Evolution is not a fact. It's a theory. A fact is something we observe over and over again. Since evolution occurs over a long period of time, we have not been able to observe it so it's not a fact. As humans, we are naturally biased, but it's important to be open-minded. By having differing opinions, we sometimes find out the truth. I find the best way is to keep making counterarguments. You say one thing, I say something else to refute it, and we keep going back and forth.
@audreys247 Germs are a fact, germ theory is a model that explains this fact. The same is true of gravity, electromagnetism, and evolution. I highly suggest you figure out what a scientific theory is. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. It is a fact that Pluto orbits the sun every 248 years even though no one has directly observed it.
@whaddyta That's right. Measurements whether taken directly or indirectly are usually facts. Einstein discovered a great many things through mathematics. Most notably, he discovered the speed of light without directly measuring the speed of light. By observation, I do not literally mean the human eye. It could be anything that allows you to observe it or figure out the problem. If evolution is true, I would like to see a great many examples that show it is true.
@audreys247 Gravity is a fact, evolution is a fact. The disputes are about the the theories that explain these facts. Also Einstein didn't discover the speed of light. Google "who discovered the speed of light" to get the history of that subject. I think that you are just as smart as me but using terms like "absolutely proven" and "...not a fact. It's a theory" shows ignorance of science.
Does anything even happen by "chance". It is a word we use to hide our ignorance of the cause of an event! There is no chance event, every event has a cause, you just need to figure it out. The universe is a well organized system of events, we are still trying to understand it all, nothing is chance!
Of course evolution and religion can co-exists because they are both belief systems you cannot demonstrate them here and now. You need faith to believe in any of them. Demonstrate to me how an Ape can become a man and I will believe, please perform this miracle for me Ape -> man please!
I The message I got from this video is that evolution does exist, but an intelligent being (in my case & beliefs- God) plays a profound role in life. I believe science & God can coexist, but it starts to get dicey when one starts believing the bible is perfect. The bible is a falable human-written document- it has its truths, and it has its errors. God, however, is perfect and infalable, & that my friends, explains the miraculous universe which we reside.
@AtheistKiwi You lost empty person! If the Moronic atheist studied Homochirality and Racemic mixtues, they would know life could never arise by chance!!!
@5tonyvvvv Do you want to know the truth, or what makes you feel good? This is misleading. You say life could not have arisen by chance, if not chance, what caused life to happen then? And if you say "Magic Man" you better have some good evidence, and two obscure chemistry processes don't really count.
Let's say we found the best possible evidence of whatever it is in the physical world, that "made" or "created" or "caused" life on this planet. Then what? Then we all still die at 50-90 years old, unless something else happens to us.. What will we gain by discovering anything on this corrupt and evil planet? I personally do not want to discover something that's going to unlock the "secret of life" and live on this rock forever. Am I wrong to say it's the heart longing for answers not the brain?
Show me one! A cat breeds a cat a dog breeds a dog, all species reproduce after their own kind just as the "Bible" says. Yes you can breed dogs and cats even horses can be bred to make different sizes and different pure breads, but it's still a a dog a cat or a horse. A donkey and a horse may mate but the mule will be sterile! You have greater faith than I if you believe in the religion of evolution... no proof, there is no missing chain. Even Darwin said that the fossil would prove him wrong
@lennebeker "Yes you can breed dogs and cats even horses can be bred to make different sizes and different pure breads, but it's still a a dog a cat or a horse."
So what you are saying..... essentially, is that a horse is a rhinoceros?
@lennebeker Evolution is not a religion. Do you want proof that a species can branch off into other species that do not fit the biblical definition of "same kind"? Direct, modern, physically observable examples exist, and these examples are known as "ring species" because of the way they come about. There's a great 4-minute video by YouTuber "potholer54" titled "Ring species -- the abridged version" and the information contained within has sources in its description so you can see for yourself.
The problem with evolution when applied to man is as follows an ape becomes a man. It´s too much to jump to that conclusion. Man is intelligent (feels, thinks, innovate, read, write, conscious of itself), we may look alike physically but spiritually we differ immensely infinitely. Except if they redefine evolution it doesn´t make sense at all.
@emekaobioji There are apes that have learned to use currency. There are apes that have learned to use simple tools. There are apes are a whole lot more intelligent than you give them credit for. The only real difference between us and them is that we're better at passing knowledge on than them. The main thing that separates us from them is the ability to pass our knowledge across successive generations and the reason we have that is because we evolved language. That's it. That's the difference
@ThePuppyTurtle Where did I ever say we weren't? We are apes, but we're still separated from other primates by our ability to propagate information through generations.
@emekaobioji Apes nowadays understand ,you can see how humans and animals both adapt to their surrounding , We all have pet dogs , How come they seem intelligent than a lion or a wild animal ? Its just tthat most creatures who live in a human environment learn to survive in one , Ive seen a monkey in India opening a fridge in a home and taking out food , They know how doors and fridges work , How ? Basic intelligence is passed generations to generations,it took humans 300 million years to form
@djay00009 Lol! which Apes? An ape opens a fridge we celebrate, they can think! Let them civilize themselves, build cities, make planes, have economy, arrange schools etc. My cat can open the pot and pick up meat and run away. Even cockroaches know that it´s safer to roam about in the night for food to avoid being seen and killed. Yeah! It´s all intelligence according to your definition of intelligence but show me a court of apes, a city of apes, let them even decide to cut their hairs
@emekaobioji your dumb -_- that much can't be expected in a million years , God , your just asking one of the dumbest questions right now , oh well , no point talking to you
Natural selection and evolution, or natural section and adaptation within limits. Many people try to pass off adaptation as evolution, but they are not the same. As yet there is no proof of major structural evolution.
It was once thought the coelacanth had evolved into modern fishes, yet here it shows up and it hadn't even adapted from the fossils found.
How many "missing links" over the years have been abandoned as such due to lack of evidence or proof of outright fraud? Many.
What is adaptation? Well, changes in DNA sequences that result in genes that are more advantageous in a given environment. What is evolution? The natural change of genes over time within a population of organisms. Therefore, adaptation IS evolution. Evolution simply requires that genes change over time. For adaptation to occur, genes must change.
@TheSeventhSon that's not really true, evolution requires that a change in the genetic composition led to a creation of an entirely new species. Adaptation simply means that an organism improves its condition in relationship to its environment. For example, I work hard with my hands, I develop calluses, this is an adaptation to the environment that will not led to an entirely new species, or even be transferred to my offspring, therefore is not an example of evolution only adaptation.
No, evolution requires that genes change over time. Adaptation means that the structure or function of an organism or its parts are altered such that it can better survive in its environment. Typically when we discuss adaptations in relation to evolution, we discuss genes changing. For example, the nylon-digesting enzyme in the nylon-eating bacteria is an adaptation and, also, and example of evolution.
@TheSeventhSon evolution also requires that while genes change over a long period of time the ultimate product will be an entirely different species, that has nothing to do with adaptation (which I will give you I probably didn't give a good example) which as you stated "an organism or its parts are altered such that it can better survive in its environment" this nor your example of the nylon-digesting enzyme is an example of a new species.
The definition of evolution says nothing about species changing. The phenomenon of new species arising is speciation, not evolution. Adaptation has to do with genetic change which fits right into the definition of evolution. So, you're using an incorrect definition in this discussion.
@TheSeventhSon : With chromosomes melding or splitting, it's perfectly possible for evolution to generate a new species and research into DNA has shown that this is exactly how new species arise. For example, humans have one chromosome pair less than our ape brethren and the DNA shows that one of our human chromosome pairs actually consists of two ape chromosomes melded together.
@TheSeventhSon No speciation is most certainly an observed phenomena explained by evolution theory... central and fundamental to evolution theory in fact.
What you're referring to is a response that your body has to a given stimuli which I don't believe is considered an adaptation. The way your skin reacts to create callouses would be analogous to how bone remodels due to the stresses and strains that it experiences. I suppose that's "adapting", but that's not what we refer to when we discuss adaptation in genetic traits in a population. We are referring to novel traits that make an organism more fit. In other words, evolution.
How did other "inferior" species dominated within their kind when should have not last long because of their incompetency ? Evolution is a very very slow process, it should have prevented other inferior species or features of a species to even make it to compete with superior species. Just a thought, i might have overlooked at some other reasons. Fill me in.
What about irreducable complexity? Genetic mutation doesn't make species more coplex, it takes away from it. The only rational explanation for why human intelligence is so advanced, is that there is a mind behind the design...excuse the rhyme.
ok. supposing Darwin was right. So, we're no different from the fish fillet that we eat. (we're supposeed to be relatives or just different variations of cell formation). what's stopping me from eating human fillet? Hmm. So, Cannibalism doesn't matter. Why have hosipitals? Just let the sick genes pass on and fertilise the ground. Why post a comment? Microbes' views don't matter.
i know it sounds nice to tow the evolution line, but i'd suggest you open you mind. i've no idea of how we got here..though to even think that 4bb years ago we violated the 2nd law of thermo...so that even if we had some organized primative cell...within a short period of time..it would move toward disorder...
natural selection only makes sense, there is evidence of it. There is no evidence that a higher power is controlling all this. If you think there is, prove it to me, us
how come a program programed itself dna=codes so the program began an evolution an it takes whatever he wants to be somwhere in time what he needs to be. evolutionits= creationits = faith
@TheSeventhSon What is propaganda is every aspect of evolution except for the idea that we change over time, that's a no brainer. We do not however have any empirical evidence for the insane claim that humans came from fish. =) Thus to say we did is propaganda, be it slow gradual changes or mutations and what not.
