variations of man through the natural processes of
> evolution.
>
> Speciation does not seem to happen. It is not observed. It is not
> testable. It can not make predictions that can be verified at a latter
> date.
Of course it does. It happens, it's observed, it's testable. And while
I'm not sure what it would mean for speciation to make predictions,
common descent certainly entails a great many predictions. I predict for
example, that if you look at a particular gene (one you haven't looked
at before) in all the species of apes, it will show humans most closely
related to chimps and gorillas, then to orangutans, and then to gibbons.
I predict that if you look at a human genome, you won't find any alien
genes, just genes that are also found in other apes, and all of them
quite similar to their form in those apes.
Friar Broccoli
.
It is a fact.
8% of the shared human/chimp genome is old bits of identified
retrovirus.
This fits perfectly with the evidence from the fossil record and
cannot be explained by common design.
mur...@tntech.edu
<Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...@spamyourself.com> wrote:
> All-seeing-I schreef:
[...]
>
> How stupid can you be, mate?
Read his threads on the ancient astronauts.
---DPM
>
> Regards,
> Erwin Moller
>
> --
> "There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
> make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
> other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
> deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
> -- C.A.R. Hoare- Hide quoted text -
Kermit
> On Jan 12, 7:54�am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Devils Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> >news:3eb76d1e-0e0c-4ae4...@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > For your information it is now known that chimps and humans have very
> > > much the same number of protein coding genes.
>
> > >http://psychcentral.com/news/archives/2005-08/wuso-ncc082905.html
>
> > > "Both the chimpanzee and the human genome contain approximately
> > > 20,000-25,000 protein-coding genes in 3 billion base pairs of DNA. The
> > > current sequences of the human and chimp genomes are directly
> > > comparable over approximately 96 percent of their lengths, and these
> > > regions are 99 percent identical."
>
> > > What interests me is how you come to the conclusion that chromosome
> > > fusion disproves evolution.
>
> > But seriously, folks:
>
> > Are there other known examples of chromosome fusions (i.e. telomeres
> > found in the middle of a chromosome) in other species?
>
> > Are there any theories as to how a chromosome fusion like this took
> > place? �Telomeres don't naturally combine, so how did this happen?
>
> > It does seem like a highly unusual type of mutation. �And yet it was
> > that mutation that helped separate genus Homo off from genus Pan. So
> > does that mean that the evolution of genus Homo was a fluke?
>
> You understood the post.
Yes, but you did not.
>
> The fusion of the chromosome is not a beneficial mutation nor would it
> be naturally selected as something for species survival.
Correct. But neither is it detrimental; it is neutral. Neutral
mutations may be the majority of evolution (that is, the mere shifting
of alleles) but not the really interesting stuff (e.g. the development
of wings and the ability to fly). Neutral mutations by definition do
not change function of an organism much. Examples in humans would be
the extra epithelial fold in Asian humans, and American aboriginal men
not growing beards. the first example does not affect eyesight, the
second example does not affect fertility, aggression, etc.
With many neutral mutations occurring, some are bound to spread by
pure chance. Some are the results of the "founder effect". If a family
discovers and populates a large island, 1000 years later everybody
still looks a lot like Grandpa (although for them, that's the
standard). This chromosome fusion may have been as recent as the human
bottleneck (about 1000 breeding pairs, about 70,000 years ago -
probably related to Toba), but it may have been several million years
ago. If we sequence neanderthal DNA, that will tell us something.
> If anything,
> the gene's natural Telemers -critical to DNA repair during mitosis --
> would repair the defect.
That's not their function. Doesn't it bother you that you just make
stuff up that has nothing to do with reality?
>
> Unless there is a clear and verifiable natural process that fused the
> genes,
Wait - if we don't know how something happened, then Jesus?
> then the fusion itself is evidence of a supernatural process --
> thereby creating man.
>
Detective: "This man was clearly murdered."
Cop on the Beat: "How"
Detective: "Can't tell with what we know, so it must have been Jesus."
<ominous music>
Jesus: back from the dead, and ready to kill again.
</ominous music>
> It also suggest there was an outside influence that was not natural in
> scope.
Where did the article suggest this? Or are you claiming that as a
matter of principle, if we don't know something, then it must have
been a miracle of God?
This is what we call the God of the Gaps. Your god only exists in the
shadows of ignorance, and retreats away from the light, like a
vampire. This is one of several reasons why you hate knowledge. You
cannot grasp that understanding a process does not make it godless, so
as humans learn more, your god is diminished. I wonder how he feels
about such followers?
>
> I looked for other known examples of chromosome fusions. None that I
> can find.
What, you looked around your mom's basement and didn't see any?
Earlier responses to your post provide some links. This is common.
>
> Couple this fusion with the fact that we have ancient texts clearly
> say man was created and the picture of the puzzle begins to emerge.
Couple this fusion with Marvel comic books and we have... Howard the
Duck! Adventurer, Misanthropist, philosopher, duck.
All the ancient texts show is that some ancient cultures knew how to
write.
>
> Man was created.
Any evidence other than your claims to infallibility and divine
favor?
> Not evolved. Man may be part ape, but there is no
> real evidence of speciation divergence by natural selection,
> mutations, gene frequencies and time.
Well. other than
Fossil evidence sorted by time, corresponding to progression of early,
simple forms to diversity of modern forms, with numerous clear
transitional series.
Fossil evidence showing progression of whole ecosystems, with various
types of fossils associated with only certain other fossils.
Fossil evidence corresponding to plate tectonics, magnetic striping,
and other geological evidence.
Nested hierarchy of morphology.
Nested hierarchy of all the genomes studied so far.
The fact that these two nested hierarchies *match* is evidence in
itself.
Vestigial organs, structures, molecules, and behaviors.
Life is unified by a sharing of fundamental polymers, nucleic acids,
protein catalysts, etc.
Plus some other stuff.
>
> Today we see many variations of man through the natural processes of
> evolution.
Yes.
>
> Speciation does not seem to happen.
Sure it does. For several examples (out of many) see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
> It is not observed.
Take a stiff drink, take a deep breath, and look at the web page cited
above.
> It is not
> testable. It can not make predictions that can be verified at a latter
> date.
Sure it is. Whom are you trying to convince by saying this? Hmmm... it
can't be us, since we all have seen enough evidence to convince us. It
must be you. If you are emotionally incapable of admitting the
existence of the evidence, can you possibly consider this question?
Probably not.
OK, I'm done talking to myself now.
Kermit
Davej
> [...] A detailed analysis of chromosomes 2 and 4 has... uncovered
> more evidence that human chromosome 2 arose from the fusion of
> two ancestral ape chromosomes.
> http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/06/9033.aspx
Wow, so more proof that you evolved from an ape. What a shocker.
Kermit
It is not information. Concretely, mythology is a series of bizarre
magical claims, contradicted by known facts. When interpreted, there
is no way to verify these stories, so they are useless in science.
You do not get to make shit up and have people take it seriously.
> For the most part, the evolutionist choses to ignore it.
Uh-huh. Please offer verifiable facts. You know, an observation that
we can all see. The contents of a comic book are not facts unless we
can verify them *outside the comic book. This also goes for fine
literature, venerable myths, inspired philosophy, heart touching
poetry, and careful observations of an ET getting out of a flying
saucer. If I can't see it, it ain't real. If the only place you've
seen it is in your mind's eye, it ain't real.
>
> But that still does not make it go away.
I tells ya, the Hulk is real, man!
<waves comic about>
Kermit
johnetho...@yahoo.com
Or Sumerian in vitro fertilization.
jillery
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well said, John. While we are restating what is already known, I
might as well restate that evolution does not predict or require this
fusion event to have occured, contrary to what Casey Luskin and ASI
assert without evidence. However, as Dr. Miller explains very well in
his video, the different chromosome counts between humans and other
apes could have been evidence against common descent if there was no
explanation for it.
