Maybe I should believe that an invisible super-being created the universe by waving his magic penis. People run to religion to sooth their fears. But thanks for your moronic rambling comment. I'll email it to all my friends for a good laugh.
It's called fitting the explanation to the facts, and not the other way round. It's called learning. When did biologists ever claim to know the absolute truth? Never, you wanker. It's religion that alters the facts to fit the story.
Living cells were originally built up in Abiogenesis, not by Evolution . Then all living cells have a time table of degradation, where the species will wear out it's DNA and become Extinct. Extinctions and spontaneous generations of new species, is a prediction not based on Evolution but on Abiogenesis, the true reality about how life forms it's cellular membranes and consumes genetic materials out of the oceans to construct a genome fulfilled living cell. Evolution is an Illusion.
If there is SO much proof out there in medical journals (or any other journal for that matter), why can't you give me at least ONE link to it?
From what you've posted here so far, I can tell with 100% certainty that you have AT MOST a level of high school understanding of science, if that! "Why don't you ask your teacher at school, if you have attended any" don't make me laugh LOL I've done more than just high school, and more than just 4 years of biology in university!
The Apes had to fall away from the parent Genome of human beings long ago , due to mutations caused by STDs, Retro Viruses, and Radiation. The apes have a broken acentric pair of chromosomes, with a loss of hundreds of thousands of genetic sequences, compared to the #2 Chromosome in the parent Human Genome. The human could not gain information merely by telomere fusion and losing a centromere, that is all fantasy thinking. The opposite is empirically fact, apes degenerated away.
"The Apes had to fall away from the parent Genome of human beings long ago , due to mutations caused by STDs, Retro Viruses, and Radiation."
"The apes have a broken acentric pair of chromosomes, with a loss of hundreds of thousands of genetic sequences"
"The opposite is empirically fact, apes degenerated away."
OMG, same thing OVER AND OVER again! At least do A LITTLE research into what those words mean before you post them, you're just making yourself look like a fool!
@Spetsop the only one who is a fool is yourself. Normally, X fragmented chromosomes, that had fused at the centremeres, and broken into two extra acentric or short pieces of chromosome strips, do naturally lose immense amounts of genetic sequences and appear exactly as the apes two acentric chromosomes, compared to the #2 human chromosome. If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, its a duck. Your opposite hypothesis has no explanation for the loss of genetic info.
"X fragmented chromosomes" what is this? Are you talking about the X chromosome (the sex chromosome)?
"...and broken into two extra acentric or short pieces of chromosome strips... appear exactly as the apes two acentric chromosomes, compared to the #2 human chromosome"... An acentric fragment is a segment of a chromosome that lacks a centromere!!! The 2 chimp chromosomes BOTH HAVE centromeres! It is THE ACENTRIC chromosome that is lost during division!
Do you know what "acentric" means? It literally means "without a center"! Chimp chromosomes cannot be acentric otherwise they would be lost during division. Like I said, learn what these words mean before you post "smart" comments.
"X fragmentation of Chromosomes" what is that? Don't tell me when it occurs, but describe this process!
acentric chromosomes are fractured X fusion of joined centremeres where two chromosomes are fused together and breack apart, and in breaking the fused chromosome, four acentric legs are broken off and have in that X shaped breaking into four pieces., tthe opportunity to add four new acentric shortry chromosomes as the X shaped breaks up. The broken chromosomes lose hundreds of thousands of genetic sequences, in he act of the X fractured Chromosomes breaking into four fragments
@Spetsop some things can never make sense to a total idiot, who never learned, if not taught how to think objectively. If the humans and the apes, once were truncated in a parent Genome, either the parent was humanoid, or it was more or less an ape. If you wish to believe in Evolution , then you want to start with an ape and expect Evolution to create a humanoid of it. But if you understand Abiogenesis, you would know it could not be, the human must be the parent and the ape not
"some things can never make sense to a total idiot, who never learned, if not taught how to think objectively." LOOOOL And YOU are saying that to ME? HAHAHA
Look, not only your basic sentence structure doesn't make sense when you try to express your idea (ok, fine, English is not your first language, but it's not my first language either, and I still managed to learn it well), but your understanding of scientific words and concepts is just totally and I mean TOTALLY wrong!
You still haven't explained to me what "X fragmentation" is, you still don't know what an "acentric chromosome" is, you're still thinking that "two degenerate beings can create another species" (even though they are infertile and can't reproduce to make a viable offspring of their OWN species). And what's even more stupid AND surprising to hear, is that you claim that "extremely complex life forms were created right away by abiogenesis"... do you know what abiogenesis means?
@Spetsop The connection between the human being and the apes begins with a parent Genome that was human, not ape. And the apes then are degenerates, fallen away from the parent species, due to STDs, Radiation and Retro Viruses, that can break down the Chromosomes, by X fragmentation , and then if two degenerate humanoids did inter breed, you can start a devolved line of creatures that once came of the human line, and now , by diseases , devolved, not "evolved".
AND here we go again, same crap about 'humans being the first genome', 'degeneration due to STDs, Radiation, and Retro Viruse', 'X fragmentation', 'devolution'... same thing over and over again without ANY proof. I've asked you a million times to provide at least ONE scientific article that would support your claims even slightly... you've failed! Your claims are non-sense and sound more like a blabbering of a mad man, a 'degenerate'... I guess that's what you are!
@Spetsop all the proof needed is in the medical journals ever published, no evidence has ever held under scrutiny that major evolution ever happen,s but the degeneration or devolving of the Genome is solidly proven under laboratory testing and present day observation. Mendel's Laws of Inherited traits holds up under scrutiny and the life span of the human Genome since Abiogenesis is well evident, but no improvements ever came out of false theories of Evolution. Evolution is Failed.
Point me to at least ONE medical journal where this "proof" was published!
ALL the evidence for evolution held up under scrutiny ever since the theory was proposed! You can't show me anything on the contrary... and your poor understanding of scientific concepts and terms doesn't count! Mendel's laws is only the tip of the iceberg in genetics, you really have to expand your scientific understanding beyond that which is taught at high school level... but start there first!
@Spetsop Almost every medical journal deals with diseases of the body, in which genetic defects are carried by inherited traits. Asking me to point one out is like asking me to educate you from Kindergarten to a four year college degree. Why don't you ask your teacher at school, if you have attended any, if Mendel's Law concerning genetic history of diseases is about evolution or if it is about degradation of the Genome of any existing living cell. First you must desire to learn.
OMFG, I've yet to meet a more uneducated idiot than you! "Asking me to point one out is like asking me to educate you from Kindergarten to a four year college degree." That's b/c you know full well that medical journals deal with medical topics... NOT evolution topics! Sure, "desire to learn"... look in the mirror first and say that to yourself before making bogus assumptions based on poor understanding of scientific principles and terms!
@Spetsop "Empirically " means we have seen the acts themselves happening in the present tense of time and know for fact what happens. We see X fragmentation of Chromosomes that produce increased number of chromosomes in the Meiosis , when such happens in the gamete cells, and repeated unions from such cells produce zygotes with more pairs of chromosomes. We have never seen Telomere fusion happened other than cancerous cells in fish that end in failure to Meiosis, you fail.
"We have never seen Telomere fusion happened other than cancerous cells in fish that end in failure to Meiosis" WE? We who? Show me where you have seen these things! You've been talking about this telomere fusion causing leukemia in fish for the past few days, surely you had TONS of time to provide me with a link to the paper that discovered this!
"...repeated unions from such cells produce zygotes with more pairs of chromosomes" is that how zygote forms? Repeated union of gametes? Oh wow, go back to high school and learn simple definitions of words first... you're lacking VERY basic knowledge about biology to debate any further!
The Dorsal Fin of a Shark appears to be "evolved" from the dorsal fins of Whales or Dolphins, but they are not . They are separate unique, yet matching presentations of DNA design adaptations. They prove that the environment can take alien life forms and cause them to later appear evolved one from another, visually. But we know that different Chromosomes caused the Sharks Dorsal Fin, and there is not relationship to the Chromosomes that caused the Dolphin's Fins to appear similar.
The Human Genome has a straight line of origins back to the ancient oceans, where the uniqueness of human DNA was a totally separate developement, apart totally from other types of lifeforms, which had their own unique history of Abiogenesis in the ancient oceans. A computer may have "DESIGN" when new, but present no hints of it's potential to exhibit talents and designs, but even after it is highly used and developed, it still is just the original design , it did not "evolve"
Only about fifty years ago , the whole myth of Evolution was dealt a blow, and then the true believers in evolution merely synthesized their old theory of evolution that failed to a new adaptive evolution myth , to infect the true science of Mendelian Genetics with their propaganda, to hope to prove at the DNA level, that Evolution was the "process". But we have seen that Abiogenesis and Mendel's Law of Inherited Traits can explain the visual adaptations achieved without the "Evolution"
When one understands that the Human Genome had an age of creation in the ancient oceans and landed in a hard cell membrane that cannot evolve, then one understand Mendel's Laws of Heredity , without Evolution explains what we see. The Apes once were part of the Parent Human Genome and because of degenerate impacts of STDS, Radiation and Retro Viruses, the apes are deformed and retiring defective products of a wasted human genome, which Human Genome is the Parent, out of Abiogenesis.
The same human genome as it came out of the oceans as Abiogenesis describes, did not evolve it's potential, it eat and competed to consume genetic material within the package of a cell membrane, while it could, and then became hardened, and fully potentiated and Evolution cannot add to it's design. It merely factors Mendelian Genetic Variation, that impresses the viewer with an appearance of gaining information, until the Genome ages and dies out. The DNA DEVOLVES< Not evolves away
The Human Genome is a finished product of it's own potential in Abiogenesis and it is only an illusion to the observer that once the product is turned on, it selectively invents new patterns within it's given potential. A computer is made fully designed, but has no visual product of it's calculating potential. It may turn on and present to the viewer what appears to be an "evolving" ability to be creative, but in fact, it never exceeds it's design limits. Evolution is an illusion only.
The Human Genome came as a seed of all the future outcomes , but the Genome was established with it's hundreds of millions of genetic sequences in the ancient oceans, by competitive consumption of materials and methods, not by Evolution. Evolution is a misnomer for the backwards viewing of Genome in it's DECADENCE, as it grows to infertility and dooms. Humans do not evolve, the human race is numbered in years, it will end, as the Genome loses it's original powers, it cannot Evolve.
the Apes have lost hundreds of thousands of Genetic Sequences, to the sum of their two acentric shorty Chromosome strips, which correspond in general to the single Human # 2 Chromosome strip. The Human Chromosome has vastly increased DNA sequences packaged in it's single Chromosome . This logically proves that the Apes must have lost their DNA sequences when they, not humans' suffered Genetic Damage and X Fractured their own #2 Chromosome into acentric broken and lost facsimiles. FACT !
So, two conditions must exist: 1) fusion of telomeres of two DIFFERENT chromsomes (preserves genetic material) and you already agree that telomere fusion happens, but simply ignore the fact that dicentric chromosomes happen in nature 2) inactivation of one of the centromeres (also happens in nature and been demonstrated in humans). It's VERY plausible that these two NATURAL events occurred together to produce human chromosome 2.
Btw, when vast amount of genetic material is suddenly lost, as you're suggesting happened to apes after they fractured their chromosome 2 into acentric chromosomes... the cell dies! It does not "devolve" into something "lower"... otherwise we'd see "devolved" babies being born all the time... instead of dying in utero as is the case when genetic material is lost!