Wait, what? You accept the idea that organisms change over time, but every aspect of evolution is false? That is what evolution states: genes change over time within populations. It sounds like you're incredulous to the idea that all species share a common origin. Humans evolved from apes, by the way. Mutations are not propaganda. Maybe you should actually experience learning in a science classroom.
@TheSeventhSon No it's not, evolution that is macro evolution states that humans came from single celled organisms, and that life began in the water, this is absolutely nonsense as no evidence of such events have ever been produced.
We change however, this can be demonstrated, thin people put on weight, fat people become slim, young people become old, people gain allergic to a substance and so on, but never have it been observed that a human become less or more human. =)
"Macro evolution" is actually the idea that two new species can arise from one population of a species. This results from some sort of isolation that prevents the genes from mixing between the two populations. Eventually the populations are so different that they can no longer mate with one another. This is something that has been observed.
Also, there is plenty of evidence for single celled organisms being the first organisms on earth. The oldest fossils that we've found suggest this. That sounds like evidence. Perhaps if we found bunny rabbit fossils radiometrically dating as the same age as those single celled fossils, we might have a problem.
Uh, humans evolve. Why do you think people have different genes? Why do you think people from certain countries have unique characteristics? GENETIC CHANGE.
@TheSeventhSon So we have a chain of fossils then, that have been DNA tested and mapped that lead step by step up to humans? Interesting!
Bunny Rabbits fossils would not disprove evolution, not for the reasons you think it would but because they would never be published if found.
We have found fossils of bacteria, 40 million years old, that look the same pretty much identical to todays bacteria, demontrating that no evolution has occured.
Chain of fossils, similar DNA, Similar ERV placements, human chromosome number 2 that is a fusion of two chimp chromosomes.
Weak argument. If you're going to bring up conspiracy theories, this is pointless.
The oldest known fossils are fossils of single celled organisms, thus suggesting that those were the first organisms. You can't analyze DNA from a 40 million year old fossil, so assuming that it's "pretty much identical" is invalid.
@TheSeventhSon Why I think humans have different genes? Not because of evolution, obviously. We were given a set of genes, over time some changes occured yes, we can call this micro evolution, small variations within the alelle but not random mutations as the evolutionists on youtube claims, but this is not evidence of evolution just that things change, don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that however. =)
You basically accept evolution but reject speciation. Both of which are known to scientists. Do you know why there are different alleles? Mutations. They don't just appear out of nowhere. This is evidence for evolution. Evolution states that genes change over time. You're suggesting that somehow genes can mutate only to a certain point and then somehow inherently know to stop mutating. Genes are all genes. They are all subject to mutations.
@TheSeventhSon Did you know, here is a riddle for you, that they have found evidence that the earth had oxygen 2.5 billion years back in time? That they have found no life forms that existed before this time, they do speculate however but they have not found any. This raise a huge problem, I know this is not evolutionary theory but I still like to think about it, atheists have not given this topic much thought. How can life origin if the Amino Acids don't form if oxygen is present?
@TheSeventhSon (Cont) and the AA would be destroyed by the sun if there was no oxygen. Now we need hard evidence here, not speculation. You need to be able to prove that the amino acids formed either in places where there was no oxygen before the 2.5 billion mark (I think that was the age the scientists put on it) or that they had some sort of immunity to the suns rays and or oxygen so that they could form. Then you need to demonstrate that they could form naturally. =)
@TheSeventhSon You must differ between micro evolution and macro evolution. Genetic change is an example of micro evolution, but there is no evidence yielding to macro evolution. It is assumed that one species can generate another. A person finds a bone and all of a sudden we came from monkeys. There is no evidence of this because we have not seen a new species arise from an already existing species.
Nope, sorry. You are wrong. There is a fine line that separates micro and macro evolution. The only real difference is time. Unfortunately you've been deceived by christian campaigns. No evidence that we evolved from apes? Let's try the fossil record, similar DNA, endogenous retroviruses, human chromosome #2, etc. We have observed speciation. Google it.
@TheSeventhSon DNA proves such an inquiry wrong. You use the evidence to bash yourself. If natural selection is the catalyst in macro evolution, then why are monkeys still around? I thought that weak traits were not passed on, so if that's the case, monkeys would not be around. There is no evidence that concludes one species deriving from another. Finding a bone and imposing and assumption on it is not science.
DNA actually proves evolution correct. Sorry that you're ignorant on that topic. To get it straight, we evolved from apes. Humans diverged from a common ancestor with chimpanzees. Your attempt to make the argument that monkeys shouldn't be around is the result of a lack of understanding for human evolution. Speciation provides evidence for new species arising from existing ones. I already told you to Google that.
@TheSeventhSon i really dont see any convincing evidence that shared genes is proof of common ancestor. this is a point that can go round and round with no end result. depending on your view of the subject, ie, if you are a neodarwin. then you presuppose that commonality in the genes is evidence of common ancestor
@peptidedoc22 but its just as easy to presuppose that a conserved design across kingdoms is a result of conserved energy in design. i'm not saying design is the answer, ive no idea... but darwinism is filled with holes,
What holes? There are holes all throughout science. Science doesn't claim to know everything. But the theory of evolution is more well supported than theories regarding gravity. 150 years of scrutiny. Unfortunately people just don't want to accept it because it challenges their religious beliefs.
@TheSeventhSon ok... now you are spot on..that evolution is better supported than other theories... yes, completely agree.. but in any case, regardless of religous beliefs. the case for dar. is not convincing for myself and many of my colleagues. the simple cambrian explosion spike in body forms brings panspermia into the equation as well.
I'm speaking very specifically about the fact that genes change over time. If you accept this, evolution is not a problem. Also, there's the fact that organisms got more complex as time went on. It's the best theory there is, unless you have a better explanation (supported by empirical evidence, ID doesn't count), evolution remains. That's how science works.
@TheSeventhSon certainly genes change over time...photodimers, alkylation, we have demonstrated this in the lab... though, lets look at how a gene is promoted..there are repetitive bp's which sequence before gene induction.. and the gene is encoded multiple times to reduce false induction... so you're talking about alot of change here..you'd not only have to change the promoter which is 50 -100bp's before the code, but you'd have to change the code...
Fortunately we have researchers that understand the importance of the promoter regions. Yes, lots of change. As suggested by researchers. Also interesting to note are linked genes. When selecting for certain traits, other traits are seemingly linked and changed.
@TheSeventhSon ok... i agree..certain genes are found in groupings, certainly the genes are an enormous amount of info. and mos probably contain most of the information in the cell.. but that does not exclude an embry. signalling cascade that controls body plan..we need to find this...
@peptidedoc22 my point about the protocell is...where the hell did it come from? and even the org. of tides (n and p's)...where did they come from..i get it.. 4 bb yrs..but the cambrian explosion occured in <10mm yrs...how did all that undirected random mutation lead to major body plans that fast... its incredible and i dont have the answer...but even though neodars think they do..they dont.
Once again, the protocell is related to abiogenesis. How it developed is within that field of science. Not evolution. You're quickly demonstrating your ignorance on the subject.
@TheSeventhSon no its not your fault, i'd look into graduate school before engaging. if youre post grad what field ? its certainly not biochemistry... or this dicsussion would be much different.
Also, common designer is not something that's testable. Do you have any characteristics of this designer that can be detected within this design? Can experiments be created through which independent research teams always reach the same conclusion? No.
@TheSeventhSon listen, i completely agree with this statement. that the designer can not be physically described... though in the exact same context, to think that small micro changes (microevol.) can be extrapolated to what neodars describe as evolution has absolutely no evidence. we have never observed an interspecies change.. we need to observe this first, regardless of the fossil evidence.
Considering that everything in an organism is controlled by genes, it's really not that difficult to understand that by changing genes more and more over time, you'll change the organism. Chimps share, what, 96% of the same DNA as humans? 4% is enough to make an organism that different from humans as chimps are? Oh, and we have observed speciation, or "interspecies change" as you called it. A simple search will yield you many results.
@TheSeventhSon everything in the organism is not controlled by the genes? we have yet to transfect any cells and elute body plan chages...(ie shh, snail, hox, etc..) genes where you would expect to see dramatic changes. there appears to be an embryonic signalling cascade which we have yet to discover,
What regulates an organism, how an organism grows, how an organisms metabolism is regulated, are all accomplished through genes. An organism would not exist without genes. Scientists recently created a cell entirely with synthetic DNA. Either way, transfection does not do anything to disprove evolution. Perhaps you could get back on topic? You've mentioned abiogenesis and the limitations of genetic engineering. Unfortunately that's not evolution.
@TheSeventhSon what topic? you mentioned abiogenesis.... i think we should look further back... youd have to start with tides of some type..so organ. of S, C,N and h's...how did this all look...?? you can get agressive all youd like, i would love to have more answers on a healthy discussion. i'm not here to argue
No, I never brought up abiogenesis. I've mentioned ERVs, human DNA compared to chimps, etc. I pointed out that you're bringing up topics regarding abiogenesis. Aggressive? What are you talking about?
You don't think endogenous retroviruses shared between humans and chimpanzees are convincing? The probability that we would even share one with chimps is one divided by three billion. We share 16 ERVs with chimps. You think that's a coincidence? Furthermore, there are transitional fossils between many species that are predicted by the idea of common descent. Once again, coincidence? If you think so, you're really just trying not to see the correlation.