All-seeing-I
> On Jan 12, 9:32 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 12, 9:21 am, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 12, 4:13 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Department of Energy (DOE), today published its scientific description
> > > > of the finished human genome sequence, reducing the estimated number
> > > > of human protein-coding genes from 35,000 to only 20,000-25,000, a
> > > > surprisingly low number for our species.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041021075155.htm
> > > > -----------
>
> > > > one year ago on 6 April 2005, researchers from the National Human
> > > > Genome Research Institute announced that, A detailed analysis of
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why? You would not recognize it anyway.
All-seeing-I
I did not say it was not possible.
>
> > Unless there is a clear and verifiable natural process that fused the
> > genes, then the fusion itself is evidence of a supernatural process --
> > thereby creating man.
>
> The non-homologous end-joining repair pathway is not a supernatural
> process.
Everything in this universe is a supernatural process. The laws, the
math, the processes; Everything. You guys just don't realize it for
some odd reason
> > It also suggest there was an outside influence that was not natural in
> > scope.
>
> > I looked for other known examples of chromosome fusions. None that I
> > can find.
>
> Apparently you did not look very hard. �Or you are unable to type in
> "chromosome fusion" into google or some other search engine.
I found no example that can be compared to the divergence of humans.
So far the fusion seems to be initiated by a break of two acrocentric
chromosomes
That in and of itself seems supernatural. Why? Because none of the
human genome originated from a chimpanzee but from a common primate
ancestor that did not have a fused chromosome instead.
I'm not a 'rocket scientist' like you but, even I can see the fusion
happened after the divergence.
It is a well known fact that species with different chromosome numbers
have great difficulty in reproducing. When they can sucessfully
reproduce the result is always an infertile offspring.
In that light, the chromosome fusion differs from the others in your
examples. It had to happen fast and all through the population at the
same time.
It cannot happen gradually because two chromosomes are either fused or
they are not. Also, the exact same fusion had to occur in the
population at the same time, otherwise, it could not spread because of
the infertility of the offspring.
So if there was a divergence from a common ancestor the fusion took
place after the divergence and all at once in the entire population
OR, the new population with the fusion was small and the mutation
then proliferated throughout the population.
This small population could be like described in the Sumerian texts,
or even as small as 2 as described in the garden of eden.
It matters not to me if you want to defend evolution. But why not say
"this is what i believe". Because the more i dig in to the ToE, the
more I find the ToE is what disproves the ToE.
It should be as plain as the nose on your face that this fusion had to
take place all at once and completly through the entire population at
the same time in order for the population to be able to breed and pass
on the fused gene on. That does not spell evolution via gene
frequency, mutations, natural selection and time, but it does suggest
a rapid supernatural occurrence and outside intervention within the
same generation.
> > Couple this fusion with the fact that we have ancient texts clearly
> > say man was created and the picture of the puzzle begins to emerge.
>
> > Man was created. Not evolved. Man may be part ape, but there is no
> > real evidence of speciation divergence by natural selection,
> > mutations, gene frequencies and time.
>
> > Today we see many variations of man through the natural processes of
> > evolution.
>
> > Speciation does not seem to happen. It is not observed. It is not
> > testable. It can not make predictions that can be verified at a latter
> > date.
>
> Speciation mechanisms are quite testable and do make specific testable
> predictions. �Claiming otherwise is simply wishful thinking.
Why don't you just admit that you want to believe man came from apes
through natural processes instead of hiding behind real science?
Caranx latus
> On Jan 12, 11:08�am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > The non-homologous end-joining repair pathway is not a supernatural
> > process.
>
> Everything in this universe is a supernatural process. The laws, the
> math, the processes; Everything. You guys just don't realize it for
> some odd reason
I'd like to congratulate you on rendering the word 'supernatural'
completely redundant. It can now be replaced with the word 'natural'.
Well done.
<snip>
Mike Lyle
[...]
>
> Telomeres are the little endcaps on the chromosomes that
> keep them from unraveling. Kind of like the plastic on a shoelace.
Those tags are called "aglets".
--
Mike.
jillery
<snip>
> It is a well known fact that species with different chromosome numbers
> have great difficulty in reproducing. When they can sucessfully
> reproduce the result is always an infertile offspring.
It is a well known fact that whenever creationists say "it is a well
known fact", it is almost certainly not a fact. There are many
varieties of domestic cows, goats and sheep which produce fertile
offspring across karotypes. Ditto with wild horses, shrews, mice,
rats and lots of different plants. ASI's statement above is simply
wrong.
> In that light, the chromosome fusion differs from the others in your
> examples. It had to happen fast and all through the population at the
> same time.
>
> It cannot happen gradually because two chromosomes are either fused or
> they are not. Also, the exact same fusion had to occur in the
> population at the same time, otherwise, it could not spread because of
> the infertility of the offspring.
The above is not even wrong. The fusion needed to happen only once,
and to only one of the two chromosomes in the pair. Keep in mind that
the event in question was a fusion of two complete ancestral ape
chromosomes, as evidenced by the genome maps. It caused no loss of
genetic information, and it required no preliminary chromosome
breaks. So the newly fused chromosome had no problem lining up with
its unfused complements during fertilization. This mean the
individual who first carried the fused chromosome could still produce
fertile offspring with unaffected individuals.
I don't mean to suggest this fusion was problem-free. The affected
diploid cell had 47 chromomomes instead of 48. Initially, individuals
with the fused chromosome would have reduced fertility, because some
genetic combinations were lethal. Over time, as more individuals
carried the fused chromosome, this problem went away, and would allow
the unimpeded development of a new species with 46 chromosomes.
PZ Myers has a more detailed explanation here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/09/luskins_ludicrous_genetics.php
jillery
wrote:
"Aglet" is a great Scrabble word.
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>So when we read in the Sumerian tablets that humans were cloned as a
>sub-species between Homo erectus and a more advanced human-like
>species that arrived on Earth some 400 000 years ago, it suddenly
>makes a little bit more sense. The tablets describe how our maker
>removed certain parts of the �Tree of life� to trim the ability of the
>new �creature� and how they struggled to make the perfect �primitive
>worker� so that it could understand commands but not be too smart to
>question their existence.
it would make sense had they mentioned DNA. since creationists have no
sense of science at all, and the sumerians were writing cultural
stories, not history, we can safely say that your view is either drug
induced or caused by religious fanaticism
>
>Some species use as much as 98% of their DNA
>
>This flies directly in the face of the principles of evolution.
>
>Here are some examples of the predictions for total number of genes in
>species.
>
>Fruit Fly 21 000
>
>Zebrafish 50 000
>
>Chicken 76 000
>
>Mouse 81 000
>
>Chimp 130 000
>
>Human 68 000
>
>Can you see the problem here?
>
>The Chimp is our closes know genetic relative and yet it has almost
>twice as many genes as humans.\\
?? you obviously know zip about genetics. the NUMBER of genes has NO
relationship at ALL to anything. none.
if creationists had known ANYTHING about science in 2000 years, they'd
have credibility. but they were wrong about EVERYTHING...
Sapient Fridge
<madman-d509e2ce-e1ed-...@34g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>
, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
Telomeres don't repair defects, they are gene free regions at the end of
chromosomes which reduce in length each time the chromosome is copied.
Because they don't code for anything they can be sacrificed to protect
more valuable genes. When the telomeres run out the problems start.
>Unless there is a clear and verifiable natural process that fused the
>genes, then the fusion itself is evidence of a supernatural process --
>thereby creating man.
The natural process you are looking for is called Robertsonian
translocation.
>It also suggest there was an outside influence that was not natural in
>scope.