@Spetsop actually the Genome itself has a life span, a time of decaying usefulness , where in the time for developement of the zygotes, with all the achieved adaptations and all which makes you think evolution occurred, comes to a final end, and the Genome wears out and dies off. In your false thinking, the evolution of the apes brought forth human beings, because you believe evolution can permit the genome to survive by forever undergoing natural selection. This is false thinking
All the 9 comments you just posted can be summarized into one single sentence: by your account "abiogenesis produced humans in their current form, and they are now devolving". Sounds awfully similar to creationist model! Do you even listen to yourself when you talk? How do you come up with these ideas or where do you read them from? Do you have ANY scientific validation for these points or do you just assume things?
@Spetsop you set you straight, the Genome we have a human being was manufactured naturally in the ancient oceans with hundreds of millions of Genetic Sequences, packaged in hardened cell membranes, that once competitively produced, resisted all aspects of "evolution" as a negative destructive influence, not a progressive helpful one. While we did not appear as refined as today , our primitive parents had the "potential"of our Genome long ago, it simply took time to bring out designs.
@Spetsop Once you learn about Abiogenesis, you will see that orginally, the DNA Genomes of all living things had their chance to collect information in the Abiogenesis stage. The "seeds" of plant life came out of the oceans as such, and the seeds of mammals came out as such, not that one first living cell evolved from a blade of grass to a frog and then to a human, NO !!! Each unique form of LIFE had it's first origins in Abiogenesis and then came to refinement in their own line
"Once you learn about Abiogenesis, you will see that orginally, the DNA Genomes of all living things had their chance to collect information in the Abiogenesis stage."
DNA is too complex of a molecule to arise from the start via abiogenesis! This is a totally new spin on things I'm seeing now, you're like completely opposite of creationists in this aspect! lol Quite entertaining but complete non-sense!
"not that one first living cell evolved from a blade of grass to a frog and then to a human, NO" Of course not! Who says that that's how things happened? I really do love it how much of an imagination you have... but what strikes me as a troubling is your total inability to separate the fiction of your imagination from reality of what is out there! Once again, give me at least some kind of scientific study that will validate your claims!!!
Explain how a genome of nylon eating bacteria is dying after they developed at totally NEW ability to digest some types of nylon? Or the death of genome in bacteria that acquire antibiotic resistance? Or genetic drift and shift in influenza virus? Or the increase in cranium size and brain capacity of homo sapeins over time? All of those point to a "dying genome"? I think you've got some wires backwards in your own brain... no offense.
@Spetsop The entire myth about the "Nylon Eating Bacteria" was exposed as totally false, by a university in Japan, several years ago. The Nylon Eating Bacteria was proven to have merely undergone the aspects of Mendelian Genetics, Laws of Heredity , not "Evolution." The bacteria appeared first to have some aspect of evolutionary change, but upon closer look at the Genome, the Bacteria had not actually evolved away from the original Genome, only the zygotes had adapted within.
"the Bacteria had not actually evolved away from the original Genome, only the zygotes had adapted within." zygotes in bacteria?!? Do you even know what a "zygote" is? I don't think you do, otherwise you would have realized that what you said makes no sense! Provide a paper that states that this "hoax" was exposed... so far you've just been claiming things without ANY proof of them what so ever!
@Spetsop again, you do not get it, you have a mental block in your way, a subtle conundrum of inability to think. Even though the human Genome ,the complex collection of DNA in the human, came out of Abiogenesis with this immense potential of genetic information, hundreds of millions of sequences, that did not mean, human looked as refined a fully modern at all. We are talking about a process to a Genome, that has the capacity to factor by inherited traits the final result over time.
@Spetsop The ultimate defining event for the Genome is the time called Abiogenesis. From that time onwards, the Genetic Material in the hardened membrane cell can produce results that mimic "Evolution" and lead you to think that by genetic malformations , the species can forever enhance it's product to higher organisms. That is false, Each Genome is maximized in it's potential in Abiogenesis and it is all downhill by STDS , Retro Viruses and Radiation, the Genome dies in time.
@Spetsop I keep trying to emphasize that the Human Genome, ultimately was the Parent Genome and the Apes had to fall away from the Human Parent. Because the Genome is manufactured naturally in the Abiogenesis stage and it's design resists evolution , not encourages continual reinventions of the genome to higher creatures. The potential of an established Genome can only descend down to decay and disorganization by the insults of disease and other attacks. Evolution is a false observation
@Spetsop Now , Centromere X Fractured Chromosomes do lose genetic sequences, and can then produce degenerative offspring and you, with a cursory viewpoint predicated on believing in evolution, which is a false observation, makes you think the surviving original well developed creature had evolved from the degenerated of the species. So, you are upside down in thinking. You need to understand Abiogenesis is the time to grow a Genome to full potential, not afterwards.
@Spetsop Just because the Human Genome was fully made in Abiogenesis, the offspring of the primitive human is not going to appear as we do today. The fully formed Genome out of Abiogenesis, without any evolution of the Genome, and in spite of degenerative disease to limit the life span of the Genome, the Genome is a manufacturer by Mendelian Genetics a continual aspect of improved abilities and advanced appearances , that did not EVOLVE, but came numerically by Laws of Heredity.
Since Chromosomes formed in Abiogenesis, the DNA strips , called Chromosomes had grown by consumption of materials in a competitive state in the ancient oceans, became packaged in Cell Membranes that hardened and began over time to break like sausage links, where each chromosome break was cured by a hardened Telemere end, which then never fused to other Telemeres, except by cause of STDs , Radiation, Retro Viruses, that caused cancer and death. Telemere fusion is no pathway to Evolution.
(cont.) First, the break must occur in exactly the right place, so that no genes are split in half (otherwise the function of that gene will be lost... suddenly)! Second, new telomeres must be formed instantly so that the free ends of DNA are not degraded or become fused! Third, a new centromere must form in one of the halves of the original chromosome in order for the cell to have the ability to divide properly! HOW plausible is that?!?
The Somatic Cell has 23 pairs of chromosomes, or 46 for a human, The Gamete is the Sexual cell, such as a sperm or egg, having half or 23 chromosome. In Down's syndrome, two chromosomes fuse at the Centremere, X shaped and break into four pieces or an extra pair, now acentric or short chromosome strips. If two primitive humans with the same defect of Down's then mated, they could cause a further degenerative outcome and their child would begin to appear as the apes, with 48 chromosomes
Why can't you understand this simple fact... Down syndrome patients are INFERTILE!!! How can you mate two INFERTILE beings and get an offspring?!? I've already told you that an addition of ONE extra chromosome results in a deadly consequence! How can you get TWO SAME chromosomes suddenly added without any serious consequences?
In Down syndrome you don't get a "fusion of two chromosomes at the centromere"... you have replicated genetic material that fails to separate during cellular division, leaving one daughter cell with twice as much genetic info and the other with none (of that particular chromosome, i.e. 21st). That's the most common mode of inheritance called non-disjunction. The second is when you get a Robertsonian translocation b/w chromosomes 14 and 21, which still yields 46 chromosomes!
the Human Genome is the parent Genetic Biological Historical fact, taken out of Abiogenesis. Since the beginning of human beings, as primitive as they were, they had 46 chromosomes. No telomeres can fuse without degenerative cancerous results that cripple and destroy the species. Neither can Telomere fusion cause Evolution. It is the other way , A broken chromosome X fractures into extra pairs and if the victims mate, then in time they add two an pair to the Zygote in Meiosis.
the Ape did not exist before the human being. The Human Genome is the Parent and Original Seed. The Apes have acentric short broken samples of chromosomes in place of the human # 2 chromosome. It proves that deevolution of the human beings occurred with the continual mating of sequestered deformed humans who then step by step had offspring of 47 chromosomes, then two gamete cells from parents, each with acentric broken chromosomes went beyound the Down's Syndrome effect to reach "48"
The only Telemere Fusion examples known is cancer cells, leukemia cells in fish. There is no known fusion of telemeres of chromosomes, where the organism survived cancer and continued the species. With centremere fusion, the Down's Syndrome occurs in the Gamete cell, the sexual single pair cell, and then the half set mates with the half of the other creature, and the Down's has one more chromosome pair, but if both parents have Down's they can achieve two more pairs in meosis= monkey
Also, the telomeric fusion that causes cancers that you are talking about is the fusion of the very short telomeres on the same chromosome, which interferes with chromosome replication and/or separation during division. The telomeric fusion that formed human chromosome 2 was between two different chromosomes in a linear fashion, which still preserves all the genetic information and the ability to replicate.
How else can you explain the central location of the telomeres in human chromosome 2 as well as two distinct centromeres that are found on either side of that central telomere?
So what you're saying is that apes are the offspring of people who had Down's syndrome and mated to produce a viable offspring that was suddenly normal and could reproduce?
@Spetsop You have been handed an interpretation without empirical evidence. You believe them, that the central location of Human Chromosome # 2 is the former telomeres of former separate chromosomes that fused to explain a conundrum. But the Conundrum is barely a philosophical rant, a priori without empirical fact to support the suggestion. Thus, you must be a "believer" in a long list of assumptions, to make the faith leap that Human Chromosome # 2 was separate before and fused now
It is possible to fuse two different chromosomes to form a what is called 'dicentric chromosome' and have it be mitotically stable and without any consequences if one of the centromeres is inactivated (as is the case with human chromosome 2)! Actually events like this occur in cells but rarely and don't lead to the death of the cell if the above remains true or if the cell is able to separate the fused chromosomes by a repair mechanism.
@Spetsop There is no empirical evidence to prove anything you have said about an "inactive centromere" in the # 2 human chromosome. It is nothing but an implied rant, a priori that serves the Theory of Evolution , on the supposition, "it must have been this way" That is nothing but a belief, not a proven fact. The fact remains it is highly unlikely that a cancerous cell that produced telemere fusion, had aided human evolution in the positive progressive sense. The reverse is fact
There's TONS of "empirical evidence" to prove what I said, Google "human chromosome 2" for starters and you'll find it yourself. Here's an article about it too if you wish: "Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion" (type that into Google directly). Now, I want to see where you got that info about Leukemia in fish due to fused telomeres, please send me a link.
@Spetsop And I must add that you are highly speculative without solid examples of other species with the same descent of "dicentric chromosome" stable in Meiosis, without the obvious normal failure rate of one hundred percent. The only case studied of telemere fusions is Leukemia cells in Fish, not humans. Thus you are going out to the stars for this stretch of imagination. Occam's Razor would say, the Human Genome came of Abiogenesis and the Apes fell away at some point of degeneration
It's FAR more likely that TWO chromosomes of the common ancestor fused to form current human chromosome 2 in humans BUT did NOT fuse in chimps to remain their 2q and 2p chromosome... than it is that ONE chromosome from humans split up into two! For starters, if one splits up into two, where do the extra telomeres come from on the newly formed ends, and where does an extra centromere come from for one of the halfs of the split chromosome?!?
Google yeast cells to see the dicentric chromosomes. These cells are used in experiments all the time to see how cells cope with fused telomeres!
That's an interesting theory you propose that either an STD, or Radiation, or Retroviruse (why Retro by the way, why can't it be a DNA virus? or a positive sense RNA virus?) cause telomere fusion!
Once again though, "each chromosome break was cured by a hardened Telemere"... how? And where does a centromere come from again?