@TheSeventhSon endogenous ?? or infect. ? i do see a correlation, though its no as convincing as the neodars' would like us to believe. rather than infectous agents lets look at commonality, yes it crosses all kingdoms, even forms of gravatropism via magnetite and auxins in plants, polyamines in proliferation, genes that control similar features crossing species. Though, this still is not a rock solid case, a proponent of ID could easily say that comon design , common designer...
Not as convincing? You're suggesting that two independent viruses inserted themselves into identical locations of both humans and chimpanzees. You're suggesting they did this 16 times. Exact same places with three billion base pairs to choose from.
@TheSeventhSon mmm i'm also suggesting that gene promotion at the major groove (3.4ang) via peptide promotion within <10bp's...occurs in all life... crossing all kingdoms..but how does that guarantee"..common ancestor? its just lifes plan, via whatever mechanism. the origional protocell is probably what ive got the most problem with...
Promoter regions are likely evolved mechanisms, like everything else. I'm talking specifically about how every organisms can be linked genetically. I also mentioned ERVs because they are incredibly coincidences. The protocell would deal with abiogenesis, not evolution.
@TheSeventhSon promoter regions are evolved? in what way? take the 10bp turn.. at the major grv. as the minor is too narrow for any tide induction. how do these genes promote or silence with out inducdtion at the major grv. ? its the only way we know of..unless ahhh there is more information that we have not discovered..which seems to be the case. i'v no idea (again) and im really not an ID guy...but textbook evol. just does not tell the whole story..
Evolution isn't meant to explain how DNA works. Please, take the time to look up exactly what defines evolution. It will seriously save us the trouble of you presenting irrelevant concepts and me having to explain to you that that is not what evolution claims to explain.
@TheSeventhSon No it's not, evolution that is macro evolution states that humans came from single celled organisms, and that life began in the water, this is absolutely nonsense as no evidence of such events have ever been produced.
We change however, this can be demonstrated, thin people put on weight, fat people become slim, young people become old, people gain allergic to a substance and so on, but never have it been observed that a human become less or more human. =)
propaganda of what: of the stromatolite of millions of years ago, that I can touch with my hands everyday as a fossil? Science is "accurated" study. Religious is a non well written "script" in all the books I've read until now. Nature is what you can observe every single day. If science is propaganda, all what you see is false.
Yes; there is evolution for adaptation but not for speciation. NO amount of selective breading of any species can change it into another species. Once a dog, always a dog.
You are failing to realize, sonnyboy, that you do not make the rules. I don't have to spend all day debunking you when you have already been debunked BY BIOLOGY'S RULES - not yours which are biased, illogical and wanting. Get it? I wholly doubt it.
Tutorials » Genetics and Evolution » Chromosome Mutations
Chromosome Mutations
- Genetics and Evolution
"It is natures intention that the exact genetic information from both parents will be seen in the offspring's DNA in the the critical stages of fertilisation. However, it is possible for this genetic information to mutate, which in most cases, can result in fatal or negative consequencies in the outcome of the new ogranism."
"One well known example of mutation is non-disjunction. Non-disjunction is when the spindle fibres fail to seperate during meiosis, resulting in gametes with one extra chromosome and other gametes lacking a chromosome.
If this non-disjunction occurs in chromosome 21 of a human egg cell, a condition called Down's syndrome occurs. This is because their cells possess 47 chromosomes as opposed to the normal chromosome compliment in humans of 46."
"The fundamental structure of a chromosome is subject to mutation, which will most likely occur during crossing over at meiosis. There are a number of ways in which the chromosome structure can change, as indicated below, which will detrimentally change the genotype and phenotype of the organism. However, if the chromosome mutation effects an essential part of DNA, it is possible that the mutation will abort the offspring before it has the chance of being born."
It is not genetic. It occurs after DNA replication which means that the DNA is not changed. If the nondisjunction changed the sequence of DNA, it would be a genetic mutation. In this case, it is not.
You provide one that talks about genetic mutations...and then one that talks about nondisjunctions. The problem is your nondisjunction article contains the word mutation and so you're automatically jumping to the conclusion that it must be a genetic mutation.
"However, it is possible for this GENETIC INFORMATION TO MUTATE, which in most cases, can result in fatal or negative consequencies in the outcome of the new ogranism."
"However, it is possible for this GENETIC INFORMATION TO MUTATE, which in most cases, can result in fatal or negative consequencies in the outcome of the new ogranism."
What now? What now didn't I prove? What? Now stop lying, liar.
Uh, yeah, no one disputes that genetic information mutates. The point is, Trisomy 21 is not the result of a genetic mutation. No information is changed in the DNA. I can continue to say that and you will continue to be oblivious to it.
You have been saying this all along as you've been saying that non-disjunction is not genetic. It is a genetic mutation. Everyone agrees with this but YOU. YOU are the problem, not biology. You are the problem in all science since you are biased and don't accept facts and information.
It's not. Genetic mutation means that the sequence of nucleotides in the DNA is altered. Provide a source that says that Down's Syndrome through nondisjunction is the result of a GENETIC mutation.
"However, it is possible for this GENETIC INFORMATION TO MUTATE, which in most cases, can result in fatal or negative consequencies in the outcome of the new ogranism."
Renewal, although this has been quite entertaining to see 2 different guys put in their place, I have to thank you for dealing with them patiently. TheSeventhSon seems very confused and angry so I personally would just walk away he's obviously just trying to antagonize you because he is always wrong about his opinions. Thank you for your time it is most educational =>
No prob. As boring as it is having to watch his sorry display of denial after being faced with the facts, I gotta keep my foot on this one's throat. He called me out and now he is an example. His pain will end when he wants it to, not my problem. At this point its not even about biology science, but his own feelings. Boring as that is, he's still going to learn his lesson about lying. This is good for him, trust me.
It says nothing about genetic mutations, it only talks about the extra chromosome. It's NOT genetic. It is the result of the chromosome physically not separating.
"The fundamental structure of a chromosome is subject to mutation, which will most likely occur during crossing over at meiosis. There are a number of ways in which the chromosome structure can change, as indicated below, which will detrimentally change the genotype and phenotype of the organism. However, if the chromosome mutation effects an essential part of DNA, it is possible that the mutation will abort the offspring before it has the chance of being born."'
"One well known example of mutation is non-disjunction. Non-disjunction is when the spindle fibres fail to seperate during meiosis, resulting in gametes with one extra chromosome and other gametes lacking a chromosome.
If this non-disjunction occurs in chromosome 21 of a human egg cell, a condition called Down's syndrome occurs. This is because their cells possess 47 chromosomes as opposed to the normal chromosome compliment in humans of 46."
Trisomy 21 (Downs Syndrome) is a genetic mutation. Can you not read? Yes, you can, you are just a dishonest shill with nothing to say but you have no life so you aren't going anywhere, are you? ;)
Here, baby, this is what biology online even has to say:
"It is natures intention that the exact genetic information from both parents will be seen in the offspring's DNA in the the critical stages of fertilisation. However, it is possible for this genetic information to mutate, which in most cases, can result in fatal or negative consequencies in the outcome of the new ogranism."
I haven't attacked you, I've addressed your dishonesty and weasely methods of attempting to cover your tracks and your PATHETIC attempt at trying to brainwash me what I don't know anything when it is clearly YOU wearing the dunce cap. Don't come crying to me now that you are cornered YET AGAIN to face the music that you are demonstrably WRONG.
Just because you don't understand biology does not make me dishonest. You keep reiterating the things I say, but you're standing by your incorrect views.
Little boy, you are the one who took a pounding on learning what mutations are. I understand evolution far better than you do, yet you also know it is a hoax. You're just a God-hating, hate-filled child. Evolution is your escape from reality and I cut off the exit lane. Less crying more proof.
I'll believe what I've learned in biology over your sad attempts at playing teacher. You don't believe the facts of science, you just want to play by your own unauthorized, unwarranted, undefined, unsupported, illogical, anti-science, anti-biology, anti-knowledge rules. Walk away, stop talking. You are a pest.
Some will be given over to a reprobate mind and will never accept what is presented here. This is evidence for God the Creator, evidence for the God of the Bible, evidence for Jesus Christ and evidence for the need of repentance and a turning away from our sinful nature. Evidence of our God is everywhere, but most are blind to it, consumed by the principles of humanism, secularism and such. Thank God for Christians courageous enough to post these videos and endure the empty persecution.
Please. Darwin can't even explain origin of life. In fact he says he stay away from the topic altogether. He knows he's a con man and that when people "go there", putting his hypothesis to the test of logic, that he will have nothing... and the problem persists for him and you.
@RenewalOfAllThings Darwin doesn't claim to explain the origin of life. He theorized how life becomes diverse. We now confirm his theories with genetics and know that evolution is a naturally occurrence.
No, biology prohibits exactly what Darwin guessworks towards. If Darwin can't explain the origin of life then everything he says is worth nothing... and he can't.
@RenewalOfAllThings Uh, no. Darwin accounted for the diversity of life with natural selection. We now know that this is assisted with random mutations. Sorry that you fail at understanding elementary biology.
No he didn't. Natural selection doesn't exist and if it did it would work itself out of a job. Random mutations are supposed to benefit the creature according to NS but they don't, they are harmful such as trisomy 21, sickle cell, etc. Boy, try me on biology. I think you'll find yourself limping away back to your forest of rejects of intellectual society attempting to replace God with myths about how you are actually a monkey. Fool.