>
>I looked for other known examples of chromosome fusions. None that I
>can find.
You weren't looking in the right places then. About 1:1000 humans are
carrying a fused chromosome. Robertsonian translocations are
surprisingly common.
>Couple this fusion with the fact that we have ancient texts clearly
>say man was created and the picture of the puzzle begins to emerge.
The only puzzle is why you believe everything you read on the web.
>Man was created. Not evolved. Man may be part ape, but there is no
>real evidence of speciation divergence by natural selection,
>mutations, gene frequencies and time.
Actually there is rather a lot of real evidence for all of that. You
just won't look at it.
>Today we see many variations of man through the natural processes of
>evolution.
>
>Speciation does not seem to happen. It is not observed. It is not
>testable. It can not make predictions that can be verified at a latter
>date.
It does happen, it is observed and it does give verifiable predictions.
Just because you refuse to learn does not mean that the information
isn't out there.
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>
>Unless there is a clear and verifiable natural process that fused the
>genes, then the fusion itself is evidence of a supernatural process --
>thereby creating man.
?? gee. DNA replication is chemistry. so now chemsitry doesn't exist?
and all c hemistry is the result of 'god did it?
you guys have a problem: the methods of DNA chemistry are pretty well
establshed, but YOU guys had no role in it
instead you were praying to demons to protect you from disease.
>
>It also suggest there was an outside influence that was not natural in
>scope.
flying saucers. why not j ust say we were all created 5 seconds ago?
makes as much sense.
>
>I looked for other known examples of chromosome fusions. None that I
>can find.
really? that's because you creationists don't know how to do science.
http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Doi=134339
The chromosomes of the babirusa, a species considered to have diverged
from an ancestor of the pig during the Miocene epoch, about 12-26
million years ago, were studied to determine the sites of recent
rearrangements during evolution of the domestic pig. It is shown that
there is a pericentric inversion of the entire short arm on pig
chromosome 1, compared to its counterpart in the babirusa (chromosome
15). We also present evidence suggesting that pig chromosome 3 was
derived by a telomere-centromere fusion of two ancestral chromosomes
homoeologous to babirusa chromosomes 12 and 17. Likewise, we conclude
that pig chromosome 6 was most likely derived by a telomere-telomere
fusion of ancestral chromosomes homoeologous to babirusa chromosomes 6
and 14
you creationists don't know science. it's REALLY that simple
you guys were wrong when you said demons caused earthquakes. you were
wrong when you said angels moved the planets
NOW you're saying god did it causes speciation.
for 2000 years you've been wrong.
>
>Couple this fusion with the fact that we have ancient texts clearly
>say man was created and the picture of the puzzle begins to emerge.
couple this with we have CONTEMPORARY stories which talk of vampires,
werewolves, etc., is the ceationist telling us we should look for
vampires?
>
>Man was created. Not evolved. Man may be part ape, but there is no
>real evidence of speciation divergence by natural selection,
>mutations, gene frequencies and time.
sure there is. the fossil record. can't help it if you guys have been
wrong for 2000 years
>
>Today we see many variations of man through the natural processes of
>evolution.
>
>Speciation does not seem to happen. It is not observed. It is not
>testable. It can not make predictions that can be verified at a latter
>date.
the mechanism of evolution is testable
AND the creationist model of angels and demons is ALSO testable
it's wrong.
>
>
>
>
Mike Lyle
Ah, for Scrabble porpoises I hope you know that there is a variant,
"aiglet".
--
Mike.
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Jan 12, 11:08�am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 12, 11:28�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>
>I did not say it was not possible.
>
>>
>> > Unless there is a clear and verifiable natural process that fused the
>> > genes, then the fusion itself is evidence of a supernatural process --
>> > thereby creating man.
>>
>> The non-homologous end-joining repair pathway is not a supernatural
>> process.
>
>Everything in this universe is a supernatural process. The laws, the
>math, the processes; Everything. You guys just don't realize it for
>some odd reason
then there's no difference between a supernatural process and a
natural one. gravity is just as supernatural as demons are.
and therefore we don't need the supernatural. god is dead. you just
said he is.
>
>
>> > It also suggest there was an outside influence that was not natural in
>> > scope.
>>
>> > I looked for other known examples of chromosome fusions. None that I
>> > can find.
>>
>> Apparently you did not look very hard. �Or you are unable to type in
>> "chromosome fusion" into google or some other search engine.
>
>I found no example that can be compared to the divergence of humans.
i did.
http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Doi=134339
>So far the fusion seems to be initiated by a break of two acrocentric
>chromosomes
>
>That in and of itself seems supernatural.
really? hydrogen bonding is supernatural?
Why? Because none of the
>human genome originated from a chimpanzee but from a common primate
>ancestor that did not have a fused chromosome instead.
so you admit you're wrong, but that you're right??
so the human fusion came AFTER the split. you're just incredibly
stupid and can't figure this out
>
>In that light, the chromosome fusion differs from the others in your
>examples. It had to happen fast and all through the population at the
>same time.
it's called the 'founder effect' in evolution
>
>So if there was a divergence from a common ancestor the fusion took
>place after the divergence and all at once in the entire population
>OR, the new population with the fusion was small and the mutation
>then proliferated throughout the population.
it's called the 'founder effect' in evolution.
>
>This small population could be like described in the Sumerian texts,
>or even as small as 2 as described in the garden of eden.
it's called the 'founder effect' in evolution. so the sumerian text
descibes a feature of evolution
thanks. we already knew that.
>
>It matters not to me if you want to defend evolution. But why not say
>"this is what i believe". Because the more i dig in to the ToE, the
>more I find the ToE is what disproves the ToE.
you just proved a feature of evolution. and you say evolution is
wrong.
typical creationist logic.
>
>It should be as plain as the nose on your face that this fusion had to
>take place all at once and completly through the entire population at
>the same time in order for the population to be able to breed and pass
>on the fused gene on. That does not spell evolution via gene
>frequency, mutations, natural selection and time, but it does suggest
>a rapid supernatural occurrence and outside intervention within the
>same generation.
?? let's assume you're right and evolution can't explain this
then the obvious answer is the cause is unknown. why?
because creationism has always been wrong
AND because creationism has no mechanism to determine when it's wrong,
like science does.
you're an embarrassment to creationism. you use the 'god of the gaps'
argument at every opportunity, and you're too stupid to realize how
ridiculous it is
>
>Why don't you just admit that you want to believe man came from apes
>through natural processes instead of hiding behind real science?
>
ROFLMAO!! chez watt award! 'natural processes instead of real
science'...
i love it!!
John Stockwell
Sure we would.
-John
jillery
wrote:
> The natural process you are looking for is called Robertsonian
> translocation.
I thought we settled this. I guess I have to go back to confused mode.
Desertphile
<use_repl...@spamsights.org> wrote:
> In message
> <madman-6eea0ec3-0e17-...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
> , All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
>
> <snip>
>
> >So the fusion of 2 and 4 did not give any advantage for survival
>
> We don't know what the advantage was (if there was one) but that is not
> the same as there not being an advantage. Not knowing something is not
> the same as it not existing.
>
> Potential advantages are covered on my web page:
>
> http://www.sapientfridge.org/chromosome_count/advantages.html
>
> Actually there doesn't even have to be an advantage, it could have
> happened just by neutral drift. It's less likely though.
>
> >Chimps have far more genes then we have
>
> Rubbish. Chimps have around the same number of genes as us. The
> figures you quote even say they are "predictions", wrong ones at that.
>
> >And we have various world wide texts that say "man was created"
>
> Yep they do say that. Now all you have to show is that they aren't
> works of fiction.
12 hours, and adman has ignored the facts you presented that
refutes his assertions. Golly, that's unprecedented!