@Spetsop Not only do you have to make the case of highly improbable Telemere Fusion , but that the end result also happened to inactivate one of the Centromere's to speculate why it is not there. The fact is, it is not there, and the fact you imply, that it became inactivated, is not a fact, you should learn the difference between hypothesis and facts. The reverse is quite sane, the Human Genome is the Parent since Abiogenesis, and some time, some Sexual Transmitted Disease occurred
"Not only do you have to make the case of highly improbable Telemere Fusion" as opposed to your highly probable chromosome break that happened to receive extra telomeres on newly formed ends and a second centromere for one of the two halves of the original chromosome AND stayed mitotically and meiotically stable to produce viable gametes!!! There is a TON of things that have to fall into place for that to happen without leading to apoptosis (cont).
@Spetsop Another fault I have with your impossible hypothesis of Telomere Fusion for #2 Human Chromosome is that the Apes have two acentric shorty chromosome strips, which then you imply had connected together by Telomere Fusion. But the facts are, there is a minus factor of Genetic Sequences in the Apes two acentric strips that cannot then logically be accounted for if they fused to make a Human Chromosome # 2. The Apes lost hundreds of thousands of Sequences, which prove they degenerated
And yes, there have been studies (not related to our topic) that show that individuals are capable of having dicentric chromosomes with one inactive centromere (usually on the X chromosome) and in some cases this has been true for autosomes as well. As I said, centromere inactivation on dicentric chromosomes happens in nature all the time!
@Spetsop The # 2 Human Chromosome, at the Center, is not a fused telomere, it is simply a very old and stable Centremere. Telomeres do not fuse successfully, the fusion of telomeres is caused by cancerous deformities and do not result in progressive evolution. What they are doing to your thinking is monday morning quarterbacking, attempting to explain, in their own philosophy, that humans evolved from chimps, when in fact chimps devolved or degenerated by STDs,Radiation,Retrovirus.
"The # 2 Human Chromosome, at the Center, is not a fused telomere, it is simply a very old and stable Centremere"... by your own argument, show me the empirical evidence for this! What you just said that human chromosome 2 has 3 centromeres!
Certainly not a "philosophical rant", you can find the exact genomic sequence of chromosome 2 and see for yourself. You're stating the opposite yet do not provide ANY "empirical evidence" to support your claims.
The Somatic cell carries the pairs, the gamete carries the singular set, awaiting meiosis. Now we can show empirically that by chromosome fusion and X fragmentation, that we could devolve a human with 46 chromosomes to the case of the apes, who have fragmented up from 46 to 48 chromosomes, and survived, like the case of Down's Syndrome, with a repeat mating case of secondary fragmentation, and so empirical proof exists to show apes fell away from humans, but no proof at all humans evolved up
People with Down syndrome are infertile and have 47 chromosomes, not 48 like you stated. Trisomy 21 does not develop due to fragmentation of a chromosome, that would be deadly, but by non-disjunction. If fragmentation occurred, genetic info would be lost during the first division leading to cell death! And if your theory were to work, then the resulting offspring would have 2 identical pairs of the same chromosome... that's even worse than having just one extra chromosome!
@Spetsop You have not thought this out enough. If the syndrome was then continued by the mating of two down syndrome parents, then the offspring could result as having 48, instead of the 47 that each have. There is no known mechanism seen for 48 chromosomes to become 46 by Telemere Fusion of Chromosomes. There is fusion of chromosomes known to occur at the centremere, not the telemere. and when centremere's fuse, they form the X and break into four short pieces, as apes have.
Once again, patients with Down syndrome are infertile. How can you mate two infertile beings and get an offspring? Second, there are only 3 cases where patients with an extra chromosome can survive for at least a year (one of them is Down's syndrome). The other 2 are Edwards (trisomy 18), and Pateau (trisomy 13), both of which survive for about 1-2 years (although rarely), all other trisomies lead to death in utero or extremely short life of only a couple of weeks.
If the Somatic Cell of a human, with 23 pairs of chromosomes, had a fused centremere and fused two chromosomes as the famous X shape and broke, the somatic cell would carry an extra pair of chromosomes, being acentric ones, or shorter than normal, since they broke. Then the Gamete of the sperm or egg would carry the extra pair, and in the rare case of the sperm finding an egg with the same extra pair, the offspring would gain from 46 to 48 Chromosomes in Meiosis, creating the apes with losses
@CarmineFragione: Ah, hell, CF, this is all just gobble-de-gook. You throw somatic right in there with gamete, but they are essentially opposites. This whole theory of yours limps.
@puncheex no the somatic has the pairs, the gamete has the singular sample, that requires the meiosis to couple. These are not then opposites, as you said. Now , the chromosome count can by chromosomal damage, such as in the Down Syndrome child, increase the chromosome count by one extra in Meiosis, but if two down syndrome offspring were to happen to mate, the count could go to the apes 48 chromosomes. The point is, we can show apes devolved from humans, not the other way around !
The human chromosome #2 has a region called a Centremere, and that is the empirical fact of the matter. But some think this Centremere was the product of a Telemere Fusion long ago. Now they have no empirical evidence that such events do happen and help evolution along. Mostly, all Telemere Fusions create miscarriages, and cancer. The normal fusion of two chromosomes usually occurs by two Centremere's fusing together, and then breaking off in an X pattern and increasing the count, there by.
@CarmineFragione CF, telomeres and centromeres aren't there to "help evolution along". They are part of the cellular replication machinery. Who is this "some" of which you speak?
I think you are confused between telomeric fusion (in which no genetic material is lost or garbled) and chromosomal translocations, which do garble genes and result in cancers. See the article on CT in wiki, for example. Come on, CF, give us a cite so we can see your "proof". 8th request, isn't it?
@puncheex The apes have a corresponding part A and B "Acentric" or broken appearing short versions of our #2 Chromosome. They also have 50 thousand less
genetic sequences in their acentric correlation. If our chromosome underwent a fusion and broke, as they do in the X fragmentations, then it explains how the apes lost material. But a fusion of the two telemeres of the chimp's acentric ensemble, would not explain the loss of information. Two Telemeres fusing do not break the Chromosome
the assumption of two telemeres having fused is without empirical fact of proof. It is not even credible as a theory that such happened, and why ? Because all observed cases of fusion of telemeres results in cancers, miscarriages and death of the organism, a failure in Meiosis That is why this hypothesis cannot be rated to the level of a Scientific Theory. But all of you dreamers want to jump the gun on the facts to support a rationalized belief system of evolution, which itself is not proven
@CarmineFragione: Ah, come on, CF. You've been touting this "belief" below enough. When are you going to show a valid scientific study that says what you say? I've looked - there isn't anything out there. And it is not a theory - it is an observation - a fact. The proper telomere base sequences are there, both sides, observed by many independent observations. Anyone with the proper gene sequencing equipment can verify it. You have no leg to stand on here except your "priori" faith.
... Not only that, but the gene sequences that occur on the 2a and 2b chromosomes of chimps are right there in the human #s, in the same order. They would have to be present, of course, or their absence would have killed the first cell it happened in. But not only are they all there, but they are in the same order with the same intron/exon characterization, in the exactly same order. You've lost this round, CF, and it's only because you picked the dumbest of hypotheses to put forward.
Out number #2 chromosome, has what is by fact a Centremere, that some evolutionists make a hypothesis to assume that this centremere is actually the result of two former telemeres that somehow fused and the species survived, and even gained genetic sequences, either before or after the fusion enigma. The empirical fact, however, remains that the region of interest is only a centremere, not two telemeres fused, so the hypothesis has no proof, it remains an unsupported assumption, not fact !!!
@CarmineFragione: Deeper and deeper, CF. A centromere doesn't look at all like a telomere, or two of the squashed together, or anything else. The true centromere, one of the two that existed in the united chromosome, is detectable by electron micrography during mitosis and stage I meiosis, and it isn't in the same place as the fused telomeres. No amount of squawking is going to save this mess of a terminal theory.
@puncheex what is wrong with your brain ? Ken Miller only said " I believe" that the telemere's fused, he never said he knew it as a fact, or anything more than a hypothesis. So it goes to Miller's Priori, what he expects the facts to say , if and when they are known. But he can be really, really wrong ! Are you so brainwashed that you cannot question anything you have been told ? Two Telemeres do not exist in the #2 Chromosome of a Human Genome, they only imagine it does, !
@CarmineFragione: Non-sequitur ad-hom is all you can manage? How about some proof of what you say? You've made a fantastic claim; you can't back it up? You won't? What's the matter with your integrity?
As quoted from the Dover Trial transcript, first day. Speaker is Ken Miller:
"Next slide. Well, lo and behold, the answer is in Chromosome Number 2. This is a paper that -- this is a facsimile of a paper that was published in the British journal Nature in 2004. It's a multi-authored paper. ...
... "The first author is Hillier, and other authors are listed as et al. And it's entitled, The Generation and Annotation of the DNA Sequences of Human Chromosomes 2 and 4. And what this paper shows very clearly is that all of the marks of the fusion of those chromosomes predicted by common descent and evolution, all those marks are present on human Chromosome Number 2.
Would you advance the slide. And I put this up to remind the Court of what that prediction is. ...
... "We should find telomeres at the fusion point of one of our chromosomes, we should have an inactivated centromere and we should have another one that still works. And you'll note -- this is some scientific jargon from the paper, but I will read part of it. Quote, Chromosome 2 is unique to the human lineage of evolution having emerged as a result of head-to-head fusion of two acrocentric chromosomes that remain separate in other primates. The precise fusion site has been located, ...
... "the reference then says exactly there, where our analysis confirmed the presence of multiple telomere, subtelomeric duplications. So those are right there."
Doesn't sound to me like he, or the paper's authors, have any doubt.
@puncheex the resources of facts state that all the known cases of telemere fusions involved miscarriages, and lukemia in Fish. This is all bad stuff, not something worthy of proving Evolution true. But the fact is, we have empirical evidence that the chromosome count can increase, not decrease and the species survived. Thus the Human Genome had to be first and the Apes devolved away by forming "Acentric Chromosome fragments, # 2A and #2 B.
@puncheex you are ignorant. Telemeres are created by nature when the Chromosome strips break off, thus sealing the ends of them. Nature never intended for the Telemeres to then fuse together, you idiot ! Thus to propose a hypothesis that Evolution employs Telemere Fusion make you a jerk, or just jerking off ! Chromosomes normally fuse at their Centremeres, form an X and break off into four pieces. There are plenty of sites on Chromosomal Fusions, to show they are all bad things !
You have no idea how telomeres work - you're repeating something you heard long ago which you never understood then. When a chromosome replicates, the machinery drops base pairs off the ends. The telomeres are replicative "junk" on the end of a chromosome that can be dropped off without loss of function. ...
... When the chromosome has replicated too many times, the telomere is exhausted and actual chromosome starts being lost, which usually causes the cell to die - a safeguard to avoid the massive, out-of-control replication that results from cancer.
Plenty of sites - great! Cite me a site and I'll go see if they have any better understanding about telomeres than you do.
@puncheex Telemeres seal off the broken DNA strips, called Chromosomes. The Telemeres do not naturally seek to Fuse then together, and certainly , that occurence is not proof of Evolution. Why is it you deny that perhaps the Human Genome is the Parent and original DNA design and that a case of chromosome damage happened to the apes to devolve them, and cost them a lost of genetic sequences when their #2 Chromosome fused and broke, to add two more Chromosomes , going from 46 to 48. ?
@CarmineFragione: CF, I deny it because it doesn't make sense to me. You are saying that all along through history (12 million yrs in my case, 6000 in yours?) there were men, but along the way all those we refer to as Ardipithecine, Australopithecine, or Homo anything-but-sapiens are just us fooling around with some ape. That requires so many coincidences to occur as to be laughable. Where are all the parents; why do we find only the weird kids? ...