Perhaps you've heard of Richard Lenski. He's been experimenting with E. coli since 1988. At one point, one of his populations developed the ability to use citrate as an energy source, normally this does not occur. Sounds like some benefits as a result of natural selection. Trisomy 21 is a nondisjunction during meiosis, not a genetic mutation. Sorry you don't understand biology. And, we're not monkeys, we're apes.
Trisomy 21 (Downs Syndrome) is a genetic mutation. It is you who doesn't understand biology, perhaps because you're a monkey. Monkeys don't know biology either... except perhaps tossing excrement at one another. You recapitulate quite well, cheers.
@RenewalOfAllThings Trisomy 21 results from a chromosome literally not coming apart during cell division. Genetic mutations are mutations within the sequence of base pairs inside of DNA. Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Basic biology, bra.
Hence, why Trisomy 21 is a mutation and not a variation. It is also a harmful mutation such as sickle-cell anemia. You have no authority to tell me what I know and don't. In another video you are claiming that Laws of nature "don't count" because they bind the universe to order. Basic logic, bra, don't taze me.
@RenewalOfAllThings Trisomy 21 results in an extra copy of the 21st chromosome, hence the name. A mutation would be a change in the base pair sequence in the DNA. A change in DNA is quite different from having an extra copy of a chromosome. You still don't know what you're talking about. No, I was saying that you're not taking into account very many things to jump to the conclusion that "the universe HAD to have a beginning". Please, research what you're trying to argue.
Triomy 21 is a genetic mutation. An extra copy IS A CHANGE, genius. Not only that, it is a harmful mutation/change. It certainly doesn't create a new "creature" or "species" of person, it is a harmful change/mutation to the code and results in a visible change/mutation.
YOU please use a ding of common sense, don't just parrot me what you get from your infinite slew of "I hate Jesus, here say this" websites. You fail on ever try.
@RenewalOfAllThings Trisomy 21 is not a change to the base pairs in the genes, which is what a genetic mutation is. It is the result of chromosomes not dividing properly during cell division. That is NOT a genetic mutation. Yes, it is harmful, you actually got that right. And, I'm a scientist, I study these things. I don't parade around anti-Christian websites like you wish to believe. I am telling you, you are wrong on this subject. You refuse to believe it.
@RenewalOfAllThings Perhaps you've heard of HIV resistance. The ability for bacteria to metabolize nylon. These are beneficial mutations. Trisomy 21 does not occur from a genetic mutation. It is the result of the lack of separation of a chromosome in a cell. You don't seem to get that. Maybe once you understand what a mutation is, you'll understand that beneficial mutations occur.
Alright I'm about tired of your flamboyant, wimpy "you don't know what you're talking about" spiel, sonny boy. It is YOU that is absolutely clueless as to Non-Disjunctive MUTATIONS.
Resistance to HIV is not a mutation, it is already imprinted in certain people. There is no mutation of cells. People were also resistant to the Plague in the same way. However, with Trisomy 21 it is evident that the information in the cell mutates, no natural selection.
@RenewalOfAllThings Unlike you, I'm not trying to be an asshole about this. I'm telling you that you are wrong. A genetic mutation is a permanent change to the DNA sequence. Trisomy 21 does not fit into this case. Nondisjunction is not a genetic mutation, it is a failure in the separation of chromosomes. I'm not sure how else I can spell that out. Nondisjunction occurs after DNA has been replicated, so is not the result of a genetic mutation.
You are clueless as to Non-Disjunction. It occurs DURING meiosis, not after. You are a liar; a shill. Trisomy 21 is a Non-Disjunctive mutation, face it. And if you are saying that I don't know anything then its to your even greater shame that I, who knows nothing, is at least playing by the rules and using scientific terms in their contexts. Kick and scream like a baby all you like, Trisomy 21 is a Non-Disjunctive genetic mutation that occurs during meiosis.
Give examples and evidence. Now that is science.
audreys247 4 months ago
Evolution is not a fact. It's a theory. A fact is something we observe over and over again. Since evolution occurs over a long period of time, we have not been able to observe it so it's not a fact. As humans, we are naturally biased, but it's important to be open-minded. By having differing opinions, we sometimes find out the truth. I find the best way is to keep making counterarguments. You say one thing, I say something else to refute it, and we keep going back and forth.
audreys247 4 months ago
@audreys247 Germs are a fact, germ theory is a model that explains this fact. The same is true of gravity, electromagnetism, and evolution. I highly suggest you figure out what a scientific theory is. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. It is a fact that Pluto orbits the sun every 248 years even though no one has directly observed it.
whaddyta 2 months ago
@whaddyta That's right. Measurements whether taken directly or indirectly are usually facts. Einstein discovered a great many things through mathematics. Most notably, he discovered the speed of light without directly measuring the speed of light. By observation, I do not literally mean the human eye. It could be anything that allows you to observe it or figure out the problem. If evolution is true, I would like to see a great many examples that show it is true.
audreys247 2 months ago
@whaddyta Unless it is absolutely proven to the point where there isn't a significant amount of dispute about it, then it is not yet a fact.
audreys247 2 months ago
@audreys247 Gravity is a fact, evolution is a fact. The disputes are about the the theories that explain these facts. Also Einstein didn't discover the speed of light. Google "who discovered the speed of light" to get the history of that subject. I think that you are just as smart as me but using terms like "absolutely proven" and "...not a fact. It's a theory" shows ignorance of science.
whaddyta 2 months ago
Does anything even happen by "chance". It is a word we use to hide our ignorance of the cause of an event! There is no chance event, every event has a cause, you just need to figure it out. The universe is a well organized system of events, we are still trying to understand it all, nothing is chance!
emekaobioji 4 months ago
Of course evolution and religion can co-exists because they are both belief systems you cannot demonstrate them here and now. You need faith to believe in any of them. Demonstrate to me how an Ape can become a man and I will believe, please perform this miracle for me Ape -> man please!
emekaobioji 4 months ago
I am tired of this type of debate. Religion and Evolution can co-exist.
zenmen55 5 months ago
I The message I got from this video is that evolution does exist, but an intelligent being (in my case & beliefs- God) plays a profound role in life. I believe science & God can coexist, but it starts to get dicey when one starts believing the bible is perfect. The bible is a falable human-written document- it has its truths, and it has its errors. God, however, is perfect and infalable, & that my friends, explains the miraculous universe which we reside.
kevsoca 8 months ago
What a load of misleading garbage.
AtheistKiwi 10 months ago
@AtheistKiwi You lost empty person! If the Moronic atheist studied Homochirality and Racemic mixtues, they would know life could never arise by chance!!!
5tonyvvvv 8 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Do you want to know the truth, or what makes you feel good? This is misleading. You say life could not have arisen by chance, if not chance, what caused life to happen then? And if you say "Magic Man" you better have some good evidence, and two obscure chemistry processes don't really count.
AtheistKiwi 8 months ago
Let's say we found the best possible evidence of whatever it is in the physical world, that "made" or "created" or "caused" life on this planet. Then what? Then we all still die at 50-90 years old, unless something else happens to us.. What will we gain by discovering anything on this corrupt and evil planet? I personally do not want to discover something that's going to unlock the "secret of life" and live on this rock forever. Am I wrong to say it's the heart longing for answers not the brain?
moguy200979 4 months ago
Show me one! A cat breeds a cat a dog breeds a dog, all species reproduce after their own kind just as the "Bible" says. Yes you can breed dogs and cats even horses can be bred to make different sizes and different pure breads, but it's still a a dog a cat or a horse. A donkey and a horse may mate but the mule will be sterile! You have greater faith than I if you believe in the religion of evolution... no proof, there is no missing chain. Even Darwin said that the fossil would prove him wrong
lennebeker 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lennebeker "Yes you can breed dogs and cats even horses can be bred to make different sizes and different pure breads, but it's still a a dog a cat or a horse."
So what you are saying..... essentially, is that a horse is a rhinoceros?
MumblingMickey 8 months ago
@lennebeker Evolution is not a religion. Do you want proof that a species can branch off into other species that do not fit the biblical definition of "same kind"? Direct, modern, physically observable examples exist, and these examples are known as "ring species" because of the way they come about. There's a great 4-minute video by YouTuber "potholer54" titled "Ring species -- the abridged version" and the information contained within has sources in its description so you can see for yourself.
FrostdPoptart 7 months ago in playlist Unlocking the Mystery of Life
The problem with evolution when applied to man is as follows an ape becomes a man. It´s too much to jump to that conclusion.
emekaobioji 4 months ago
The problem with evolution when applied to man is as follows an ape becomes a man. It´s too much to jump to that conclusion. Man is intelligent (feels, thinks, innovate, read, write, conscious of itself), we may look alike physically but spiritually we differ immensely infinitely. Except if they redefine evolution it doesn´t make sense at all.
emekaobioji 4 months ago
@emekaobioji There are apes that have learned to use currency. There are apes that have learned to use simple tools. There are apes are a whole lot more intelligent than you give them credit for. The only real difference between us and them is that we're better at passing knowledge on than them. The main thing that separates us from them is the ability to pass our knowledge across successive generations and the reason we have that is because we evolved language. That's it. That's the difference
FrostdPoptart 4 months ago
@FrostdPoptart WRONG sir WRONG, we ARE apes.
ThePuppyTurtle 4 months ago
@ThePuppyTurtle Where did I ever say we weren't? We are apes, but we're still separated from other primates by our ability to propagate information through generations.