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
All-seeing-I
<Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...@spamyourself.com> wrote:
> All-seeing-I schreef:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> In message <oJGdnWzMrMGe4tHWnZ2dnUVZ_j-dn...@earthlink.com>, Steven L.
> >> <sdlit...@earthlink.net> writes
>
> >>>news:3eb76d1e-0e0c-4ae4...@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
> >>>> For your information it is now known that chimps and humans have very
> >>>> much the same number of protein coding genes.
> >>>>http://psychcentral.com/news/archives/2005-08/wuso-ncc082905.html
> >>>> "Both the chimpanzee and the human genome contain approximately
> >>>> 20,000-25,000 protein-coding genes in 3 billion base pairs of DNA. The
> >>>> current sequences of the human and chimp genomes are directly
> >>>> comparable over approximately 96 percent of their lengths, and these
> >>>> regions are 99 percent identical."
> >>>> What interests me is how you come to the conclusion that chromosome
> >>>> fusion disproves evolution.
> >>> But seriously, folks:
> >>> Are there other known examples of chromosome fusions (i.e. telomeres
> >>> found in the middle of a chromosome) in other species?
> >> polymorphic for chromosome number - the Israeli mole rat, the house
> >> mouse, some South American species, etc. Whether any has been sequenced
> >> to the point of identifying intrachromosomal telemore sequences is
> >> another question - it may depend on which house mouse strain had its
> >> genome sequenced. On the other hand, perhaps FISH would detect such
> >> sequences, and it's probably cheaper than sequencing a genome.
>
> >> Among plants, Brassica rapa has 20 chromosomes, Brassica oleracea 18 and
> >> Brassica nigra 16. As these are palaeotetraploid it is possible that the
> >> differences are due to loss of chromosomes, but I suspect that the cause
> >> here is fusion or fission.
>
> >>> place? �Telomeres don't naturally combine, so how did this happen?
> >>> It does seem like a highly unusual type of mutation. �And yet it was
> >>> that mutation that helped separate genus Homo off from genus Pan. So
> >>> does that mean that the evolution of genus Homo was a fluke?
> >> separate genus Homo from genus Pan. The chromosome fusion could have
> >> occurred any time after the split. It could even be unique to Homo
> >> sapiens.
>
>
> > IOW you guys do not know but you allow speciation divergence to be
> > sold as if it were a fact.
>
>
> The facts are:
> 1) Chromosome 2 gives a lot of clues away concerning it origin, strongly
> indicating a fusion of two chromosomes found in our relatives.
> 2) We don't know WHY that fusion happened.
>
> There comes Madman along, missing the whole point, and concludes
> speciation never happens.
>
> If you see a carwreck against some tree, would you refuse to conclude a
> car hitted the tree because *you don't know how it happened*?
>
> How stupid can you be, mate?
>
> Erwin Moller
>
> --
> "There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
> make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
> other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
> deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
>
> - Show quoted text -
Aparantly not as stupid as you.
You think magic turned an ape into a man
Caranx latus
> On Jan 12, 10:50 am, Erwin Moller
<snip>
>> The facts are:
>> 1) Chromosome 2 gives a lot of clues away concerning it origin, strongly
>> indicating a fusion of two chromosomes found in our relatives.
>> 2) We don't know WHY that fusion happened.
>>
>> There comes Madman along, missing the whole point, and concludes
>> speciation never happens.
>>
>> If you see a carwreck against some tree, would you refuse to conclude a
>> car hitted the tree because *you don't know how it happened*?
>>
>> How stupid can you be, mate?
>
> Aparantly not as stupid as you.
>
> You think magic turned an ape into a man
You really don't need to hold that strawman so tightly, [M]adape. No one
is going to steal it from you.
R. Baldwin
news:IeCdnZG496t...@giganews.com:
And now, for something you'll really like!
Boikat
> On Jan 12, 10:50锟絘m, Erwin Moller
> > >>> It does seem like a highly unusual type of mutation. 锟紸nd yet it was
Your continued reference to evolution as "magic", speaks more to your
trollish nature. Rither that, or you are till flat out stupid.
Boikat
Cory Albrecht
> On Jan 12, 11:28 am, All-seeing-I<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> I looked for other known examples of chromosome fusions. None that I
>> can find.
>
> Apparently you did not look very hard. Or you are unable to type in
> "chromosome fusion" into google or some other search engine.
Well, we know that Adman only looks at creationist "sources", so because
chromosome fusions are such good evidence for evolution, of course he
wouldn't find any other examples.
Not as if he's ever actually gone near anything like a reputable
peer-reviewed journal.
Christopher Denney
>
> Boikat
Now remember, the stupid and the ignorant have always referred to
things they didn't understand as magic.
Arthur C. Clarke wrote: Any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic.
It would appear that Popsicle sticks are the limit of what he can
distinguish from magic, but I have no proof that Popsicles don't
qualify, to him, as magic.
Sapient Fridge
<madman-af182d99-2a75-...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com
>, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
<snip>
>It is a well known fact that species with different chromosome numbers
>have great difficulty in reproducing. When they can sucessfully
>reproduce the result is always an infertile offspring.
This is not always true. It's not the differing chromosome numbers that
causes the problem, its the fact that the chromosomes have differing
content that causes the infertility.
People with different chromosome numbers can interbreed and produce
fertile offspring. It happens today, about 1:1000 humans have a fused
chromosome and have fertile children that either carry the fused
chromosome or not.
http://www.sapientfridge.org/chromosome_count/fertility.html
The part you are missing is that someone with a fused chromosome has all
the genetic material, there is nothing added or removed. When the
chromosomes take part in meiosis and recombine with their homologous
partners the fused chromosome pairs up with *both* of its homologous
unfused chromosome partners.
>In that light, the chromosome fusion differs from the others in your
>examples. It had to happen fast and all through the population at the
>same time.
>
>It cannot happen gradually because two chromosomes are either fused or
>they are not. Also, the exact same fusion had to occur in the
>population at the same time, otherwise, it could not spread because of
>the infertility of the offspring.
Wrong. The percentage of the population with a fused chromosome can
gradually change because the carriers can interbreed with either
chromosome count.
http://www.sapientfridge.org/chromosome_count/population_spread.html
Erwin Moller
Madman, don't quote signatures, you noob.
The above text is not meant to be quoted.
A guy like you that is spamming usenets for years with his wrong
ideology, should know that by now.
If you use a good newsreader, that would be done automagically for you.
That said, let's have a look at your insightful response:
>
> Aparantly not as stupid as you.
>
> You think magic turned an ape into a man
>
That is a lie, again.
When did you become such a pathetic liar? From birth?
Or are your trollingskills dimishing, like my respect for you?
I do not believe in magic. That would be you with your Fairy In The Sky
that created the whole universe (6000 years ago I guess).
Science, and thus biology, doesn't need magic to explain the world
around us.
It uses natural explanations, that can be investigated by anyone who
cares about facts.
Now grow up, be a man, and admit you make it all up as you go.
Devils Advocaat
> "Devils Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:3eb76d1e-0e0c-4ae4...@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > For your information it is now known that chimps and humans have very
> > much the same number of protein coding genes.
>
> >http://psychcentral.com/news/archives/2005-08/wuso-ncc082905.html
>
> > "Both the chimpanzee and the human genome contain approximately
> > 20,000-25,000 protein-coding genes in 3 billion base pairs of DNA. The
> > current sequences of the human and chimp genomes are directly
> > comparable over approximately 96 percent of their lengths, and these
> > regions are 99 percent identical."
>
> > What interests me is how you come to the conclusion that chromosome
> > fusion disproves evolution.
>
> But seriously, folks:
>
> Are there other known examples of chromosome fusions (i.e. telomeres
> found in the middle of a chromosome) in other species?