... There has not been a single sapiens bone found older than 200,000 years (my scale) - why? This 48->46 problem is easily seen as a join, but you go thru all these contortions to show that it wasn't, in spite of the data. You ignore all the science publishing that establishes it as both possible and very likely, just so you can justify a finding obviously ancient skulls in the recent (and for you, only) past. It's a house of cards, a charade. Just to justify an insane theory of creation.
@puncheex I am not debating time lines, only common sense. Mendelian Genetics can prove mathematically by chromosome X Fragmentations, that we could devolve a normal human, lose substantial genetic information in the process and by selective mating, cause the Chromosome counts to rise from 46 to 48, if the damaged offspring is selectively mated over and over. So all the primitive humans , are actually reverse or devolved examples of the normal human Genome. Humans are the orginals
He made a mistake right at the end there, saying that Orrorin was solid confirmatory science rather than Ardipithecus, which is what he was addressing. Overall, though a very good talk - wish I had more of it. I didn't understand that phylogenetic figure he showed, though; it looked all wrong. It must be something I don't understand about that pic. It showed Paranthropus "on our line" while Australopithecus was on a branch and went extinct. Misplaced labels?
He didn't actually misspeak at the end. It is just a little oddly worded. He wasn't saying that Orrorin was the solid confirmatory science. He was saying he appreciated the work that went into Orrorin but its not enough to confirm the idea of an alternate line that excludes australopithecines.
@shadetail: OK, then, the phylogeny is from Orrorin's discoverer? And he places Orrorin about where Ardi is (relatively speaking), leaving Australopithecus out (and I see I misread Prepithecus as Parapithecus - and meant paranthropus)? That seems like a lot of emphasis to place on a few limb fragments and some teeth. I suppose I might understand that, if not believe it. It smacks heavily of one-upping Johanson, like it appears that Ardi's discoverers are also trying to do, with more to go on.
What's his hair got to do with anything? Omg you so need to separate your issues lol, don't be trying so hard to believe anyway, everything's just possibilities on different theories, if you fully believe you throw away all other possibilities.
@CarmineFragione: I know cf is no gone, but this is false. The whole point is that one can't say the chimps split away from humans or vice versa; we simply split. All the great apes have 48; we have 46; the parsimonious conclusion is that it happened to us. Also, the extra tele- and centromere in ch#2 requires the fusion, not a splitting, and they happened relatively recently (within last 6my) as measured by mutation rate on the extra structures, now unused and thus subject to mutation.
@puncheex you have to use some logic here. Saying we went from 48 t0 46 chromosomes has no empirical evidence to support the hypothesis used, the business about #2 fusion chromosome. No telemeres fuse and advance evolution, all such fusions of telemeres cause Lukemia, not progress in evolution. So you being with a big lie and cause everyone to believe a lie. But we have empirical evidence that 46 can increase to 48 ,and allow the corruption to survive and begin a new sub standard species.
Sure there is empirical evidence - the #2 chromosome and its structure. Just because you deny it doesn't make it not so. Telomeres do fuse; it's been noted before, and apparently you know that because your next sentence presupposes it. They do not cause leukemia; telomeres don't create protein; they simply act as a buffer at the end of the chromosome so that when the duplication stops short the functional chromosome is not harmed. ...
... Occurring in the middle of a chromosome they are just more unused DNA.
Now, I see I have been just as assertive as you have; the difference is that I can back my assertions up with science, and the fact that I haven't resorted to a ad-hominem accusation of lying. You cannot find me a paper that says telomeres in the moddle of c chromosome cause leukemia; I've already searched. ...
... What they do say is that telomeres act to kill cells that over-replicate, because when they run out of buffer the cells die, but cancer has a mechanism of re-establishing the telomeres and thus avoiding the automatic death. Those left in the middle have no effect.
The telomeres are there, and obviously cause no cancer.
What is the point of this arg, anyway? You want to argue that the apes are degenerate humans? Good luck with that.
@puncheex Telemeres do not fuse and promote Evolution , that is the Empirical Fact we have seen. Fusing Telemeres cause Cancers, Lukemia in Fish and cause miscarriages , not some fable about evolving a better species, like a human from a chimp. You are the one with no facts behind that hypothesis. So provide proof, and give one example of an empirically observed Telemere Fusion that did not cause death or cancer. Do no philosophize, state some observed empirical fact, if you know
@CarmineFragione: You keep using that word empirical. What does it mean to you? Where is some sort of evidence to back this statement up? I looked and could find none. You are making the positive statement, that telomere fusion caused leukemia; as such, it should be easy to find evidence for it, if it were real.
So, what are you saying, that the human chromosome #2 just looks like it was fused? You do know there is more proof than just the telomeres, don't you?
OK, I think I found where you got your evidence. See springerlinkDOT com/content/qx81187330w20395/
However, you're wrong in assuming this happens always:
"The findings in this [single] case suggest that telomeric fusion may function as a mechanism for the development of chromosome rearrangements that may play a role, albeit rarely, in human neoplasia."
Is this your Empirical Fact? If so, you need to look further. This is an isolated incident, and it also states that #2 is a telomeric fusion.
@puncheex there are two science realities, the Priori and the Empirical. The Priori is the belief of Evolution being borne out eventually by all the facts, making it a basic assumption built on beliefs tied to some, but not yet enough physical evidence. The Priori of Science is that Matter is eternal in itself and can evolve into higher orders or designs, by itself. Evolution is the same assumption, that the physical order is evolving. But there is no Empirical Fact of proof of this belief
@CarmineFragione: I see - your talking a priori vs a posteriori. Then I guess your argument boils down to the old canard about all the stratigraphy, all the radioactive dating and the physics it is based on, all the astrophysics, all the paleontology and anthropology not being evidence, that you need more evidence. Basically, science has failed to make a case, in your eyes, for anything it says. You have a lot of gall writing that on a computer on the internet. Particularly the cancer stuff.
Smartest man I've ever seen with a Mohawk! Check out my 50+ fossil videos .New paleo lectures added monthly . Beginners classes ,field trips and proffesional lectures .Gift to you from the oldest fossil club in the USA !
I attended this and fell asleep twice. Don't have sushi and beers before a potentially boring lecture. Topic was interesting, presentation dealt with too much data. I wanted implications.
I like to see people in important roles, not afraid to do what they like with their hair and whatnot. As of today, you can't even work at Disney World if you have stretched earlobes, which I have. I can't wait until people in congress, and national news stations have visible tattoos and piercings. I don't understand why we all have decided that modifying our bodies to express our individuality is a bad thing. Ever since the dawn of man, we've been doing it. I say back to our roots we go!
This guy is a character. I'm sure no one would have ever guessed. I think of a lot of paleoanthropologists, the ones actually working with the bones, kind of get annoyed with the more "biological" anthropologists like this geneticist. Doesn't mean either is wrong, just that guys looking at bones sometimes have different ideas/perspectives than guys looking at genes etc.
He's right, not every breakthrough needs to be "groundbreaking." So long as we have more information for creationists to deny, I'm happy. Never gonna win them over anyway.
I might even hypothesize that some of the people, we call humans, were on the other side of the split 6 million years ago. They cant possibly be related to us any closer than that.
@CosmosPrivateer , If you consider yourself intelligent then consider NOT believing in a personal god! Why you may wonder, Simple, the more brain power one has the better they see through the smoke screen of religion and what it "really" is! research people like Albert Einstien and learn from the smartest!
Unlike you, I have no reason to believe in an invisible man like you! I do enjoy quoting a man who no doubt saw through the BS of religion! No doubt you took the religious BS hook, line, and sinker! PATHETIC but no concern of mine
So you are heavily convinced by the evidence shown for Orrorin? I have read a bit about it and I currently don't think there is enough evidence to propose that we must completely rewrite how we view human evolution.
All this man is saying is that the work on Orrorin is not ground breaking at the moment because it doesn't have enough solid confirmation for the big claims that some people are being made about it, and that Ardipithecus does not support the Orrorin-human line over the current one.
That's not what I said. My view is that the bones don't say much, and that what has been wrung out of them is conjecture. The DNA makes a stronger case, but then I part ways with those who actually believe that the universe, and subsequently living matter, began by mere chance. The odds against that happening are insurmountable.
I don't know many people who believe it came from "mere chance" unless you consider the possibly deterministic conclusions of natural laws interacting with each other "mere chance".
Sorry, I thought you were disagreeing with the person who made the video. But now it sounds like you actually agree with what he was saying in this clip.
Forget about the guy in the clip for a moment. Would you be so kind as to flesh out the difference between "deterministic conclusions of natural laws interacting" with mere chance? I would enjoy hearing you out on this.
One of them would be conclusions that have to happen given the starting condition. So everything that has ever happen is completely reliant the state of the first plank time and how natura
Darwinists are liars and don't know shit.
Entropy56 1 month ago
Only reasonable explanation is ancient aliens
Klymenos12 2 months ago
@ElProximo
Maybe I should believe that an invisible super-being created the universe by waving his magic penis. People run to religion to sooth their fears. But thanks for your moronic rambling comment. I'll email it to all my friends for a good laugh.
dudev 10 months ago
@ElProximo
It's called fitting the explanation to the facts, and not the other way round. It's called learning. When did biologists ever claim to know the absolute truth? Never, you wanker. It's religion that alters the facts to fit the story.
dudev 10 months ago
Living cells were originally built up in Abiogenesis, not by Evolution . Then all living cells have a time table of degradation, where the species will wear out it's DNA and become Extinct. Extinctions and spontaneous generations of new species, is a prediction not based on Evolution but on Abiogenesis, the true reality about how life forms it's cellular membranes and consumes genetic materials out of the oceans to construct a genome fulfilled living cell. Evolution is an Illusion.
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione
If there is SO much proof out there in medical journals (or any other journal for that matter), why can't you give me at least ONE link to it?
From what you've posted here so far, I can tell with 100% certainty that you have AT MOST a level of high school understanding of science, if that! "Why don't you ask your teacher at school, if you have attended any" don't make me laugh LOL I've done more than just high school, and more than just 4 years of biology in university!
Spetsop 1 year ago
The Apes had to fall away from the parent Genome of human beings long ago , due to mutations caused by STDs, Retro Viruses, and Radiation. The apes have a broken acentric pair of chromosomes, with a loss of hundreds of thousands of genetic sequences, compared to the #2 Chromosome in the parent Human Genome. The human could not gain information merely by telomere fusion and losing a centromere, that is all fantasy thinking. The opposite is empirically fact, apes degenerated away.
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione
"The Apes had to fall away from the parent Genome of human beings long ago , due to mutations caused by STDs, Retro Viruses, and Radiation."
"The apes have a broken acentric pair of chromosomes, with a loss of hundreds of thousands of genetic sequences"
"The opposite is empirically fact, apes degenerated away."
OMG, same thing OVER AND OVER again! At least do A LITTLE research into what those words mean before you post them, you're just making yourself look like a fool!
Spetsop 1 year ago
@Spetsop the only one who is a fool is yourself. Normally, X fragmented chromosomes, that had fused at the centremeres, and broken into two extra acentric or short pieces of chromosome strips, do naturally lose immense amounts of genetic sequences and appear exactly as the apes two acentric chromosomes, compared to the #2 human chromosome. If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, its a duck. Your opposite hypothesis has no explanation for the loss of genetic info.
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione
"X fragmented chromosomes" what is this? Are you talking about the X chromosome (the sex chromosome)?
"...and broken into two extra acentric or short pieces of chromosome strips... appear exactly as the apes two acentric chromosomes, compared to the #2 human chromosome"... An acentric fragment is a segment of a chromosome that lacks a centromere!!! The 2 chimp chromosomes BOTH HAVE centromeres! It is THE ACENTRIC chromosome that is lost during division!