FrostdPoptart 4 months ago
@emekaobioji Apes nowadays understand ,you can see how humans and animals both adapt to their surrounding , We all have pet dogs , How come they seem intelligent than a lion or a wild animal ? Its just tthat most creatures who live in a human environment learn to survive in one , Ive seen a monkey in India opening a fridge in a home and taking out food , They know how doors and fridges work , How ? Basic intelligence is passed generations to generations,it took humans 300 million years to form
djay00009 4 months ago
@djay00009 Lol! which Apes? An ape opens a fridge we celebrate, they can think! Let them civilize themselves, build cities, make planes, have economy, arrange schools etc. My cat can open the pot and pick up meat and run away. Even cockroaches know that it´s safer to roam about in the night for food to avoid being seen and killed. Yeah! It´s all intelligence according to your definition of intelligence but show me a court of apes, a city of apes, let them even decide to cut their hairs
emekaobioji 4 months ago
@emekaobioji your dumb -_- that much can't be expected in a million years , God , your just asking one of the dumbest questions right now , oh well , no point talking to you
djay00009 4 months ago
So... one small small change is possible and a lot of small changes that can produce more variation is not? Why?
Glad1kun 10 months ago
@Glad1kun because small changes dont add up to big changes
blaq7427 10 months ago
@blaq7427 O RLY?
Define "small changes" and "big changes"...
Glad1kun 10 months ago
I'm a biotechnologist, and a member of a large discussion group of scientists. We've discussed this topic recently. Here are our conclusions:
- There is no good evidence or lead towards the possibility of abiogenesis (creating a first replicable cell from only chemicals).
- there is evidence of natural selection and evolution in the natural world
- Intelligent Design and Evolution support nat selection
- Only ID supports creating a new cell.
Ponder on this. :)
srochon905 1 year ago
@srochon905
Natural selection and evolution, or natural section and adaptation within limits. Many people try to pass off adaptation as evolution, but they are not the same. As yet there is no proof of major structural evolution.
It was once thought the coelacanth had evolved into modern fishes, yet here it shows up and it hadn't even adapted from the fossils found.
How many "missing links" over the years have been abandoned as such due to lack of evidence or proof of outright fraud? Many.
swdw973 1 year ago
@swdw973
What is adaptation? Well, changes in DNA sequences that result in genes that are more advantageous in a given environment. What is evolution? The natural change of genes over time within a population of organisms. Therefore, adaptation IS evolution. Evolution simply requires that genes change over time. For adaptation to occur, genes must change.
TheSeventhSon 1 year ago
@TheSeventhSon that's not really true, evolution requires that a change in the genetic composition led to a creation of an entirely new species. Adaptation simply means that an organism improves its condition in relationship to its environment. For example, I work hard with my hands, I develop calluses, this is an adaptation to the environment that will not led to an entirely new species, or even be transferred to my offspring, therefore is not an example of evolution only adaptation.
MELISSA3536 10 months ago
@MELISSA3536
No, evolution requires that genes change over time. Adaptation means that the structure or function of an organism or its parts are altered such that it can better survive in its environment. Typically when we discuss adaptations in relation to evolution, we discuss genes changing. For example, the nylon-digesting enzyme in the nylon-eating bacteria is an adaptation and, also, and example of evolution.
TheSeventhSon 10 months ago
@TheSeventhSon evolution also requires that while genes change over a long period of time the ultimate product will be an entirely different species, that has nothing to do with adaptation (which I will give you I probably didn't give a good example) which as you stated "an organism or its parts are altered such that it can better survive in its environment" this nor your example of the nylon-digesting enzyme is an example of a new species.
MELISSA3536 10 months ago
@MELISSA3536
The definition of evolution says nothing about species changing. The phenomenon of new species arising is speciation, not evolution. Adaptation has to do with genetic change which fits right into the definition of evolution. So, you're using an incorrect definition in this discussion.
TheSeventhSon 10 months ago
@TheSeventhSon : With chromosomes melding or splitting, it's perfectly possible for evolution to generate a new species and research into DNA has shown that this is exactly how new species arise. For example, humans have one chromosome pair less than our ape brethren and the DNA shows that one of our human chromosome pairs actually consists of two ape chromosomes melded together.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 10 months ago
@TheSeventhSon No speciation is most certainly an observed phenomena explained by evolution theory... central and fundamental to evolution theory in fact.
MumblingMickey 8 months ago
@MELISSA3536
What you're referring to is a response that your body has to a given stimuli which I don't believe is considered an adaptation. The way your skin reacts to create callouses would be analogous to how bone remodels due to the stresses and strains that it experiences. I suppose that's "adapting", but that's not what we refer to when we discuss adaptation in genetic traits in a population. We are referring to novel traits that make an organism more fit. In other words, evolution.
TheSeventhSon 10 months ago
evolution is so slow, it didnt happened at all..lol^^
roniepao 1 year ago
How did other "inferior" species dominated within their kind when should have not last long because of their incompetency ? Evolution is a very very slow process, it should have prevented other inferior species or features of a species to even make it to compete with superior species. Just a thought, i might have overlooked at some other reasons. Fill me in.
09205479428 1 year ago
What about irreducable complexity? Genetic mutation doesn't make species more coplex, it takes away from it. The only rational explanation for why human intelligence is so advanced, is that there is a mind behind the design...excuse the rhyme.
blattt188 1 year ago
ok. supposing Darwin was right. So, we're no different from the fish fillet that we eat. (we're supposeed to be relatives or just different variations of cell formation). what's stopping me from eating human fillet? Hmm. So, Cannibalism doesn't matter. Why have hosipitals? Just let the sick genes pass on and fertilise the ground. Why post a comment? Microbes' views don't matter.
jouljert 1 year ago
ok....
peptidedoc22 1 year ago
i know it sounds nice to tow the evolution line, but i'd suggest you open you mind. i've no idea of how we got here..though to even think that 4bb years ago we violated the 2nd law of thermo...so that even if we had some organized primative cell...within a short period of time..it would move toward disorder...
peptidedoc22 1 year ago
Ultimate arrogance claims no alternatives. How objective is that? People should relax and open their minds instead of voicing prejudicial ignorance.
deluxreverb 1 year ago
natural selection only makes sense, there is evidence of it. There is no evidence that a higher power is controlling all this. If you think there is, prove it to me, us
TeamDarwin1809 1 year ago
@TeamDarwin1809 Watch the entire program and then we'll discuss it. Although I'm sure you'll label it all ID bs so whats the point.
thebig1 1 year ago
I DID
TeamDarwin1809 1 year ago
@TeamDarwin1809 Well then I guess is pointless to debate with one who appears closeminded isnt it?
thebig1 1 year ago
how come a program programed itself dna=codes so the program began an evolution an it takes whatever he wants to be somwhere in time what he needs to be. evolutionits= creationits = faith
piggod1234 1 year ago
IC = ID = creationism = bible story.
gregrutz 1 year ago
What if God caused the big bang knowing it would result in humans...
whatsyofaithbrotha 2 years ago 2
this is a creationist propaganda
dreamy2 2 years ago 2
@dreamy2 No whats taught in schools as " science " is propaganda.
thebig1 1 year ago
@thebig1
How is it propaganda? I'm pretty sure that what I'm being taught for my engineering degree is far from "propaganda".
TheSeventhSon 1 year ago
@TheSeventhSon What is propaganda is every aspect of evolution except for the idea that we change over time, that's a no brainer. We do not however have any empirical evidence for the insane claim that humans came from fish. =) Thus to say we did is propaganda, be it slow gradual changes or mutations and what not.
Mekelsior 1 year ago
@Mekelsior
Wait, what? You accept the idea that organisms change over time, but every aspect of evolution is false? That is what evolution states: genes change over time within populations. It sounds like you're incredulous to the idea that all species share a common origin. Humans evolved from apes, by the way. Mutations are not propaganda. Maybe you should actually experience learning in a science classroom.
TheSeventhSon 1 year ago
@TheSeventhSon No it's not, evolution that is macro evolution states that humans came from single celled organisms, and that life began in the water, this is absolutely nonsense as no evidence of such events have ever been produced.
We change however, this can be demonstrated, thin people put on weight, fat people become slim, young people become old, people gain allergic to a substance and so on, but never have it been observed that a human become less or more human. =)
Mekelsior 1 year ago
@Mekelsior
"Macro evolution" is actually the idea that two new species can arise from one population of a species. This results from some sort of isolation that prevents the genes from mixing between the two populations. Eventually the populations are so different that they can no longer mate with one another. This is something that has been observed.
TheSeventhSon 1 year ago
@Mekelsior
Also, there is plenty of evidence for single celled organisms being the first organisms on earth. The oldest fossils that we've found suggest this. That sounds like evidence. Perhaps if we found bunny rabbit fossils radiometrically dating as the same age as those single celled fossils, we might have a problem.
Uh, humans evolve. Why do you think people have different genes? Why do you think people from certain countries have unique characteristics? GENETIC CHANGE.
TheSeventhSon 1 year ago
@TheSeventhSon So we have a chain of fossils then, that have been DNA tested and mapped that lead step by step up to humans? Interesting!
Bunny Rabbits fossils would not disprove evolution, not for the reasons you think it would but because they would never be published if found.
We have found fossils of bacteria, 40 million years old, that look the same pretty much identical to todays bacteria, demontrating that no evolution has occured.
Mekelsior 1 year ago
@Mekelsior
Chain of fossils, similar DNA, Similar ERV placements, human chromosome number 2 that is a fusion of two chimp chromosomes.