>
> place? �Telomeres don't naturally combine, so how did this happen?
>
> It does seem like a highly unusual type of mutation. �And yet it was
> that mutation that helped separate genus Homo off from genus Pan. So
> does that mean that the evolution of genus Homo was a fluke?
Now what kind of fluke are we looking at here?
A pair of horizontal tail fins, a type of flatfish, a flatworm, a
band, a film, a novel, or a manufacturer of electrical or electronic
test equipment? :P
>
> --
> --
> Steven L.
> sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
> Remove the "NOSPAM" before sending to this email address.
jillery
wrote...
...reflections of previous posts.
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>Aparantly not as stupid as you.
>
>You think magic turned an ape into a man
uh no. we think observable natural processes cause evolution.
creationists? stuck in thinking 'ghostbusters' is a documentary
>
Ye Old One
>Everything in this universe is a supernatural process.
--
Bob.
Desertphile
wrote:
> In the "Only demons can vote for this Chez Watt" category.
>> Everything in this universe is a supernatural process.
I'll remember this fact when I next use the toilet.....
hersheyh
> On Jan 12, 11:08嚙窮m, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 12, 11:28嚙窮m, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 12, 7:54嚙窮m, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > > "Devils Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:3eb76d1e-0e0c-4ae4...@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > > > For your information it is now known that chimps and humans have very
> > > > > much the same number of protein coding genes.
>
> > > > >http://psychcentral.com/news/archives/2005-08/wuso-ncc082905.html
>
> > > > > "Both the chimpanzee and the human genome contain approximately
> > > > > 20,000-25,000 protein-coding genes in 3 billion base pairs of DNA. The
> > > > > current sequences of the human and chimp genomes are directly
> > > > > comparable over approximately 96 percent of their lengths, and these
> > > > > regions are 99 percent identical."
>
> > > > > What interests me is how you come to the conclusion that chromosome
> > > > > fusion disproves evolution.
>
> > > > But seriously, folks:
>
> > > > Are there other known examples of chromosome fusions (i.e. telomeres
> > > > found in the middle of a chromosome) in other species?
>
> > > > Are there any theories as to how a chromosome fusion like this took
>
> > > > It does seem like a highly unusual type of mutation. 嚙璀nd yet it was
> > > > that mutation that helped separate genus Homo off from genus Pan. So
> > > > does that mean that the evolution of genus Homo was a fluke?
>
>
> > > The fusion of the chromosome is not a beneficial mutation nor would it
> > > be naturally selected as something for species survival. If anything,
> > > the gene's natural Telemers -critical to DNA repair during mitosis --
> > > would repair the defect.
>
> > quite possible. 嚙磊nder certain *physiological* conditions (disruption
> > of telomerases and other telomere sustaining proteins), the telomeres
> > are recognized as double-strand breaks and undergo end-to-end fusion
> > through the non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ) repair pathway. 嚙瘟xcept
> > in acrocentric fusion, this produces a dicentric chromosome, which is
> > unstable.
>
> >http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/gkm472v1
>
> I did not say it was not possible.
And I never claimed that you thought it was impossible. But we can
both agree that you did not make a serious search of the publicly
available sources for examples. That just makes you *ignorant* of the
evidence that such things exist. That you arrogantly think that your
personal ignorance of the evidence means that there is no such
evidence is your (and most creationist's) problem.
> > > Unless there is a clear and verifiable natural process that fused the
> > > genes, then the fusion itself is evidence of a supernatural process --
> > > thereby creating man.
>
> > The non-homologous end-joining repair pathway is not a supernatural
> > process.
>
> Everything in this universe is a supernatural process. The laws, the
> math, the processes; Everything. You guys just don't realize it for
> some odd reason.
If everything in the universe is supernatural, nothing is natural and
nothing can be explained. That is, we cannot predict anything. If
you walk out the 23rd story window, you are just as likely to levitate
upward as plummet downward. Experience teaches most people
otherwise. You must be a most wonderous simpleton (holy fool) to
watch, since, to you, everything that happens to you is a complete
mystery.
> > > It also suggest there was an outside influence that was not natural in
> > > scope.
>
> > > I looked for other known examples of chromosome fusions. None that I
> > > can find.
>
> > Apparently you did not look very hard. 嚙瞌r you are unable to type in
> > "chromosome fusion" into google or some other search engine.
>
> I found no example that can be compared to the divergence of humans.
> So far the fusion seems to be initiated by a break of two acrocentric
> chromosomes
>
> That in and of itself seems supernatural.
Double strand breaks are not supernatural. You can even manipulate
mutagens (particularly x-rays or natural 'cosmic' rays) to increase
their frequency. That is why organisms have evolved double-strand
repair systems to fuse together damaged ends.
> Why? Because none of the
> human genome originated from a chimpanzee but from a common primate
> ancestor that did not have a fused chromosome instead.
Why is that a puzzle?
>
> I'm not a 'rocket scientist' like you but, even I can see the fusion
> happened after the divergence.
Yes.
>
> It is a well known fact that species with different chromosome numbers
> have great difficulty in reproducing. When they can sucessfully
> reproduce the result is always an infertile offspring.
*Single* chromosome rearrangements, whether translocations or
inversions, in fact do not cause 'great difficulty' in reproducing.
In fact, for particular types of translocations and inversions, the
degree of reproductive difficulty is pretty minor. For Robertsonian
(or near-Robertsonian) there is often between a 5-15% reduction in
fertility. But the reduced fertility only exists in organisms
*heterozygous* for the difference in chromosome arrangement and not
for populations that are *homozygous* for the change. It typically
takes a *number* of such rearrangements to significantly reduce the
fertility of the *hybrid*, but that can make chromosome rearrangements
*part* of a speciation process.
> In that light, the chromosome fusion differs from the others in your
> examples. It had to happen fast and all through the population at the
> same time.
Not at all. All that is required is what amounts to drift or the
founder effect to generate a population which is mostly homozygous for
one variation and another that is mostly homozygous for the other,
with hybrids (homozygotes) being formed where (or if) the two
populations meet. This can be part of the speciation process.
> It cannot happen gradually because two chromosomes are either fused or
> they are not. Also, the exact same fusion had to occur in the
> population at the same time, otherwise, it could not spread because of
> the infertility of the offspring.
Like you say, you are not a rocket scientist. Neither am I. But you
are also not a biologist or geneticist. I am.
>
> So if there was a divergence from a common ancestor the fusion took
> place after the divergence and all at once in the entire population
> OR, 嚙緣he new population with the fusion was small and the mutation
> then proliferated throughout the population.
A population does not *have* to be small for a neutral or near-neutral
mutation to proliferate through the population. But because random
variance as a % of size is greater in small populations, it can happen
faster in small populations.
> This small population could be like described in the Sumerian texts,
> or even as small as 2 as described in the garden of eden.
>
> It matters not to me if you want to defend evolution. But why not say
> "this is what i believe".
I don't "believe" in evolution any more than I "believe" in gravity.
I accept the empirical evidence that tells me it happens and
happened. I also accept that, to date, the known testable mechanisms
are sufficient in both qualitative and quantitative (rate) properties
to account for the evolution that has happened.
> Because the more i dig in to the ToE, the
> more I find the ToE is what disproves the ToE.
When you dig in the shit pile of creationist ideas for evidence
against the ToE, all you get is smelly. There is no pony in that
pile.
> It should be as plain as the nose on your face that this fusion had to
> take place all at once and completly through the entire population at
> the same time in order for the population to be able to breed and pass
> on the fused gene on.
That is simply not true. As evidenced by actual species (including
humans) that have differing frequencies of chromosomal rearrangements
and new ones popping up. One of the more interesting chromosomal
rearrangements are the *multiple* translocations (acquired one at a
time) of the evening primrose, which generates two chromosome sets at
meiosis, with the use of lethal recessives to prevent the survival of
homozygotes.