Spetsop 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione
Do you know what "acentric" means? It literally means "without a center"! Chimp chromosomes cannot be acentric otherwise they would be lost during division. Like I said, learn what these words mean before you post "smart" comments.
"X fragmentation of Chromosomes" what is that? Don't tell me when it occurs, but describe this process!
Spetsop 1 year ago
acentric chromosomes are fractured X fusion of joined centremeres where two chromosomes are fused together and breack apart, and in breaking the fused chromosome, four acentric legs are broken off and have in that X shaped breaking into four pieces., tthe opportunity to add four new acentric shortry chromosomes as the X shaped breaks up. The broken chromosomes lose hundreds of thousands of genetic sequences, in he act of the X fractured Chromosomes breaking into four fragments
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione
What? Did you even read what you wrote? It makes absolutely NO sense... even grammatically, the structure of the sentence makes absolutely NO sense!
I'm assuming English is not your first language...
Spetsop 1 year ago
@Spetsop some things can never make sense to a total idiot, who never learned, if not taught how to think objectively. If the humans and the apes, once were truncated in a parent Genome, either the parent was humanoid, or it was more or less an ape. If you wish to believe in Evolution , then you want to start with an ape and expect Evolution to create a humanoid of it. But if you understand Abiogenesis, you would know it could not be, the human must be the parent and the ape not
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione
"some things can never make sense to a total idiot, who never learned, if not taught how to think objectively." LOOOOL And YOU are saying that to ME? HAHAHA
Look, not only your basic sentence structure doesn't make sense when you try to express your idea (ok, fine, English is not your first language, but it's not my first language either, and I still managed to learn it well), but your understanding of scientific words and concepts is just totally and I mean TOTALLY wrong!
Spetsop 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione
You still haven't explained to me what "X fragmentation" is, you still don't know what an "acentric chromosome" is, you're still thinking that "two degenerate beings can create another species" (even though they are infertile and can't reproduce to make a viable offspring of their OWN species). And what's even more stupid AND surprising to hear, is that you claim that "extremely complex life forms were created right away by abiogenesis"... do you know what abiogenesis means?
Spetsop 1 year ago
@Spetsop The connection between the human being and the apes begins with a parent Genome that was human, not ape. And the apes then are degenerates, fallen away from the parent species, due to STDs, Radiation and Retro Viruses, that can break down the Chromosomes, by X fragmentation , and then if two degenerate humanoids did inter breed, you can start a devolved line of creatures that once came of the human line, and now , by diseases , devolved, not "evolved".
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione
AND here we go again, same crap about 'humans being the first genome', 'degeneration due to STDs, Radiation, and Retro Viruse', 'X fragmentation', 'devolution'... same thing over and over again without ANY proof. I've asked you a million times to provide at least ONE scientific article that would support your claims even slightly... you've failed! Your claims are non-sense and sound more like a blabbering of a mad man, a 'degenerate'... I guess that's what you are!
Spetsop 1 year ago
@Spetsop all the proof needed is in the medical journals ever published, no evidence has ever held under scrutiny that major evolution ever happen,s but the degeneration or devolving of the Genome is solidly proven under laboratory testing and present day observation. Mendel's Laws of Inherited traits holds up under scrutiny and the life span of the human Genome since Abiogenesis is well evident, but no improvements ever came out of false theories of Evolution. Evolution is Failed.
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione
Point me to at least ONE medical journal where this "proof" was published!
ALL the evidence for evolution held up under scrutiny ever since the theory was proposed! You can't show me anything on the contrary... and your poor understanding of scientific concepts and terms doesn't count! Mendel's laws is only the tip of the iceberg in genetics, you really have to expand your scientific understanding beyond that which is taught at high school level... but start there first!
Spetsop 1 year ago
@Spetsop Almost every medical journal deals with diseases of the body, in which genetic defects are carried by inherited traits. Asking me to point one out is like asking me to educate you from Kindergarten to a four year college degree. Why don't you ask your teacher at school, if you have attended any, if Mendel's Law concerning genetic history of diseases is about evolution or if it is about degradation of the Genome of any existing living cell. First you must desire to learn.
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione
OMFG, I've yet to meet a more uneducated idiot than you! "Asking me to point one out is like asking me to educate you from Kindergarten to a four year college degree." That's b/c you know full well that medical journals deal with medical topics... NOT evolution topics! Sure, "desire to learn"... look in the mirror first and say that to yourself before making bogus assumptions based on poor understanding of scientific principles and terms!
Spetsop 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione
Do this, go to Google, type in "Mendel's Law" or "Mendelian inheritance" and learn a thing or two... before you make a fool out of yourself... AGAIN!
Spetsop 1 year ago
@Spetsop "Empirically " means we have seen the acts themselves happening in the present tense of time and know for fact what happens. We see X fragmentation of Chromosomes that produce increased number of chromosomes in the Meiosis , when such happens in the gamete cells, and repeated unions from such cells produce zygotes with more pairs of chromosomes. We have never seen Telomere fusion happened other than cancerous cells in fish that end in failure to Meiosis, you fail.
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CarmineFragione
"We have never seen Telomere fusion happened other than cancerous cells in fish that end in failure to Meiosis" WE? We who? Show me where you have seen these things! You've been talking about this telomere fusion causing leukemia in fish for the past few days, surely you had TONS of time to provide me with a link to the paper that discovered this!
Spetsop 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione
"...repeated unions from such cells produce zygotes with more pairs of chromosomes" is that how zygote forms? Repeated union of gametes? Oh wow, go back to high school and learn simple definitions of words first... you're lacking VERY basic knowledge about biology to debate any further!
Spetsop 1 year ago
The Dorsal Fin of a Shark appears to be "evolved" from the dorsal fins of Whales or Dolphins, but they are not . They are separate unique, yet matching presentations of DNA design adaptations. They prove that the environment can take alien life forms and cause them to later appear evolved one from another, visually. But we know that different Chromosomes caused the Sharks Dorsal Fin, and there is not relationship to the Chromosomes that caused the Dolphin's Fins to appear similar.
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
The Human Genome has a straight line of origins back to the ancient oceans, where the uniqueness of human DNA was a totally separate developement, apart totally from other types of lifeforms, which had their own unique history of Abiogenesis in the ancient oceans. A computer may have "DESIGN" when new, but present no hints of it's potential to exhibit talents and designs, but even after it is highly used and developed, it still is just the original design , it did not "evolve"
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
Only about fifty years ago , the whole myth of Evolution was dealt a blow, and then the true believers in evolution merely synthesized their old theory of evolution that failed to a new adaptive evolution myth , to infect the true science of Mendelian Genetics with their propaganda, to hope to prove at the DNA level, that Evolution was the "process". But we have seen that Abiogenesis and Mendel's Law of Inherited Traits can explain the visual adaptations achieved without the "Evolution"
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
When one understands that the Human Genome had an age of creation in the ancient oceans and landed in a hard cell membrane that cannot evolve, then one understand Mendel's Laws of Heredity , without Evolution explains what we see. The Apes once were part of the Parent Human Genome and because of degenerate impacts of STDS, Radiation and Retro Viruses, the apes are deformed and retiring defective products of a wasted human genome, which Human Genome is the Parent, out of Abiogenesis.
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
The same human genome as it came out of the oceans as Abiogenesis describes, did not evolve it's potential, it eat and competed to consume genetic material within the package of a cell membrane, while it could, and then became hardened, and fully potentiated and Evolution cannot add to it's design. It merely factors Mendelian Genetic Variation, that impresses the viewer with an appearance of gaining information, until the Genome ages and dies out. The DNA DEVOLVES< Not evolves away
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
The Human Genome is a finished product of it's own potential in Abiogenesis and it is only an illusion to the observer that once the product is turned on, it selectively invents new patterns within it's given potential. A computer is made fully designed, but has no visual product of it's calculating potential. It may turn on and present to the viewer what appears to be an "evolving" ability to be creative, but in fact, it never exceeds it's design limits. Evolution is an illusion only.
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
The Human Genome came as a seed of all the future outcomes , but the Genome was established with it's hundreds of millions of genetic sequences in the ancient oceans, by competitive consumption of materials and methods, not by Evolution. Evolution is a misnomer for the backwards viewing of Genome in it's DECADENCE, as it grows to infertility and dooms. Humans do not evolve, the human race is numbered in years, it will end, as the Genome loses it's original powers, it cannot Evolve.
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
the Apes have lost hundreds of thousands of Genetic Sequences, to the sum of their two acentric shorty Chromosome strips, which correspond in general to the single Human # 2 Chromosome strip. The Human Chromosome has vastly increased DNA sequences packaged in it's single Chromosome . This logically proves that the Apes must have lost their DNA sequences when they, not humans' suffered Genetic Damage and X Fractured their own #2 Chromosome into acentric broken and lost facsimiles. FACT !
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione
So, two conditions must exist: 1) fusion of telomeres of two DIFFERENT chromsomes (preserves genetic material) and you already agree that telomere fusion happens, but simply ignore the fact that dicentric chromosomes happen in nature 2) inactivation of one of the centromeres (also happens in nature and been demonstrated in humans). It's VERY plausible that these two NATURAL events occurred together to produce human chromosome 2.
Spetsop 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione
Btw, when vast amount of genetic material is suddenly lost, as you're suggesting happened to apes after they fractured their chromosome 2 into acentric chromosomes... the cell dies! It does not "devolve" into something "lower"... otherwise we'd see "devolved" babies being born all the time... instead of dying in utero as is the case when genetic material is lost!
Spetsop 1 year ago
@Spetsop actually the Genome itself has a life span, a time of decaying usefulness , where in the time for developement of the zygotes, with all the achieved adaptations and all which makes you think evolution occurred, comes to a final end, and the Genome wears out and dies off. In your false thinking, the evolution of the apes brought forth human beings, because you believe evolution can permit the genome to survive by forever undergoing natural selection. This is false thinking
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione
All the 9 comments you just posted can be summarized into one single sentence: by your account "abiogenesis produced humans in their current form, and they are now devolving". Sounds awfully similar to creationist model! Do you even listen to yourself when you talk? How do you come up with these ideas or where do you read them from? Do you have ANY scientific validation for these points or do you just assume things?
Spetsop 1 year ago
@Spetsop you set you straight, the Genome we have a human being was manufactured naturally in the ancient oceans with hundreds of millions of Genetic Sequences, packaged in hardened cell membranes, that once competitively produced, resisted all aspects of "evolution" as a negative destructive influence, not a progressive helpful one. While we did not appear as refined as today , our primitive parents had the "potential"of our Genome long ago, it simply took time to bring out designs.
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
@Spetsop Once you learn about Abiogenesis, you will see that orginally, the DNA Genomes of all living things had their chance to collect information in the Abiogenesis stage. The "seeds" of plant life came out of the oceans as such, and the seeds of mammals came out as such, not that one first living cell evolved from a blade of grass to a frog and then to a human, NO !!! Each unique form of LIFE had it's first origins in Abiogenesis and then came to refinement in their own line
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione
"Once you learn about Abiogenesis, you will see that orginally, the DNA Genomes of all living things had their chance to collect information in the Abiogenesis stage."
DNA is too complex of a molecule to arise from the start via abiogenesis! This is a totally new spin on things I'm seeing now, you're like completely opposite of creationists in this aspect! lol Quite entertaining but complete non-sense!