Weak argument. If you're going to bring up conspiracy theories, this is pointless.
The oldest known fossils are fossils of single celled organisms, thus suggesting that those were the first organisms. You can't analyze DNA from a 40 million year old fossil, so assuming that it's "pretty much identical" is invalid.
TheSeventhSon 1 year ago
@TheSeventhSon Why I think humans have different genes? Not because of evolution, obviously. We were given a set of genes, over time some changes occured yes, we can call this micro evolution, small variations within the alelle but not random mutations as the evolutionists on youtube claims, but this is not evidence of evolution just that things change, don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that however. =)
Mekelsior 1 year ago
@Mekelsior
You basically accept evolution but reject speciation. Both of which are known to scientists. Do you know why there are different alleles? Mutations. They don't just appear out of nowhere. This is evidence for evolution. Evolution states that genes change over time. You're suggesting that somehow genes can mutate only to a certain point and then somehow inherently know to stop mutating. Genes are all genes. They are all subject to mutations.
TheSeventhSon 1 year ago
@TheSeventhSon Did you know, here is a riddle for you, that they have found evidence that the earth had oxygen 2.5 billion years back in time? That they have found no life forms that existed before this time, they do speculate however but they have not found any. This raise a huge problem, I know this is not evolutionary theory but I still like to think about it, atheists have not given this topic much thought. How can life origin if the Amino Acids don't form if oxygen is present?
Mekelsior 1 year ago
@Mekelsior
This is not evolution, but source?
TheSeventhSon 1 year ago
@TheSeventhSon (Cont) and the AA would be destroyed by the sun if there was no oxygen. Now we need hard evidence here, not speculation. You need to be able to prove that the amino acids formed either in places where there was no oxygen before the 2.5 billion mark (I think that was the age the scientists put on it) or that they had some sort of immunity to the suns rays and or oxygen so that they could form. Then you need to demonstrate that they could form naturally. =)
Mekelsior 1 year ago
@TheSeventhSon genetic change does not equal evolution...
peptidedoc22 1 year ago
@peptidedoc22
The definition of evolution is genetic change. Nice try.
TheSeventhSon 1 year ago
@TheSeventhSon You must differ between micro evolution and macro evolution. Genetic change is an example of micro evolution, but there is no evidence yielding to macro evolution. It is assumed that one species can generate another. A person finds a bone and all of a sudden we came from monkeys. There is no evidence of this because we have not seen a new species arise from an already existing species.
DMeloMan 1 year ago
@DMeloMan
Nope, sorry. You are wrong. There is a fine line that separates micro and macro evolution. The only real difference is time. Unfortunately you've been deceived by christian campaigns. No evidence that we evolved from apes? Let's try the fossil record, similar DNA, endogenous retroviruses, human chromosome #2, etc. We have observed speciation. Google it.
TheSeventhSon 1 year ago
@TheSeventhSon DNA proves such an inquiry wrong. You use the evidence to bash yourself. If natural selection is the catalyst in macro evolution, then why are monkeys still around? I thought that weak traits were not passed on, so if that's the case, monkeys would not be around. There is no evidence that concludes one species deriving from another. Finding a bone and imposing and assumption on it is not science.
DMeloMan 1 year ago
@DMeloMan
DNA actually proves evolution correct. Sorry that you're ignorant on that topic. To get it straight, we evolved from apes. Humans diverged from a common ancestor with chimpanzees. Your attempt to make the argument that monkeys shouldn't be around is the result of a lack of understanding for human evolution. Speciation provides evidence for new species arising from existing ones. I already told you to Google that.
TheSeventhSon 1 year ago
@TheSeventhSon i really dont see any convincing evidence that shared genes is proof of common ancestor. this is a point that can go round and round with no end result. depending on your view of the subject, ie, if you are a neodarwin. then you presuppose that commonality in the genes is evidence of common ancestor
peptidedoc22 1 year ago
@peptidedoc22 but its just as easy to presuppose that a conserved design across kingdoms is a result of conserved energy in design. i'm not saying design is the answer, ive no idea... but darwinism is filled with holes,
peptidedoc22 1 year ago
@peptidedoc22
What holes? There are holes all throughout science. Science doesn't claim to know everything. But the theory of evolution is more well supported than theories regarding gravity. 150 years of scrutiny. Unfortunately people just don't want to accept it because it challenges their religious beliefs.
TheSeventhSon 1 year ago
@TheSeventhSon ok... now you are spot on..that evolution is better supported than other theories... yes, completely agree.. but in any case, regardless of religous beliefs. the case for dar. is not convincing for myself and many of my colleagues. the simple cambrian explosion spike in body forms brings panspermia into the equation as well.
peptidedoc22 1 year ago
@peptidedoc22
I'm speaking very specifically about the fact that genes change over time. If you accept this, evolution is not a problem. Also, there's the fact that organisms got more complex as time went on. It's the best theory there is, unless you have a better explanation (supported by empirical evidence, ID doesn't count), evolution remains. That's how science works.
TheSeventhSon 1 year ago
@TheSeventhSon certainly genes change over time...photodimers, alkylation, we have demonstrated this in the lab... though, lets look at how a gene is promoted..there are repetitive bp's which sequence before gene induction.. and the gene is encoded multiple times to reduce false induction... so you're talking about alot of change here..you'd not only have to change the promoter which is 50 -100bp's before the code, but you'd have to change the code...
peptidedoc22 1 year ago
@peptidedoc22
Fortunately we have researchers that understand the importance of the promoter regions. Yes, lots of change. As suggested by researchers. Also interesting to note are linked genes. When selecting for certain traits, other traits are seemingly linked and changed.
TheSeventhSon 1 year ago
@TheSeventhSon ok... i agree..certain genes are found in groupings, certainly the genes are an enormous amount of info. and mos probably contain most of the information in the cell.. but that does not exclude an embry. signalling cascade that controls body plan..we need to find this...
peptidedoc22 1 year ago
@peptidedoc22
What exactly is the relevance of this statement? How does it reveal shortcomings of evolution? Can you stop getting off topic?
TheSeventhSon 1 year ago
@TheSeventhSon ok..its hard for me to follow this thread.. what is this question directed to ? which statement? thanks,
peptidedoc22 1 year ago
@peptidedoc22 my point about the protocell is...where the hell did it come from? and even the org. of tides (n and p's)...where did they come from..i get it.. 4 bb yrs..but the cambrian explosion occured in <10mm yrs...how did all that undirected random mutation lead to major body plans that fast... its incredible and i dont have the answer...but even though neodars think they do..they dont.
peptidedoc22 1 year ago
@peptidedoc22
Once again, the protocell is related to abiogenesis. How it developed is within that field of science. Not evolution. You're quickly demonstrating your ignorance on the subject.
TheSeventhSon 1 year ago
@TheSeventhSon ok, obviously you want to win an argument and wish to get agressive in that effort. be well.
peptidedoc22 1 year ago
@peptidedoc22
Haha, okay. It's not my fault you don't understand the concept of staying on topic and are easily offended when criticized for this.
TheSeventhSon 1 year ago
@TheSeventhSon no its not your fault, i'd look into graduate school before engaging. if youre post grad what field ? its certainly not biochemistry... or this dicsussion would be much different.
peptidedoc22 1 year ago
@peptidedoc22
Also, common designer is not something that's testable. Do you have any characteristics of this designer that can be detected within this design? Can experiments be created through which independent research teams always reach the same conclusion? No.
TheSeventhSon 1 year ago
@TheSeventhSon listen, i completely agree with this statement. that the designer can not be physically described... though in the exact same context, to think that small micro changes (microevol.) can be extrapolated to what neodars describe as evolution has absolutely no evidence. we have never observed an interspecies change.. we need to observe this first, regardless of the fossil evidence.
peptidedoc22 1 year ago
@peptidedoc22
Considering that everything in an organism is controlled by genes, it's really not that difficult to understand that by changing genes more and more over time, you'll change the organism. Chimps share, what, 96% of the same DNA as humans? 4% is enough to make an organism that different from humans as chimps are? Oh, and we have observed speciation, or "interspecies change" as you called it. A simple search will yield you many results.
TheSeventhSon 1 year ago
@TheSeventhSon everything in the organism is not controlled by the genes? we have yet to transfect any cells and elute body plan chages...(ie shh, snail, hox, etc..) genes where you would expect to see dramatic changes. there appears to be an embryonic signalling cascade which we have yet to discover,
peptidedoc22 1 year ago
@peptidedoc22
What regulates an organism, how an organism grows, how an organisms metabolism is regulated, are all accomplished through genes. An organism would not exist without genes. Scientists recently created a cell entirely with synthetic DNA. Either way, transfection does not do anything to disprove evolution. Perhaps you could get back on topic? You've mentioned abiogenesis and the limitations of genetic engineering. Unfortunately that's not evolution.
TheSeventhSon 1 year ago
@TheSeventhSon what topic? you mentioned abiogenesis.... i think we should look further back... youd have to start with tides of some type..so organ. of S, C,N and h's...how did this all look...?? you can get agressive all youd like, i would love to have more answers on a healthy discussion. i'm not here to argue
peptidedoc22 1 year ago
@peptidedoc22
No, I never brought up abiogenesis. I've mentioned ERVs, human DNA compared to chimps, etc. I pointed out that you're bringing up topics regarding abiogenesis. Aggressive? What are you talking about?
