Who predicted a fused human chromosome to account for one less chromosome in humans compared to other primates? And why wasn't the prediction a deleted chromosome instead of a fusion?
It follows straight from evolutionary theory. If you have common ancestry involving different chromosomal numbers then there must be a reason. Fusion was the simplest explanation, and Hiller et al confirmed it.
>> why not deleted
In primates all the chromosomes contain large amounts of necessary genes. A deletion makes no sense since it is clear the removal of any of the chromosomes would be deleterious.
You assume common ancestry, then you assume a natural fusion, then you get to the evidence. But what does the fusion even mean in terms of biological differences? Shouldn't you start with the differences and work backwards to common ancestry? Chromosome fusions and rearrangements can be found in single species. Also, how do you know the fusion is related to vertical gene transfer? Not to mention, the chromosomes in question are not identical in both species.
To test any theory you must produce non-trivial testable predictions, and then test those predictions. Common ancestry, in addition to knowledge about chromosome numbers, made a non-trivial testable prediction. That prediction was tested and found to be true.
A fusion means very little in terms of biological difference.
You realise that mapping differences gives a nested hierarchy model right (i.e. common descent)?
Hugh. I got into that last link, the one spreading lies, misrepresentations and equivocations about evolution. Now my blood's boiling. I fucking hate those despicable religious nuts.
Creation is right, but it should be taught the way it really happened. God blew his bad breath(no toothpaste yet) over a clump of mud and, voila, it came alive and upright and all was well. Question remains, did Adam have a penis ? Because Eve was only created when Adam felt lonely and complained to god about it. Suppose god had given Adam a computer, and he had never felt lonely again, what would have happened. ? I leave this question for the theologians.
Stop the presses. The creationist prediction is correct. Per wikipedia article chimpanzee_genome_project:
"At the site of fusion, there are approximately 150,000 base pairs of sequence not found in chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B. Additional linked copies of the genes exist elsewhere in the HUMAN genome, particularly near the p end of chromosome 9. This suggests that a copy of these genes may have been added to the end of the ancestral 2A or 2B PRIOR to the fusion event"
What creationist prediction? The one that predicts the genetics should mimic the nested hierarchy of common descent? The one that predicts that the creator would design the entire world to fool mankind by placing evidences for evolution everywhere?
Your comment doesnt address anything since it wasnt the fusion event that created humans. No single event did (the whole gradualism thing). But the fusion event certainly confirms the common ancestry.
The video 'Human Chromosome II: One More Assumption by Evolutionist's' Humans were created with 48 and we are descended from at least 2 that were altered to 46.
One need not be real bright to conclude that we inherited our chromosomes and the loci of the genes from the first 46/46 pair and those two were quite human.
So the creationist prediction is that the fusion should be in the one point consistent with common ancestry, that the creator would have placed extra telomeres and centromeres in exactly the right places to be consistent with common ancestry and the that the creator would have rigged the genes to give the timeline of the fossil record and make both exactly consistent with common ancestry?
Thats not a prediction. Denial of physical evidence certainly, but not a prediction.
[fusion should be in the one point consistent with common ancestry,]
The fusion is at the one point where distinctly human genes exist and are duplicated in another chromosome.
If altering 2 humans to 46 identical chromsomes and able to produce the entire human race is deceptive, it is only deceptive to someone already converted to a competing religion.
>>The fusion is at the one point where distinctly human genes exist and are duplicated in another chromosome.
Care to provide a peer-reviewed reference for that? Having been a close follower of the human genome project, having read the famous Hiller et al paper in 2005 when it came out and having been pretty much studying this topic for close to ten years now I will need the context for this claim. Context, I suspect, you will be unable to provide.
The sole basis for my statement is the wikipedia article which I quoted.
The full statement is : "Additional linked copies of the PGML/FOXD/CBWD genes exist elsewhere in the human genome, particularly near the p end of chromosome 9."
Can you confirm or deny that there are
PGML/FOXD/CBWD genes at the fusion point and in chromosome 9 ?
So you were quote-mining wikipedia then. Explains it all I suppose.
So the wiki article discusses common ancestry, culls its information from sources supporting the common ancestry and even discusses how the common ancestry can be used in researching homologues for human benefit. But because you fail to understand the fusion event wasnt the only genetic event that separated us from chimps you proclaim creationist prediction?
Wasnt this genetic information known back in 03 anyway??
Erm.you do know that the content for that wikipedia article comes from the peer-reviewed literature?
Funny how the peer-reviewed literature, and the myriad of research it details, seems to constantly support evolutionary theory? Ever actually sit down and wonder why that is?
Ever wonder why, when you presented your argument, you didnt seem to know much about the genetic research involved?
)) Would you have believed human genes at the time of fusion based on a creationist website ?
I didnt understand the question the first time you posted it, and I still dont understand it now. Unless you have a very specific definition of what a human is in terms of genetics then your question is meaningless. Care to offer one?
Humans are primates. If you disagree then take it up with the zoologists (the classification has been that way since the 1700's iirc).
What makes a gene non-human? For example, we humans, and other primates, have a copy of a vitamin C gene found in some species of rodents. Is it realistic to call such a gene 'human' when it is deactivated within us?
If you have no basis for determining whether a gene is or isn't human - then isn't your argument one of mere semantics?
There are no such things as animal genes. There are just genes. Interestingly, genes aren't units of life. Cells are units of life. Cells share genes. They literally transfer genetic information to each other. I'm not talking about reproduction here. I'm talking about bacteria that make a copy of a gene, eject it from themselves into the environment, and then another bacteria absorbs the gene and splices it into it's genome. You won't learn that from zoology.
It’s called gene transfer. Bacteria, using the example you described, engage in ‘lateral’ transfers. Most multicellular organisms engage in ‘vertical’ transfers. Since zoology refers to animals, and since animals engage solely in vertical transfers (i.e. from parent to child), is it really surprising that zoology doesn’t discuss lateral transfers….?
It's not bizarre if you understand that vertical gene transfer doesn't lead to speciation. That isn't how variation is created, and it isn't how variation is incorporated. How then can zoologists possibly describe evolution correctly if they don't take into account lateral gene transfer? Animals get genes from bacteria. The implications of this may be bizarre, but don't pin it on me. I'm just pointing out the facts.
Wolves, to give a well documented example, have speciated under vertical gene transfer. Methinks you have deliberately ignored genetic mutations and its role here.
Bacteria donated genes are dubbed ERVs, but pretty much play no role in animal evolution. They are useful in that they act as markers (since they differ from animal DNA) that biologists can use to trace ancestry though, but I suspect this is another line of evidence you want to ignore. It has 0 impact on zoology.
ERVs don't play a role in animal evolution? That's quite a statement. Interestingly, there are at least a few that do play a critical role in human development. I'd say they are probably more than markers. That changes the game, doesn't it (rhetorical).
Wolves to dogs? Or wolves to what? And what mutations? Selective breeding originally chose from a large variety of genetic traits. But I'll give you the example.
Pretty much. Aside from maybe providing extra space for mutations, they don’t have an impact on animal evolution. If the ERV is activated the cell is killed before it reproduces then and there. If not activated it just provides extra space as above.
There are genes in dogs not present in any wolves. The clue for you should have been the inability of dogs to breed with wolves.
@Mdebacle Wow! The ignorance of you christtards is quite incredible! Don't you even know that humans are primates? Then stay the f%¤k away from videos like this, and go watch some video about "The ToothFairy" or "Jeebus Christ" instead! : (
As the genome of humans (and other species) is observable, the changes of random mutations will make it obvious that genetic entropy is weakening the genome. This will display evolution as the delusional blabber it always was.
The question I want an answer to is exactly what does the fusion provide in terms of genetic and epigenetic difference between modern humans and our supposed ancestors. Without that information, what seems to be a fused chromosome is really irrelevant when it comes to common ancestry. It could just be a mutation, or it could be a purposeful genetic manipulation, or any number of other unknowns.
Common ancestry requires the fusion to account for chromosomal differences, and the fusion is in the single spot that is consistent with common ancestry, complete with extra centromere and telomeres in exactly the right positions.
Your question has it backwards. What else, other than common ancestry, explains the above? Saying it could “just be a mutation” is simply ignoring this consilience (also – you are pegging the fusion as the instrument of change rather than a result of it).
Common ancestry...or...genetic manipulation. Because it's always been curious how such a fusion would take hold in the population, and why that one specific spot. If you have a solid scientific explanation, more than just a good story, now would be a good time to lay it on me, because I don't understand this.
Genetic manipulation just means you have a staggering set of coincidences to explain.
In populations that interbreed certain traits are more advantageous than others – which generally go on to dominate. The mistake you are making is in assuming that the fusion was such an advantage. It wasn’t. Given how chromosomal shuffling works it isn’t unusual that neutral mutations can dominate a population if they have a common locus with an advantageous gene. This is fairly basic population genetics.
Yeah, I understand you. I'm no expert, but I get the gist of population genetics. Actually, I'm not assuming it was an advantage. But why do all humans possess this curious chromosome? There are examples in other species where chromosomal shuffling doesn't really do anything. I'm skeptical, and I feel rightly so, because there isn't enough information. There is also the larger puzzle of the much greater differences in epigenetic processes between primates and us.
>>why do all humans possess this curious chromosome?
Because an ancestor, common to all humans, passed it down after developing it and it grew to dominate in the population. You have to remember that, historically, all humans arose in a colony in Africa. The smaller population then made it easier for this trait to dominate.
>>because there isn't enough information
Every question/comment you have had could have been answered with a simple google search. Why no google?
Look, you can believe what you like. Google is fine for some things, but for the most part it only points me to other people's opinions. So go ahead and drop your argument from credulity now.
To take an example, you asked why the chromosomes were not identical. The basic genetic principles needed to understand why this is a daft question are all over the shop, from Wikipedia to papers that measure the genetic drift in humans. If you hold the misconception that two chromosomes should be identical then you need to do more reading. No credulity argument, just an observation that you need to do some basic research.
Image someone was denying gravity, and you were trying to explain to them the evidence for why everything keeps falling downwards.
Imagine they then claimed that the common direction of falling was just a coincidence. This is kind of how I feel when you are ignoring the totality of the extra centromere, the extra sub telomeric duplication and the fact that the two ancestral genes that fused correspond to chimp chromosomes. Concordance my friend.
I'm not denying evolution or even common ancestry as valid scientific ideas. I'm trying to wrap my head around how. You seem to think it's all population genetics and mutations. That's your answer and correct me if I'm wrong, it also fits neatly into your metaphysics as well. That's all that is going on here. But I bet you will simply think I am ignorant.
Actually you have this entirely backwards, and this claim applies solely to yourself. The fucking pope accepts evolution. If the head of the largest Christian denomination in the world can accept the science then this isn’t a metaphysics scenario. Not unless you hold a particular brand of theology that makes you reject the science.
Basically, I see some psychological projection here.
The pope? Do I seem like I give a shit about the pope? You want to make this about religion vs. science. Go ahead and have fun playing with yourself. This is about metaphysics. You seem to believe that life evolves in a completely mechanistic and materialistic fashion. You claim the evidence supports this view. That is your metaphysics. I'm saying your wrong. Psychological projection? Every look in the mirror? Guess not not. Why would you, you have google.
So taking evidence at face value is metaphysics now?
