Really and you think line of reasoning is why he has the bigger brain? Hopefully your big brained individual there would be born in the middle east where they would find themselves stating "Allah said it and I believe in and that it!"
Actually biogenesis only ever debunked the idea that modern organisms magically arose. You know, creationism.
The idea that the *larger* brain is the one that says "God said it I believe it that settles it" is one of the greatest examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect I've ever seen.
@TheScienceFoundation - I'd like to hear an evolutionist explain the chromosome without resorting to a bunch of unprovable assumptions instead of actual science.
@TheScienceFoundation - But such fusions are pretty much meaningless and no indication of evolutionary relation. This is borne out by the man in China who was found to have fused chromosomes.
@JMcH It's evidence for common ancestry because our fused chromosome is matchable to two independent chimp chromosomes to nearly 100% homology.
We've known for a while that we've had fewer chromosomes than the other primates, so either we had to find what happened to it or common ancestry was wrong. We found everything predicted in chromosome 2
@TheScienceFoundation - Unfortunately, the "prediction" postdated everything that was known about chromosome 2. One person commented elsewhere: "A prediction of a theory does NOT need to be formulated before a certain fact is found." Do you agree with that? It's laughable. It allows you to fit the evidence into whatever explanation you want. And that's exactly what has happened with chromosome 2.
@JMcH Wrong, it was known for decades that if we had actually lost an entire primate chromosome that it would've been lethal. Actually this is evidence that can only fit to one explanation, common descent. If we hadn't found a chromosome with signs of fusion, that would've been a problem.
@TheScienceFoundation - So wait a minute. The claim is that primates have 48 chromosomes and we have 46 because two of ours fused. But if you fuse two chromosomes out of 48, you wind up with 47, not 46. It doesn't add up. Literally and figuratively! Just another evolutionist "just-so" fantasy story.
@TheScienceFoundation - Do the math. 24 pairs = 48 chromosomes. Fuse a pair and you get 23 pairs plus one fused chromosome for a total of 47 chromosomes, not 46.
@TheScienceFoundation - That point is irrelevant. Mom and dad both have 46 chromosomes (48 in primates). If one fuses at any point, you still have that non-paired chromosome to contend with. Like you said, the loss of chromosomes is necessarily fatal, but for the math to work out, the loss of chromosomes is absolutely necessary.
@JMcH The fusion would have occured in the germ cells, giving rise to a sperm or an ovum with 23 instead of 24 chromosomes. When this germ cell becomes a zygote, it would have received 24 chromatids from the other parent. Since one of the chromosomes in the 23 haplogenome is essentially 2 chromosomes joined at their ends, it would have been possible for chromosomes to segregate during cell division, giving rise to mosaic individuals.
@JMcH That is, individuals with 47 chromosomes (a set of 23 with a set of 24). When two of these individuals mate, they could give rise to individuals of either 46 (they receive two fused chromatids, one from each parent), 48 (they receive the two chromatids unfused from both parents, or 47 like themselves.
@TheScienceFoundation - If chromosomes are "expressed in pairs," then how could that extra chromosome simply be hanging about without a match? Extra chromosomes are definitely NOT a desirable trait as the entire history of genetic disorders has proven to us.
@TheScienceFoundation - Not really. You shared a typical "just-so" story which fails under examination. If you have a sperm with just 23 chromosomes and you pair it with an ovum with 24, you end up with an extra chromosome floating about. Definitely not a good thing.
@TheScienceFoundation - Yeah, you keep repeating that I am unable to understand genetics. You think I'm stupid or ignorant -- probably both. Sorry, but it's actually you who keeps mistaking that as an argument for your position. The fact that you keep returning to it instead of actually making valid arguments proves just how bankrupt your position is.
@TheScienceFoundation - Since you cannot overcome your dogma regarding my understanding, we are at an impasse. That is your primary argument -- not anything about genetics, but about your faith-based belief that I do not understand. Quite frankly, it's pathetic, but not the least bit surprising. It's like when liberals play the race card or the "homophobe" card in order to shut down discussion.
@JMcH You really should read up on psychological projection, that's all you've done thus far. You've remained willfully ignorant to a very basic explanation regarding chromatids which a high school biology student could understand. Then you dodge my question regarding which part of my argument wasn't entirely in line with genetics.
The only thing pathetic here is your continued insistence that your inability to grasp basic biology somehow means I'm incorrect.