TheSeventhSon 1 year ago
@peptidedoc22
You don't think endogenous retroviruses shared between humans and chimpanzees are convincing? The probability that we would even share one with chimps is one divided by three billion. We share 16 ERVs with chimps. You think that's a coincidence? Furthermore, there are transitional fossils between many species that are predicted by the idea of common descent. Once again, coincidence? If you think so, you're really just trying not to see the correlation.
TheSeventhSon 1 year ago
@TheSeventhSon endogenous ?? or infect. ? i do see a correlation, though its no as convincing as the neodars' would like us to believe. rather than infectous agents lets look at commonality, yes it crosses all kingdoms, even forms of gravatropism via magnetite and auxins in plants, polyamines in proliferation, genes that control similar features crossing species. Though, this still is not a rock solid case, a proponent of ID could easily say that comon design , common designer...
peptidedoc22 1 year ago
@peptidedoc22
Not as convincing? You're suggesting that two independent viruses inserted themselves into identical locations of both humans and chimpanzees. You're suggesting they did this 16 times. Exact same places with three billion base pairs to choose from.
TheSeventhSon 1 year ago
@TheSeventhSon mmm i'm also suggesting that gene promotion at the major groove (3.4ang) via peptide promotion within <10bp's...occurs in all life... crossing all kingdoms..but how does that guarantee"..common ancestor? its just lifes plan, via whatever mechanism. the origional protocell is probably what ive got the most problem with...
peptidedoc22 1 year ago
@peptidedoc22
Promoter regions are likely evolved mechanisms, like everything else. I'm talking specifically about how every organisms can be linked genetically. I also mentioned ERVs because they are incredibly coincidences. The protocell would deal with abiogenesis, not evolution.
TheSeventhSon 1 year ago
@TheSeventhSon promoter regions are evolved? in what way? take the 10bp turn.. at the major grv. as the minor is too narrow for any tide induction. how do these genes promote or silence with out inducdtion at the major grv. ? its the only way we know of..unless ahhh there is more information that we have not discovered..which seems to be the case. i'v no idea (again) and im really not an ID guy...but textbook evol. just does not tell the whole story..
peptidedoc22 1 year ago
@peptidedoc22
Evolution isn't meant to explain how DNA works. Please, take the time to look up exactly what defines evolution. It will seriously save us the trouble of you presenting irrelevant concepts and me having to explain to you that that is not what evolution claims to explain.
TheSeventhSon 1 year ago
@TheSeventhSon No it's not, evolution that is macro evolution states that humans came from single celled organisms, and that life began in the water, this is absolutely nonsense as no evidence of such events have ever been produced.
We change however, this can be demonstrated, thin people put on weight, fat people become slim, young people become old, people gain allergic to a substance and so on, but never have it been observed that a human become less or more human. =)
Mekelsior 1 year ago
@thebig1 : haha those are which makes you survive through 21st century. pseudoscience like ID only make you become foolish
dreamy2 1 year ago
Comment removed
bianconiglio427 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
propaganda of what: of the stromatolite of millions of years ago, that I can touch with my hands everyday as a fossil? Science is "accurated" study. Religious is a non well written "script" in all the books I've read until now. Nature is what you can observe every single day. If science is propaganda, all what you see is false.
bianconiglio427 1 year ago
Yes; there is evolution for adaptation!
gregrutz 2 years ago
Yes; there is evolution for adaptation but not for speciation. NO amount of selective breading of any species can change it into another species. Once a dog, always a dog.
Mr123me321 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yes; there is evolution for adaptation
gregrutz 2 years ago
Correct, dogs make dogs
apes make apes
That is why; all humans are still apes,
and all apes are still monkeys,
and all monkeys are still primates,
and all primates are still mammals.
and all mammals are still tetrapods
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
Atleast someone understands it
canihavesomepc 1 year ago
Comment removed
Mr123me321 2 years ago
You are failing to realize, sonnyboy, that you do not make the rules. I don't have to spend all day debunking you when you have already been debunked BY BIOLOGY'S RULES - not yours which are biased, illogical and wanting. Get it? I wholly doubt it.
RenewalOfAllThings 2 years ago
This is officially beneath me. Have at it mopping up whatever reputation you think you have, liar. Troll on... I guess.
RenewalOfAllThings 2 years ago
Tutorials » Genetics and Evolution » Chromosome Mutations
Chromosome Mutations
- Genetics and Evolution
"It is natures intention that the exact genetic information from both parents will be seen in the offspring's DNA in the the critical stages of fertilisation. However, it is possible for this genetic information to mutate, which in most cases, can result in fatal or negative consequencies in the outcome of the new ogranism."
RenewalOfAllThings 2 years ago
"One well known example of mutation is non-disjunction. Non-disjunction is when the spindle fibres fail to seperate during meiosis, resulting in gametes with one extra chromosome and other gametes lacking a chromosome.
If this non-disjunction occurs in chromosome 21 of a human egg cell, a condition called Down's syndrome occurs. This is because their cells possess 47 chromosomes as opposed to the normal chromosome compliment in humans of 46."
RenewalOfAllThings 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The fundamental structure of a chromosome is subject to mutation, which will most likely occur during crossing over at meiosis. There are a number of ways in which the chromosome structure can change, as indicated below, which will detrimentally change the genotype and phenotype of the organism. However, if the chromosome mutation effects an essential part of DNA, it is possible that the mutation will abort the offspring before it has the chance of being born."
RenewalOfAllThings 2 years ago
It is not genetic. It occurs after DNA replication which means that the DNA is not changed. If the nondisjunction changed the sequence of DNA, it would be a genetic mutation. In this case, it is not.
TheSeventhSon 2 years ago
@TheSeventhSon
Yes it is. You just don't understand biology. Look at the quotes I've provided. They prove you are a lying fool.
RenewalOfAllThings 2 years ago
You provide one that talks about genetic mutations...and then one that talks about nondisjunctions. The problem is your nondisjunction article contains the word mutation and so you're automatically jumping to the conclusion that it must be a genetic mutation.
TheSeventhSon 2 years ago
@TheSeventhSon
"However, it is possible for this GENETIC INFORMATION TO MUTATE, which in most cases, can result in fatal or negative consequencies in the outcome of the new ogranism."
There ya go.
RenewalOfAllThings 2 years ago
Mhm, an the nondisjunction that causes Trisomy 21 is not the result of genetic information mutating.
TheSeventhSon 2 years ago
CAN YOU NOT READ? HAHAHA
"However, it is possible for this GENETIC INFORMATION TO MUTATE, which in most cases, can result in fatal or negative consequencies in the outcome of the new ogranism."
What now? What now didn't I prove? What? Now stop lying, liar.
RenewalOfAllThings 2 years ago
Uh, yeah, no one disputes that genetic information mutates. The point is, Trisomy 21 is not the result of a genetic mutation. No information is changed in the DNA. I can continue to say that and you will continue to be oblivious to it.
TheSeventhSon 2 years ago
@TheSeventhSon
You have been saying this all along as you've been saying that non-disjunction is not genetic. It is a genetic mutation. Everyone agrees with this but YOU. YOU are the problem, not biology. You are the problem in all science since you are biased and don't accept facts and information.
RenewalOfAllThings 2 years ago
It's not. Genetic mutation means that the sequence of nucleotides in the DNA is altered. Provide a source that says that Down's Syndrome through nondisjunction is the result of a GENETIC mutation.
TheSeventhSon 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSeventhSon
"However, it is possible for this GENETIC INFORMATION TO MUTATE, which in most cases, can result in fatal or negative consequencies in the outcome of the new ogranism."
RenewalOfAllThings 2 years ago
Renewal, although this has been quite entertaining to see 2 different guys put in their place, I have to thank you for dealing with them patiently. TheSeventhSon seems very confused and angry so I personally would just walk away he's obviously just trying to antagonize you because he is always wrong about his opinions. Thank you for your time it is most educational =>
mooglecharmed 2 years ago
@mooglecharmed
No prob. As boring as it is having to watch his sorry display of denial after being faced with the facts, I gotta keep my foot on this one's throat. He called me out and now he is an example. His pain will end when he wants it to, not my problem. At this point its not even about biology science, but his own feelings. Boring as that is, he's still going to learn his lesson about lying. This is good for him, trust me.
RenewalOfAllThings 2 years ago
All of that from biology online is about NON-DISJUNCTIVE MUTATION.
Check mate again. Kindly, stop talking.
RenewalOfAllThings 2 years ago
It says nothing about genetic mutations, it only talks about the extra chromosome. It's NOT genetic. It is the result of the chromosome physically not separating.
TheSeventhSon 2 years ago
@TheSeventhSon
Its a genetic mutation, liar. Stop lying. LOL
RenewalOfAllThings 2 years ago
Nothing in the genome is changed, therefore, it's not a genetic mutation.
TheSeventhSon 2 years ago
@TheSeventhSon
It is a non-disjunctive genetic mutation. Stop lying, liar.
RenewalOfAllThings 2 years ago
[biology online]
"The fundamental structure of a chromosome is subject to mutation, which will most likely occur during crossing over at meiosis. There are a number of ways in which the chromosome structure can change, as indicated below, which will detrimentally change the genotype and phenotype of the organism. However, if the chromosome mutation effects an essential part of DNA, it is possible that the mutation will abort the offspring before it has the chance of being born."'
RenewalOfAllThings 2 years ago
[biology online]
"One well known example of mutation is non-disjunction. Non-disjunction is when the spindle fibres fail to seperate during meiosis, resulting in gametes with one extra chromosome and other gametes lacking a chromosome.