Spetsop 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione
"not that one first living cell evolved from a blade of grass to a frog and then to a human, NO" Of course not! Who says that that's how things happened? I really do love it how much of an imagination you have... but what strikes me as a troubling is your total inability to separate the fiction of your imagination from reality of what is out there! Once again, give me at least some kind of scientific study that will validate your claims!!!
Spetsop 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione
Explain how a genome of nylon eating bacteria is dying after they developed at totally NEW ability to digest some types of nylon? Or the death of genome in bacteria that acquire antibiotic resistance? Or genetic drift and shift in influenza virus? Or the increase in cranium size and brain capacity of homo sapeins over time? All of those point to a "dying genome"? I think you've got some wires backwards in your own brain... no offense.
Spetsop 1 year ago
@Spetsop The entire myth about the "Nylon Eating Bacteria" was exposed as totally false, by a university in Japan, several years ago. The Nylon Eating Bacteria was proven to have merely undergone the aspects of Mendelian Genetics, Laws of Heredity , not "Evolution." The bacteria appeared first to have some aspect of evolutionary change, but upon closer look at the Genome, the Bacteria had not actually evolved away from the original Genome, only the zygotes had adapted within.
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione
"the Bacteria had not actually evolved away from the original Genome, only the zygotes had adapted within." zygotes in bacteria?!? Do you even know what a "zygote" is? I don't think you do, otherwise you would have realized that what you said makes no sense! Provide a paper that states that this "hoax" was exposed... so far you've just been claiming things without ANY proof of them what so ever!
Spetsop 1 year ago
@Spetsop again, you do not get it, you have a mental block in your way, a subtle conundrum of inability to think. Even though the human Genome ,the complex collection of DNA in the human, came out of Abiogenesis with this immense potential of genetic information, hundreds of millions of sequences, that did not mean, human looked as refined a fully modern at all. We are talking about a process to a Genome, that has the capacity to factor by inherited traits the final result over time.
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
@Spetsop The ultimate defining event for the Genome is the time called Abiogenesis. From that time onwards, the Genetic Material in the hardened membrane cell can produce results that mimic "Evolution" and lead you to think that by genetic malformations , the species can forever enhance it's product to higher organisms. That is false, Each Genome is maximized in it's potential in Abiogenesis and it is all downhill by STDS , Retro Viruses and Radiation, the Genome dies in time.
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
@Spetsop I keep trying to emphasize that the Human Genome, ultimately was the Parent Genome and the Apes had to fall away from the Human Parent. Because the Genome is manufactured naturally in the Abiogenesis stage and it's design resists evolution , not encourages continual reinventions of the genome to higher creatures. The potential of an established Genome can only descend down to decay and disorganization by the insults of disease and other attacks. Evolution is a false observation
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
@Spetsop Now , Centromere X Fractured Chromosomes do lose genetic sequences, and can then produce degenerative offspring and you, with a cursory viewpoint predicated on believing in evolution, which is a false observation, makes you think the surviving original well developed creature had evolved from the degenerated of the species. So, you are upside down in thinking. You need to understand Abiogenesis is the time to grow a Genome to full potential, not afterwards.
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
@Spetsop Just because the Human Genome was fully made in Abiogenesis, the offspring of the primitive human is not going to appear as we do today. The fully formed Genome out of Abiogenesis, without any evolution of the Genome, and in spite of degenerative disease to limit the life span of the Genome, the Genome is a manufacturer by Mendelian Genetics a continual aspect of improved abilities and advanced appearances , that did not EVOLVE, but came numerically by Laws of Heredity.
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
Since Chromosomes formed in Abiogenesis, the DNA strips , called Chromosomes had grown by consumption of materials in a competitive state in the ancient oceans, became packaged in Cell Membranes that hardened and began over time to break like sausage links, where each chromosome break was cured by a hardened Telemere end, which then never fused to other Telemeres, except by cause of STDs , Radiation, Retro Viruses, that caused cancer and death. Telemere fusion is no pathway to Evolution.
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione
(cont.) First, the break must occur in exactly the right place, so that no genes are split in half (otherwise the function of that gene will be lost... suddenly)! Second, new telomeres must be formed instantly so that the free ends of DNA are not degraded or become fused! Third, a new centromere must form in one of the halves of the original chromosome in order for the cell to have the ability to divide properly! HOW plausible is that?!?
Spetsop 1 year ago
The Somatic Cell has 23 pairs of chromosomes, or 46 for a human, The Gamete is the Sexual cell, such as a sperm or egg, having half or 23 chromosome. In Down's syndrome, two chromosomes fuse at the Centremere, X shaped and break into four pieces or an extra pair, now acentric or short chromosome strips. If two primitive humans with the same defect of Down's then mated, they could cause a further degenerative outcome and their child would begin to appear as the apes, with 48 chromosomes
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione
Why can't you understand this simple fact... Down syndrome patients are INFERTILE!!! How can you mate two INFERTILE beings and get an offspring?!? I've already told you that an addition of ONE extra chromosome results in a deadly consequence! How can you get TWO SAME chromosomes suddenly added without any serious consequences?
Spetsop 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione
In Down syndrome you don't get a "fusion of two chromosomes at the centromere"... you have replicated genetic material that fails to separate during cellular division, leaving one daughter cell with twice as much genetic info and the other with none (of that particular chromosome, i.e. 21st). That's the most common mode of inheritance called non-disjunction. The second is when you get a Robertsonian translocation b/w chromosomes 14 and 21, which still yields 46 chromosomes!
Spetsop 1 year ago
the Human Genome is the parent Genetic Biological Historical fact, taken out of Abiogenesis. Since the beginning of human beings, as primitive as they were, they had 46 chromosomes. No telomeres can fuse without degenerative cancerous results that cripple and destroy the species. Neither can Telomere fusion cause Evolution. It is the other way , A broken chromosome X fractures into extra pairs and if the victims mate, then in time they add two an pair to the Zygote in Meiosis.
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
the Ape did not exist before the human being. The Human Genome is the Parent and Original Seed. The Apes have acentric short broken samples of chromosomes in place of the human # 2 chromosome. It proves that deevolution of the human beings occurred with the continual mating of sequestered deformed humans who then step by step had offspring of 47 chromosomes, then two gamete cells from parents, each with acentric broken chromosomes went beyound the Down's Syndrome effect to reach "48"
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
The only Telemere Fusion examples known is cancer cells, leukemia cells in fish. There is no known fusion of telemeres of chromosomes, where the organism survived cancer and continued the species. With centremere fusion, the Down's Syndrome occurs in the Gamete cell, the sexual single pair cell, and then the half set mates with the half of the other creature, and the Down's has one more chromosome pair, but if both parents have Down's they can achieve two more pairs in meosis= monkey
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione
Also, the telomeric fusion that causes cancers that you are talking about is the fusion of the very short telomeres on the same chromosome, which interferes with chromosome replication and/or separation during division. The telomeric fusion that formed human chromosome 2 was between two different chromosomes in a linear fashion, which still preserves all the genetic information and the ability to replicate.
Spetsop 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione
How else can you explain the central location of the telomeres in human chromosome 2 as well as two distinct centromeres that are found on either side of that central telomere?
So what you're saying is that apes are the offspring of people who had Down's syndrome and mated to produce a viable offspring that was suddenly normal and could reproduce?
Spetsop 1 year ago
@Spetsop You have been handed an interpretation without empirical evidence. You believe them, that the central location of Human Chromosome # 2 is the former telomeres of former separate chromosomes that fused to explain a conundrum. But the Conundrum is barely a philosophical rant, a priori without empirical fact to support the suggestion. Thus, you must be a "believer" in a long list of assumptions, to make the faith leap that Human Chromosome # 2 was separate before and fused now
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione
It is possible to fuse two different chromosomes to form a what is called 'dicentric chromosome' and have it be mitotically stable and without any consequences if one of the centromeres is inactivated (as is the case with human chromosome 2)! Actually events like this occur in cells but rarely and don't lead to the death of the cell if the above remains true or if the cell is able to separate the fused chromosomes by a repair mechanism.
Spetsop 1 year ago
@Spetsop There is no empirical evidence to prove anything you have said about an "inactive centromere" in the # 2 human chromosome. It is nothing but an implied rant, a priori that serves the Theory of Evolution , on the supposition, "it must have been this way" That is nothing but a belief, not a proven fact. The fact remains it is highly unlikely that a cancerous cell that produced telemere fusion, had aided human evolution in the positive progressive sense. The reverse is fact
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione
There's TONS of "empirical evidence" to prove what I said, Google "human chromosome 2" for starters and you'll find it yourself. Here's an article about it too if you wish: "Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion" (type that into Google directly). Now, I want to see where you got that info about Leukemia in fish due to fused telomeres, please send me a link.
Spetsop 1 year ago
@Spetsop And I must add that you are highly speculative without solid examples of other species with the same descent of "dicentric chromosome" stable in Meiosis, without the obvious normal failure rate of one hundred percent. The only case studied of telemere fusions is Leukemia cells in Fish, not humans. Thus you are going out to the stars for this stretch of imagination. Occam's Razor would say, the Human Genome came of Abiogenesis and the Apes fell away at some point of degeneration
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione
It's FAR more likely that TWO chromosomes of the common ancestor fused to form current human chromosome 2 in humans BUT did NOT fuse in chimps to remain their 2q and 2p chromosome... than it is that ONE chromosome from humans split up into two! For starters, if one splits up into two, where do the extra telomeres come from on the newly formed ends, and where does an extra centromere come from for one of the halfs of the split chromosome?!?
Spetsop 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione
Google yeast cells to see the dicentric chromosomes. These cells are used in experiments all the time to see how cells cope with fused telomeres!
That's an interesting theory you propose that either an STD, or Radiation, or Retroviruse (why Retro by the way, why can't it be a DNA virus? or a positive sense RNA virus?) cause telomere fusion!
Once again though, "each chromosome break was cured by a hardened Telemere"... how? And where does a centromere come from again?
Spetsop 1 year ago
@Spetsop Not only do you have to make the case of highly improbable Telemere Fusion , but that the end result also happened to inactivate one of the Centromere's to speculate why it is not there. The fact is, it is not there, and the fact you imply, that it became inactivated, is not a fact, you should learn the difference between hypothesis and facts. The reverse is quite sane, the Human Genome is the Parent since Abiogenesis, and some time, some Sexual Transmitted Disease occurred
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione
"Not only do you have to make the case of highly improbable Telemere Fusion" as opposed to your highly probable chromosome break that happened to receive extra telomeres on newly formed ends and a second centromere for one of the two halves of the original chromosome AND stayed mitotically and meiotically stable to produce viable gametes!!! There is a TON of things that have to fall into place for that to happen without leading to apoptosis (cont).
Spetsop 1 year ago
@Spetsop Another fault I have with your impossible hypothesis of Telomere Fusion for #2 Human Chromosome is that the Apes have two acentric shorty chromosome strips, which then you imply had connected together by Telomere Fusion. But the facts are, there is a minus factor of Genetic Sequences in the Apes two acentric strips that cannot then logically be accounted for if they fused to make a Human Chromosome # 2. The Apes lost hundreds of thousands of Sequences, which prove they degenerated
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione
And yes, there have been studies (not related to our topic) that show that individuals are capable of having dicentric chromosomes with one inactive centromere (usually on the X chromosome) and in some cases this has been true for autosomes as well. As I said, centromere inactivation on dicentric chromosomes happens in nature all the time!