@TheScienceFoundation - You know, the very fact that you have stated that there can be individuals with an odd number of chromosomes proves that your assertions about chromosomes coming in pairs and the loss of chromosomes being necessarily fatal as pure bunk. Accusing me of "psychological projection" and being ignorant of basic biology does not bolster your case in any way, shape or form. All it does is make you look like an arrogant ass.
@JMcH You know, the very fact that you continually ignore the fact that a fusion does not equal a loss does not constitute an argument. When two chromosomes fuse, IE Robertsonian translocation, the information doesn't actually go anywhere, it's merely arranged differently.
As long as the gamete count is balanced among replicators, fusion doesn't affect gene expression.
It's not an accusation, it's pointing out the fact that you seem to be trying very hard not to understand what I'm saying.
@TheScienceFoundation - I understand perfectly well. The fact that you cannot account for that one extra chromosome floating around which MUST be lost at some point -- an event that you demand to be unquestioningly fatal -- proves that your argument is complete bunk. The fact that instead of addressing the issue of that extra chromosome you resort to attacking my alleged ignorance proves that you cannot make any sense out of your own senseless position and are trying to distract from it.
@JMcH If you think that either A: There would've been an 'extra chromosome floating around' or B: that a chromosome was actually lost in the fusion
Then no, you have no understanding of what I'm talking about. I've explained how we got to 46 instead of 47 and that a fusion is not a loss of any information whatsoever.
@TheScienceFoundation - So you're contradicting yourself. You referred to "individuals with 47 chromosomes" after a chromosome fused and moved on to their offspring having 46 chromosomes. So somewhere along the way, a chromosome was lost, which you demanded was necessarily fatal. Look, I'm sorry you can't keep your "just-so" story straight, but please don't expect the rest of us to mindlessly swallow it, particularly when you resort to insulting us when you can't intelligently defend it.
@TheScienceFoundation - As I clearly illustrated, fusion results in 47 chromosomes - 23 pairs plus one fused non-pair. Now, whether your imagined individual with 47 chromosomes reproduces with an individual with 46 or 48 chromosomes, you still have to contend with an extra chromosome floating about. Where does it go? It has to be lost somewhere, but you unequivocally stated that such an event would be fatal.
The fusion would have occured in the germ cells, giving rise to a sperm or an ovum with 23 instead of 24 chromosomes. When this germ cell becomes a zygote, it would have received 24 chromatids from the other parent. Since one of the chromosomes in the 23 haplogenome is essentially 2 chromosomes joined at their ends, it would have been possible for chromosomes to segregate during cell division, giving rise to mosaic individuals.
@JMcH That is, individuals with 47 chromosomes (a set of 23 with a set of 24). When two of these individuals mate, they could give rise to individuals of either 46 (they receive two fused chromatids, one from each parent), 48 (they receive the two chromatids unfused from both parents, or 47 like themselves.
It's not lost, a fusion is not a loss and my explanation was pretty clear as to how 48 chromosomes can become 46. Which part did you not understand?
I thought chromosomes always came in pairs. If an individual has 47 chromosomes, that would be an extra unpaired chromosome just hanging about, and that would be very bad. And no matter how you look at it, it still would involve losing a chromosome.
@TheScienceFoundation - Also, if you look at all the species in existence -- which you believe all shared a common ancestor at some point -- there is a huge range in the number of chromosomes. Fruit flies have 8. A kingfisher has 132. Again, no matter how you look at it, there had to have been a loss of chromosomes somewhere along the way, but you claim that such a thing is unequivocally fatal.
@TheScienceFoundation - But if your imaginary 47 chromosome parents magically produce a 46 chromosome offspring, then yes, the genetic information from that one odd chromosome just floating about has to go somewhere.
@TheScienceFoundation - Bad analogy. Don't need it anyway. An individual with 47 chromosomes mating with another with 47 and producing an offspring with 46 = loss of a chromosome somewhere. Unless, of course, you think that the mind-bogglingly rare occurrence of chromosome fusion somehow happened twice within a very, very short period of time.
@JMcH No, because for the ninth time a fusion is not a loss. I've explained very clearly twice now how the fused chromatids resulted in the drift from 48 to 46
@TheScienceFoundation - So you are, in fact, arguing that the unimaginably rare occurrence of chromosomal fusion happened not once, but twice in as little as one generation.