You have no evidence supporting your claims, and up until now all you have offered is your basic personal misunderstandings of concepts in genetics and biology. Apparently having no evidence can be fixed by claiming others that follow the available evidence are merely imposing their own metaphysics.
This is about evidence and what that evidence shows. Your metaphysics is your way to try wriggling around that inconvenient fact. Have fun.
From the view of evolution, the fusion would be pointless other than evidence of common ancestry.
From the view of creation/re-design it would be evidence that the first two humans were created with 48 then re-designed to 46, which left humans capable of hybridizing with some apes.
What's your take on it? What factors have been left out of the equation? I mean, even if it really is evidence of common ancestry, that isn't saying much at all. Pre-existing genetic material could have been manipulated in several different ways and the involvement of ancestry or vertical gene transfer from parent to offspring might be largely irrelevant. Plus, I don't see how a gradual Darwinian like process could account for this.
My take is that biology courses give the students a dose of Darwinist kool-aid before teaching them genetics. The discovery of chromosome numbers (1905-10) demolished Darwinism, made them tap-dance for 30+ years to come up with Neo-Darwinism, and all this to claim inbreeding chromosomal mutants can crowd out the un-mutated.
The evidence of ancestral chromosome alterations is likely indication of events of genetic re-design.
Yeah, I tend to agree with you. What is interesting to me is how the kool-aid keeps the Neo-Darwinism proponents from actually looking at the evidence that does exist for evolution. There are instances in nature where bacteria, plants, and even animals incorporate entirely new genomes into their own. The build up of variation almost always comes before the drawn out actions of selection, which tends to delete information. But complex entities such as humans, still a mystery.
The most interesting new evidence is in Neanderthal genome. Earlier evidence showed NM mtDNA was non-human. Now the researchers think Eurasian humans are descendants of African humans and Neanderthals.
What the evidence really points to is that the Neanderthals (not the Eurasian humans) were the hybrids. Humans with Eurasian DNA mated with homo-whatever (habilus or erectus) to produce NM.
If humans were ancestors (not cousins or descendants) of Neanderthal:
(A) for evolution this would drastically affect the timeline, and also demolish the 'Out of Africa' theory.
(B) for creationist this would mean confronting the hybrid theory. An article in AiG 'Chimp-human hybridization: two of a kind or two different kinds' rejects the idea, but the evolutionist (Hawks) sees the danger if ALL hominids were hybrids.
I don't see anyone mentioning that all other predictions are obviously true. Care to argue with them? Or would you just prefer just to ignore them because you can't argue against them? (PS valid arguments only).
PPS What is the music in this video? It's fantastic!!
The real argument is total compliance to a nested hierarchy of common descent. The chromosomal number difference had the potential to falsify that but, wouldnt you know, it has a fusion in exactly the spot required for common descent.
The music is Cant Say Goodbye To Yesterday from Metal Gear Solid 2.
Whoa! No no no no no! I wasn't arguing against YOUR points here, I think they are fantastic. I was talkin' to the creationists. I was sayin the only thing they can realistically refute here is the chromosomal fusion thing, but thats only cos they don't have a sound understanding of genetics, they are ignoring all the other points.
I gathered you. Was just putting up a clarifier since, in my experience, such a challenge like this is never accepted. That may have more to do with this being a low watched video though.
The only refute I see from creationists here is against the chromosomal fusion thing. My comment to these people would be that
a) You don't appear to have a sound understanding of evolution or genetics (judging by your arguments) and
b) I'm pretty sure that the ACTUAL SCIENTISTS would have pointed something out had the evidence not been valid. The suggestion that it doesn't work but they're all just keeping quiet cos they like evidence would be ridiculous. That is not science.
n the study of biological species, the facts include fossils and measurements of these fossils. The location of a fossil is an example of a fact (using the scientific meaning of the word fact). In species that rapidly reproduce, for example fruit flies, the process of evolutionary change has been observed in the laboratory.[18] The observation of fruit fly populations changing character is also an example of a fact. So evolution is a fact just as the observations of gravity are a fact.
idk much about the evolution theory, doesn't interest me much, but i think that millions of diverse micro organisms were brought to earth from meteorites, which eventually kept, evolving? into the things they are today. Just because the human body is a decedent from star dust, in the beginning
The meteorite theory you describe is similar to panspermia. The fact that organic compounds arent exactly a rarity in interstellar clouds and meteorites means that the idea has research merit. The idea that a micro-organism itself, rather than simply the ingredients for life, could survive the flight isnt unreasonable.
This field of study is called abiogenesis and is separate from evolutionary theory.
)) Mendelian Genetics shows that traits were already there
^ Please see the paper linked regarding the mutation rate in humans. Human beings have, on average, 175 genetic mutations that their parents did not have. Mendel showed that traits were heritable and didnt dilute he did not prove that new traits (examples in humans being increased AIDS resistance, milk digestion enzymes etc.) didnt arise.
)) We share 98% DNA with a chimp when they have 10% more DNA.
^ Amazing, the only other times Ive seen this 10% more claim has being from creationists posting on internet forums. Care to supply something to substantiate it?
)) If we gain a chromosome we become retarded.
^ Not always. We dont always become retarded after a chromosome fusion either. There are humans alive today with 45 and 47 chromosomes with no negative effects.
)) Fossil record prediction was that we wont find evolution there, ook.
^ This is simply a dumb comment. And totally moot given that so-called gaps that were considered a problem in Darwins time have been filled. The Cambrian precursors were the most famous example of this.
)) Very bad video its all circular arguments.
^ Very bad comment recycling tired and debunked creationism.
No, I was just peaking at the video. Last I heard 10% was more than 3%. And if people have different numbers of chromosomes then they must have different percentages of DNA. Why, what does your book say?
In humans, we have 22 pairs chromosomes(autosomes) that match between males and females, the 23 pair differ in that males have an XY and females have an XX pair. Making a difference of 2.1739% between sexes.
The difference between other apes and humans is that other apes have 24 chromosomes. This is a difference of 4.1666%.
If you are referring to the information in DNA, then you should have stated that, you were discussing chromosomes, of which, a few, you seem to be lacking.
An interesting article in the talk.origins archive (of all places) from Jan 99:
When new staining techniques revealed the structure of human chromosome 2, however, what was revealed was a fusion that was neither Robertsonian nor centric. For human chromosome 2, the tips of the short arms of two acrocentric chromosomes were broken off. The 2 short arms then fused together. This resulted in a chromosome with 2 centromeres, one of which is suppressed.
^ Assuming your supposition were true, I'm not seeing how it helps ID given that the evidence still supports common descent.
Your supposition isn't true (I'm assuming here you mean non-random to be indicative of intelligence) regardless. To see why consider how many failed fusions occurred before this one was advantageous/neutral enough to be preserved and passed on? You are mistaking the effect of natural selection with intelligence.
The gap in evolutionst reasoning is the theory, without logic or evidence, that doubling up the fused chromosome will cure the unbalanced genes or 'de-activate' a centromere'. If such experiments were made, nobody is talking about the results. Random fusions are a dead end.
Intentional fusions were accomplished with 100 percent accuracy and were permanent. They have no biologocal advantage. They prove at least one event of re-design following the creation.
)) They prove at least one event of re-design following the creation.
^ You have elegantly summed up the problem with ID. In 92, when the inactive telomeres were first discovered, the scientific community were like WTF? When it was discovered that there is a chromosome differential between apes and humans evolutionary theory made a testable prediction that two ape chromosomes had fused. When the primate DNA was sequenced this was found to be the case, right down to the ERV sites FFS.
New evidence comes in, evolutionary theory makes a prediction and the prediction gets verified. All the ID/Creationist crowd have done is say thats the way the designer did it. Every single solitary piece of evidence and/or successful prediction that evolutionary theory has made has been met with a variation on this idea. An inherently revisionistic and non-predictive hypothesis isnt a science.
^ Can you explain how the genes are unbalanced? Im asking you to step away from your high-school basic misunderstandings of science and explain why protein expression would be inhibited by genes being relocated to a different chromosome. If your comment were true at face value then many of the techniques used in genetic engineering wouldnt work.
If you read the Trofatter article, a person with a fused chromosome will produce repoductive cells with either too much or too little genetic material 2 thirds of the time. Then he claims this is an advantage by cycling thru bad conceptions more quickly. The theory is the double whammy will cure this. If experiments proved this evolutionists would be blowing trumpets, My guess is they tried it and failed.
^ If the above were an obstacle then Robertsonian translocation suffers would never be able to reproduce.
)) Random fusions are a dead end.
^ This seems to be the crux of your misunderstanding. You seem to think that such fusions are relatively rare events and are failing to realise that millions of deleterious fusion carriers did not survive we are descendants of one of the few without a deleterious fusion.
One fused chromosome has 2 centromeres, one of which can find a match in the unfused chromosome, leaves the other with nomatch. Point of talk.origins article, when 2 fused chromosomes meet why would one de-activate and the other work ? My prediction is trouble.
Person with one fused will have half their reproductive cells with unfused, can revert to 46. The other half will be fused and have same genetic risk.
Double whammy needs to be tested, I predict trouble.
^ I got your point the first time around. The problem you have here is that your objection is entirely theoretical and wilfully ignoring relevant data:
1) Robertsonian translocations, a relatively common real world occurrence, do not always prevent reproduction. If your objection were true this would not be the case. This phenomenon is real world evidence against your objection.
3) The real kicker against your objection is that experiments HAVE been done on this. For example High frequency of centromere inactivation resulting in stable dicentric chromosomes of maize by Han et al 2006 offer real world experimental evidence that centromere deactivation may be quite common.
4) I remember reading that Talkorigins post actually. There are questions we dont know (hence research) but I imagine he enjoyed the Hillier et al (2005) paper.
"may be quite common." Then double whammies work, except when they don't.
In order to prove that humans are entirely descended from 1 male/female pair, it took
1) the fact of chromosomes
2) the fact that humans and apes have a different number
3) the fact that human chromosomes are fused.
If humans had been created with 46 unfused chromosomes, an old school Darwinist would happily tell us how human ancestors genes moved a few at a time over a few million years.
If 1 ape in 1000 has a fused chromosome, then 1 of every 1000000 ape conceptions will be 47 with 47. To get the SAME fused chromosome maybe 1 in 2000000 ape conceptions. The genetically balanced results will be 1 in 9, the double whammy 1 in 4 of those. So 1 in 72000000 will produce a double whammy 46 chromosome ape.
There could be maybe 200 double whammy 44 chr humans in the world. The idea they will inbreed and replace 46 chr humans is just ridiculous.
^ No. Real life breeding across chromosome differentials shows that only one fusion is necessary if that fusion is advantageous (or in some cases neutrality suffices). In this scenario the fusion becomes dominant in the population over successive generations without needing the same fusion to arise again. Your odds calculation does not reflect natural selection which is probably the reason you used it to generate such irrelevant results.
As we see, the percentage of fused chromosomes in the population is not increasing. As fast as new fusions go into the population, natural selection puts them out the back door because of unbalanced genes.
What you have invented is a fused chromosome that
1) has cured the unbalanced genes.
2)can freely breed with 48 but cannot cross-over the super gene
3) must perform a double fusion into 46 without difficulty.
These are statements of psychological necessity, not observations.
^ Why resort to ad hoc when the supporting evidence is right there in the genome?