> That does not spell evolution via gene
> frequency, mutations, natural selection and time, but it does suggest
> a rapid supernatural occurrence and outside intervention within the
> same generation.
>
Obviously you have a problem understanding population genetics.
Perhaps you were misled by the liar who claimed that heterozygosity
for chromosome rearrangements was instant lethality or sterility.
>
> > > Couple this fusion with the fact that we have ancient texts clearly
> > > say man was created and the picture of the puzzle begins to emerge.
>
> > > Man was created. Not evolved. Man may be part ape, but there is no
> > > real evidence of speciation divergence by natural selection,
> > > mutations, gene frequencies and time.
>
> > > Today we see many variations of man through the natural processes of
> > > evolution.
>
> > > Speciation does not seem to happen. It is not observed. It is not
> > > testable. It can not make predictions that can be verified at a latter
> > > date.
>
> > Speciation mechanisms are quite testable and do make specific testable
> > predictions. 嚙瘠laiming otherwise is simply wishful thinking.
>
> Why don't you just admit that you want to believe man came from apes
> through natural processes instead of hiding behind real science?
I don't "want" to believe man came from apes. I accept the massive
amounts of empirical evidence that tells me that that is how modern
humans came into existence. My "want" is irrelevant to what actually
happened. I am not so arrogant as to think my wishes and desires
matter wrt what really happens in the natural world. I may "want" to
believe that, if I were to walk out the 23rd story window, that some
supernatural fairy would levitate me. But I would be foolish to
actually think that would happen. I am not "hiding behind" real
science. I am presenting it. You are rejecting it.
Sapient Fridge
<f4f977a4-b5c9-4db7...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> writes
One of the reference books I use for genetics is this one:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Essential-Genetics-Daniel-L-Hartl/dp/0763735272
Which says, on page 188:
"A special type of nonreciprocal translocation is a Robertsonian
translocation, in which the centromeric regions of two nonhomologous
acrocentric chromosomes become fused to form a single centromere. This
kind of fusion happened in human evolution to create the present
metacentric chromosome 2 from two acrocentric chromosomes in an ancient
human ancestor."
It is still called a Robertsonian translocation if you end up with two
centromeres which are very close together and one becomes disabled
(which is what appears to have happened with chromosome 2).
The textbook could be wrong of course, but then the genetics lecturers
and external markers at Cambridge University who marked my project would
also have to be wrong.
Devils Advocaat
Samael will second this Chez Watt :)
All-seeing-I
> On Jan 12, 1:35 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 12, 11:08 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 12, 11:28 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 12, 7:54 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > "Devils Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> > > > >news:3eb76d1e-0e0c-4ae4...@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > > > > For your information it is now known that chimps and humans have very
> > > > > > much the same number of protein coding genes.
>
> > > > > >http://psychcentral.com/news/archives/2005-08/wuso-ncc082905.html
>
> > > > > > "Both the chimpanzee and the human genome contain approximately
> > > > > > 20,000-25,000 protein-coding genes in 3 billion base pairs of DNA. The
> > > > > > current sequences of the human and chimp genomes are directly
> > > > > > comparable over approximately 96 percent of their lengths, and these
> > > > > > regions are 99 percent identical."
>
> > > > > > What interests me is how you come to the conclusion that chromosome
> > > > > > fusion disproves evolution.
>
> > > > > But seriously, folks:
>
> > > > > Are there other known examples of chromosome fusions (i.e. telomeres
> > > > > found in the middle of a chromosome) in other species?
>
> > > > > Are there any theories as to how a chromosome fusion like this took
>
> > > > > It does seem like a highly unusual type of mutation. And yet it was
> > > > > that mutation that helped separate genus Homo off from genus Pan. So
> > > > > does that mean that the evolution of genus Homo was a fluke?
>
> > > > You understood the post.
>
> > > > The fusion of the chromosome is not a beneficial mutation nor would it
> > > > be naturally selected as something for species survival. If anything,
> > > > the gene's natural Telemers -critical to DNA repair during mitosis --
> > > > would repair the defect.
>
> > > Even a simple search will show that end-to-end fusion of telomeres is
> > > of telomerases and other telomere sustaining proteins), the telomeres
> > > are recognized as double-strand breaks and undergo end-to-end fusion
>
> > Why don't you just admit that you want to believe man came from apes
> > through natural processes instead of hiding behind real science?
>
> I don't "want" to believe man came from apes. �I accept the massive
> amounts of empirical evidence that tells me that that is how modern
> humans came into existence. �My "want" is irrelevant to
>
> read more �- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
First. You are accepting circumstantial evidence and inferences made
from that data. Even Dawkins says the ToE is mostly circumstantial and
that circumstantial evidence is enough.
For shits and giggles though, let's go over this again, slowly. You
obviously did not grasp it the first time. I do not mean that as an
insult. But it is a known fact the more educated one becomes the less
able they are to grasp even the simplest of things.
.
1) The fusion took place after the divergence because chimps do not
have the same fused gene.
2) It would be impossible for the fusion to take place slowly via the
process of evolution because a gene is either fused or it is not
fused.
3) That means the fusion was sudden and within the entire population
in order for them to be able to pass the gene to the next generation.
That does not spell evolution, that spells a supernatural act or some
kind of outside force that fused the gene within the entire
population.
Now, since it is unlikely millions of mutations happened all at once
throughout an entire population, it is more likely that only a male
and a female received the fusion.
Such as Adam, and Eve.
Now you will squawk about your 'imperial data'; But unless you can
show with clear testable observable evidence that the fused gene took
place slowly by the process of mutation, natural selection and time,
then the gene had to fuse rapidly and in the same generation.
You also seem to throw out an entire body of ancient texts and dismiss
them as though they were meaningless. What are the odds that every
culture on the planet with the exception of a very few, would write
about a creator of man?
All of the circumstantial evidence points to evolution being supported
by science for the wrong reasons.
Perhaps evolution is the origins of man. Perhaps it is not. There are
too many weak points and contradictions in the theory for it to be
foisted on the public as if it were a fact that man is a variation of
an ape.
John Harshman
It's not a fused gene, it's a fused chromosome. And everyone agrees that
the fusion took place after the divergence. (Actually, it could have
taken place before the divergence, as a polymorphism in the ancestral
population, as long as it eventually sorted out the way we see now, but
never mind that.)
> 2) It would be impossible for the fusion to take place slowly via the
> process of evolution because a gene is either fused or it is not
> fused.
Everyone agrees that the fusion (of chromosomes, not genes) was a single
mutation.
> 3) That means the fusion was sudden and within the entire population
> in order for them to be able to pass the gene to the next generation.
Sudden, yes. But where did you get the entire population from? A
mutation happens to a single individual -- well, actually a single
gamete. The individual resulting from that gamete would be heterozygous
for the fusion. Apparently through drift, that mutation eventually
spread throughout the population, but that would have taken a long time.
> That does not spell evolution, that spells a supernatural act or some
> kind of outside force that fused the gene within the entire
> population.
No, that spells you having no clue about chromosomal fusions or
evolution. Howard just explained how the mutation happens, and I just
explained how it spreads to the entire population.
> Now, since it is unlikely millions of mutations happened all at once
> throughout an entire population, it is more likely that only a male
> and a female received the fusion.
No, it's nearly certain that only a single individual, who could have
been male or female, received the initial mutation.
> Such as Adam, and Eve.
>
> Now you will squawk about your 'imperial data'; But unless you can
> show with clear testable observable evidence that the fused gene took
> place slowly by the process of mutation, natural selection and time,
> then the gene had to fuse rapidly and in the same generation.