@JMcH No, I was in fact pointing out several times how chromatid fusion actually works. You keep confusing not understanding this for it not actually occurring.
@TheScienceFoundation - What genetics demonstrates is that individuals with extra unpaired chromosomes are severely disabled. Your "just-so" story of people with 47 chromosomes producing offspring with either 46 or 48 chromosomes is a bunch of nonsense.
@TheScienceFoundation - If you have 47 chromosomes, one must, by definition, be unpaired. 23 pairs = 46 chromosomes. 24 pairs = 48 chromosomes. Are you being deliberately dishonest or are you just bad at math?
@TheScienceFoundation - You've explained nothing. You just assumed that an individual with 47 chromosomes (23 pairs plus 1 unpaired chromosome) can exist without any consequences. You've contradicted yourself in saying that chromosomes always pair while asserting that individuals can exist with 47 chromosomes.
@JMcH Actually I explained it very clearly. So once again;
The fusion would have occured in the germ cells, giving rise to a sperm or an ovum with 23 instead of 24 chromosomes. When this germ cell becomes a zygote, it would have received 24 chromatids from the other parent. Since one of the chromosomes in the 23 haplogenome is essentially 2 chromosomes joined at their ends, it would have been possible for chromosomes to segregate during cell division, giving rise to mosaic individuals.
@JMcH That is, individuals with 47 chromosomes (a set of 23 with a set of 24). When two of these individuals mate, they could give rise to individuals of either 46 (they receive two fused chromatids, one from each parent), 48 (they receive the two chromatids unfused from both parents, or 47 like themselves.
It's not lost, a fusion is not a loss and my explanation was pretty clear as to how 48 chromosomes can become 46.
@TheScienceFoundation - 2 fused chromosomes = 1 chromosome. It doesn't pair itself. The claims of this alleged fused chromosome from apes proves that. Chromosomes are always paired and non-paired chromosomes hanging around are always detrimental. If a 48 chromosome ape has a descendent with 47 chromosomes (46 plus 1 fused) which in turn has a descendant with 46 chromosomes, a chromosome has to be lost somewhere. It's simple math. However, you admit that losing chromosomes is necessarily fatal.
@TheScienceFoundation - Your faulty math and contradictory explanations. First you argue that chromosomes cannot be lost and that it would be fatal, then you argue that chromosomes are always paired, then you argue that individuals with an odd number of chromosomes can exist (apparently without any detrimental effects), then you argue that fused chromosomes count as a pair when they clearly do not, then you claim that the descendents can go from 48 to 47 to 46 chromosomes without losing any.
@TheScienceFoundation - To get from 48 paired chromosomes to 46 paired chromosomes via 47 chromosomes, then yes, your math is faulty and there is a chromosomal loss somewhere even with one fusion.
@TheScienceFoundation - It's beside the point. If you have a fusion, that results in an odd number of chromosomes. If you go from 48 to 47 via fusion, then you have to deal with that 1 fused chromosome floating around unpaired. Unpaired chromosomes are bad news. Then, to get from 47 to 46, you need either another fusion (an amazing coincidence) or a chromosomal loss.
@JMcH No, it's part of the point. If you can't even understand that a fusion is not a loss, how do you expect to understand chromatid fusion itself? You keep asserting basic genetic ignorance as an argument under the apparent impression that you have some sort of 'gotcha' argument.
@TheScienceFoundation - The fact that you keep dodging my valid points and throwing up the smokescreen of calling me ignorant and treating me as stupid proves that you cannot defend your position. I'm through with your nonsense and obfuscations. You have proven exactly nothing other than your dogmatic adherence to evolutionary skubala.
@JMcH You have no valid points, you can't even understand that two chromosomes fusing doesn't actually remove any genetic information. I've been trying to explain the process to you but you refuse to even try to learn. I'm pointing out your willful ignorance in hopes that you'll realize that's what you're doing and maybe potentially stop it.
@TheScienceFoundation - No, see, you're the one with no valid points. Your attempt at a valid point is to falsely portray my position as saying fusion results in the loss of information. You fabricated that straw man from whole cloth. I never said any such thing. Will you admit that? I doubt it. You'll just continue to lay into me with the attack that I don't understand and am willfully ignorant in order to distract from the fact that you cannot account for the unpaired chromosome.