Also why are you calculating odds on an event that has already happened? Whether the event was due to evolution or creation, such an exercise is pretty pointless. Might as well calculate the odds on Obama getting elected and conclude such a thing was impossible.
The reason we calculate odds is like being on a jury. A man is accused of murder claims it's an accident. The prosecutor says intent. We jurors must judge whether life came into existence by intent or by accident. Except we are judging ourselves.
)) As we see, the percentage of fused chromosomes in the population is not increasing.
^ WTF? Since this fusion has already proliferated throughout the human population I cannot understand why you think its % should still be increasing. You cant go over 100% here. Im not getting what you are trying to say here.
)) natural selection puts them out
^ On what selection criteria? There are real world examples of neutral fusions why would ns even apply to this context??
^ This was your objection that you manufactured. Since I have already linked to a paper that presents real world evidence proving that this problem doesnt even arise with other fusions Im going to ask you to come up with something more substantioal than your ad-hoc assertion.
)) but cannot cross-over the super gene
^ It starts crossed over in its first instance so Im not getting the objection here.
^ The average sperm count for a human is about 100 million. The odds of the exact sperm that fertilised you is 1 in 100 million. Same for your father, your grandfather, your great grandfather etc.
So over only 10 generations the odds that you should have been born are 1x10E60. Trying to claim that you werent born on the basis of this calculation is obviously flawed but do you know the logical fallacy involved and why your calculation is guilty of the same thing?
)) must perform a double fusion into 46 without difficulty.
^ Only one fusion is required. The post immediately previous to yours explained why.
)) These are statements of psychological necessity, not observations.
^ Those three statements were proposed by you so.?? I based my conclusions, as did the scientific community, on what was observed in he genome. Sub telemetric duplication, inactive centromere and the composition of two chimp chromosomes is a pretty conclusive observation to be fair.
There are two ways for something to have odd number chromosomes. They are unrelated but evolutionists believe they are connected.
1) fused chromosomes with their unbalanced reproductive genes. The first occurrence of 46 chromosomes in human ancestry required 23 chromosomes , one of them fused, from each parent.
2) Hybrids, which are the result of 2 different species with even numbers mating, have no logical relation to evolution.
{Sub telemetric duplication, inactive centromere and the composition of two chimp chromosomes is a pretty conclusive observation to be fair}
The humans race is logically descended from the first occurrence in human ancestry of a male an female with 46 chromosomes. The chromosome structure including the loci of the genes within the chromosomes is inherited from the first two. There genes and chromosomes were totally human after the fusion and before the fusion.
^ No no no. The fusion would only have to occur ONCE leaving the original proponent with 47 chromosomes (with one of those being the fusion of two). The unbalanced gene argument you keep claiming doesnt hold up to real world evidence (the Han et Al 2006 paper for example). Real world breeding (equine for examples) demonstrate that breeding across chromosome differentials is possible.
The question now becomes one of proliferation (did this fusion provide something for natural selection to act upon). But given that the above is actual real world evidence that demonstrates the process is possible, and given that the genetic code itself within chromosome #2 points to this, it really isnt surprising that this is the conclusion of the scientific community.
^ The world logically has no place in your sentence given the massive amount of data you just ignored when using it. You have ignored what the actual genetic material is saying. You have ignored what the fossil evidence is saying. You have ignored pretty much every piece of scientific evidence discovered that is relevant to this topic. The fact that your argument doesnt address, include or even acknowledge that evidence should sound an alarm bell.
)) a male/female pair with the first occurrence of the chromosomes
^ Im going to be frightfully rude here, but why is that you seem deliberately intent on ignoring the scenario where a fusion occurs ONCE and propagates?? This would be the forth time in this comments section I will have mentioned this are you intending to ignore it again and pretend this scenario doesnt exist?
)) The fused chromosomes would be so improbable and difficult that humans are in category (1)
^ Given that each step required for this fusion has real world evidence to demonstrate plausibility (detailed in previous comments), and given that the genetic evidence showing it happened overrides any probability calculation (dealt with above already with the sperm analogy), the conclusion you state here clearly does not logically follow.
)) Darwins writings were reduced to rubbish about 100 years ago.
^ Darwin =/= god and his book =/= bible. Its pretty pathetic you have to rubbish a book written 150 years ago because you cant hold a candle to current scientific research in this area. Not that you have managed to present anything that would classify as rubbishing it.
Darwin is 150 years old and is STILL more up to date than creationism.
The Han et al 2006 is about CORN and about genes which MUST be suppressed:
"The genes on the proto-B MUST be silenced to avoid aneuploid syndromes, and these modified chromosomes must acquire accumulation mechanisms to be maintained in the population."
Human chromosome 2 has no genes which MUST be suppressed.
More evolutionist obsession with irrelevency. Like wild horses with odd chromosomes.
I don't dispute that humans and apes my have hybridized into fertile hominids. My point is that fused chromosomes (according to wikipedia)cause genetic defects:
Cancer: several forms of cancer are caused by translocations;
Infertility: , where the parent is asymptomatic but conceived fetuses are not viable.
Down syndrome is caused in a minority (5% or less) of cases by a Robertsonian translocation of about a third of chromosome 21 onto chromosome 14.
1) I love the way you used the word we when you really meant you or creationists. Natural selection will only remove such fusions if they are harmful. There is research where Robertsonian translocations have proved beneficial to lab mice against diseases, and in humans Robertsonian translocations have occurred without and negative effects. Both of these would allow such a fusion to be passed on via natural selection.
2) Totally ad-hoc, revisionist and completely ignoring the actual evidence. ID is not, nor is ever likely to be, a science because it must constantly pull these ad-hoc rationalisations out of thin air as evidence continues to come in. When you factor in the extra centromeres, extra telomeres, pseudogenes and ERVs that all point to common ancestry then it is clear that ID isnt proposing anything except a deceptive designer. Good luck with that.
For some reason I cannot put web addresses in this text, but if you google scan on 'kenneth f trofatter robertsonian' you can see a very informative healthnet article. A human with a fused chromosome will have 1 in 3 odds of having balanced genes in a reproductive cell. 1 chance in 6 of passing on the fused chromosome. The inheritor would then have the same odds to pass on. Having the double whammy is not going to improve those odds. This is how natural sselection eliminates.
Please learn what naturual selection is. Seriously. It only selects based on fitness and, as detailed in my previous comments, there are real world examples of neutral fusions in humans, meaning natural selection doesnt even apply, and real world examples of positive fusions in other organisms, which natural selection would actually propagate them.
Playing the odds game is also pretty pointless given that the evidence saying it happened is present in your own genome.
Q3) One fused chromosome in an ape would give it 47 chromosomes, with lots of genetic problems. To get to 46 you need the double whammy of both sides of a chromosome fused. What evidence that would fix the problems ?
Wild equines (have somewhere between 32 and 46) and donkeys (62 chromosomes) can produce viable offspring in the form of zonkeys for example. This proves that the chromosome number differential isn't a barrier here if the genetic combination allows for embryonic development.
46 chromosomes would be immediately present in the second generation progeny by default so you would not require two independent fusions.
Q1) One piece of evidence alone isnt proof but the sheer weight of evidence when it is tallied up does indeed prove evolution. Also evidence against one theory isnt evidence in support of an alternative theory.
Q2) No creature was created.
Q3) Ive read this three times and I still dont know what you are asking.
Q4) Yes but the ancestral male and the ancestral female did not coexist in the same timeframe.
These three are arguments against evolution used shamelessly by creationists even though it was Charles Darwin himself who came up then all in a rhetorical sense for addressing.
You've got to wonder why creationists use arguments from the populariser of the theory of evolution (though not the modern evolutionary synthesis)
Because they would have to know something about modern evolutionary synthesis (know something about isn't the same as understand mind you). It is not exactly a high school subject which is probably why they seem blissfully unaware. The ONLY big name creationist I know that would be aware is Behe but given what happened in Dover....
"The ONLY big name creationist I know that would be aware is Behe"
Who accepts common descent and conceded the evolvability of every one of his systems. And yes indeed, what happened in Dover.
"Wasn't Huxley the populariser"
Bad choice of words on my part. I meant to say Darwin was the one who finally made evolution into a testable theory. He made it a mainstream science and Huxley popularised that.
I guess the right term for Darwin would be 'proposer'
However, to avoid confusion, I think I should point out that Gregor Mendel DID observe that F1 hybrids do indeed prove to be consistently uniform and display a "middle ground" (ie, medium height) between the parents characteristics.
However, the F2 generation is when the original projenitors characteristics are dispersed randomly through the offspring (ie, tall/short).
Mendels Peas are his finest examples. You're right, though "mid-height" alleles do not occur.
Similar applies. Taking the example of the tall and short beanstalks and assuming incomplete dominance as per your question and you find that the non-dilution of traits still applies. Because the fundamental units (the tall and small alleles) are fixed the process of evolution can occur. Imagine there was a selective pressure favoring taller plants, then incomplete dominance would not dilute the alleles and evolution would still occur.
The precambrian life-forms don't show how the multicellular Cambrian forms evolved. They are largely different. The "Cambrian Explosion" is still a mystery.
Not as much of a mystery as it once was though. It seems that divergence was well underway before the 'explosion' -- (dev . biologists . org/cgi/reprint/126/5/851 . pdf). What caused the explosion proper is proving easy to speculate -- but difficult to evidence.
Unfortunately I don't think I will live to see this mystery completely unwrapped. Some things are permanently lost to history.
your dates for Garhi, and all the Homo are way off. Garhi is about as old as Afarensis and africanus, while habilis is around 2 million YO, and ergaster/erectus is far older than 30,000 YO.
Haven't been able to edit the description section of this vid for months. I keep getting an authorisation error and I don't know why. It doesn't seem to affect any of my other vids. I've messaged YT a few times about this but no response.
Tom, I'm not so sure about that. Vernanimalcula, the oldest bilateral fossil, shows very primitive characters that could easily evolve to kimberella or dickinsonia type things. Then Dickinsonia lissa looks very much like a segmented worm of the cambrian. Spriggina looks much like the arthropod forms you see. Parvancorina looks like trilobitomorphs. And a recent (albeit controversial) find in the ediacaran of Australia looks like the ancestor of vetulicolians and chordates. (cont'd)
Kimberella is undoubtedly the first mollusk, complete with radula marks and paired gills. The leafy things, (charnodiscus etc.) look like the cambrian fossil stromatoveris and further to plumalina of today. Jellyfish are found across the boundary too. Recently they've found an ediacaran sponge. It's not so much an explosion anymore, though it looks like an exponential function, due to the relatively open field of niches for the first metazoans to evolve into.
Forgot to mention... xenusion is a precambrian fossil of the lobopods (hallucigenia, microdictyon, asheyia, and other later onychophorans) There are some ediacarans that don't really carry on (tribrachidium, pteridinium, yorgia, namacalathus), but that's to be expected, especially when the first predators/hard parts evolve in the cambrian.
Well, I'm technically just an aerospace engineering student. But I had a paleontology minor, and am a pretty active collector of fossils. How much time does it take to make one? Time's hard to come by in grad school sometimes.
Predictions that are proven wrong never disprove the theory of evolutioin, you just change the theory. Similarity does not suggest ancestry and 30,000,000 differences between humans and apes, does not a close relative make.