Again, it's two chromosomes that fused, not genes. And they did indeed
fuse in a single generation, in one individual. This sort of thing
happens in every human generation, but almost all these fusions are
destined to be elminated quickly, just through drift.
> You also seem to throw out an entire body of ancient texts and dismiss
> them as though they were meaningless. What are the odds that every
> culture on the planet with the exception of a very few, would write
> about a creator of man?
Nearly certain, once they make up the idea of gods. Note that these
stories contradict each other freely on every possible detail, including
who the creator (or creators) was (were), how he (she/it/they) did it,
and anything else you care to name.
> All of the circumstantial evidence points to evolution being supported
> by science for the wrong reasons.
How would you know, as you display your ignorance of that evidence
constantly?
> Perhaps evolution is the origins of man. Perhaps it is not. There are
> too many weak points and contradictions in the theory for it to be
> foisted on the public as if it were a fact that man is a variation of
> an ape.
Name one of these weak points or contradictions?
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Jan 13, 11:13�am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 12, 1:35 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't "want" to believe man came from apes. �I accept the massive
>> amounts of empirical evidence that tells me that that is how modern
>> humans came into existence. �My "want" is irrelevant to
>> ...
>>
>> read more �- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>First. You are accepting circumstantial evidence and inferences made
>from that data. Even Dawkins says the ToE is mostly circumstantial and
>that circumstantial evidence is enough.
well...no. evolution has experimental evidence to support it.
creationism does not. in fact, we CAN test creationism TODAY. right
now. it fails. sorry
>
>1) The fusion took place after the divergence because chimps do not
>have the same fused gene.
>
>2) It would be impossible for the fusion to take place slowly via the
>process of evolution because a gene is either fused or it is not
>fused.
?? it's a mutation. mutations h appen all the time. you yourself said
that this is the ONLY instance of fusion EVER observed
you got your ass handed to you on THAT one when a bunch of us dug up
bunches of other examples of fusion
so you creationists
1. didn't know DNA existed
2. didn't know that there were fusions
3. didnt know that other species have fusions
4 lied about the existence of fusions
so why dont we believe you?
>
>3) That means the fusion was sudden and within the entire population
>in order for them to be able to pass the gene to the next generation.
well no. it can be an example of an evolutionary idea called the
'founders effect' in addition. others have pointed out that those with
fused chromosomes would still be able to mate with those that didnt
have it
so you dont understand this well enough to comment on it
>
>That does not spell evolution, that spells a supernatural act or some
>kind of outside force that fused the gene within the entire
>population.
when has supernaturalism EVER been right? when you guys said
supernaturalism caused earthquakes? that demons caused disease?
got ANY proof for this at all?
>
>Now, since it is unlikely millions of mutations happened all at once
>throughout an entire population, it is more likely that only a male
>and a female received the fusion.
this isnt 'millions of mutations'...
>
>Perhaps evolution is the origins of man. Perhaps it is not. There are
>too many weak points and contradictions in the theory for it to be
>foisted on the public as if it were a fact that man is a variation of
>an ape.
>
too bad you havent shown any weaknesses
what you HAVE shown is that creationism is a crock of shit
>
>
Sapient Fridge
<madman-af1185c1-2bd4-...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com
>, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
<snip>
>1) The fusion took place after the divergence because chimps do not
>have the same fused gene.
True, assuming you meant "chromosome" there and not "gene".
>2) It would be impossible for the fusion to take place slowly via the
>process of evolution because a gene is either fused or it is not
>fused.
True. An individual either carries a fused chromosome or it doesn't.
>3) That means the fusion was sudden and within the entire population
>in order for them to be able to pass the gene to the next generation.
False. Since individuals with fused chromosomes can interbreed with
other members of the population who don't have fused chromosomes then
there is nothing to stop the mutation from spreading gradually through
the population.
<snip>
> Perhaps evolution is the origins of man. Perhaps it is not. There are
> too many weak points and contradictions in the theory for it to be
> foisted on the public as if it were a fact that man is a variation of
> an ape.
Odd then that you can never actually post a single valid weak point or
contradiction then isn't it? Every time you try it turns out that it is
either a lie or a misunderstanding. Doesn't that give you a clue?
All-seeing-I
wrote:
> In message
> <madman-af1185c1-2bd4-4787-8e4a-4661040c2...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com
> �>, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
>
> <snip>
>
> >1) The fusion took place after the divergence because chimps do not
> >have the same fused gene.
>
> True, assuming you meant "chromosome" there and not "gene".
>
> >2) It would be impossible for the fusion to take place slowly via the
> >process of evolution because a gene is either fused or it is not
> >fused.
>
> True. �An individual either carries a fused chromosome or it doesn't.
>
> >3) That means the fusion was sudden and within the entire population
> >in order for them to be able to pass the gene to the next generation.
>
> False. �Since individuals with fused chromosomes can interbreed with
> other members of the population who don't have fused chromosomes then
> there is nothing to stop the mutation from spreading gradually through
> the population.
Where is the evidence for this.
>
> <snip>
>
> �> Perhaps evolution is the origins of man. Perhaps it is not. There are
> �> too many �weak points and contradictions in the theory for it to be
> �> foisted on the public as if it were a fact that man is a variation of
> �> an ape.
>
> Odd then that you can never actually post a single valid weak point or
> contradiction then isn't it? �Every time you try it turns out that it is
> either a lie or a misunderstanding. �Doesn't that give you a clue?
I have.
nuff said.
> --
> sapient_usene...@spamsights.org �ICQ #17887309 � � �* �Save the net �*
> Grok:http://spam.abuse.net�http://www.cauce.org* nuke a spammer �*
> Find:http://www.samspade.orghttp://www.netdemon.net�* � �today � �*
Ron O
What a loser. Everyone needs another laugh. Put up the valid and
honest anti-evolution arguments that you have found. You've tried
outright lies and even put up an argument that wasn't even against
evolution as being honest and valid, so let's see what you think that
you have.
Ron Okimoto
>
> > --
> > sapient_usene...@spamsights.org �ICQ #17887309 � � �* �Save the net �*
> > Grok:http://spam.abuse.net�http://www.cauce.org*nuke a spammer �*
> > Find:http://www.samspade.orghttp://www.netdemon.net�* � �today � �*
> > Kill:http://mail-abuse.com�http://au.sorbs.net�http://spamhaus.org-
hersheyh
> On Jan 14, 1:33�am, Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
[snip]
>
> > >3) That means the fusion was sudden and within the entire population
> > >in order for them to be able to pass the gene to the next generation.
>
> > False. �Since individuals with fused chromosomes can interbreed with
> > other members of the population who don't have fused chromosomes then
> > there is nothing to stop the mutation from spreading gradually through
> > the population.
>
> Where is the evidence for this.
In the scientific literature of geneticists.
http://www.uic.edu/classes/bms/bms655/lesson9.html
shows how this would work for a Robertsonian translocation of
chromosome 21 to chromosome 14. Note that 'in theory', there should
be only 1/3 gametes, that, mated to a w.t. individual would be
"viable" in the evolutionary sense (Downs individuals are typically
sterile or nearly so, for reasons not related to chromosomes but to
development). In practice, because of greater early lethality of
trisomy for 21, even here about 90% of the offspring are "normal" and
fertile. Most of the energy in having reproductively successful
offspring in humans occurs *after* birth. The phenotypically "normal"
progeny are about 50:50 translocation carriers and 'wild type'. If an
individual were to have 10 children reaching "normal" fertile
adulthood, about 5 would carry the translocation set. And if one of
these married a cousin with the translocation as a heterozygote, you
can get a person homozygous for the translocation, which doesn't even
have the reduced fertility related to early (energy efficient) deaths.
Keep in mind that most mating occurs locally in relatively small
populations. Thus there is always some amount of local in-breeding.