Spetsop 1 year ago
@Spetsop The # 2 Human Chromosome, at the Center, is not a fused telomere, it is simply a very old and stable Centremere. Telomeres do not fuse successfully, the fusion of telomeres is caused by cancerous deformities and do not result in progressive evolution. What they are doing to your thinking is monday morning quarterbacking, attempting to explain, in their own philosophy, that humans evolved from chimps, when in fact chimps devolved or degenerated by STDs,Radiation,Retrovirus.
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione
"The # 2 Human Chromosome, at the Center, is not a fused telomere, it is simply a very old and stable Centremere"... by your own argument, show me the empirical evidence for this! What you just said that human chromosome 2 has 3 centromeres!
Certainly not a "philosophical rant", you can find the exact genomic sequence of chromosome 2 and see for yourself. You're stating the opposite yet do not provide ANY "empirical evidence" to support your claims.
Spetsop 1 year ago
The Somatic cell carries the pairs, the gamete carries the singular set, awaiting meiosis. Now we can show empirically that by chromosome fusion and X fragmentation, that we could devolve a human with 46 chromosomes to the case of the apes, who have fragmented up from 46 to 48 chromosomes, and survived, like the case of Down's Syndrome, with a repeat mating case of secondary fragmentation, and so empirical proof exists to show apes fell away from humans, but no proof at all humans evolved up
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione
People with Down syndrome are infertile and have 47 chromosomes, not 48 like you stated. Trisomy 21 does not develop due to fragmentation of a chromosome, that would be deadly, but by non-disjunction. If fragmentation occurred, genetic info would be lost during the first division leading to cell death! And if your theory were to work, then the resulting offspring would have 2 identical pairs of the same chromosome... that's even worse than having just one extra chromosome!
Spetsop 1 year ago
@Spetsop You have not thought this out enough. If the syndrome was then continued by the mating of two down syndrome parents, then the offspring could result as having 48, instead of the 47 that each have. There is no known mechanism seen for 48 chromosomes to become 46 by Telemere Fusion of Chromosomes. There is fusion of chromosomes known to occur at the centremere, not the telemere. and when centremere's fuse, they form the X and break into four short pieces, as apes have.
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione
Once again, patients with Down syndrome are infertile. How can you mate two infertile beings and get an offspring? Second, there are only 3 cases where patients with an extra chromosome can survive for at least a year (one of them is Down's syndrome). The other 2 are Edwards (trisomy 18), and Pateau (trisomy 13), both of which survive for about 1-2 years (although rarely), all other trisomies lead to death in utero or extremely short life of only a couple of weeks.
Spetsop 1 year ago
If the Somatic Cell of a human, with 23 pairs of chromosomes, had a fused centremere and fused two chromosomes as the famous X shape and broke, the somatic cell would carry an extra pair of chromosomes, being acentric ones, or shorter than normal, since they broke. Then the Gamete of the sperm or egg would carry the extra pair, and in the rare case of the sperm finding an egg with the same extra pair, the offspring would gain from 46 to 48 Chromosomes in Meiosis, creating the apes with losses
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione: Ah, hell, CF, this is all just gobble-de-gook. You throw somatic right in there with gamete, but they are essentially opposites. This whole theory of yours limps.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex no the somatic has the pairs, the gamete has the singular sample, that requires the meiosis to couple. These are not then opposites, as you said. Now , the chromosome count can by chromosomal damage, such as in the Down Syndrome child, increase the chromosome count by one extra in Meiosis, but if two down syndrome offspring were to happen to mate, the count could go to the apes 48 chromosomes. The point is, we can show apes devolved from humans, not the other way around !
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
The human chromosome #2 has a region called a Centremere, and that is the empirical fact of the matter. But some think this Centremere was the product of a Telemere Fusion long ago. Now they have no empirical evidence that such events do happen and help evolution along. Mostly, all Telemere Fusions create miscarriages, and cancer. The normal fusion of two chromosomes usually occurs by two Centremere's fusing together, and then breaking off in an X pattern and increasing the count, there by.
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione CF, telomeres and centromeres aren't there to "help evolution along". They are part of the cellular replication machinery. Who is this "some" of which you speak?
I think you are confused between telomeric fusion (in which no genetic material is lost or garbled) and chromosomal translocations, which do garble genes and result in cancers. See the article on CT in wiki, for example. Come on, CF, give us a cite so we can see your "proof". 8th request, isn't it?
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex The apes have a corresponding part A and B "Acentric" or broken appearing short versions of our #2 Chromosome. They also have 50 thousand less
genetic sequences in their acentric correlation. If our chromosome underwent a fusion and broke, as they do in the X fragmentations, then it explains how the apes lost material. But a fusion of the two telemeres of the chimp's acentric ensemble, would not explain the loss of information. Two Telemeres fusing do not break the Chromosome
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione: any evidence? Does any microbiologist agree with you?
puncheex 1 year ago
the assumption of two telemeres having fused is without empirical fact of proof. It is not even credible as a theory that such happened, and why ? Because all observed cases of fusion of telemeres results in cancers, miscarriages and death of the organism, a failure in Meiosis That is why this hypothesis cannot be rated to the level of a Scientific Theory. But all of you dreamers want to jump the gun on the facts to support a rationalized belief system of evolution, which itself is not proven
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione: Ah, come on, CF. You've been touting this "belief" below enough. When are you going to show a valid scientific study that says what you say? I've looked - there isn't anything out there. And it is not a theory - it is an observation - a fact. The proper telomere base sequences are there, both sides, observed by many independent observations. Anyone with the proper gene sequencing equipment can verify it. You have no leg to stand on here except your "priori" faith.
puncheex 1 year ago
... Not only that, but the gene sequences that occur on the 2a and 2b chromosomes of chimps are right there in the human #s, in the same order. They would have to be present, of course, or their absence would have killed the first cell it happened in. But not only are they all there, but they are in the same order with the same intron/exon characterization, in the exactly same order. You've lost this round, CF, and it's only because you picked the dumbest of hypotheses to put forward.
puncheex 1 year ago
Out number #2 chromosome, has what is by fact a Centremere, that some evolutionists make a hypothesis to assume that this centremere is actually the result of two former telemeres that somehow fused and the species survived, and even gained genetic sequences, either before or after the fusion enigma. The empirical fact, however, remains that the region of interest is only a centremere, not two telemeres fused, so the hypothesis has no proof, it remains an unsupported assumption, not fact !!!
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione: Deeper and deeper, CF. A centromere doesn't look at all like a telomere, or two of the squashed together, or anything else. The true centromere, one of the two that existed in the united chromosome, is detectable by electron micrography during mitosis and stage I meiosis, and it isn't in the same place as the fused telomeres. No amount of squawking is going to save this mess of a terminal theory.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex what is wrong with your brain ? Ken Miller only said " I believe" that the telemere's fused, he never said he knew it as a fact, or anything more than a hypothesis. So it goes to Miller's Priori, what he expects the facts to say , if and when they are known. But he can be really, really wrong ! Are you so brainwashed that you cannot question anything you have been told ? Two Telemeres do not exist in the #2 Chromosome of a Human Genome, they only imagine it does, !
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione: Non-sequitur ad-hom is all you can manage? How about some proof of what you say? You've made a fantastic claim; you can't back it up? You won't? What's the matter with your integrity?
As quoted from the Dover Trial transcript, first day. Speaker is Ken Miller:
"Next slide. Well, lo and behold, the answer is in Chromosome Number 2. This is a paper that -- this is a facsimile of a paper that was published in the British journal Nature in 2004. It's a multi-authored paper. ...
puncheex 1 year ago
... "The first author is Hillier, and other authors are listed as et al. And it's entitled, The Generation and Annotation of the DNA Sequences of Human Chromosomes 2 and 4. And what this paper shows very clearly is that all of the marks of the fusion of those chromosomes predicted by common descent and evolution, all those marks are present on human Chromosome Number 2.
Would you advance the slide. And I put this up to remind the Court of what that prediction is. ...
puncheex 1 year ago
... "We should find telomeres at the fusion point of one of our chromosomes, we should have an inactivated centromere and we should have another one that still works. And you'll note -- this is some scientific jargon from the paper, but I will read part of it. Quote, Chromosome 2 is unique to the human lineage of evolution having emerged as a result of head-to-head fusion of two acrocentric chromosomes that remain separate in other primates. The precise fusion site has been located, ...
puncheex 1 year ago
... "the reference then says exactly there, where our analysis confirmed the presence of multiple telomere, subtelomeric duplications. So those are right there."
Doesn't sound to me like he, or the paper's authors, have any doubt.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex the resources of facts state that all the known cases of telemere fusions involved miscarriages, and lukemia in Fish. This is all bad stuff, not something worthy of proving Evolution true. But the fact is, we have empirical evidence that the chromosome count can increase, not decrease and the species survived. Thus the Human Genome had to be first and the Apes devolved away by forming "Acentric Chromosome fragments, # 2A and #2 B.
That is empirically shown as probable,
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
@puncheex you are ignorant. Telemeres are created by nature when the Chromosome strips break off, thus sealing the ends of them. Nature never intended for the Telemeres to then fuse together, you idiot ! Thus to propose a hypothesis that Evolution employs Telemere Fusion make you a jerk, or just jerking off ! Chromosomes normally fuse at their Centremeres, form an X and break off into four pieces. There are plenty of sites on Chromosomal Fusions, to show they are all bad things !
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione: ...and you are obtuse. Done with the ad-homs?
You have no idea how telomeres work - you're repeating something you heard long ago which you never understood then. When a chromosome replicates, the machinery drops base pairs off the ends. The telomeres are replicative "junk" on the end of a chromosome that can be dropped off without loss of function. ...
puncheex 1 year ago
... When the chromosome has replicated too many times, the telomere is exhausted and actual chromosome starts being lost, which usually causes the cell to die - a safeguard to avoid the massive, out-of-control replication that results from cancer.
Plenty of sites - great! Cite me a site and I'll go see if they have any better understanding about telomeres than you do.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex Telemeres seal off the broken DNA strips, called Chromosomes. The Telemeres do not naturally seek to Fuse then together, and certainly , that occurence is not proof of Evolution. Why is it you deny that perhaps the Human Genome is the Parent and original DNA design and that a case of chromosome damage happened to the apes to devolve them, and cost them a lost of genetic sequences when their #2 Chromosome fused and broke, to add two more Chromosomes , going from 46 to 48. ?
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione: CF, I deny it because it doesn't make sense to me. You are saying that all along through history (12 million yrs in my case, 6000 in yours?) there were men, but along the way all those we refer to as Ardipithecine, Australopithecine, or Homo anything-but-sapiens are just us fooling around with some ape. That requires so many coincidences to occur as to be laughable. Where are all the parents; why do we find only the weird kids? ...
puncheex 1 year ago
... There has not been a single sapiens bone found older than 200,000 years (my scale) - why? This 48->46 problem is easily seen as a join, but you go thru all these contortions to show that it wasn't, in spite of the data. You ignore all the science publishing that establishes it as both possible and very likely, just so you can justify a finding obviously ancient skulls in the recent (and for you, only) past. It's a house of cards, a charade. Just to justify an insane theory of creation.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex I am not debating time lines, only common sense. Mendelian Genetics can prove mathematically by chromosome X Fragmentations, that we could devolve a normal human, lose substantial genetic information in the process and by selective mating, cause the Chromosome counts to rise from 46 to 48, if the damaged offspring is selectively mated over and over. So all the primitive humans , are actually reverse or devolved examples of the normal human Genome. Humans are the orginals
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
He made a mistake right at the end there, saying that Orrorin was solid confirmatory science rather than Ardipithecus, which is what he was addressing. Overall, though a very good talk - wish I had more of it. I didn't understand that phylogenetic figure he showed, though; it looked all wrong. It must be something I don't understand about that pic. It showed Paranthropus "on our line" while Australopithecus was on a branch and went extinct. Misplaced labels?