@JMcH No, I'm the only one with valid points. I tried to elaborate on the process from the beginning but you're so biased you couldn't even recognize that a fusion of two chromosomes is not a loss of information. It's not an attack, it's an unavoidable observation. 'the fact that you cannot account for the unpaired chromosome.'
I already have, this is an example of the ignorance I've been referring to.
@JMcH You have thus far failed to understand that a fusion is not a loss of information. You keep asserting your ignorance regarding 'an unpaired chromosome' when that's exactly the ignorance I'm trying to get to and correct through a basic education of genetics.
@TheScienceFoundation - You have thus far failed to stop lying about my understanding. Two fused chromosomes = 1 chromosome, which must be paired. You have never addressed this issue and you never will because you can't. All you will do is continue to lie about my level of understanding in order to distract from that fact.
@JMcH I'm trying to get to your understanding, but a remedial educating in the difference between a loss and a fusion is warranted at this point. You keep dodging the question and pretending as if I haven't already explained the chromatid fusion event somehow means I haven't in order to distract from the fact that you don't actually want to learn, only continually assert your ignorance as if it's meaningful.
Do you understand yet that a fusion is not a loss?
@TheScienceFoundation - I'm through with you. You cannot admit that you are lying about my understanding and cannot admit that you cannot account for that one imaginary chromosome floating around.
@JMcH You have 23 pairs of chromosomes, meaning 46 total chromosomes, in pairs. Whatever ancestor had 48 total, meaning 24 pairs. Mutations happen all the time in individuals, and somehow a mutation that fused two chromosome PAIRS ended up in a viable offspring. So 2 from 24 becoming one from 23 means 4 from 48 became 2 from 46. This actually happens very frequently, but often it is fatal to the cell or organism. However, genetic code can be very flexible, and this new orientation survived.
@JMcH It's the opposite of a just so story, you're projecting the inability of creationism to explain anything at all here in any empirical way. This is in contrast to descent with modification which not only explains the arrangement of chromosome 2 itself, but also its array in relation to other primate lineages.
@TheScienceFoundation - "the fact that you cannot account for the unpaired chromosome"
And you can't. You have it floating around, apparently harmlessly, in an impossible 47 chromosome individual and you make it vanish without a trace to become a 46 chromosome descendant or have information added to it to become a 48 chromosome descendant.
If you're claiming Noah's flood happened, this is probably what you sound like
/watch?v=j_BzWUuZN5w
/watch?v=XLr5vl-n0Bo
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@Cacterpus - Or someone filed a false DCMA against him in order to silence him. Wouldn't be the first time that's happened to a Christian on YouTube.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH >This video contains an audio track that has not been authorized by WMG.
That means it was probably disabled the instant the video was uploaded.
Why would anyone want to silence Russ? He's hilarious.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@Cacterpus Oh no, you've contracted the dumb. It's contagious. lol
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
"God said it I believe it and that's it."
Really and you think line of reasoning is why he has the bigger brain? Hopefully your big brained individual there would be born in the middle east where they would find themselves stating "Allah said it and I believe in and that it!"
sweatytoothmadman 7 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman As opposed to believing you evolved from a rock?
CreationMinistries 7 months ago
@CreationMinistries Or a strawman, apparently.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@CreationMinistries I guess to the list of things I'm waiting for you to source, I can add the 'DNA code barrier'
Eventually I think even other creationists will have to recognize that you have no idea what you're talking about.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@CreationMinistries Or a strawman
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
"The DNA code barrier"
What DNA code barrier?
"The law of biogenesis"
Actually biogenesis only ever debunked the idea that modern organisms magically arose. You know, creationism.
The idea that the *larger* brain is the one that says "God said it I believe it that settles it" is one of the greatest examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect I've ever seen.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
I'd still like to hear a creationist explanation regarding human chromosome 2 that isn't entirely summed up as 'god just did it that way'
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - I'd like to hear an evolutionist explain the chromosome without resorting to a bunch of unprovable assumptions instead of actual science.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH You're confusing 'unprovable assumptions' and 'actual observed mechanisms' IE telomeric fusion.
"We don't have a time machine" is not a valid argument against human chromosome 2 being the result of telomeric fusion. Everything indicates it was.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - But such fusions are pretty much meaningless and no indication of evolutionary relation. This is borne out by the man in China who was found to have fused chromosomes.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH It's evidence for common ancestry because our fused chromosome is matchable to two independent chimp chromosomes to nearly 100% homology.