The smaller and less migratory the population, the greater the amount
of in-breeding (think Appalachia and small-town *real* America).
[snip]
Steven L.
news:6acd7ca4-edc0-4a3c...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 12, 10:50�am, Erwin Moller
> <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...@spamyourself.com> wrote:
> > All-seeing-I schreef:
> [...]
> >
> > How stupid can you be, mate?
>
>
> Read his threads on the ancient astronauts.
A-S-I should convert from Christianity to Raelianism. They would
welcome him with his ancient astronaut stuff.
--
--
Steven L.
sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Kermit
> On Jan 14, 1:33�am, Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In message
> > <madman-af1185c1-2bd4-4787-8e4a-4661040c2...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com
> > �>, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
>
> > <snip>
>
> > >1) The fusion took place after the divergence because chimps do not
> > >have the same fused gene.
>
> > True, assuming you meant "chromosome" there and not "gene".
>
> > >2) It would be impossible for the fusion to take place slowly via the
> > >process of evolution because a gene is either fused or it is not
> > >fused.
>
> > True. �An individual either carries a fused chromosome or it doesn't.
>
> > >3) That means the fusion was sudden and within the entire population
> > >in order for them to be able to pass the gene to the next generation.
>
> > False. �Since individuals with fused chromosomes can interbreed with
> > other members of the population who don't have fused chromosomes then
> > there is nothing to stop the mutation from spreading gradually through
> > the population.
>
> Where is the evidence for this.
Domestic horses, for example, have 32 pairs of chromosones.
Przewalski's horses have 33 and are closely related. They can
interbreed and produce fertile hybrid offspring. Several species have
varyiong numbers of genes.
If you think of genes as instructions or information in a book, then
fused chromosomes are like joining together two chapters. The
information is still intact and otherwise unchanged. It is a neutral
mutation. Such can spread by chance, especially in a small
population.
>
>
>
> > <snip>
>
> > �> Perhaps evolution is the origins of man. Perhaps it is not. There are
> > �> too many �weak points and contradictions in the theory for it to be
> > �> foisted on the public as if it were a fact that man is a variation of
> > �> an ape.
>
> > Odd then that you can never actually post a single valid weak point or
> > contradiction then isn't it? �Every time you try it turns out that it is
> > either a lie or a misunderstanding. �Doesn't that give you a clue?
>
> I have.
>
> nuff said.
>
> > --
> > sapient_usene...@spamsights.org �ICQ #17887309 � � �* �Save the net �*
> > Grok:http://spam.abuse.net�http://www.cauce.org*nuke a spammer �*
> > Find:http://www.samspade.orghttp://www.netdemon.net�* � �today � �*
> > Kill:http://mail-abuse.com�http://au.sorbs.net�http://spamhaus.org
Kermit
johnetho...@yahoo.com
> On Jan 12, 10:50锟絘m, Erwin Moller
> > >>> It does seem like a highly unusual type of mutation. 锟紸nd yet it was
This is a lie and you know it. Is it your goal to convince everyone
that you are completely dishonest?
Sapient Fridge
<madman-0ce45235-f512-...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com
>, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
>On Jan 14, 1:33�am, Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org>
>wrote:
>> In message
>> <madman-af1185c1-2bd4-4787-8e4a-4661040c2...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com
>> �>, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >1) The fusion took place after the divergence because chimps do not
>> >have the same fused gene.
>>
>> True, assuming you meant "chromosome" there and not "gene".
>>
>> >2) It would be impossible for the fusion to take place slowly via the
>> >process of evolution because a gene is either fused or it is not
>> >fused.
>>
>> True. �An individual either carries a fused chromosome or it doesn't.
>>
>> >3) That means the fusion was sudden and within the entire population
>> >in order for them to be able to pass the gene to the next generation.
>>
>> False. �Since individuals with fused chromosomes can interbreed with
>> other members of the population who don't have fused chromosomes then
>> there is nothing to stop the mutation from spreading gradually through
>> the population.
>
>Where is the evidence for this.
Do you ever actually read evidence when it's given to you? I've pointed
you at my web side on this subject several times but you still ask for
it, there are references at the bottom of this page:
http://www.sapientfridge.org/chromosome_count/fertility.html
For example:
http://www.healthline.com/blogs/pregnancy_childbirth/labels/Robertsonian%20translocation.html
Note that although there is a higher probability of problems the woman
carrying the translocation is still capable of having children.
If it were impossible for someone with a fused chromosome to have
children the you would be able to find medical literature saying that.
But you can't can you?
To get into more technical detail, this copied from the University of
South Dakota:
http://www.sapientfridge.org/chromosome_count/science_papers/chromosome_abnormalities.htm
Unfortunately the original site no longer works but fortunately I had a
copy.
It shows how 2 chromosomes can line up with a fused chromosome in order
for recombination to happen. Look for "Robertsonian translocation" on
the page. The text for figure 1.7 says:
"Robertsonian translocation. This figure shows the formation of a
Robertsonian translocation involving chromosomes 14 and 21, and the
formation of a trivalent in meiosis. Alternate segregation results in
gametes having either a normal (14 and 21) or balanced translocation
(t(14;21)) chromosome complement. Adjacent segregation results in
unbalanced gametes, either disomy (14 and t(14;21), or 21 and t(14;21))
or nullisomy (14 or 21). "
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Sapient Fridge
<madman-0ce45235-f512-...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com
>, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
>wrote:
<snip>
>> �> Perhaps evolution is the origins of man. Perhaps it is not. There are
>> �> too many �weak points and contradictions in the theory for it to be
>> �> foisted on the public as if it were a fact that man is a variation of
>> �> an ape.
>>
>> Odd then that you can never actually post a single valid weak point or
>> contradiction then isn't it? �Every time you try it turns out that it is
>> either a lie or a misunderstanding. �Doesn't that give you a clue?
>
>I have.
>
>nuff said.
No, it's not "nuff said"
Yet again you claim to have valid arguments against the theory of
evolution but yet again you avoid actually posting said arguments, or
referencing them.
I call your bluff.
You are full of hot air and bluster. Nothing of substance.
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
jillery
wrote:
> In message
> <f4f977a4-b5c9-4db7-b631-f113aa3ff...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> writes
>
> >On Jan 12, 1:40�pm, Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org>
> >wrote:
>
> >> The natural process you are looking for is called Robertsonian
> >> translocation.
>
> >I thought we settled this. �I guess I have to go back to confused mode.
>
> One of the reference books I use for genetics is this one:
>
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Essential-Genetics-Daniel-L-Hartl/dp/0763735272
>
> Which says, on page 188:
>
> "A special type of nonreciprocal translocation is a Robertsonian
> translocation, in which the centromeric regions of two nonhomologous
> acrocentric chromosomes become fused to form a single centromere. This
> kind of fusion happened in human evolution to create the present
> metacentric chromosome 2 from two acrocentric chromosomes in an ancient
> human ancestor."
>
> It is still called a Robertsonian translocation if you end up with two
> centromeres which are very close together and one becomes disabled
> (which is what appears to have happened with chromosome 2).
>
> The textbook could be wrong of course, but then the genetics lecturers
> and external markers at Cambridge University who marked my project would
> also have to be wrong.
> --
> Grok:http://spam.abuse.net�http://www.cauce.org* nuke a spammer �*
> Find:http://www.samspade.orghttp://www.netdemon.net�* � �today � �*
FWIW, I have been told by someone most people consider to be a very
good authority on the subject that the term Robertsonian Translocation
refers in common to all of the many ways that large fragments of non-
homologous chromosomes attach to each other, which of course includes
the fusion of ancestral human chromosome 2. IOW, you are right and I
was confused, but I would not have known the right answer unless I
asked. Thank you for your patience.
Now I can sleep at night.