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex
He didn't actually misspeak at the end. It is just a little oddly worded. He wasn't saying that Orrorin was the solid confirmatory science. He was saying he appreciated the work that went into Orrorin but its not enough to confirm the idea of an alternate line that excludes australopithecines.
shadetail 1 year ago
@shadetail: OK, then, the phylogeny is from Orrorin's discoverer? And he places Orrorin about where Ardi is (relatively speaking), leaving Australopithecus out (and I see I misread Prepithecus as Parapithecus - and meant paranthropus)? That seems like a lot of emphasis to place on a few limb fragments and some teeth. I suppose I might understand that, if not believe it. It smacks heavily of one-upping Johanson, like it appears that Ardi's discoverers are also trying to do, with more to go on.
puncheex 1 year ago
Hard time believing this bloke with that shit haircut
ryno99 2 years ago
@ryno99
What's his hair got to do with anything? Omg you so need to separate your issues lol, don't be trying so hard to believe anyway, everything's just possibilities on different theories, if you fully believe you throw away all other possibilities.
FriendlyIrish 2 years ago 2
The hair makes the video on every level.
funkalunatic 2 years ago
the end result is that Homo Sapiens may be the true parent line and all the great apes fell away from the common ancestor
that would be humanoid. The idea of the fused # 2 chromosome in humans, may be argued backwards that the great apes
had the same as humanoid, but fragmented their #2 due to STDs, retro viruses, radiation, etc. A human in meiosis can go from 46 chromosomes to
48 by damage and survive as a Down's
Syndrome, but where is proof of Fusion
as more than death or cancers ?
CarmineFragione 2 years ago
@CarmineFragione: I know cf is no gone, but this is false. The whole point is that one can't say the chimps split away from humans or vice versa; we simply split. All the great apes have 48; we have 46; the parsimonious conclusion is that it happened to us. Also, the extra tele- and centromere in ch#2 requires the fusion, not a splitting, and they happened relatively recently (within last 6my) as measured by mutation rate on the extra structures, now unused and thus subject to mutation.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex you have to use some logic here. Saying we went from 48 t0 46 chromosomes has no empirical evidence to support the hypothesis used, the business about #2 fusion chromosome. No telemeres fuse and advance evolution, all such fusions of telemeres cause Lukemia, not progress in evolution. So you being with a big lie and cause everyone to believe a lie. But we have empirical evidence that 46 can increase to 48 ,and allow the corruption to survive and begin a new sub standard species.
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione: I do use logic. Alla time.
Sure there is empirical evidence - the #2 chromosome and its structure. Just because you deny it doesn't make it not so. Telomeres do fuse; it's been noted before, and apparently you know that because your next sentence presupposes it. They do not cause leukemia; telomeres don't create protein; they simply act as a buffer at the end of the chromosome so that when the duplication stops short the functional chromosome is not harmed. ...
puncheex 1 year ago
... Occurring in the middle of a chromosome they are just more unused DNA.
Now, I see I have been just as assertive as you have; the difference is that I can back my assertions up with science, and the fact that I haven't resorted to a ad-hominem accusation of lying. You cannot find me a paper that says telomeres in the moddle of c chromosome cause leukemia; I've already searched. ...
puncheex 1 year ago
... What they do say is that telomeres act to kill cells that over-replicate, because when they run out of buffer the cells die, but cancer has a mechanism of re-establishing the telomeres and thus avoiding the automatic death. Those left in the middle have no effect.
The telomeres are there, and obviously cause no cancer.
What is the point of this arg, anyway? You want to argue that the apes are degenerate humans? Good luck with that.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex Telemeres do not fuse and promote Evolution , that is the Empirical Fact we have seen. Fusing Telemeres cause Cancers, Lukemia in Fish and cause miscarriages , not some fable about evolving a better species, like a human from a chimp. You are the one with no facts behind that hypothesis. So provide proof, and give one example of an empirically observed Telemere Fusion that did not cause death or cancer. Do no philosophize, state some observed empirical fact, if you know
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione: You keep using that word empirical. What does it mean to you? Where is some sort of evidence to back this statement up? I looked and could find none. You are making the positive statement, that telomere fusion caused leukemia; as such, it should be easy to find evidence for it, if it were real.
So, what are you saying, that the human chromosome #2 just looks like it was fused? You do know there is more proof than just the telomeres, don't you?
puncheex 1 year ago
OK, I think I found where you got your evidence. See springerlinkDOT com/content/qx81187330w20395/
However, you're wrong in assuming this happens always:
"The findings in this [single] case suggest that telomeric fusion may function as a mechanism for the development of chromosome rearrangements that may play a role, albeit rarely, in human neoplasia."
Is this your Empirical Fact? If so, you need to look further. This is an isolated incident, and it also states that #2 is a telomeric fusion.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex there are two science realities, the Priori and the Empirical. The Priori is the belief of Evolution being borne out eventually by all the facts, making it a basic assumption built on beliefs tied to some, but not yet enough physical evidence. The Priori of Science is that Matter is eternal in itself and can evolve into higher orders or designs, by itself. Evolution is the same assumption, that the physical order is evolving. But there is no Empirical Fact of proof of this belief
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione: I see - your talking a priori vs a posteriori. Then I guess your argument boils down to the old canard about all the stratigraphy, all the radioactive dating and the physics it is based on, all the astrophysics, all the paleontology and anthropology not being evidence, that you need more evidence. Basically, science has failed to make a case, in your eyes, for anything it says. You have a lot of gall writing that on a computer on the internet. Particularly the cancer stuff.
puncheex 1 year ago
Love the mohawk and the lecture, awesome video!
anikinippon 2 years ago 2
Smartest man I've ever seen with a Mohawk! Check out my 50+ fossil videos .New paleo lectures added monthly . Beginners classes ,field trips and proffesional lectures .Gift to you from the oldest fossil club in the USA !
flyingscience 2 years ago
Badass haircut. 10 man points.
drealm 2 years ago
Professor Mowhawk!
SouthernWhiteTrash 2 years ago
Lucy? Lucifer?...
underyourskindvd 2 years ago
what?
shadetail 2 years ago
I attended this and fell asleep twice. Don't have sushi and beers before a potentially boring lecture. Topic was interesting, presentation dealt with too much data. I wanted implications.
TRUCKEEDOG666 2 years ago
I like to see people in important roles, not afraid to do what they like with their hair and whatnot. As of today, you can't even work at Disney World if you have stretched earlobes, which I have. I can't wait until people in congress, and national news stations have visible tattoos and piercings. I don't understand why we all have decided that modifying our bodies to express our individuality is a bad thing. Ever since the dawn of man, we've been doing it. I say back to our roots we go!
Valstein0 2 years ago
Human roots are retarded. But I agree with you that it shouldn't be an issue on whether or not you can get these positions.
shadetail 2 years ago
This guy is a character. I'm sure no one would have ever guessed. I think of a lot of paleoanthropologists, the ones actually working with the bones, kind of get annoyed with the more "biological" anthropologists like this geneticist. Doesn't mean either is wrong, just that guys looking at bones sometimes have different ideas/perspectives than guys looking at genes etc.
GuppyPal 2 years ago 2
Nice Mohawk! 5 stars
4everkeim 2 years ago
There was no human chimp split...two different animals
hallaelementary 2 years ago
Ya, i think he's talking about the common ancestor.
razorflown2 2 years ago 2
@hallaelementary If they had not split they would be the same animal.
grenangle 2 years ago
@hallaelementary: Heh - F.
puncheex 1 year ago
He's right, not every breakthrough needs to be "groundbreaking." So long as we have more information for creationists to deny, I'm happy. Never gonna win them over anyway.
RadarKat73080 2 years ago
the mohawk discredits him. i know that everything he says in this video is incorrect, and i didn't even listen once i saw it.
PerennialLucidity 2 years ago
@PerennialLucidity: You view the hair, and not listen to the words? - F.
puncheex 1 year ago
Since most of you are caught on his physical appearance, specifically his haircut and not on what he has to say.
I'd hypothesis that the split was a whole lot closer to our time than most would like to admit.
MilanTbay 2 years ago 3
Agreed.
I might even hypothesize that some of the people, we call humans, were on the other side of the split 6 million years ago. They cant possibly be related to us any closer than that.
village1diot 2 years ago
Which ones?
shadetail 2 years ago
Well, just to be clear, I was joking. I don't actually believe that.
That said, I was referring to the "his Mohawk is more important than the content" crowd.
I could extend it to others, but it wouldn't be nice nor, more importantly, relevant.
village1diot 2 years ago
Ok, once we get gray hairs is it ok to have a Mohawk if you are not MR. T ?
LatinFreethinker 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
he clearly represents the human-gremlin common ancestor
echelecopao 2 years ago
Well its either this or dirt, take your pick.
Or somebody dropped us off here.
CosmosPrivateer 2 years ago
What you mean?
shadetail 2 years ago
Well God said he made us from dirt or we came from monkeys or somebody from another planet dropped us off here.
Take your pick.
CosmosPrivateer 2 years ago
@CosmosPrivateer , If you consider yourself intelligent then consider NOT believing in a personal god! Why you may wonder, Simple, the more brain power one has the better they see through the smoke screen of religion and what it "really" is! research people like Albert Einstien and learn from the smartest!
99minerkc 2 years ago
@99minerkc, I was only pointing out our options/choices.
I don't believe in any particular Control System.
CosmosPrivateer 2 years ago
Einstein is your god. But he didn't want to be.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
Unlike you, I have no reason to believe in an invisible man like you! I do enjoy quoting a man who no doubt saw through the BS of religion! No doubt you took the religious BS hook, line, and sinker! PATHETIC but no concern of mine
99minerkc 2 years ago
@99minerkc What's this religious BS hook, line and sinker? Could you be any more irrelevant and emotional????
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Talk about an emotional irrelevant comment, check this one out, "Einstein is your god. But he didn't want to be."
99minerkc 2 years ago
Ugh, the Mohawk is so NYU.
Zubinen 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is the most sophistry I've seen packed into four minutes. The mohawk is just as unconvincing.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
So you are heavily convinced by the evidence shown for Orrorin? I have read a bit about it and I currently don't think there is enough evidence to propose that we must completely rewrite how we view human evolution.
All this man is saying is that the work on Orrorin is not ground breaking at the moment because it doesn't have enough solid confirmation for the big claims that some people are being made about it, and that Ardipithecus does not support the Orrorin-human line over the current one.
shadetail 2 years ago 2
That's not what I said. My view is that the bones don't say much, and that what has been wrung out of them is conjecture. The DNA makes a stronger case, but then I part ways with those who actually believe that the universe, and subsequently living matter, began by mere chance. The odds against that happening are insurmountable.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
I don't know many people who believe it came from "mere chance" unless you consider the possibly deterministic conclusions of natural laws interacting with each other "mere chance".
Sorry, I thought you were disagreeing with the person who made the video. But now it sounds like you actually agree with what he was saying in this clip.
shadetail 2 years ago
Forget about the guy in the clip for a moment. Would you be so kind as to flesh out the difference between "deterministic conclusions of natural laws interacting" with mere chance? I would enjoy hearing you out on this.
faelismaegnus 2 years ago
One of them would be conclusions that have to happen given the starting condition. So everything that has ever happen is completely reliant the state of the first plank time and how natura