If this non-disjunction occurs in chromosome 21 of a human egg cell, a condition called Down's syndrome occurs. This is because their cells possess 47 chromosomes as opposed to the normal chromosome compliment in humans of 46."
RenewalOfAllThings 2 years ago
Not a genetic mutation. If it result in a change in the DNA sequence, it would be genetic. It's the addition of a chromosome.
TheSeventhSon 2 years ago
@TheSeventhSon
Trisomy 21 (Downs Syndrome) is a genetic mutation. Can you not read? Yes, you can, you are just a dishonest shill with nothing to say but you have no life so you aren't going anywhere, are you? ;)
RenewalOfAllThings 2 years ago
Here, baby, this is what biology online even has to say:
"It is natures intention that the exact genetic information from both parents will be seen in the offspring's DNA in the the critical stages of fertilisation. However, it is possible for this genetic information to mutate, which in most cases, can result in fatal or negative consequencies in the outcome of the new ogranism."
BAHAHAHA! But wait! There's more! (cont...)
RenewalOfAllThings 2 years ago
@TheSeventhSon
^ Lying whilst crying.
RenewalOfAllThings 2 years ago
@RenewalOfAllThings Funny that you fail to realize all of your ad hominem attacks. You've been neglecting attention from everything I've said.
TheSeventhSon 2 years ago
@TheSeventhSon
I haven't attacked you, I've addressed your dishonesty and weasely methods of attempting to cover your tracks and your PATHETIC attempt at trying to brainwash me what I don't know anything when it is clearly YOU wearing the dunce cap. Don't come crying to me now that you are cornered YET AGAIN to face the music that you are demonstrably WRONG.
RenewalOfAllThings 2 years ago
Just because you don't understand biology does not make me dishonest. You keep reiterating the things I say, but you're standing by your incorrect views.
TheSeventhSon 2 years ago
@TheSeventhSon
Sonnboy, it is obvious to everyone here that my understanding of biology wallops yours. Stop talking.
RenewalOfAllThings 2 years ago
Except that you don't understand mutations and therefore do not understand evolution.
TheSeventhSon 2 years ago
@TheSeventhSon
Little boy, you are the one who took a pounding on learning what mutations are. I understand evolution far better than you do, yet you also know it is a hoax. You're just a God-hating, hate-filled child. Evolution is your escape from reality and I cut off the exit lane. Less crying more proof.
RenewalOfAllThings 2 years ago
Mutation = a change in the sequence of base pairs in DNA. Nondisjunction = the failure of a chromosome to separate properly. There is a difference.
TheSeventhSon 2 years ago
@TheSeventhSon
I'll believe what I've learned in biology over your sad attempts at playing teacher. You don't believe the facts of science, you just want to play by your own unauthorized, unwarranted, undefined, unsupported, illogical, anti-science, anti-biology, anti-knowledge rules. Walk away, stop talking. You are a pest.
RenewalOfAllThings 2 years ago
Some will be given over to a reprobate mind and will never accept what is presented here. This is evidence for God the Creator, evidence for the God of the Bible, evidence for Jesus Christ and evidence for the need of repentance and a turning away from our sinful nature. Evidence of our God is everywhere, but most are blind to it, consumed by the principles of humanism, secularism and such. Thank God for Christians courageous enough to post these videos and endure the empty persecution.
WildWillyT76 2 years ago
This is evidence for God
Please show some evidence, the world is waiting.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Darwin explains nature, ID doesn't.
gregrutz 2 years ago
@gregrutz
Please. Darwin can't even explain origin of life. In fact he says he stay away from the topic altogether. He knows he's a con man and that when people "go there", putting his hypothesis to the test of logic, that he will have nothing... and the problem persists for him and you.
RenewalOfAllThings 2 years ago
Correct, Darwin wrote Origin of Species not Origin of Life.
So what is your point? He didn't explain gravity either. so what?
gregrutz 2 years ago
@RenewalOfAllThings Darwin doesn't claim to explain the origin of life. He theorized how life becomes diverse. We now confirm his theories with genetics and know that evolution is a naturally occurrence.
TheSeventhSon 2 years ago
No, biology prohibits exactly what Darwin guessworks towards. If Darwin can't explain the origin of life then everything he says is worth nothing... and he can't.
RenewalOfAllThings 2 years ago
@RenewalOfAllThings Uh, no. Darwin accounted for the diversity of life with natural selection. We now know that this is assisted with random mutations. Sorry that you fail at understanding elementary biology.
TheSeventhSon 2 years ago
No he didn't. Natural selection doesn't exist and if it did it would work itself out of a job. Random mutations are supposed to benefit the creature according to NS but they don't, they are harmful such as trisomy 21, sickle cell, etc. Boy, try me on biology. I think you'll find yourself limping away back to your forest of rejects of intellectual society attempting to replace God with myths about how you are actually a monkey. Fool.
RenewalOfAllThings 2 years ago
Perhaps you've heard of Richard Lenski. He's been experimenting with E. coli since 1988. At one point, one of his populations developed the ability to use citrate as an energy source, normally this does not occur. Sounds like some benefits as a result of natural selection. Trisomy 21 is a nondisjunction during meiosis, not a genetic mutation. Sorry you don't understand biology. And, we're not monkeys, we're apes.
TheSeventhSon 2 years ago
@TheSeventhSon
Trisomy 21 (Downs Syndrome) is a genetic mutation. It is you who doesn't understand biology, perhaps because you're a monkey. Monkeys don't know biology either... except perhaps tossing excrement at one another. You recapitulate quite well, cheers.
RenewalOfAllThings 2 years ago
@RenewalOfAllThings Trisomy 21 results from a chromosome literally not coming apart during cell division. Genetic mutations are mutations within the sequence of base pairs inside of DNA. Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Basic biology, bra.
TheSeventhSon 2 years ago
@TheSeventhSon
Hence, why Trisomy 21 is a mutation and not a variation. It is also a harmful mutation such as sickle-cell anemia. You have no authority to tell me what I know and don't. In another video you are claiming that Laws of nature "don't count" because they bind the universe to order. Basic logic, bra, don't taze me.
RenewalOfAllThings 2 years ago
@RenewalOfAllThings Trisomy 21 results in an extra copy of the 21st chromosome, hence the name. A mutation would be a change in the base pair sequence in the DNA. A change in DNA is quite different from having an extra copy of a chromosome. You still don't know what you're talking about. No, I was saying that you're not taking into account very many things to jump to the conclusion that "the universe HAD to have a beginning". Please, research what you're trying to argue.
TheSeventhSon 2 years ago
@TheSeventhSon
Triomy 21 is a genetic mutation. An extra copy IS A CHANGE, genius. Not only that, it is a harmful mutation/change. It certainly doesn't create a new "creature" or "species" of person, it is a harmful change/mutation to the code and results in a visible change/mutation.
YOU please use a ding of common sense, don't just parrot me what you get from your infinite slew of "I hate Jesus, here say this" websites. You fail on ever try.
RenewalOfAllThings 2 years ago
@RenewalOfAllThings Trisomy 21 is not a change to the base pairs in the genes, which is what a genetic mutation is. It is the result of chromosomes not dividing properly during cell division. That is NOT a genetic mutation. Yes, it is harmful, you actually got that right. And, I'm a scientist, I study these things. I don't parade around anti-Christian websites like you wish to believe. I am telling you, you are wrong on this subject. You refuse to believe it.
TheSeventhSon 2 years ago
@TheSeventhSon
THE POINT IS, there are no beneficial mutations. Your trying to bury your head in the sand on Downs Syndrome only proves you are trapped.
RenewalOfAllThings 2 years ago
@RenewalOfAllThings Perhaps you've heard of HIV resistance. The ability for bacteria to metabolize nylon. These are beneficial mutations. Trisomy 21 does not occur from a genetic mutation. It is the result of the lack of separation of a chromosome in a cell. You don't seem to get that. Maybe once you understand what a mutation is, you'll understand that beneficial mutations occur.
TheSeventhSon 2 years ago
@TheSeventhSon
Alright I'm about tired of your flamboyant, wimpy "you don't know what you're talking about" spiel, sonny boy. It is YOU that is absolutely clueless as to Non-Disjunctive MUTATIONS.
Resistance to HIV is not a mutation, it is already imprinted in certain people. There is no mutation of cells. People were also resistant to the Plague in the same way. However, with Trisomy 21 it is evident that the information in the cell mutates, no natural selection.
RenewalOfAllThings 2 years ago
@RenewalOfAllThings Unlike you, I'm not trying to be an asshole about this. I'm telling you that you are wrong. A genetic mutation is a permanent change to the DNA sequence. Trisomy 21 does not fit into this case. Nondisjunction is not a genetic mutation, it is a failure in the separation of chromosomes. I'm not sure how else I can spell that out. Nondisjunction occurs after DNA has been replicated, so is not the result of a genetic mutation.
TheSeventhSon 2 years ago
@TheSeventhSon
You are clueless as to Non-Disjunction. It occurs DURING meiosis, not after. You are a liar; a shill. Trisomy 21 is a Non-Disjunctive mutation, face it. And if you are saying that I don't know anything then its to your even greater shame that I, who knows nothing, is at least playing by the rules and using scientific terms in their contexts. Kick and scream like a baby all you like, Trisomy 21 is a Non-Disjunctive genetic mutation that occurs during meiosis.
RenewalOfAllThings 2 years ago