30 million differences sounds a lot, but when the billions of similarities are taken into account then it doesn't seem that many. Combine that with identical centromere placement, dozens of identically placed ERV's, hundreds of homologous deactivated genes and an ever-increasing set of hominid fossils and you reach a point where the physical evidence is simply too strong to ignore. But feel free.
"Do you believe that physical nature is all that exists?"
Considering that physical nature is all we can measure, and this is a discussion about science, I would have to say whether or not I believe one way or the other is irrelevant.
"species appear fully-formed.."
Until you can describe to me how evolutionary theory predicts a non-fully formed species I am going to treat this comment as the stupid testimony to ignorance that it is.
"without ancestor, don't change before disappearing and being suddenly replaced by something completely different."
The fossil record is littered with such examples. Denying it or pretending it isn't true doesn't change anything -- why o why did I even bother to post that link to the transitional FAQ? I mean, I must have been under the mistaken impression that viewers might actually read the bloody thing. If this comment comes across as testy maybe you should ask why that is the case.
You alluded to the Cambrian explosion. Darwin predicted there should be precursors and I linked to a paper describing the Precambrian record of life and its discovery.
"I was replying to a video making claims about Evolution. The burden of proof is on the presenter."
My video was about predictions made by the theory that have since been verified. I linked to relevant material on this topic. Simple. Case closed.
"The fossil records have always shown species appearing, fully-formed, as if placed there."
I suppose you could call me an 'evolutionist'. I do extensive reading on the topic and like to think that I have a decent understanding of it. So when I tell that, speaking as a reasonably competent knowledgeable 'evolutionist', that the theory of evolution DOES NOT PREDICT A 'HALF FORMED' SPECIES, should it not occur to you that maybe your 'fully-formed' argument is a product of ignorance?
"What would the fossil record look like, if ID were correct?"
You would not have different species fixed to different geological strata. You would not have progressions of species permeating the fossil record. You would not have a fossil record showing that 99% of all species of the planet are now extinct, and, moreover, a fossil record that seems to show that every extant animal and plant only occurred relatively recently in the geological timescale.
Sorting fossils by how they appear in the geological record and by their age actually shows the progressions on its own -- no assumption of evolution required for this.
"If you are skeptical about evo., then you are free to retain an open mind and consider other interpretations of the same evidence."
The fossil record just doesn't support creation period, unless 'interpretation' means 'ignore conflicting evidence'.
"This includes consideration of ideas that are filtered out of evolutionary textbooks and course materials."
Ideas that have been falsified tend to be filtered out -- and quite rightly.
"The way I see it, assuming evo. is true, given 3-4 billion years and trillions of species, I ask the question: "This is the best you can conjure up?"" Yes it is. Rarity of fossilisation being the issue. But the question should really be why you do not apply the same standards of rigor to alternatives?
"I don't see anyone in research who would dare *attempt* to fasilfy ToE, until they find a fossilized of Darth Vader in the Jurassic stratum."
Two points to this. Firstly, the reason for majority acceptance within the scientific community really is due to the evidence, and every experiment done on evolution IS an attempt to falsify the theory. Secondly, if an alternative that better explains the evidence were to be presented it would be considered -- but no such alternative exists.
I understand the issue. But the evidence says species appear fully-formed, without ancestor, don't change before disappearing and being suddenly replaced by something completely different.
And most damning, all but one phyla appears in a short timespan (5-10my).
This is NOT what Darwin had in mind, and this evidence is outweighed by untestable supposition?
"I thought he was referring to OUR records being extremely imperfect not the paucity of species' fossils preserved."
He was but he possibly put this down to the rarity of fossilisation.
"The prediction that the fossil would bloom into a mass of fossils of intermediate species was debunked."
It depends on what you mean by an intermediate. We now have links for the origins of virtually all of the major phyla so your claim of being debunked is bull.
"Why didn't you mention what Darwin actually predicted, Pangenesis, which turned out totally wrong."
The prediction was non-dilution of traits. The heading for this section was an error on my part and I fully accept that Darwin's explanation for this was simply wrong. The original prediction of non-dilution of traits was what was being highlighted.
"why are you citing old sources?" Because the newest material requires a subscription. If you have links to uptodate material not requiring such I will happily post those links.
"I read the number has been falling steadily and is now below 95%." You criticise me for old sources -- at least I source. The % is falling though as every generation goes by...
I am very familiar with YouTube's poor, 500-character text box.
Also, I have attempted to source things in the past, sometimes this gets you banned, but nobody has every shown interest in what I have to say because I don't drink Darwin brand Kool-Aid.
I don't see anyone in research who would dare *attempt* to fasilfy ToE, until they find a fossilized of Darth Vader in the Jurassic stratum.
Who predicted a fused human chromosome to account for one less chromosome in humans compared to other primates? And why wasn't the prediction a deleted chromosome instead of a fusion?
circusOFprecision 10 months ago
@circusOFprecision
>> who
It follows straight from evolutionary theory. If you have common ancestry involving different chromosomal numbers then there must be a reason. Fusion was the simplest explanation, and Hiller et al confirmed it.
>> why not deleted
In primates all the chromosomes contain large amounts of necessary genes. A deletion makes no sense since it is clear the removal of any of the chromosomes would be deleterious.
themadhair 10 months ago
@themadhair
You assume common ancestry, then you assume a natural fusion, then you get to the evidence. But what does the fusion even mean in terms of biological differences? Shouldn't you start with the differences and work backwards to common ancestry? Chromosome fusions and rearrangements can be found in single species. Also, how do you know the fusion is related to vertical gene transfer? Not to mention, the chromosomes in question are not identical in both species.
circusOFprecision 10 months ago
To test any theory you must produce non-trivial testable predictions, and then test those predictions. Common ancestry, in addition to knowledge about chromosome numbers, made a non-trivial testable prediction. That prediction was tested and found to be true.
A fusion means very little in terms of biological difference.
You realise that mapping differences gives a nested hierarchy model right (i.e. common descent)?
themadhair 10 months ago
@themadhair
And...? Doesn't tell me anything about the fusion event or why the chromosomes are not identical.
circusOFprecision 10 months ago
>>Doesn't tell me anything about the fusion event
Why would it? If you want to learn about chromosomal fusions then how about looking it up? Otherwise, I don’t understand the point of this question.
>>chromosomes are not identical.
Genetic drift. Ffs no two human chromosomes are identical outside of twins/clones. You did know that right?
themadhair 10 months ago
Hugh. I got into that last link, the one spreading lies, misrepresentations and equivocations about evolution. Now my blood's boiling. I fucking hate those despicable religious nuts.
Murdulo 11 months ago
The Dare Island Enigma is a novel concerning an alternative view of evolution see video book trailer
dltanner99 1 year ago
Can you link any peer reviewed papers where this idea was presented?
themadhair 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Creation is right, but it should be taught the way it really happened. God blew his bad breath(no toothpaste yet) over a clump of mud and, voila, it came alive and upright and all was well. Question remains, did Adam have a penis ? Because Eve was only created when Adam felt lonely and complained to god about it. Suppose god had given Adam a computer, and he had never felt lonely again, what would have happened. ? I leave this question for the theologians.
lizazoon 1 year ago
Evolution is still wrong, despite all your technobable. God did it all.
HAHAHA, I'm sorry, I can't even say that shit with a straight face.
Great video, sir. Very well done.
amotionlesson 2 years ago 9
Stop the presses. The creationist prediction is correct. Per wikipedia article chimpanzee_genome_project:
"At the site of fusion, there are approximately 150,000 base pairs of sequence not found in chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B. Additional linked copies of the genes exist elsewhere in the HUMAN genome, particularly near the p end of chromosome 9. This suggests that a copy of these genes may have been added to the end of the ancestral 2A or 2B PRIOR to the fusion event"
Ancestors were human.
Mdebacle 2 years ago
What creationist prediction? The one that predicts the genetics should mimic the nested hierarchy of common descent? The one that predicts that the creator would design the entire world to fool mankind by placing evidences for evolution everywhere?
Your comment doesnt address anything since it wasnt the fusion event that created humans. No single event did (the whole gradualism thing). But the fusion event certainly confirms the common ancestry.
themadhair 2 years ago
[What creationist prediction?]
The video 'Human Chromosome II: One More Assumption by Evolutionist's' Humans were created with 48 and we are descended from at least 2 that were altered to 46.
One need not be real bright to conclude that we inherited our chromosomes and the loci of the genes from the first 46/46 pair and those two were quite human.
Mdebacle 2 years ago
So the creationist prediction is that the fusion should be in the one point consistent with common ancestry, that the creator would have placed extra telomeres and centromeres in exactly the right places to be consistent with common ancestry and the that the creator would have rigged the genes to give the timeline of the fossil record and make both exactly consistent with common ancestry?
Thats not a prediction. Denial of physical evidence certainly, but not a prediction.
themadhair 2 years ago
[fusion should be in the one point consistent with common ancestry,]
The fusion is at the one point where distinctly human genes exist and are duplicated in another chromosome.
If altering 2 humans to 46 identical chromsomes and able to produce the entire human race is deceptive, it is only deceptive to someone already converted to a competing religion.
Mdebacle 2 years ago
>>The fusion is at the one point where distinctly human genes exist and are duplicated in another chromosome.
Care to provide a peer-reviewed reference for that? Having been a close follower of the human genome project, having read the famous Hiller et al paper in 2005 when it came out and having been pretty much studying this topic for close to ten years now I will need the context for this claim. Context, I suspect, you will be unable to provide.
themadhair 2 years ago
The sole basis for my statement is the wikipedia article which I quoted.
The full statement is : "Additional linked copies of the PGML/FOXD/CBWD genes exist elsewhere in the human genome, particularly near the p end of chromosome 9."
Can you confirm or deny that there are
PGML/FOXD/CBWD genes at the fusion point and in chromosome 9 ?
Mdebacle 2 years ago
So you were quote-mining wikipedia then. Explains it all I suppose.
So the wiki article discusses common ancestry, culls its information from sources supporting the common ancestry and even discusses how the common ancestry can be used in researching homologues for human benefit. But because you fail to understand the fusion event wasnt the only genetic event that separated us from chimps you proclaim creationist prediction?
Wasnt this genetic information known back in 03 anyway??
themadhair 2 years ago
Evolutionist websites are the best. The testimony of a hostile witness is the most reliable.
Mdebacle 2 years ago
Erm.you do know that the content for that wikipedia article comes from the peer-reviewed literature?
Funny how the peer-reviewed literature, and the myriad of research it details, seems to constantly support evolutionary theory? Ever actually sit down and wonder why that is?
Ever wonder why, when you presented your argument, you didnt seem to know much about the genetic research involved?
themadhair 2 years ago
Would you have believed human genes at the time of fusion based on a creationist website ?
Me neither.
Mdebacle 2 years ago
)) Would you have believed human genes at the time of fusion based on a creationist website ?
I didnt understand the question the first time you posted it, and I still dont understand it now. Unless you have a very specific definition of what a human is in terms of genetics then your question is meaningless. Care to offer one?
themadhair 2 years ago
Comment removed
Mdebacle 2 years ago
Erm....Humans are primates. So calling them primate chromosomes doesn't help your argument.
themadhair 2 years ago
You and Miller call them primate chromosomes.