We've known for a while that we've had fewer chromosomes than the other primates, so either we had to find what happened to it or common ancestry was wrong. We found everything predicted in chromosome 2
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - Unfortunately, the "prediction" postdated everything that was known about chromosome 2. One person commented elsewhere: "A prediction of a theory does NOT need to be formulated before a certain fact is found." Do you agree with that? It's laughable. It allows you to fit the evidence into whatever explanation you want. And that's exactly what has happened with chromosome 2.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH Wrong, it was known for decades that if we had actually lost an entire primate chromosome that it would've been lethal. Actually this is evidence that can only fit to one explanation, common descent. If we hadn't found a chromosome with signs of fusion, that would've been a problem.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - So wait a minute. The claim is that primates have 48 chromosomes and we have 46 because two of ours fused. But if you fuse two chromosomes out of 48, you wind up with 47, not 46. It doesn't add up. Literally and figuratively! Just another evolutionist "just-so" fantasy story.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH They come as pairs, one set from each parent.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - Do the math. 24 pairs = 48 chromosomes. Fuse a pair and you get 23 pairs plus one fused chromosome for a total of 47 chromosomes, not 46.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH Again, they come as pairs, the gamete count remains balanced because they were fused as a pair.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - Look at it this way. o = 1 chromosome and 8 = fused chromosomes. Apes have 48 chromosomes or 24 pairs.
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
Evolutionists like yourself claim that we have 46 because one chromosome fused, but the math doesn't work.
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 8
So what do we have? 23 pairs + 1 fused = 47 chromosomes, not 46.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH I get what you think you're saying, but chromosomes are expressed as pairs, one from mom one from dad.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - That point is irrelevant. Mom and dad both have 46 chromosomes (48 in primates). If one fuses at any point, you still have that non-paired chromosome to contend with. Like you said, the loss of chromosomes is necessarily fatal, but for the math to work out, the loss of chromosomes is absolutely necessary.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH No, you not understanding that chromosomes are expressed as pairs does not make the point irrelevant.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@JMcH The fusion would have occured in the germ cells, giving rise to a sperm or an ovum with 23 instead of 24 chromosomes. When this germ cell becomes a zygote, it would have received 24 chromatids from the other parent. Since one of the chromosomes in the 23 haplogenome is essentially 2 chromosomes joined at their ends, it would have been possible for chromosomes to segregate during cell division, giving rise to mosaic individuals.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@JMcH That is, individuals with 47 chromosomes (a set of 23 with a set of 24). When two of these individuals mate, they could give rise to individuals of either 46 (they receive two fused chromatids, one from each parent), 48 (they receive the two chromatids unfused from both parents, or 47 like themselves.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - If chromosomes are "expressed in pairs," then how could that extra chromosome simply be hanging about without a match? Extra chromosomes are definitely NOT a desirable trait as the entire history of genetic disorders has proven to us.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH Even if what you're saying made it sense, it wouldn't have been an extra chromosome. I just explained it pretty clearly.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - Not really. You shared a typical "just-so" story which fails under examination. If you have a sperm with just 23 chromosomes and you pair it with an ovum with 24, you end up with an extra chromosome floating about. Definitely not a good thing.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH No, I explained through actual genetics how one fused chromosome becomes two fused chromatids through varying germlines.
You keep mistaking the inability to understand genetics as an argument against it.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - Yeah, you keep repeating that I am unable to understand genetics. You think I'm stupid or ignorant -- probably both. Sorry, but it's actually you who keeps mistaking that as an argument for your position. The fact that you keep returning to it instead of actually making valid arguments proves just how bankrupt your position is.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH Because you aren't able to understand genetics.
For instance, which part of my explanation isn't vindicated by modern genetics?
You not being able to grasp basic genetic concepts will never constitute my arguments being invalid.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - Since you cannot overcome your dogma regarding my understanding, we are at an impasse. That is your primary argument -- not anything about genetics, but about your faith-based belief that I do not understand. Quite frankly, it's pathetic, but not the least bit surprising. It's like when liberals play the race card or the "homophobe" card in order to shut down discussion.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH You really should read up on psychological projection, that's all you've done thus far. You've remained willfully ignorant to a very basic explanation regarding chromatids which a high school biology student could understand. Then you dodge my question regarding which part of my argument wasn't entirely in line with genetics.
The only thing pathetic here is your continued insistence that your inability to grasp basic biology somehow means I'm incorrect.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - You know, the very fact that you have stated that there can be individuals with an odd number of chromosomes proves that your assertions about chromosomes coming in pairs and the loss of chromosomes being necessarily fatal as pure bunk. Accusing me of "psychological projection" and being ignorant of basic biology does not bolster your case in any way, shape or form. All it does is make you look like an arrogant ass.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH You know, the very fact that you continually ignore the fact that a fusion does not equal a loss does not constitute an argument. When two chromosomes fuse, IE Robertsonian translocation, the information doesn't actually go anywhere, it's merely arranged differently.
As long as the gamete count is balanced among replicators, fusion doesn't affect gene expression.
It's not an accusation, it's pointing out the fact that you seem to be trying very hard not to understand what I'm saying.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - I understand perfectly well. The fact that you cannot account for that one extra chromosome floating around which MUST be lost at some point -- an event that you demand to be unquestioningly fatal -- proves that your argument is complete bunk. The fact that instead of addressing the issue of that extra chromosome you resort to attacking my alleged ignorance proves that you cannot make any sense out of your own senseless position and are trying to distract from it.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH If you think that either A: There would've been an 'extra chromosome floating around' or B: that a chromosome was actually lost in the fusion
Then no, you have no understanding of what I'm talking about. I've explained how we got to 46 instead of 47 and that a fusion is not a loss of any information whatsoever.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - So you're contradicting yourself. You referred to "individuals with 47 chromosomes" after a chromosome fused and moved on to their offspring having 46 chromosomes. So somewhere along the way, a chromosome was lost, which you demanded was necessarily fatal. Look, I'm sorry you can't keep your "just-so" story straight, but please don't expect the rest of us to mindlessly swallow it, particularly when you resort to insulting us when you can't intelligently defend it.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH No, for the fifth time nowhere was a chromosome lost. A fusion is not a loss, the genetic information is still there.
Which part of this are you having a problem comprehending?
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - As I clearly illustrated, fusion results in 47 chromosomes - 23 pairs plus one fused non-pair. Now, whether your imagined individual with 47 chromosomes reproduces with an individual with 46 or 48 chromosomes, you still have to contend with an extra chromosome floating about. Where does it go? It has to be lost somewhere, but you unequivocally stated that such an event would be fatal.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH As I clearly explained
The fusion would have occured in the germ cells, giving rise to a sperm or an ovum with 23 instead of 24 chromosomes. When this germ cell becomes a zygote, it would have received 24 chromatids from the other parent. Since one of the chromosomes in the 23 haplogenome is essentially 2 chromosomes joined at their ends, it would have been possible for chromosomes to segregate during cell division, giving rise to mosaic individuals.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@JMcH That is, individuals with 47 chromosomes (a set of 23 with a set of 24). When two of these individuals mate, they could give rise to individuals of either 46 (they receive two fused chromatids, one from each parent), 48 (they receive the two chromatids unfused from both parents, or 47 like themselves.
It's not lost, a fusion is not a loss and my explanation was pretty clear as to how 48 chromosomes can become 46. Which part did you not understand?
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - "individuals with 47 chromosomes"
I thought chromosomes always came in pairs. If an individual has 47 chromosomes, that would be an extra unpaired chromosome just hanging about, and that would be very bad. And no matter how you look at it, it still would involve losing a chromosome.
JMcH 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - Also, if you look at all the species in existence -- which you believe all shared a common ancestor at some point -- there is a huge range in the number of chromosomes. Fruit flies have 8. A kingfisher has 132. Again, no matter how you look at it, there had to have been a loss of chromosomes somewhere along the way, but you claim that such a thing is unequivocally fatal.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH I'll state it as simply as possible and you tell me which part you're failing to grasp
When chromosomes fuse, none of the genetic information has actually gone anywhere.
What part are you not comprehending? Because this seems to be the major stumbling block in the discussion.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - But if your imaginary 47 chromosome parents magically produce a 46 chromosome offspring, then yes, the genetic information from that one odd chromosome just floating about has to go somewhere.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH You still haven't tried to explain which part you're not understanding.
We can't move forward if the problem isn't made clear.
Maybe just genetics in general is over your head. Let me try an analogy.
If i have 2 1/2 gallons of water and pour them into a 1 gallon container, have I lost any water?