We have established that at the fusion event they were human chromosomes.
Mdebacle 2 years ago
Humans are primates. If you disagree then take it up with the zoologists (the classification has been that way since the 1700's iirc).
What makes a gene non-human? For example, we humans, and other primates, have a copy of a vitamin C gene found in some species of rodents. Is it realistic to call such a gene 'human' when it is deactivated within us?
If you have no basis for determining whether a gene is or isn't human - then isn't your argument one of mere semantics?
themadhair 2 years ago
@themadhair
There are no such things as animal genes. There are just genes. Interestingly, genes aren't units of life. Cells are units of life. Cells share genes. They literally transfer genetic information to each other. I'm not talking about reproduction here. I'm talking about bacteria that make a copy of a gene, eject it from themselves into the environment, and then another bacteria absorbs the gene and splices it into it's genome. You won't learn that from zoology.
circusOFprecision 10 months ago
@circusOFprecision
It’s called gene transfer. Bacteria, using the example you described, engage in ‘lateral’ transfers. Most multicellular organisms engage in ‘vertical’ transfers. Since zoology refers to animals, and since animals engage solely in vertical transfers (i.e. from parent to child), is it really surprising that zoology doesn’t discuss lateral transfers….?
Just a bizarre comment.
themadhair 10 months ago
@themadhair
It's not bizarre if you understand that vertical gene transfer doesn't lead to speciation. That isn't how variation is created, and it isn't how variation is incorporated. How then can zoologists possibly describe evolution correctly if they don't take into account lateral gene transfer? Animals get genes from bacteria. The implications of this may be bizarre, but don't pin it on me. I'm just pointing out the facts.
circusOFprecision 10 months ago
Wolves, to give a well documented example, have speciated under vertical gene transfer. Methinks you have deliberately ignored genetic mutations and its role here.
Bacteria donated genes are dubbed ERVs, but pretty much play no role in animal evolution. They are useful in that they act as markers (since they differ from animal DNA) that biologists can use to trace ancestry though, but I suspect this is another line of evidence you want to ignore. It has 0 impact on zoology.
themadhair 10 months ago
@themadhair
ERVs don't play a role in animal evolution? That's quite a statement. Interestingly, there are at least a few that do play a critical role in human development. I'd say they are probably more than markers. That changes the game, doesn't it (rhetorical).
Wolves to dogs? Or wolves to what? And what mutations? Selective breeding originally chose from a large variety of genetic traits. But I'll give you the example.
circusOFprecision 10 months ago
>>ERVs don't play a role in animal evolution?
Pretty much. Aside from maybe providing extra space for mutations, they don’t have an impact on animal evolution. If the ERV is activated the cell is killed before it reproduces then and there. If not activated it just provides extra space as above.
There are genes in dogs not present in any wolves. The clue for you should have been the inability of dogs to breed with wolves.
themadhair 10 months ago
@Mdebacle Wow! The ignorance of you christtards is quite incredible! Don't you even know that humans are primates? Then stay the f%¤k away from videos like this, and go watch some video about "The ToothFairy" or "Jeebus Christ" instead! : (
winterstellar 1 year ago
@winterstellar
As the genome of humans (and other species) is observable, the changes of random mutations will make it obvious that genetic entropy is weakening the genome. This will display evolution as the delusional blabber it always was.
Mdebacle 1 year ago
@Mdebacle
The question I want an answer to is exactly what does the fusion provide in terms of genetic and epigenetic difference between modern humans and our supposed ancestors. Without that information, what seems to be a fused chromosome is really irrelevant when it comes to common ancestry. It could just be a mutation, or it could be a purposeful genetic manipulation, or any number of other unknowns.
circusOFprecision 10 months ago
Common ancestry requires the fusion to account for chromosomal differences, and the fusion is in the single spot that is consistent with common ancestry, complete with extra centromere and telomeres in exactly the right positions.
Your question has it backwards. What else, other than common ancestry, explains the above? Saying it could “just be a mutation” is simply ignoring this consilience (also – you are pegging the fusion as the instrument of change rather than a result of it).
themadhair 10 months ago
@themadhair
Common ancestry...or...genetic manipulation. Because it's always been curious how such a fusion would take hold in the population, and why that one specific spot. If you have a solid scientific explanation, more than just a good story, now would be a good time to lay it on me, because I don't understand this.
circusOFprecision 10 months ago
Genetic manipulation just means you have a staggering set of coincidences to explain.
In populations that interbreed certain traits are more advantageous than others – which generally go on to dominate. The mistake you are making is in assuming that the fusion was such an advantage. It wasn’t. Given how chromosomal shuffling works it isn’t unusual that neutral mutations can dominate a population if they have a common locus with an advantageous gene. This is fairly basic population genetics.
themadhair 10 months ago
@themadhair
Yeah, I understand you. I'm no expert, but I get the gist of population genetics. Actually, I'm not assuming it was an advantage. But why do all humans possess this curious chromosome? There are examples in other species where chromosomal shuffling doesn't really do anything. I'm skeptical, and I feel rightly so, because there isn't enough information. There is also the larger puzzle of the much greater differences in epigenetic processes between primates and us.
circusOFprecision 10 months ago
>>why do all humans possess this curious chromosome?
Because an ancestor, common to all humans, passed it down after developing it and it grew to dominate in the population. You have to remember that, historically, all humans arose in a colony in Africa. The smaller population then made it easier for this trait to dominate.
>>because there isn't enough information
Every question/comment you have had could have been answered with a simple google search. Why no google?
themadhair 10 months ago
@themadhair
Look, you can believe what you like. Google is fine for some things, but for the most part it only points me to other people's opinions. So go ahead and drop your argument from credulity now.
circusOFprecision 10 months ago
>>drop your argument from credulity
To take an example, you asked why the chromosomes were not identical. The basic genetic principles needed to understand why this is a daft question are all over the shop, from Wikipedia to papers that measure the genetic drift in humans. If you hold the misconception that two chromosomes should be identical then you need to do more reading. No credulity argument, just an observation that you need to do some basic research.
themadhair 10 months ago
Image someone was denying gravity, and you were trying to explain to them the evidence for why everything keeps falling downwards.
Imagine they then claimed that the common direction of falling was just a coincidence. This is kind of how I feel when you are ignoring the totality of the extra centromere, the extra sub telomeric duplication and the fact that the two ancestral genes that fused correspond to chimp chromosomes. Concordance my friend.
themadhair 10 months ago
@themadhair
I'm not denying evolution or even common ancestry as valid scientific ideas. I'm trying to wrap my head around how. You seem to think it's all population genetics and mutations. That's your answer and correct me if I'm wrong, it also fits neatly into your metaphysics as well. That's all that is going on here. But I bet you will simply think I am ignorant.
circusOFprecision 10 months ago
>>metaphysics
Actually you have this entirely backwards, and this claim applies solely to yourself. The fucking pope accepts evolution. If the head of the largest Christian denomination in the world can accept the science then this isn’t a metaphysics scenario. Not unless you hold a particular brand of theology that makes you reject the science.
Basically, I see some psychological projection here.
themadhair 10 months ago
@themadhair
The pope? Do I seem like I give a shit about the pope? You want to make this about religion vs. science. Go ahead and have fun playing with yourself. This is about metaphysics. You seem to believe that life evolves in a completely mechanistic and materialistic fashion. You claim the evidence supports this view. That is your metaphysics. I'm saying your wrong. Psychological projection? Every look in the mirror? Guess not not. Why would you, you have google.
circusOFprecision 10 months ago
So taking evidence at face value is metaphysics now?
You have no evidence supporting your claims, and up until now all you have offered is your basic personal misunderstandings of concepts in genetics and biology. Apparently having no evidence can be fixed by claiming others that follow the available evidence are merely imposing their own metaphysics.
This is about evidence and what that evidence shows. Your metaphysics is your way to try wriggling around that inconvenient fact. Have fun.
themadhair 10 months ago
@circusOFprecision
From the view of evolution, the fusion would be pointless other than evidence of common ancestry.
From the view of creation/re-design it would be evidence that the first two humans were created with 48 then re-designed to 46, which left humans capable of hybridizing with some apes.
Mdebacle 10 months ago
@Mdebacle
What's your take on it? What factors have been left out of the equation? I mean, even if it really is evidence of common ancestry, that isn't saying much at all. Pre-existing genetic material could have been manipulated in several different ways and the involvement of ancestry or vertical gene transfer from parent to offspring might be largely irrelevant. Plus, I don't see how a gradual Darwinian like process could account for this.
circusOFprecision 10 months ago
@circusOFprecision
My take is that biology courses give the students a dose of Darwinist kool-aid before teaching them genetics. The discovery of chromosome numbers (1905-10) demolished Darwinism, made them tap-dance for 30+ years to come up with Neo-Darwinism, and all this to claim inbreeding chromosomal mutants can crowd out the un-mutated.
The evidence of ancestral chromosome alterations is likely indication of events of genetic re-design.
Mdebacle 10 months ago
@Mdebacle
Yeah, I tend to agree with you. What is interesting to me is how the kool-aid keeps the Neo-Darwinism proponents from actually looking at the evidence that does exist for evolution. There are instances in nature where bacteria, plants, and even animals incorporate entirely new genomes into their own. The build up of variation almost always comes before the drawn out actions of selection, which tends to delete information. But complex entities such as humans, still a mystery.
circusOFprecision 10 months ago
@circusOFprecision
The most interesting new evidence is in Neanderthal genome. Earlier evidence showed NM mtDNA was non-human. Now the researchers think Eurasian humans are descendants of African humans and Neanderthals.
What the evidence really points to is that the Neanderthals (not the Eurasian humans) were the hybrids. Humans with Eurasian DNA mated with homo-whatever (habilus or erectus) to produce NM.
Mdebacle 10 months ago
@Mdebacle
So the eurasians mated with some other primate to produce neanderthals? What does this mean exactly in terms of human evolution?
circusOFprecision 10 months ago
@circusOFprecision
If humans were ancestors (not cousins or descendants) of Neanderthal:
(A) for evolution this would drastically affect the timeline, and also demolish the 'Out of Africa' theory.
(B) for creationist this would mean confronting the hybrid theory. An article in AiG 'Chimp-human hybridization: two of a kind or two different kinds' rejects the idea, but the evolutionist (Hawks) sees the danger if ALL hominids were hybrids.
Mdebacle 10 months ago
>I mean, even if it really is evidence of common ancestry, that isn't saying much at all.
I think the above quote from you says absolutely everything about your approach here. Namely that evidence isn't your starting point.
themadhair 10 months ago
I don't see anyone mentioning that all other predictions are obviously true. Care to argue with them? Or would you just prefer just to ignore them because you can't argue against them? (PS valid arguments only).
PPS What is the music in this video? It's fantastic!!
laserwacky 2 years ago
The real argument is total compliance to a nested hierarchy of common descent. The chromosomal number difference had the potential to falsify that but, wouldnt you know, it has a fusion in exactly the spot required for common descent.
The music is Cant Say Goodbye To Yesterday from Metal Gear Solid 2.
themadhair 2 years ago
Whoa! No no no no no! I wasn't arguing against YOUR points here, I think they are fantastic. I was talkin' to the creationists. I was sayin the only thing they can realistically refute here is the chromosomal fusion thing, but thats only cos they don't have a sound understanding of genetics, they are ignoring all the other points.
Sure glad I cleared that up.
laserwacky 2 years ago
I gathered you. Was just putting up a clarifier since, in my experience, such a challenge like this is never accepted. That may have more to do with this being a low watched video though.
themadhair 2 years ago
The only refute I see from creationists here is against the chromosomal fusion thing. My comment to these people would be that
a) You don't appear to have a sound understanding of evolution or genetics (judging by your arguments) and
b) I'm pretty sure that the ACTUAL SCIENTISTS would have pointed something out had the evidence not been valid. The suggestion that it doesn't work but they're all just keeping quiet cos they like evidence would be ridiculous. That is not science.
laserwacky 2 years ago
n the study of biological species, the facts include fossils and measurements of these fossils. The location of a fossil is an example of a fact (using the scientific meaning of the word fact). In species that rapidly reproduce, for example fruit flies, the process of evolutionary change has been observed in the laboratory.[18] The observation of fruit fly populations changing character is also an example of a fact. So evolution is a fact just as the observations of gravity are a fact.
gskowal 2 years ago
idk much about the evolution theory, doesn't interest me much, but i think that millions of diverse micro organisms were brought to earth from meteorites, which eventually kept, evolving? into the things they are today. Just because the human body is a decedent from star dust, in the beginning
Footballboy50 2 years ago
The meteorite theory you describe is similar to panspermia. The fact that organic compounds arent exactly a rarity in interstellar clouds and meteorites means that the idea has research merit. The idea that a micro-organism itself, rather than simply the ingredients for life, could survive the flight isnt unreasonable.
This field of study is called abiogenesis and is separate from evolutionary theory.
themadhair 2 years ago
Mendelian Genetics shows that traits were already there. And a lot of the things that are called evolution are in fact not.
Fossil record prediction was that we wont find evolution there, ook.
We share 98% DNA with a chimp when they have 10% more DNA. Propaganda.
If we gain a chromosome we become retarded.
Very bad video its all circular arguments.
mr9482 2 years ago
)) Mendelian Genetics shows that traits were already there
^ Please see the paper linked regarding the mutation rate in humans. Human beings have, on average, 175 genetic mutations that their parents did not have. Mendel showed that traits were heritable and didnt dilute he did not prove that new traits (examples in humans being increased AIDS resistance, milk digestion enzymes etc.) didnt arise.
themadhair 2 years ago
)) We share 98% DNA with a chimp when they have 10% more DNA.
^ Amazing, the only other times Ive seen this 10% more claim has being from creationists posting on internet forums. Care to supply something to substantiate it?
)) If we gain a chromosome we become retarded.
^ Not always. We dont always become retarded after a chromosome fusion either. There are humans alive today with 45 and 47 chromosomes with no negative effects.
themadhair 2 years ago
)) Fossil record prediction was that we wont find evolution there, ook.
^ This is simply a dumb comment. And totally moot given that so-called gaps that were considered a problem in Darwins time have been filled. The Cambrian precursors were the most famous example of this.
)) Very bad video its all circular arguments.
^ Very bad comment recycling tired and debunked creationism.
themadhair 2 years ago
I imagine you are peaking from first hand knowledge... how many extra chromosomes do you have?
Your post reeks of nonsense and creationist drivel. Heaven forbid you actually read a book and educate yourself.
messiahjonz 2 years ago
No, I was just peaking at the video. Last I heard 10% was more than 3%. And if people have different numbers of chromosomes then they must have different percentages of DNA. Why, what does your book say?
mr9482 2 years ago
In humans, we have 22 pairs chromosomes(autosomes) that match between males and females, the 23 pair differ in that males have an XY and females have an XX pair. Making a difference of 2.1739% between sexes.
The difference between other apes and humans is that other apes have 24 chromosomes. This is a difference of 4.1666%.
If you are referring to the information in DNA, then you should have stated that, you were discussing chromosomes, of which, a few, you seem to be lacking.
messiahjonz 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lady paleontologist straightens out creationists .Pretty as she is smart -
"Transitional Fossils in Evolution pt. 1 of 4'
flyingscience 3 years ago
Fused ? Yes. Random ? No.
An interesting article in the talk.origins archive (of all places) from Jan 99:
When new staining techniques revealed the structure of human chromosome 2, however, what was revealed was a fusion that was neither Robertsonian nor centric. For human chromosome 2, the tips of the short arms of two acrocentric chromosomes were broken off. The 2 short arms then fused together. This resulted in a chromosome with 2 centromeres, one of which is suppressed.
Mdebacle 3 years ago
))Fused ? Yes. Random ? No.
^ Assuming your supposition were true, I'm not seeing how it helps ID given that the evidence still supports common descent.
Your supposition isn't true (I'm assuming here you mean non-random to be indicative of intelligence) regardless. To see why consider how many failed fusions occurred before this one was advantageous/neutral enough to be preserved and passed on? You are mistaking the effect of natural selection with intelligence.
themadhair 3 years ago
The gap in evolutionst reasoning is the theory, without logic or evidence, that doubling up the fused chromosome will cure the unbalanced genes or 'de-activate' a centromere'. If such experiments were made, nobody is talking about the results. Random fusions are a dead end.
Intentional fusions were accomplished with 100 percent accuracy and were permanent. They have no biologocal advantage. They prove at least one event of re-design following the creation.
Mdebacle 3 years ago
)) They prove at least one event of re-design following the creation.
^ You have elegantly summed up the problem with ID. In 92, when the inactive telomeres were first discovered, the scientific community were like WTF? When it was discovered that there is a chromosome differential between apes and humans evolutionary theory made a testable prediction that two ape chromosomes had fused. When the primate DNA was sequenced this was found to be the case, right down to the ERV sites FFS.
themadhair 3 years ago
New evidence comes in, evolutionary theory makes a prediction and the prediction gets verified. All the ID/Creationist crowd have done is say thats the way the designer did it. Every single solitary piece of evidence and/or successful prediction that evolutionary theory has made has been met with a variation on this idea. An inherently revisionistic and non-predictive hypothesis isnt a science.
themadhair 3 years ago
)) will cure the unbalanced genes
^ Can you explain how the genes are unbalanced? Im asking you to step away from your high-school basic misunderstandings of science and explain why protein expression would be inhibited by genes being relocated to a different chromosome. If your comment were true at face value then many of the techniques used in genetic engineering wouldnt work.
themadhair 3 years ago
If you read the Trofatter article, a person with a fused chromosome will produce repoductive cells with either too much or too little genetic material 2 thirds of the time. Then he claims this is an advantage by cycling thru bad conceptions more quickly. The theory is the double whammy will cure this. If experiments proved this evolutionists would be blowing trumpets, My guess is they tried it and failed.
Mdebacle 3 years ago
)) 'de-activate' a centromere'
^ If the above were an obstacle then Robertsonian translocation suffers would never be able to reproduce.
)) Random fusions are a dead end.
^ This seems to be the crux of your misunderstanding. You seem to think that such fusions are relatively rare events and are failing to realise that millions of deleterious fusion carriers did not survive we are descendants of one of the few without a deleterious fusion.
themadhair 3 years ago
One fused chromosome has 2 centromeres, one of which can find a match in the unfused chromosome, leaves the other with nomatch. Point of talk.origins article, when 2 fused chromosomes meet why would one de-activate and the other work ? My prediction is trouble.
Person with one fused will have half their reproductive cells with unfused, can revert to 46. The other half will be fused and have same genetic risk.
Double whammy needs to be tested, I predict trouble.
Mdebacle 3 years ago
)) If experiments proved this
^ I got your point the first time around. The problem you have here is that your objection is entirely theoretical and wilfully ignoring relevant data:
1) Robertsonian translocations, a relatively common real world occurrence, do not always prevent reproduction. If your objection were true this would not be the case. This phenomenon is real world evidence against your objection.
2) You ignore failed fusions.
themadhair 3 years ago
3) The real kicker against your objection is that experiments HAVE been done on this. For example High frequency of centromere inactivation resulting in stable dicentric chromosomes of maize by Han et al 2006 offer real world experimental evidence that centromere deactivation may be quite common.
4) I remember reading that Talkorigins post actually. There are questions we dont know (hence research) but I imagine he enjoyed the Hillier et al (2005) paper.
themadhair 3 years ago
"may be quite common." Then double whammies work, except when they don't.
In order to prove that humans are entirely descended from 1 male/female pair, it took
1) the fact of chromosomes
2) the fact that humans and apes have a different number
3) the fact that human chromosomes are fused.
If humans had been created with 46 unfused chromosomes, an old school Darwinist would happily tell us how human ancestors genes moved a few at a time over a few million years.
Mdebacle 3 years ago
If 1 ape in 1000 has a fused chromosome, then 1 of every 1000000 ape conceptions will be 47 with 47. To get the SAME fused chromosome maybe 1 in 2000000 ape conceptions. The genetically balanced results will be 1 in 9, the double whammy 1 in 4 of those. So 1 in 72000000 will produce a double whammy 46 chromosome ape.
There could be maybe 200 double whammy 44 chr humans in the world. The idea they will inbreed and replace 46 chr humans is just ridiculous.
Mdebacle 3 years ago
))conceptions will be 47 with 47
^ No. Real life breeding across chromosome differentials shows that only one fusion is necessary if that fusion is advantageous (or in some cases neutrality suffices). In this scenario the fusion becomes dominant in the population over successive generations without needing the same fusion to arise again. Your odds calculation does not reflect natural selection which is probably the reason you used it to generate such irrelevant results.
themadhair 3 years ago
As we see, the percentage of fused chromosomes in the population is not increasing. As fast as new fusions go into the population, natural selection puts them out the back door because of unbalanced genes.
What you have invented is a fused chromosome that
1) has cured the unbalanced genes.
2)can freely breed with 48 but cannot cross-over the super gene
3) must perform a double fusion into 46 without difficulty.
These are statements of psychological necessity, not observations.
Mdebacle 3 years ago
)) an old school Darwinist
^ Why resort to ad hoc when the supporting evidence is right there in the genome?
Also why are you calculating odds on an event that has already happened? Whether the event was due to evolution or creation, such an exercise is pretty pointless. Might as well calculate the odds on Obama getting elected and conclude such a thing was impossible.
themadhair 3 years ago
The reason we calculate odds is like being on a jury. A man is accused of murder claims it's an accident. The prosecutor says intent. We jurors must judge whether life came into existence by intent or by accident. Except we are judging ourselves.
Mdebacle 3 years ago
)) As we see, the percentage of fused chromosomes in the population is not increasing.
^ WTF? Since this fusion has already proliferated throughout the human population I cannot understand why you think its % should still be increasing. You cant go over 100% here. Im not getting what you are trying to say here.
)) natural selection puts them out
^ On what selection criteria? There are real world examples of neutral fusions why would ns even apply to this context??
themadhair 3 years ago
)) because of unbalanced genes.
^ This was your objection that you manufactured. Since I have already linked to a paper that presents real world evidence proving that this problem doesnt even arise with other fusions Im going to ask you to come up with something more substantioal than your ad-hoc assertion.
)) but cannot cross-over the super gene
^ It starts crossed over in its first instance so Im not getting the objection here.
themadhair 3 years ago
)) we calculate odds
^ The average sperm count for a human is about 100 million. The odds of the exact sperm that fertilised you is 1 in 100 million. Same for your father, your grandfather, your great grandfather etc.
So over only 10 generations the odds that you should have been born are 1x10E60. Trying to claim that you werent born on the basis of this calculation is obviously flawed but do you know the logical fallacy involved and why your calculation is guilty of the same thing?
themadhair 3 years ago
)) must perform a double fusion into 46 without difficulty.
^ Only one fusion is required. The post immediately previous to yours explained why.
)) These are statements of psychological necessity, not observations.
^ Those three statements were proposed by you so.?? I based my conclusions, as did the scientific community, on what was observed in he genome. Sub telemetric duplication, inactive centromere and the composition of two chimp chromosomes is a pretty conclusive observation to be fair.
themadhair 3 years ago
There are two ways for something to have odd number chromosomes. They are unrelated but evolutionists believe they are connected.
1) fused chromosomes with their unbalanced reproductive genes. The first occurrence of 46 chromosomes in human ancestry required 23 chromosomes , one of them fused, from each parent.
2) Hybrids, which are the result of 2 different species with even numbers mating, have no logical relation to evolution.
Mdebacle 3 years ago
{Sub telemetric duplication, inactive centromere and the composition of two chimp chromosomes is a pretty conclusive observation to be fair}
The humans race is logically descended from the first occurrence in human ancestry of a male an female with 46 chromosomes. The chromosome structure including the loci of the genes within the chromosomes is inherited from the first two. There genes and chromosomes were totally human after the fusion and before the fusion.
Mdebacle 3 years ago
)) one of them fused, from each parent.
^ No no no. The fusion would only have to occur ONCE leaving the original proponent with 47 chromosomes (with one of those being the fusion of two). The unbalanced gene argument you keep claiming doesnt hold up to real world evidence (the Han et Al 2006 paper for example). Real world breeding (equine for examples) demonstrate that breeding across chromosome differentials is possible.
themadhair 3 years ago
The question now becomes one of proliferation (did this fusion provide something for natural selection to act upon). But given that the above is actual real world evidence that demonstrates the process is possible, and given that the genetic code itself within chromosome #2 points to this, it really isnt surprising that this is the conclusion of the scientific community.
themadhair 3 years ago
)) The humans race is logically
^ The world logically has no place in your sentence given the massive amount of data you just ignored when using it. You have ignored what the actual genetic material is saying. You have ignored what the fossil evidence is saying. You have ignored pretty much every piece of scientific evidence discovered that is relevant to this topic. The fact that your argument doesnt address, include or even acknowledge that evidence should sound an alarm bell.
themadhair 3 years ago
With the discovery of chromosome numbers in about 1910, the origin of every species is either
(1) a male/female pair with the first occurrence of the chromosomes, or
(2) multiple simultaneous occurrences of such pairs.
The fused chromosomes would be so improbable and difficult that humans are in category (1).
Darwins writings were reduced to rubbish about 100 years ago.
Mdebacle 3 years ago
)) a male/female pair with the first occurrence of the chromosomes
^ Im going to be frightfully rude here, but why is that you seem deliberately intent on ignoring the scenario where a fusion occurs ONCE and propagates?? This would be the forth time in this comments section I will have mentioned this are you intending to ignore it again and pretend this scenario doesnt exist?
themadhair 3 years ago
)) The fused chromosomes would be so improbable and difficult that humans are in category (1)
^ Given that each step required for this fusion has real world evidence to demonstrate plausibility (detailed in previous comments), and given that the genetic evidence showing it happened overrides any probability calculation (dealt with above already with the sperm analogy), the conclusion you state here clearly does not logically follow.
themadhair 3 years ago
)) Darwins writings were reduced to rubbish about 100 years ago.
^ Darwin =/= god and his book =/= bible. Its pretty pathetic you have to rubbish a book written 150 years ago because you cant hold a candle to current scientific research in this area. Not that you have managed to present anything that would classify as rubbishing it.
Darwin is 150 years old and is STILL more up to date than creationism.
themadhair 3 years ago
The Han et al 2006 is about CORN and about genes which MUST be suppressed:
"The genes on the proto-B MUST be silenced to avoid aneuploid syndromes, and these modified chromosomes must acquire accumulation mechanisms to be maintained in the population."
Human chromosome 2 has no genes which MUST be suppressed.
More evolutionist obsession with irrelevency. Like wild horses with odd chromosomes.
Mdebacle 3 years ago
I don't dispute that humans and apes my have hybridized into fertile hominids. My point is that fused chromosomes (according to wikipedia)cause genetic defects:
Cancer: several forms of cancer are caused by translocations;
Infertility: , where the parent is asymptomatic but conceived fetuses are not viable.
Down syndrome is caused in a minority (5% or less) of cases by a Robertsonian translocation of about a third of chromosome 21 onto chromosome 14.
Mdebacle 3 years ago
Two questions that should serve to highlight why your extrapolation fails:
1) Do beneficial results ever occur from such fusions and what would the impact of natural selection be in that case?
2) What about the extremely compelling evidence that says human chromosome number 2 is a fusion of ape chromosomes number 2 and 13?
themadhair 3 years ago
1) We know of no benefits from RANDOM fusions. Natural selection eliminates them.
2) We propose that created chromosomes were unfused (and even numbered). Fused chromosomes are the result of re-design (and are even numbered).
Humans were created with 48 and altered to 46
A) to disprove Darwinist gradualism,
B) to prove humans are descended from 1 original pair with 46,
C) to show that hominids were hybrids. They were descendants of humans, not ancestors.
Mdebacle 3 years ago
1) I love the way you used the word we when you really meant you or creationists. Natural selection will only remove such fusions if they are harmful. There is research where Robertsonian translocations have proved beneficial to lab mice against diseases, and in humans Robertsonian translocations have occurred without and negative effects. Both of these would allow such a fusion to be passed on via natural selection.
themadhair 3 years ago
2) Totally ad-hoc, revisionist and completely ignoring the actual evidence. ID is not, nor is ever likely to be, a science because it must constantly pull these ad-hoc rationalisations out of thin air as evidence continues to come in. When you factor in the extra centromeres, extra telomeres, pseudogenes and ERVs that all point to common ancestry then it is clear that ID isnt proposing anything except a deceptive designer. Good luck with that.
themadhair 3 years ago
For some reason I cannot put web addresses in this text, but if you google scan on 'kenneth f trofatter robertsonian' you can see a very informative healthnet article. A human with a fused chromosome will have 1 in 3 odds of having balanced genes in a reproductive cell. 1 chance in 6 of passing on the fused chromosome. The inheritor would then have the same odds to pass on. Having the double whammy is not going to improve those odds. This is how natural sselection eliminates.
Mdebacle 3 years ago
Please learn what naturual selection is. Seriously. It only selects based on fitness and, as detailed in my previous comments, there are real world examples of neutral fusions in humans, meaning natural selection doesnt even apply, and real world examples of positive fusions in other organisms, which natural selection would actually propagate them.
Playing the odds game is also pretty pointless given that the evidence saying it happened is present in your own genome.
themadhair 3 years ago
Q3) One fused chromosome in an ape would give it 47 chromosomes, with lots of genetic problems. To get to 46 you need the double whammy of both sides of a chromosome fused. What evidence that would fix the problems ?
Mdebacle 3 years ago
Wild equines (have somewhere between 32 and 46) and donkeys (62 chromosomes) can produce viable offspring in the form of zonkeys for example. This proves that the chromosome number differential isn't a barrier here if the genetic combination allows for embryonic development.
46 chromosomes would be immediately present in the second generation progeny by default so you would not require two independent fusions.
themadhair 3 years ago
If fused chromosomes prove evolution, do unfused chromosomes prove creation ? Were the first 48 chromsome apes created and humans evolved from them ?
Has any experiment proved that reproductive cells with SAME fused chromosomes can combine into some thing viable and fertile ?
Are humans entirely descended from 1 male and female with 46 chromosomes ?
Mdebacle 3 years ago
Q1) One piece of evidence alone isnt proof but the sheer weight of evidence when it is tallied up does indeed prove evolution. Also evidence against one theory isnt evidence in support of an alternative theory.
Q2) No creature was created.
Q3) Ive read this three times and I still dont know what you are asking.
Q4) Yes but the ancestral male and the ancestral female did not coexist in the same timeframe.
themadhair 3 years ago
One thing to note here:
-The Cambrian Explosion
-Lack of transitional fossils
-Organs and systems of extreme complexity
These three are arguments against evolution used shamelessly by creationists even though it was Charles Darwin himself who came up then all in a rhetorical sense for addressing.
You've got to wonder why creationists use arguments from the populariser of the theory of evolution (though not the modern evolutionary synthesis)
ProcInc 3 years ago
Because they would have to know something about modern evolutionary synthesis (know something about isn't the same as understand mind you). It is not exactly a high school subject which is probably why they seem blissfully unaware. The ONLY big name creationist I know that would be aware is Behe but given what happened in Dover....
Wasn't Huxley the populariser?
themadhair 3 years ago
"The ONLY big name creationist I know that would be aware is Behe"
Who accepts common descent and conceded the evolvability of every one of his systems. And yes indeed, what happened in Dover.
"Wasn't Huxley the populariser"
Bad choice of words on my part. I meant to say Darwin was the one who finally made evolution into a testable theory. He made it a mainstream science and Huxley popularised that.
I guess the right term for Darwin would be 'proposer'
ProcInc 3 years ago
anybody know what this song is called lol?...
Madesicc1 3 years ago
"anybody know what this song is called lol?..."
Can't Say Goodbye to Yesterday. It is the ending theme of Metal Gear Solid 2.
themadhair 3 years ago
Loved the video! 5/5!
However, to avoid confusion, I think I should point out that Gregor Mendel DID observe that F1 hybrids do indeed prove to be consistently uniform and display a "middle ground" (ie, medium height) between the parents characteristics.
However, the F2 generation is when the original projenitors characteristics are dispersed randomly through the offspring (ie, tall/short).
Mendels Peas are his finest examples. You're right, though "mid-height" alleles do not occur.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
Hey madhair, I thought about what you said and I think youre right I should probably reply this to a video with more hits.
I am thinking of replying to donexodus2's video here:
watch?v=9V_2r2n4b5c
Personally I think you should too! Just so all info is in one place...
truthofevolution 3 years ago
Go for it.
The few vids on this topic I have up were for a IRL audience so any views I get are a bonus.
themadhair 3 years ago
2:00 what about incomplete dominance?
caisback18 3 years ago
Similar applies. Taking the example of the tall and short beanstalks and assuming incomplete dominance as per your question and you find that the non-dilution of traits still applies. Because the fundamental units (the tall and small alleles) are fixed the process of evolution can occur. Imagine there was a selective pressure favoring taller plants, then incomplete dominance would not dilute the alleles and evolution would still occur.
Simply "mid-height" alleles never occur.
themadhair 3 years ago
The precambrian life-forms don't show how the multicellular Cambrian forms evolved. They are largely different. The "Cambrian Explosion" is still a mystery.
TomMinderson 4 years ago
Not as much of a mystery as it once was though. It seems that divergence was well underway before the 'explosion' -- (dev . biologists . org/cgi/reprint/126/5/851 . pdf). What caused the explosion proper is proving easy to speculate -- but difficult to evidence.
Unfortunately I don't think I will live to see this mystery completely unwrapped. Some things are permanently lost to history.
themadhair 4 years ago
your dates for Garhi, and all the Homo are way off. Garhi is about as old as Afarensis and africanus, while habilis is around 2 million YO, and ergaster/erectus is far older than 30,000 YO.
agentorange20 3 years ago
Cropping/deletion error. I no longer type material into powerpoint directly in order to avoid this type of error.
The original list used was as long as your arm but I couldn't get the bloody thing to scoll back then.
themadhair 3 years ago
the least you could do is update it in the details section so that it refelcts the data as it is and so you're not misunderstood.
agentorange20 3 years ago
Haven't been able to edit the description section of this vid for months. I keep getting an authorisation error and I don't know why. It doesn't seem to affect any of my other vids. I've messaged YT a few times about this but no response.
I haven't got a clue whats wrong.
themadhair 3 years ago
Tom, I'm not so sure about that. Vernanimalcula, the oldest bilateral fossil, shows very primitive characters that could easily evolve to kimberella or dickinsonia type things. Then Dickinsonia lissa looks very much like a segmented worm of the cambrian. Spriggina looks much like the arthropod forms you see. Parvancorina looks like trilobitomorphs. And a recent (albeit controversial) find in the ediacaran of Australia looks like the ancestor of vetulicolians and chordates. (cont'd)
spitelobite 4 years ago
Kimberella is undoubtedly the first mollusk, complete with radula marks and paired gills. The leafy things, (charnodiscus etc.) look like the cambrian fossil stromatoveris and further to plumalina of today. Jellyfish are found across the boundary too. Recently they've found an ediacaran sponge. It's not so much an explosion anymore, though it looks like an exponential function, due to the relatively open field of niches for the first metazoans to evolve into.
spitelobite 4 years ago
Forgot to mention... xenusion is a precambrian fossil of the lobopods (hallucigenia, microdictyon, asheyia, and other later onychophorans) There are some ediacarans that don't really carry on (tribrachidium, pteridinium, yorgia, namacalathus), but that's to be expected, especially when the first predators/hard parts evolve in the cambrian.
spitelobite 4 years ago
Are you a bio student? If so then have you considered making vids?
themadhair 4 years ago
Well, I'm technically just an aerospace engineering student. But I had a paleontology minor, and am a pretty active collector of fossils. How much time does it take to make one? Time's hard to come by in grad school sometimes.
spitelobite 4 years ago
Predictions that are proven wrong never disprove the theory of evolutioin, you just change the theory. Similarity does not suggest ancestry and 30,000,000 differences between humans and apes, does not a close relative make.
mejc2 4 years ago
"Predictions that are proven wrong never disprove the theory of evolutioin, you just change the theory."
What a novel concept. Changing a theory to reflect the available physical evidence? Sounds like something a scientist would do. The heresy.
"Similarity does not suggest ancestry and 30,000,000 differences between humans and apes, does not a close relative make."
Similarity indicating nested hierarchies does indicate common ancestry.
themadhair 4 years ago
30 million differences sounds a lot, but when the billions of similarities are taken into account then it doesn't seem that many. Combine that with identical centromere placement, dozens of identically placed ERV's, hundreds of homologous deactivated genes and an ever-increasing set of hominid fossils and you reach a point where the physical evidence is simply too strong to ignore. But feel free.
themadhair 4 years ago
very enlightening video! apart from the occasional ortography errors a very well done work, thanks for uploading this =)
luevas 4 years ago
"ortography errors"
You mean orthographical errors?
middle-sizeD
THIS non-dilution
THEY predicted that humans
Section 2 should have the heading 'Non-dilution of traits'
More misplaced comma's than I care to count
Did I miss any?
themadhair 4 years ago
Wow, themadhair, you ripped johnpaulwinters a new one... and i bet he still thinks he is right.
THEoldy 4 years ago 2
@ johnpaulwinters
"Do you believe that physical nature is all that exists?"
Considering that physical nature is all we can measure, and this is a discussion about science, I would have to say whether or not I believe one way or the other is irrelevant.
"species appear fully-formed.."
Until you can describe to me how evolutionary theory predicts a non-fully formed species I am going to treat this comment as the stupid testimony to ignorance that it is.
themadhair 4 years ago
"without ancestor, don't change before disappearing and being suddenly replaced by something completely different."
The fossil record is littered with such examples. Denying it or pretending it isn't true doesn't change anything -- why o why did I even bother to post that link to the transitional FAQ? I mean, I must have been under the mistaken impression that viewers might actually read the bloody thing. If this comment comes across as testy maybe you should ask why that is the case.
themadhair 4 years ago
"all but one phyla appears in a short timespan"
You alluded to the Cambrian explosion. Darwin predicted there should be precursors and I linked to a paper describing the Precambrian record of life and its discovery.
"I was replying to a video making claims about Evolution. The burden of proof is on the presenter."
My video was about predictions made by the theory that have since been verified. I linked to relevant material on this topic. Simple. Case closed.
themadhair 4 years ago
"The fossil records have always shown species appearing, fully-formed, as if placed there."
I suppose you could call me an 'evolutionist'. I do extensive reading on the topic and like to think that I have a decent understanding of it. So when I tell that, speaking as a reasonably competent knowledgeable 'evolutionist', that the theory of evolution DOES NOT PREDICT A 'HALF FORMED' SPECIES, should it not occur to you that maybe your 'fully-formed' argument is a product of ignorance?
themadhair 4 years ago
"What would the fossil record look like, if ID were correct?"
You would not have different species fixed to different geological strata. You would not have progressions of species permeating the fossil record. You would not have a fossil record showing that 99% of all species of the planet are now extinct, and, moreover, a fossil record that seems to show that every extant animal and plant only occurred relatively recently in the geological timescale.
themadhair 4 years ago
@ johnpaulwinters
"If you assume evo./common descent are true..."
Sorting fossils by how they appear in the geological record and by their age actually shows the progressions on its own -- no assumption of evolution required for this.
"If you are skeptical about evo., then you are free to retain an open mind and consider other interpretations of the same evidence."
The fossil record just doesn't support creation period, unless 'interpretation' means 'ignore conflicting evidence'.
themadhair 4 years ago
"This includes consideration of ideas that are filtered out of evolutionary textbooks and course materials."
Ideas that have been falsified tend to be filtered out -- and quite rightly.
"The way I see it, assuming evo. is true, given 3-4 billion years and trillions of species, I ask the question: "This is the best you can conjure up?"" Yes it is. Rarity of fossilisation being the issue. But the question should really be why you do not apply the same standards of rigor to alternatives?
themadhair 4 years ago
"I don't see anyone in research who would dare *attempt* to fasilfy ToE, until they find a fossilized of Darth Vader in the Jurassic stratum."
Two points to this. Firstly, the reason for majority acceptance within the scientific community really is due to the evidence, and every experiment done on evolution IS an attempt to falsify the theory. Secondly, if an alternative that better explains the evidence were to be presented it would be considered -- but no such alternative exists.
themadhair 4 years ago
>the reason for majority acceptance within the scientific community really is due to the evidence
I believe there is evidence that it is due to a political/religious/philosophical shift withint the academic community.
>if an alternative that better explains the evidence were to be presented it would be considered
Do you believe that physical nature is all that exists?
johnpaulwinters 4 years ago
>Rarity of fossilisation being the issue
I understand the issue. But the evidence says species appear fully-formed, without ancestor, don't change before disappearing and being suddenly replaced by something completely different.
And most damning, all but one phyla appears in a short timespan (5-10my).
This is NOT what Darwin had in mind, and this evidence is outweighed by untestable supposition?
johnpaulwinters 4 years ago
>But the question should really be why you do not apply the same standards of rigor to alternatives?
I was replying to a video making claims about Evolution. The burden of proof is on the presenter.
johnpaulwinters 4 years ago
>Sorting fossils..shows the progressions on its own
The fossil records have always shown species appearing, fully-formed, as if placed there.
But when they publish those admissions, Darwinists add suppositions to explain away the contrary fossil evidence.
>The fossil record just doesn't support creation..
What would the fossil record look like, if ID were correct?
johnpaulwinters 4 years ago
Are you saying Darwin's statement "the extreme imperfection of the geologic record" was a predition?
I thought he was referring to OUR records being extremely imperfect not the paucity of species' fossils preserved.
The prediction that the fossil would bloom into a mass of fossils of intermediate species was debunked.
johnpaulwinters 4 years ago
"I thought he was referring to OUR records being extremely imperfect not the paucity of species' fossils preserved."
He was but he possibly put this down to the rarity of fossilisation.
"The prediction that the fossil would bloom into a mass of fossils of intermediate species was debunked."
It depends on what you mean by an intermediate. We now have links for the origins of virtually all of the major phyla so your claim of being debunked is bull.
themadhair 4 years ago
>It depends on what you mean by an intermediate
If you assume evo./common descent are true, then you can classify any series of similar looking fossils from the past as being related.
If you are skeptical about evo., then you are free to retain an open mind and consider other interpretations of the same evidence.
This includes consideration of ideas that are filtered out of evolutionary textbooks and course materials.
johnpaulwinters 4 years ago
>We now have links for the origins of virtually all of the major phyla so your claim of being debunked is bull.
Phyla is a pretty broad category, isn't it? How many phyla links are there?
The way I see it, assuming evo. is true, given 3-4 billion years and trillions of species, I ask the question: "This is the best you can conjure up?"
johnpaulwinters 4 years ago
"Why didn't you mention what Darwin actually predicted, Pangenesis, which turned out totally wrong."
The prediction was non-dilution of traits. The heading for this section was an error on my part and I fully accept that Darwin's explanation for this was simply wrong. The original prediction of non-dilution of traits was what was being highlighted.
"The links you gave require a login account."
They work fine for me.
themadhair 4 years ago
>The heading for this section was an error on my part and I fully accept that Darwin's explanation for this was simply wrong.
ok
johnpaulwinters 4 years ago
"why are you citing old sources?" Because the newest material requires a subscription. If you have links to uptodate material not requiring such I will happily post those links.
"I read the number has been falling steadily and is now below 95%." You criticise me for old sources -- at least I source. The % is falling though as every generation goes by...
Are you familiar with gallop gishing?
themadhair 4 years ago
>Are you familiar with gallop gishing?
I am very familiar with YouTube's poor, 500-character text box.
Also, I have attempted to source things in the past, sometimes this gets you banned, but nobody has every shown interest in what I have to say because I don't drink Darwin brand Kool-Aid.
I don't see anyone in research who would dare *attempt* to fasilfy ToE, until they find a fossilized of Darth Vader in the Jurassic stratum.
johnpaulwinters 4 years ago
Why didn't you mention what Darwin actually predicted, Pangenesis, which turned out totally wrong.
Also, Mendel knew of Darwin's theories and rejected them.
So, scientists had to abandon Darwin's work in favor of Mendel's.
johnpaulwinters 4 years ago
Where did you get the figure saying human-chimp DNA is 98% identical? The links you gave require a login account.
I read the number has been falling steadily and is now below 95%.
This video was only just uploaded, so why are you citing old sources?
johnpaulwinters 4 years ago
Excellent. There are other genetic markers too such as endogenous retroviruses and the vitamin C pseudogene. Love the music BTW.
AggressiveSecularist 4 years ago