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - Bad analogy. Don't need it anyway. An individual with 47 chromosomes mating with another with 47 and producing an offspring with 46 = loss of a chromosome somewhere. Unless, of course, you think that the mind-bogglingly rare occurrence of chromosome fusion somehow happened twice within a very, very short period of time.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH No, because for the ninth time a fusion is not a loss. I've explained very clearly twice now how the fused chromatids resulted in the drift from 48 to 46
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - So you are, in fact, arguing that the unimaginably rare occurrence of chromosomal fusion happened not once, but twice in as little as one generation.
JMcH 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JMcH Try actually reading what I said.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@JMcH No, I was in fact pointing out several times how chromatid fusion actually works. You keep confusing not understanding this for it not actually occurring.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - How you think it works.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH No, how it actually demonstrably works via genetics.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - What genetics demonstrates is that individuals with extra unpaired chromosomes are severely disabled. Your "just-so" story of people with 47 chromosomes producing offspring with either 46 or 48 chromosomes is a bunch of nonsense.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH Except they weren't unpaired. Which part of my explanation didn't you understand?
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - If you have 47 chromosomes, one must, by definition, be unpaired. 23 pairs = 46 chromosomes. 24 pairs = 48 chromosomes. Are you being deliberately dishonest or are you just bad at math?
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH I've explained chromatid pairing so the problem is with your comprehension. Which part of my explanation are you having trouble comprehending?
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - You've explained nothing. You just assumed that an individual with 47 chromosomes (23 pairs plus 1 unpaired chromosome) can exist without any consequences. You've contradicted yourself in saying that chromosomes always pair while asserting that individuals can exist with 47 chromosomes.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH Actually I explained it very clearly. So once again;
The fusion would have occured in the germ cells, giving rise to a sperm or an ovum with 23 instead of 24 chromosomes. When this germ cell becomes a zygote, it would have received 24 chromatids from the other parent. Since one of the chromosomes in the 23 haplogenome is essentially 2 chromosomes joined at their ends, it would have been possible for chromosomes to segregate during cell division, giving rise to mosaic individuals.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@JMcH That is, individuals with 47 chromosomes (a set of 23 with a set of 24). When two of these individuals mate, they could give rise to individuals of either 46 (they receive two fused chromatids, one from each parent), 48 (they receive the two chromatids unfused from both parents, or 47 like themselves.
It's not lost, a fusion is not a loss and my explanation was pretty clear as to how 48 chromosomes can become 46.
Which part did you not understand?
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - 2 fused chromosomes = 1 chromosome. It doesn't pair itself. The claims of this alleged fused chromosome from apes proves that. Chromosomes are always paired and non-paired chromosomes hanging around are always detrimental. If a 48 chromosome ape has a descendent with 47 chromosomes (46 plus 1 fused) which in turn has a descendant with 46 chromosomes, a chromosome has to be lost somewhere. It's simple math. However, you admit that losing chromosomes is necessarily fatal.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH Which part of my explanation specifically are you not comprehending?
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - Your faulty math and contradictory explanations. First you argue that chromosomes cannot be lost and that it would be fatal, then you argue that chromosomes are always paired, then you argue that individuals with an odd number of chromosomes can exist (apparently without any detrimental effects), then you argue that fused chromosomes count as a pair when they clearly do not, then you claim that the descendents can go from 48 to 47 to 46 chromosomes without losing any.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH There was no faulty math or contradictory explanations on my part. Apparently I need to start more basic.
Do you understand that a fusion is not a loss?
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - To get from 48 paired chromosomes to 46 paired chromosomes via 47 chromosomes, then yes, your math is faulty and there is a chromosomal loss somewhere even with one fusion.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH Do you understand that a fusion is not a loss?
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - Do you understand that a fused chromosome still needs to be paired?
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH I'm trying to get you there, but we can't if you don't understand your basic comprehension problems.
Do you understand that a fusion is not a loss?
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - It's beside the point. If you have a fusion, that results in an odd number of chromosomes. If you go from 48 to 47 via fusion, then you have to deal with that 1 fused chromosome floating around unpaired. Unpaired chromosomes are bad news. Then, to get from 47 to 46, you need either another fusion (an amazing coincidence) or a chromosomal loss.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH No, it's part of the point. If you can't even understand that a fusion is not a loss, how do you expect to understand chromatid fusion itself? You keep asserting basic genetic ignorance as an argument under the apparent impression that you have some sort of 'gotcha' argument.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - The fact that you keep dodging my valid points and throwing up the smokescreen of calling me ignorant and treating me as stupid proves that you cannot defend your position. I'm through with your nonsense and obfuscations. You have proven exactly nothing other than your dogmatic adherence to evolutionary skubala.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH You have no valid points, you can't even understand that two chromosomes fusing doesn't actually remove any genetic information. I've been trying to explain the process to you but you refuse to even try to learn. I'm pointing out your willful ignorance in hopes that you'll realize that's what you're doing and maybe potentially stop it.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - No, see, you're the one with no valid points. Your attempt at a valid point is to falsely portray my position as saying fusion results in the loss of information. You fabricated that straw man from whole cloth. I never said any such thing. Will you admit that? I doubt it. You'll just continue to lay into me with the attack that I don't understand and am willfully ignorant in order to distract from the fact that you cannot account for the unpaired chromosome.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH No, I'm the only one with valid points. I tried to elaborate on the process from the beginning but you're so biased you couldn't even recognize that a fusion of two chromosomes is not a loss of information. It's not an attack, it's an unavoidable observation. 'the fact that you cannot account for the unpaired chromosome.'
I already have, this is an example of the ignorance I've been referring to.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - "but you're so biased you couldn't even recognize that a fusion of two chromosomes is not a loss of information."
See? I've never said any such thing. You're a flat-out liar.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH You have thus far failed to understand that a fusion is not a loss of information. You keep asserting your ignorance regarding 'an unpaired chromosome' when that's exactly the ignorance I'm trying to get to and correct through a basic education of genetics.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - You have thus far failed to stop lying about my understanding. Two fused chromosomes = 1 chromosome, which must be paired. You have never addressed this issue and you never will because you can't. All you will do is continue to lie about my level of understanding in order to distract from that fact.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH I'm trying to get to your understanding, but a remedial educating in the difference between a loss and a fusion is warranted at this point. You keep dodging the question and pretending as if I haven't already explained the chromatid fusion event somehow means I haven't in order to distract from the fact that you don't actually want to learn, only continually assert your ignorance as if it's meaningful.
Do you understand yet that a fusion is not a loss?
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheScienceFoundation - I'm through with you. You cannot admit that you are lying about my understanding and cannot admit that you cannot account for that one imaginary chromosome floating around.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH You have 23 pairs of chromosomes, meaning 46 total chromosomes, in pairs. Whatever ancestor had 48 total, meaning 24 pairs. Mutations happen all the time in individuals, and somehow a mutation that fused two chromosome PAIRS ended up in a viable offspring. So 2 from 24 becoming one from 23 means 4 from 48 became 2 from 46. This actually happens very frequently, but often it is fatal to the cell or organism. However, genetic code can be very flexible, and this new orientation survived.
couragepanda 5 months ago
@couragepanda - "However, genetic code can be very flexible, and this new orientation survived. "
Attribution: the "just-so" Story of Evolution, page 995, paragraph 3, line 2.
Your only "evidence" for any such thing is the fact that we exist. You assume that "this new orientation survived" only because we are here.
JMcH 5 months ago
@JMcH It's the opposite of a just so story, you're projecting the inability of creationism to explain anything at all here in any empirical way. This is in contrast to descent with modification which not only explains the arrangement of chromosome 2 itself, but also its array in relation to other primate lineages.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheScienceFoundation - "the fact that you cannot account for the unpaired chromosome"
And you can't. You have it floating around, apparently harmlessly, in an impossible 47 chromosome individual and you make it vanish without a trace to become a 46 chromosome descendant or have information added to it to become a 48 chromosome descendant.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH Also, the likelihood of producing offspring with a translocation is proportional to relatedness, so it's not entirely chance.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - And the irony of you pointing out the presence of a "major stumbling block" is simply astounding.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH I have to keep pointing it out because you refuse to address your inadequacy in comprehending basic genetics.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - No, you have to because you don't have any logical point to make.
JMcH 7 months ago
@JMcH You keep confusing your unwillingness to even try to understand genetics as me not having a point.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
Well let's see what we've observed
The evolution of new organs
The evolution of new traits expressed by entirely new genes
The shift from egg laying to live birth (directly observed)
The addition of thousands of bytes of information in single genetic events (directly observed)
Now what haven't we seen?
Anything done by any deity, ever.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago