ANYONE: If you see 0 response to Mattle Systems (& maybe others later) he knows he is on ignore for name calling, personal insults, gross obscenities & false accusations of lying. Some folk follow me (& others) around YT guard doggins evo vids with such tactics. If you want to reiterate any points I would be happy to respond with what I feel is "the rest of the story", but I only debate with those who are civil & objective.
@LoricaLady Call it Robertsonian translocation next time, it will make you informed about this... But of course the conclusion of this, is that it is possible to a chromosome to fuse together. It can be seen in some people without effect on them, however their children have a higher risk of malformation and trisomy...
Is the fusion of chromosome II from ape to human is a Robertsonian translocation or not? I should investigate this.
Cont. There is a statement above, by the poster of this vid, saying that a fusion of ape chromosomes only happened in humans. First of all, again, they are not fused ape, but fused human only, chromsomes. 2nd there are many fusions seen in nature but, like that extra chromosome, how they got there is not really understood and it is bogus to say only evo can explain them.
...snakes & worms slither. Correlation Does Not Imply Causation. All of evolutionary literature and "evidence", if analyzed for logical fallacies, if critically analyzed to see if inferences are being called evidence (which happens nonstop) will yield the real truth: It's all smoke & mirrors pseudo science.
@LoricaLady Yes I agree. Eugenie Scott, PZ Myers,Jerry Coyne Richard Dawkins & all the rest of the spokesmen belong to the religion of secular humanism. They boast there world views, philosophy and agenda boldly on their web sites, & when questioned about deeper meaning, it seems nihilism is the only real truth for them. Unfortunately this world view has crept into science under the guise of materialism and a belief that the duality of the mind and body is illusory. No truth only biochemicals.
@LoricaLady Yes I agree. Eugenie Scott, PZ Myers,Jerry Coyne Richard Dawkins & all the rest of the spokesmen belong to the religion of secular humanism. They boast there world views, philosophy and agenda boldly on their web sites, & when questioned about deeper meaning, it seems nihilism is the only real truth for them. Unfortunately this world view has crept into science under the guise of materialism and a belief that the duality of the mind and body is illusory. No truth only biochemicals.
...Even evolutionists aren't saying that we "evolved" from them. Oh, I forgot the magical thinking that is also common with evolutionary thought. We're supposed to believe, again with no data whatever to back it up, that someway back in the untestable & unobservable past, some invisible dataless ancestor was related to both us and the chimp & that's why 2 HUMAN chromosomes fused? 3) Correlation Does Not Imply Causation. Tobacco & chimps have 48 chromosomes. Birds, bats & bees fly...
...did anyway? There is 0 data to show the fusion came from apes. As I said, speculation is presented as if it is evidence. They have 0 evidence where the fusion came from, only an inference based on nothing observable or testable. 2) Incomplete Comparison Fallacy. Guess what? We don't even see an ape to human fusion but 2 huuuuman chromsomes fused. Ape chromosomes are larger, have a different frequency, etc. Also, why do they keep talking about the number match to chimps? Cont.
All of evolutionary theory is based on speculation presented as Gawd's truth evidence and logical fallacies. Here are at least 3 being used in chrom. 2 argument. 1) Fallacy of the Single Cause, i.e. "We see something and only evolution can explain it!" Explain this via evoution: About 1 in 1000 people have an additional fused chromsome. If the extra one didn't come from apes - & no one is saying it did - why should we assume the chrom. 2 fusion did? In fact, why should we assume chrom. 2...
@cambell1308 Humans have 23, Apes have 24. Effectively 24 joined 23 to make a very big 23rd chromosome. The changes created by the fusion was the main change among many many other much smaller changes that happened one after another to change Apes to humans.
@ben9345 Ok so how did this occur? try out the maths. we need two living hominides/pre humans living at the same time who happen to have the same mutation live in the same group and be a mating couple that bear children. And then all other "non-mutants" would have to die. So while it may be so that chromosomal binding was a mutation it comes know where near close to explaining how a whole race of people sprang from this so called mutation....Thanks for the reply Peace
@cambell1308 As far as i'm aware the "mutants" could still breed with the non-mutants. Therefore the likely hood of the same mutation in subsequent generations was much higher. The others would not have to die immediately but the mutation if it was a good one allowed humans to out live other species. But also remember our "mutants" are not dead yet because their the various species of monkey that exist today. in fact they are successful in their own way eating fruit not meat so we never competed
@cambell1308 Also there was never a mutation big enough that might stop breeding. There were literally millions all the time. Some were passed on and some weren't. Its like seeing your brother grow. You don't notice because you see him everyday. So in this context your would barely notice any different every thousand years but over millions you would like a long lost aunt might notice how much your brother's grown because those little changes you didn't notice added up to a big change.
Does the poster of video think that 2005 draft which quantifies the overall differences between human and chimp DNA being at around a 70% actually demonstrates an extreme similarity? And is this fusion hypothesis the only possible explanation that exist? I'm kind of interested in what your thoughts are on this. I know this is an old video but hopefully your still on line.
@benthemiester You made a comment about chrom. 2 fusion, i.e. "Is this fusion hypothesis the only possible explanation that exists?" I have given another point of view on it, showing that the entire argument is based on at least 3 logical fallacies - described in detail - and the usual evolutionary use of evidenceless speculation as actual evidence, i.e. the use of pseudo science.
@LoricaLady Just to be serious few seconds, could you please give me the reference for your following quote and I am sincerely interested to read the paper.
"About 1 in 1000 people have an additional fused chromsome".
Thank you.
Because I have only seen this in creationist website, but I did not see the reference to the medical or genetic research. But I am pretty sure this is not a simple claim, it is surely based on scientific data (it is your motivation).
The chromsomsomes had human genes at the time and location of the fusion.
Per wikipedia article chimpanzee_genome_project:
"At the site of fusion, there are approximately 150,000 base pairs of sequence not found in chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B. Additional linked copies of the PGML/FOXD/CBWD genes exist elsewhere in the HUMAN genome, particularly near the p end of chromosome 9. ... copy of these genes ...added to the end of the ancestral 2A or 2B PRIOR to the fusion event.
Not sure what your point is here, but before anyone takes this the wrong way I think it should be pointed out that:
1. This insert is actually separated from the fusion site by over 20 million base pairs (see the image on the same article you quote).
2. Inserts are fairly common and have been observed in the lab.
3. 150,000 base pairs sounds big, but human chromosome 2 is 240 million base pairs so it's 1/1,600th the size of this one chromosome (itself 8% of our DNA).
Further to this, since the insert is 20Mega base pairs away from the fusion I'm not sure how the molecular biologists conclude that it probably happened *before* the fusion. If anyone knows how they conclude that I'd be grateful for a PM since this is going off topic.
The point seems to be that the string of genes exists in 2 chromosomes. The results look like what we would find if our ancestors had human genes at the time of the fusion.
It is also logical that we inherited the loci of our genes from the first 46/46 mating.
It is also logical that the end-to-end fusion marks the events in Genesis chapter 3 which started telemeric failure, which results in eventual death for us all.
Interestingly the fusion event we are discussing is just the latest of several evidenced in Human Chromosome 2.
Since the other fusions are also apparently in the 2A and 2B chromosomes of the other Great Apes they must have occurred in the DNA of our common ancestor.
I'm have a problem with the expressions "apelike" and "humanlike" referring to genes. First, humans are apes, and second genes are often identical between us and the rest of the great apes.
I guess I understand what you are asking though. But I don't think it's important.
If a gene is duplicated it should start out identical to the original (unless it is frame shifted at the same time).
After duplication either copy is more likely to have preserved mutations than the original was prior to the duplication (since Natural Selection can now preserve both the original and the copy, whereas before a mutation would have destroyed the original and probably been selected out of the population).
So, after 6 million years, I would expect differences between the original and the copy.
But there could also be differences between both copies and the ch9 versions in the other great apes.
Finally, in answer to your question on head to head fusions in humans today, my knowledge is too limited to do more than guess, but here goes:
I guess than a benign head to head fusion would happen at least once per million humans (based on 150 mutations per human and 3000 million base pairs with 22 possible fusion sites).
So there should be about 6000 people alive today with a benignly fused chromosome.
They probably would not know they had a fused chromosome.
"Your theory would imply the first 46/46 were inbreeding double-mutated siblings."
Sorry if I gave you that impression, I thought I had been clear in 2 previous comments.
This is *not* necessary.
A post fusion 46 chromosome individual could have mated with a 48 chromosome individual. I'm not an expert, but what I have read suggests the following:
We appear to have reached a point where this argument has become "Greek".
You have insisted several times that it is not possible for an individual with 46chs to mate with an individual with 48 chs and produce healthy 46 ch offspring without further mutations.
I have stated the opposite opposite at least 3 times.
Since neither of us appear to be experts I suggest we both go off in search of molecular biologists to end the argument.
First, the wikipedia article chromosomal_translocation " in humans leaves only 45 chromosomes " (and in an ape would leave 47.).
Scan on 'robertsonian Trofatter', the healthline article (orthodox evolutionist) also says 45. Such a person will have unbalanced genes in two thirds of their gametes.. One out of six will have 45 chr and the same reproductive problems. One out of six will revert to 46 and end the problems.
Doubt if any site will explain that 23 and 24 add up to 47.
Conceivably you are thinking what would happen if two 45-chr humans (or two 47-chr apes) mated.
Theoretically the apes could have one-fourth 48, one-fourth 46, and one-half 47.. But using the Trofatter rule, only one in 9 conceptions would have balanced genes. Only the 48 chr offspring would have no reproductive disabilities...
"First, the wikipedia article chromosomal_translocation " in humans leaves only 45 chromosomes " (and in an ape would leave 47.)."
I admit I was wrong.
My research is showing the same thing, except that the result of two gametes with the fusion should be a normal individual with a fused ch and no reproductive problems (if they mate with similar individuals).
Apparently this is observed in a similar case in matings between the Przewalski's wild horse and domestic horses.
I could be wrong again. But it still seams that you only need one mutation and a lot of luck.
One blog I read had a funny exchange:
Q: You have presented good evidence that translocations and Robertsonian fusions do not have a negative effect on fertility.
But the putative fusion of chromosome 2 would have been a telemere-telemere fusion. Is there evidence to suggest that such fusions do not have a negative effect on fertility?
@kandtell [fusions do not have a negative effect on fertility]
If we use the Trofatter rule, two 46-chr apes would have balanced genes in 1 out of 81 conceptions.
About all we can find on end-to-end fusions is medscape article Telomeres, Telomerase, and Tumorigenesis : "Telomeres protect the chromosomes from end-to-end fusion, recombination, and degradation, all events that can lead to cell death."
Your scenario requires inbreeding of doubled-up biological absurdities.
For a comment to be spam it must in my view either:
1. be an obvious diliberate attempt to use youtube to make money by drawing people to a website which has nothing to do with the topic (e.g. a p*rnsite).
or
2. appear on many (2-3 dosn't count as many) threads as a diliberate cut and paste job.
@kandtell [unbalanced genes]. The reason fused chromosomes produce gametes with unbalanced genes is because there is a chromosome with two active centromeres. Predict ape with 46 chromosomes would have 2 chromosomes with active centromeres and produce 1 of nine with balanced genes. See wikipedia centromere.
The reason humans do not produce unbalanced genes is because the extra centromere was de-activated, we believe by design.
Evolutionists should show de-activation in random fusions.
What is missing from these discussions is some actual tests of the "double whammy". If one fusion causes low fertility and disabilities, will TWO of the SAME fusion fix the problems or make them worse ?
In my QA with askascientist, the geneticist "Barry" said he knew of no such tests.
It would surely be within the abilities of the Master's thesis level to breed some mice or monkeys having one of the SAME fusion and observe the viability of an offspring with the double.
I think we are some way off having the technology to create a new fusion in the lab and breed it through to stability. Plus there are ethical issues.
I think your talking about looking for a creature with a new head on fusion and trying to breed it through to stability?
I think that would be difficult with current technology as well. To find a mouse say with such a fusion you would have to sequence an awful lot of mouse DNA. The cost is coming down, but DNA sequencing remains very expensive.
It is true we won't find an end-to-end fusion for testing. But in a population of 20 chr mice, find one with a fusion and 19 chr, half its survivabl;e descendants have 19, inbreeding those should produce a few with 18 and the double whammy.
Almost bet this test has been attempted and someone didn't like the results.
No one is going to be that interested in proving that head to head fusion is possible since we *know* it happened.
The draft Panda genome has just been published (see Nature Vol 463, Issue 7279). It cost $900,000 to sequence 1 individual! And that's considered a cost breakthrough!
The real need at present is for more genomes and more individuals. This should have a huge impact on medicine, ecology, material science etc etc.
@Mdebacle "Evenually 46 chr would be back to where it is now."
Why wouldn't the result be a stable population of 44?
Another possibility would be two stable populations of 44 and 46 leading eventually to 2 species.
"like defying the law of gravity."
We will have to agree to disagree I think. Despite one article I read claiming a fusion would be close to "neutral" I do tend to think it's against the grain of Natural Selection. But not "defying gravity".
I think your confusing me with someone who thinks that if something could be designed it must be designed.
As I said, evidence of fusions is all over the place in the DNA sequenced so far. Even human chr 2 has a mix of genetic material from 4 separate dog chrs indicating two earlier fusions that we shared with the other great apes.
[if something could be designed it must be designed]
Such a view is religious, but so is its opposite.
The first two 38 chr cats (and first 78 chr dogs) from all evidence expanded outward from a point of origin. Cats were re-designed into various species, some with 36 . The trend started with larger and more powerful, like sabretooth, into smaller and weaker, which is the opposite of what evolution would tell us.
Ancestors with 40 were not eliminated, because they never existed.
" which is the opposite of what evolution would tell us."
No. Evolution by Natural Selection does *not* mean progress towards larger and more powerful.
I'm sure you know this, but it can't be said too often. "Survival of the fittest" means "Survival of the most appropriate". I.e. the best adapted to the environment.
Obviously that can mean smallest. Since small has it's advantages too.
It can even mean weakest if that means saving resources for use elsewhere.
I've got to ask! Have you been spoofing the whole time? Are you really an "evolutionist" having a bit of fun with me?
If not, is this a deliberate troll comment?
Only a total dunce could make a comment like this and mean it.
Do I really have to explain the shrinking megafauna to you after all we've been though together?
Do I really have to explain why a species with 6000million members, 25 year generations, and very little selection preasure is not going anywhere fast?
Mdebacle, sorry if that sounded rude, but I'm convinced you are an educated intelligent man.
You have to have studied the other sides arguments well enough to know that Natural Selection would not have lasted a year, let alone 150 years if it could not explain shrinking megafauna!
I also can't believe you don't know what that explanation is!
A 10 foot gorilla does not get smaller to hide in the undergrowth.
Ancestral wolves should look more like MRCA of dogs/cats or dogs/gorillas.
Did cats go from small to 800 lb, then get small again ?
If human genome is evolving 100 new base pairs per generation, will the 12000 year old human fossils have 60000 base pairs different ? Will those base pairs be "chimp-like" (whether or not you like the term) ?
"does not get smaller to hide in the undergrowth."
If it needs to hide and it does not have the genetic variability to adapt fast enough, then guess what happens?
That's right! It goes extinct and smaller species of gorilla don't.
"MRCA of dogs/cats or dogs/gorillas."
Wolves are firmly in the order "Carnivora" their MRCA with Bears would probably have looked a bit like one of the Amphicyonidae (transitional, but not ancestoral fossil bear-dogs).
For the MRCA of dogs and cats you have to go back at least another couple of my to something like a Miacids (transitional but not ancestoral between Feliformia and Caniformia).
For MRCA between apes and dogs you probably have to go back at least 125mya to something like an Eomaia.
"Did cats go from small to 800 lb, then get small again ?"
It's important not to confuse transition and descent.
During this time there probably would have been periods when there were more big cat species and other times when there would have been more small cat species.
So, yes, I would expect to see transitional fluctuations in the average size of cats.
But that's not the same as saying the ancestors of any particular living cat fluctuated in size.
Having said that, if you think about it, it would be a big surprise if there were not ancestoral fluctuations in size as well.
Add to this the fact that (if not now, then soon) we can in theory "decide" our own genome the foreseeable future of humans (again, this is just my opinion) is likely to be stable.
It will probably be a very long time before we want to play with the genome by inventing new stuff, but we may take a cautious attitude and decide to screen out new genes we haven't seen before.
I'm talking about parents deciding which sperm and eggs get to meet up, not about screening at any later stage.
Another issue I have with the question is the next bit "100 new base pairs per generation".
Each one of us has different DNA from our parents (I believe the current figure is 150 bp). But you can't multiply that figure up and get the no of bp differences between us and a particular previous generation for 2 reasons.
1. not everyone has the same mutations.
2. only some mutations get fixed into the genome by Natural Selection.
For these reasons I would expect 12ky old human DNA to be very similar to modern human DNA.
Your right, I'm not happy with the term "chimp-like" in the question, But if we agree "DNA showing similarities with our MRCA with chimps" then I suspect you would have to go back much further than 12ky before you started to see differences you could support scientifically as showing this.
It's a great shame DNA does not fossilise very often.
The Economist Nov 13 says, "We will also identify the many genes that create physical and mental differences across populations, and we will be able to estimate when those genes arose. Some of those differences probably occurred very recently, within recorded history. ... some human groups experienced a vastly accelerated rate of evolutionary change within the past few thousand years,"
They are clearly expecting chimp-like genes to show up somewhere.
Since we currently share over 90% of our genes with chimps I guess you mean "more chimp like genes"?
But that's not the way I would put it anyway.
Some genetic changes are seen in our DNA as a result of a shift to agrarian societies. I'm not sure how anyone would determine these as being "vastly accelerated" since that implies you know the rate of change prior to that, and without preserved DNA from 100kya etc I am not sure how you determine that.
The main genetic change I am thinking of is the one that makes us Lactose tolerant after we are weaned.
This is a positively selected mutation in human DNA.
It's Allele still exists, and, as you would expect, the Allele is found in much higher frequencies in populations which did not depend on dairy farming in the past.
Were we more "chimp like" before this mutation?
I would prefer to describe it as a classic example of NS improving fitness in a new environment.
They tell us that chimps and humans have 3 billion base pairs and that humans have 30-50 million different from chimps. This would require on average something like 100 base pairs per generation.
The "Out of Africa, Again and Again' theory
is a polite way of saying African humans should have more chimp-like DNA than other races.
If this is not true, we should conclude the entire human race is simply re-shuffling genes of our first (two ?) ancestors.
Congratulations on the first paragraph! Your making me think again!
I had missed the point that 150 mutations per person does not mean 150 base pairs since a single mutation can affect a lot of base pairs.
But don't forget chimps have been evolving too, so some of the (I'm not going to question your facts, I'm assuming your right) 30-50mbp difference will be on their lineage.
I would expect most of the changes on our side to have occurred a long time ago.
This would be difficult to prove. But NS works fastest on small populations with high selection pressures and short generations. As we evolved from the MRCA with chimps through other stages untill we finally became human the generations probably lengthened, the populations probably increased and the selection pressures probably decreased.
There is still supposed to be more genetic variability between the 8% of the population of the world left in African that between the rest of the world put together.
So I don't think we need to concern ourselves over who has the more "chimp like DNA" (I still hate that phrase) me, or the President of the US. We could both in theory procreate with Shilpa Shetty, so all of us are humans.
It's been millions of years since any of us could successfully procreate with chimps.
"This would create more mutations , not less. This should speed up evolution."
I have not done all the maths on this. And it's a complex subject.
But I think the overall result is larger populations mean less change for various reasons.
One starting point for the maths is the wiki article on genetic drift. It says that time to fixation of a neutral mutation in generations is, on average, proportional to the "effective population size".
In fact it gives a result of Tf=4Ne for a neutral mutation to go from one individual to fixation.
I.e. the time to fixation is 4 times the effective population size in generations unless the mutation is beneficial.
Note that this does not mean all neutral mutations are fixed. The chance of fixation is proportional to the frequency of the mutation in the effective population (when only one individual has the mutation it is therefore inversely proportional to the effective population).
Now you could argue that since the number of mutations is also proportional to the size of the population the number of fixed mutations should be independent of population size.
But I think this is wrong. I'm going to give you my best guesses as to why, but as I said I have not attempted the maths. And I'm hoping I can find someone else's answer on this to save me the effort.
1. Effective population less than actual. I think that this relationship is not proportional and that in very small populations the effective population may be much smaller than the actual population.
2. In very large populations the number of individuals alive during the time to fixation is proportional to the square of the effective population (eg approx 10^20 in modern humans) this might mean that some mutations occur more than once during the time to fixation.
Thus the no. of mutations may not be entirely proportional to the population size.
3. The "fitness" of a mutation may change with time. A mutation that seems neutral today may prove to be essential in saving a species from extinction from a new pandemic tomorrow. Fluctuating fitness may act against fixation in larger populations because of the longer time to fixation,
Origionaly i posted this comments on (Ken Miller on Human Evolution) video and then i reposted to your video because it inspired me to wright this comment. One persons said that i dont have enough of scientific evidence to it, but since both of us are not scientists you wouldnt say that my comment is not worth of reading it.
Im not a scientist, but I respect creationism more than evolution.
I cant explain this with science, yet I can use my logic to point out what the theory of chromosome 2 is lacking. Ken says that God is deceptive because he has made chromosome 2 fused, to me it sounds like bunch of crap & here is why.
If you think that God is deceptive because he made small change in some part of DNA, yet its still similar to monkeys, u should also think that God is deceptive because he made all animals..
Didn't he say he doesn't believe in a deceptive god? I'm pretty sure he is a theist but believes in evolution 100%. He was just saying that using creationism to explain the fusion would imply a deceptive god.
PT 2) ..with similarities like muscle and bone. First we dont know what this chromosome represents or which part of the body is build by this information. If you fuse one chromosome or divide were it shouldnt be it will show a major, Major change in appearance of body structure and these changes are always damaging. As we already know animals cant talk because they are missing the taking part of the brain, this might be an explanation what effect fusion can cause. If you fuse something were...
@Simpleandmean "If you fuse one chromosome or divide were it shouldnt be it will show a major, Major change in appearance of body structure"
Sorry, this is not true.
Chromosome fusion does not affect the Genes in your DNA since the mutation which causes the fusion occurs in the "telomere" regions which are genetic markers, not genes. I.e. this is the region which shows where the DNA is to be split into chromosomes.
Fusion events are found everywhere in life (cont...)
I.e. as far as I am aware we have found evidence for fusion events in the DNA of every single species whose DNA has been sequenced to date. Sometimes, as in the case of Human Chromosome 2, there is evidence for multiple fusion events *in the same Chromosome*.
There *is* a reason why we would expect most fusion events to be selected out of the population.
In a population of individuals where most have the original DNA but one individual had the fused DNA that individual must obviously mate with an individual without fused DNA.
I wont go into the science, but basically when that happens 50% of the offspring should die or be infertile, 25% should have fused Chromosomes, and 25% the original DNA.
Thus *if you assume Natural Selection works* ;) fusion events should only be successful on rare occasions.
PT 3) ..it shouldnt be then a person might get borne without a spine cord which will make this person with a low chance of survival, I would say that this baby wouldnt even get borne alive. There was an evolutionist that raised the argument that God is not an amazing creator because He has a small imagination, for he has made us out of the similar components, but if every creacher in the world would be different, imagine how difficult life would be and science would advance very, Very slowly..
PT 4) ..If you dont understand what I mean here is an explanation, imagine if all animals would be very different from us, 1) if our organs would be different it would cause major problem in a surgeon field, because they wouldnt have any animal to practice their surgeons on, they would have to use humans for practice, which means a lot of people would have to die just for someone to become a surgeon. 2) We use pigs insulin in order to help diabetics, but if animals would be different then we..
PT 5) ..would have to use others peoples insulin, which would put these people in danger of developing diabetes, I wouldnt say that this would be an awful solution. I would say that chromosome 2 is not a prove of evolution or that God is being deceptive, it is a prove of how little scientists know about Gods incredible design. You see God has made everything for a purpose we just have to exapt what we see it instead of denying it. . I DO UNDERSTAND PEOPLE THAT THINK DIFFERENTLY, their hearts..
Ch2 is strong evidence against the "same design, same designer" argument.
Why would a designer include inactivated Telomeres in our Ch2? Why would a designer put those Telomeres right at the point where they match two un-fused Ch.s belonging to the other great apes?
Why would a designer put an inactive centromere exactly at the point where it should be if the fusion had occurred?
Why not accept that a designer may have just decided to design evolution?
why did a designer used chemicals to design everything?
it is like asking why Honda design wheels that will fit on ford if it is not a same car, the cars are different in their controls but it uses similar parts in order for it to function properly.
the designer knows what he is doing and he knows that his designs are not the same even if someone else thinks differently
you should know the complexity of a chromosome before you make such a simple statement.
so the bullet screeches similarity and dna similarities have something in common?
If you go to the junk yard you will be able to find bolts with similar damage, but it will never mean that this bolts came from one another or that they came from the same manufacturer.
If you think logically, than if we did evolve from something by chance millions years ago, we have a problem here if one present of dna is different from the other it could destroy our ability to reproduce with our own species.
We all have different DNA from each other (except identical twins, triplets, etc).
Having different DNA can destroy our ability to reproduce, but it doesn't have to.
The original human with fused ch2 probably had difficulty reproducing. As I said earlier, my understanding is that 50% of his/her attempts would have been unsuccessful.
Obviously they persevered, otherwise we wouldn't be here :)
ofcoures we do but 1% is already too much of a difference
1% makes a huge difference
what if the first male that evolved into a human was in Europe and first female human was in Africa how would they find each other to continue the human race?
the chance of human existence would pass by and we would have to wait for another chance for another billions years, with all the possibility of something going wrong in the evolution, we never get here, unless evolution was eternal, not bilions & bilions
PT 6) ..are different that is why they wouldnt understand us, nor we would be able to explain the importance of loving God. Ive bine there I know how it is. So in conclusion DNA doesnt prove that we are the same to monkey, it proves that we have a lot to learn before making foolish statements like these. Because it depends which part of dna you sue to find similarities, one dicodeination has shown that a jellyfish shares the common ancestry with a cloud. These thing sound foolish to me.The end
wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong... I doubt we came from chimpanzees. There is a lot of evidence supporting my belief that is left out here. But, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we did. Either way, to think that there is no God is completely insane. To believe science alone, could randomly make the universe so great, where the sun is at te perfect distance from the earth, and that there even is an earth without a God is wrong. I guarantee it.
Well the bible does claim "all the world is decieved", and promises to send "strong delusions" amongst the minds of men. Look at propaganda, marketing. Any good salesman will tell you, yes we sell cars, but we also sell a fair amount of "blue skies" to go with it. Christians are big on this love trip. Actually, in my limited understanding, god really don't like people. Look at moses, the guy died on the job, on a mountian, after a lot of crap; and he was well liked.
So the common ancestor was before the evolution of these endcaps? Or do I have it backwards and the evolution of the common ancestor, was brought about by the introduction(evolution or mutation) of the endcaps? Sorry if my science prahma-yannah sucks, the teacher used to smack me with a stick. Alot.
Well the end caps didn't evolve, they basically got stuck together. But yes it could have taken place anywhere after the ape/human split.
The fusion isn't the cause of our evolution into modern man. It is, instead, vital evidence proving that humans and modern apes have common ancestors.
Oh and just to make this clear, this isn't a mutation. Some hard-headed commenter on here a few months back was trying, I think, to say that this fusion wasn't evidence because mutations can only safely happen every so often.
But mutations have absolutely nothing to do with fusions.
Oh, my inarticulation was not intended as a ruse. Would it be better to say, fluke or accident? So this shift or change does or does not imply cuasality? Would we look at a "missing link" to find this change in gene structure( or if I may "fluke"). Or is this discovery obviating the necesity of said missing link?
No worries. It's just that certain words have very specific meanings in science. But no, this fusion was not the cause of the homo genus' split from chimpanzees approx. 2.5 million years ago. You could look at this fusion as a result of our evolutionary divide.
Since then (the origin of the homo genus) several different species came and went, and we are the only ones left.
So, let me ask you a question. If two chromosomes fused together to day, would that be evidence that humans evolved from apes? Of course not. So, why is this any different?
The difference is that for common descent to be true, such a fusion HAD TO exist in our genome - if it hadn't that would have toppled the theory. Whereas if we were created separately, there's no reason to expect a human to have one of it's chromosomes be a fusion of two ape chromosomes! In short, the existence of the fusion was predicted based on the theory of evolution, and this prediction was confirmed to be true, as the fused chromosome was identified...
...It was one of innumerable specific predictions derived, and confirmed, from the theory of evolution. This is how we know the theory to be accurate - because it allows us to predict things which we can then empirically confirm. If you don't get why the theory of evolution would predict such a fusion, then look for a video titled "Ken Miller Human Chromosome 2 Genome" here on YouTube - that is the clearest, simplest explanation of this evidence I've found...
...Then, for comparison of the human chromosome 2, and the two ape chromosomes that correspond to it, search for a video called "Chromosome 2 in the Great Apes".
So, another way of saying this would be that the fact that we have 24 chromosomes without the fusion is evidence for evolution? Well, I'd say the implications of this evidence has been over exaggerated a little bit, but I agree this is evidence.
Hmm... I'm not quite sure you got it yet. The reason it is evidence is that such a fusion was predicted by the theory; evolution ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED that there be such a fusion in our genome, for it to be true. Had no such fusion been found - if the case had been that we just had all our genes in a lower number of chromosomes, without the SAME genetic material as can be found in the extra ape chromosome being found fused into one of the human chromosomes,...
Hmm... I'm not quite sure you got it yet. The reason it is evidence is that such a fusion was predicted by the theory; evolution ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED that there be such a fusion in our genome, for it to be true. Had no such fusion been found - if the case had been that we just had all our genes in a lower number of chromosomes, without the SAME genetic material as can be found in the extra ape chromosome being found fused into one of the human chromosomes,...
...then that would have shown that we could not have evolved naturally from a common ancestor with apes. On the other hand, the idea that we were separately created can accomodate ANY discovery whatsoever; there's no conceivable discovery which could disprove it. That idea allows our genetic structure to be structured in whatever way happened to please the creator. A theory that makes successful predictions is strengthened by each success, that is how science works....
...I just today found a pretty good explanation of why on YouTube, so look for a video by urbanelf titled "Re:Human Chromosomal Fusion: Evidence for Common Ancestry?". As for whether this evidence is exaggerated, that might be the case if it was the only piece of evidence, of this kind, out there - however, it isn't. It is just one such genetic feature, in an ocean of such features, that is directly predicted...
...from theory (a make-or-break prediction), and then confirmed by actually looking at the genetic structures. This example is used, because it is fairly dramatic, and not that difficult to understand. There are MANY more such pieces of evidence, most of which require a bit deeper knowledge of genetics to understand the impact of.
I'm not knowledgeable in genetics, but, I have a question, I thought in order for a species to reproduce they had to have the same number of chromosomes, when the fusion occurred with the #2 chromosome, the new specie would have no mate. Wouldn't there need to be two of the new species? And if they could mate, wouldn't the new chromosome be non-dominate and breed out?
The fusion that formed human chromosome 2 could have taken place any time after the human-ape split. No one is claiming that the fusion is what caused it and that's why we're different. It may have played a role, but it also may not. It is merely evidence of common ancestry.
Genetic disorders such as Down's are caused by duplication, not fusion. The resulting fused creature, would have no fewer or greater pairs of genes than the rest of his un-fused brethren. All that's necessary for breeding would be that both creatures genes line up, and they would.
With about thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements. Gene duplications are not even close, considering the 250K years of unguided evolution with allowing 1 mutation every 1K years, there just isn't enough time. Not to mention every mutation would have to have a positive outcome.
What's this 250k figure? The Homo Species has been around for 2.4 million years. Modern intelligent man (homo sapiens) had already evolved by 250,000 years ago, and haven't changed much since then.
Correction>>With about thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements. Gene mutations are not even close, considering the 2,500,000 years of unguided evolution with allowing 1 mutation every 1K years, there just isn't enough time. Not to mention every mutation would have to have a positive outcome.
"Human beings have twenty-three pairs of chromosomes . . . Chimpanzees, however, have twenty-four pairs in their blueprint . . . Evolution predicts that there should be a pair of chromosomes in humans that have double sets of ends and middles . . . and they should correspond to two unfused pairs of chromosomes in the chimpanzee genome."
ANYONE: If you see 0 response to Mattle Systems (& maybe others later) he knows he is on ignore for name calling, personal insults, gross obscenities & false accusations of lying. Some folk follow me (& others) around YT guard doggins evo vids with such tactics. If you want to reiterate any points I would be happy to respond with what I feel is "the rest of the story", but I only debate with those who are civil & objective.
LoricaLady 2 weeks ago
@LoricaLady Call it Robertsonian translocation next time, it will make you informed about this... But of course the conclusion of this, is that it is possible to a chromosome to fuse together. It can be seen in some people without effect on them, however their children have a higher risk of malformation and trisomy...
Is the fusion of chromosome II from ape to human is a Robertsonian translocation or not? I should investigate this.
MattleSystem 2 weeks ago
Cont. There is a statement above, by the poster of this vid, saying that a fusion of ape chromosomes only happened in humans. First of all, again, they are not fused ape, but fused human only, chromsomes. 2nd there are many fusions seen in nature but, like that extra chromosome, how they got there is not really understood and it is bogus to say only evo can explain them.
LoricaLady 2 weeks ago
...snakes & worms slither. Correlation Does Not Imply Causation. All of evolutionary literature and "evidence", if analyzed for logical fallacies, if critically analyzed to see if inferences are being called evidence (which happens nonstop) will yield the real truth: It's all smoke & mirrors pseudo science.
LoricaLady 2 weeks ago
@LoricaLady Yes I agree. Eugenie Scott, PZ Myers,Jerry Coyne Richard Dawkins & all the rest of the spokesmen belong to the religion of secular humanism. They boast there world views, philosophy and agenda boldly on their web sites, & when questioned about deeper meaning, it seems nihilism is the only real truth for them. Unfortunately this world view has crept into science under the guise of materialism and a belief that the duality of the mind and body is illusory. No truth only biochemicals.
benthemiester 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LoricaLady Yes I agree. Eugenie Scott, PZ Myers,Jerry Coyne Richard Dawkins & all the rest of the spokesmen belong to the religion of secular humanism. They boast there world views, philosophy and agenda boldly on their web sites, & when questioned about deeper meaning, it seems nihilism is the only real truth for them. Unfortunately this world view has crept into science under the guise of materialism and a belief that the duality of the mind and body is illusory. No truth only biochemicals.
benthemiester 2 weeks ago
...Even evolutionists aren't saying that we "evolved" from them. Oh, I forgot the magical thinking that is also common with evolutionary thought. We're supposed to believe, again with no data whatever to back it up, that someway back in the untestable & unobservable past, some invisible dataless ancestor was related to both us and the chimp & that's why 2 HUMAN chromosomes fused? 3) Correlation Does Not Imply Causation. Tobacco & chimps have 48 chromosomes. Birds, bats & bees fly...
LoricaLady 2 weeks ago
...did anyway? There is 0 data to show the fusion came from apes. As I said, speculation is presented as if it is evidence. They have 0 evidence where the fusion came from, only an inference based on nothing observable or testable. 2) Incomplete Comparison Fallacy. Guess what? We don't even see an ape to human fusion but 2 huuuuman chromsomes fused. Ape chromosomes are larger, have a different frequency, etc. Also, why do they keep talking about the number match to chimps? Cont.
LoricaLady 2 weeks ago
All of evolutionary theory is based on speculation presented as Gawd's truth evidence and logical fallacies. Here are at least 3 being used in chrom. 2 argument. 1) Fallacy of the Single Cause, i.e. "We see something and only evolution can explain it!" Explain this via evoution: About 1 in 1000 people have an additional fused chromsome. If the extra one didn't come from apes - & no one is saying it did - why should we assume the chrom. 2 fusion did? In fact, why should we assume chrom. 2...
LoricaLady 2 weeks ago
OK so we lost a complete chromosome how could a creature with 26 chromosomes pairs evolve from a creature with 28 chromosome pairs?
cambell1308 4 months ago
@cambell1308 Humans have 23, Apes have 24. Effectively 24 joined 23 to make a very big 23rd chromosome. The changes created by the fusion was the main change among many many other much smaller changes that happened one after another to change Apes to humans.
ben9345 3 months ago
@ben9345 Ok so how did this occur? try out the maths. we need two living hominides/pre humans living at the same time who happen to have the same mutation live in the same group and be a mating couple that bear children. And then all other "non-mutants" would have to die. So while it may be so that chromosomal binding was a mutation it comes know where near close to explaining how a whole race of people sprang from this so called mutation....Thanks for the reply Peace
cambell1308 3 months ago
@cambell1308 As far as i'm aware the "mutants" could still breed with the non-mutants. Therefore the likely hood of the same mutation in subsequent generations was much higher. The others would not have to die immediately but the mutation if it was a good one allowed humans to out live other species. But also remember our "mutants" are not dead yet because their the various species of monkey that exist today. in fact they are successful in their own way eating fruit not meat so we never competed
ben9345 3 months ago
@cambell1308 Also there was never a mutation big enough that might stop breeding. There were literally millions all the time. Some were passed on and some weren't. Its like seeing your brother grow. You don't notice because you see him everyday. So in this context your would barely notice any different every thousand years but over millions you would like a long lost aunt might notice how much your brother's grown because those little changes you didn't notice added up to a big change.
ben9345 3 months ago
Does the poster of video think that 2005 draft which quantifies the overall differences between human and chimp DNA being at around a 70% actually demonstrates an extreme similarity? And is this fusion hypothesis the only possible explanation that exist? I'm kind of interested in what your thoughts are on this. I know this is an old video but hopefully your still on line.
benthemiester 5 months ago
@benthemiester You made a comment about chrom. 2 fusion, i.e. "Is this fusion hypothesis the only possible explanation that exists?" I have given another point of view on it, showing that the entire argument is based on at least 3 logical fallacies - described in detail - and the usual evolutionary use of evidenceless speculation as actual evidence, i.e. the use of pseudo science.
LoricaLady 2 weeks ago
@LoricaLady Just to be serious few seconds, could you please give me the reference for your following quote and I am sincerely interested to read the paper.
"About 1 in 1000 people have an additional fused chromsome".
Thank you.
Because I have only seen this in creationist website, but I did not see the reference to the medical or genetic research. But I am pretty sure this is not a simple claim, it is surely based on scientific data (it is your motivation).
MattleSystem 2 weeks ago
@LoricaLady Don't bother with my question, I found the Robertsonian translocation.
I did not know this, but I found an intersting response on thetech.org / genetics / ask. php?id =229, if you want to read as weel to inform you.
Bye
MattleSystem 2 weeks ago
I got your same computer and its been running like a champ since what like 2004.
JAKEHARRIS281 11 months ago
Q: for a species with 23 chromosome pairs to survive in an isolated biosphere, how many males and females are required?
openmindmbj 2 years ago
@openmindmbj
According to creation, there would need to be only one pair.
According to evolution the would be enough with 2n=48 to mix with 2n=46 or 47.
Why 2n=46 mutants would win the contest is beyond my understanding.
Mdebacle 2 years ago
The chromsomsomes had human genes at the time and location of the fusion.
Per wikipedia article chimpanzee_genome_project:
"At the site of fusion, there are approximately 150,000 base pairs of sequence not found in chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B. Additional linked copies of the PGML/FOXD/CBWD genes exist elsewhere in the HUMAN genome, particularly near the p end of chromosome 9. ... copy of these genes ...added to the end of the ancestral 2A or 2B PRIOR to the fusion event.
Mdebacle 2 years ago
@Mdebacle
Not sure what your point is here, but before anyone takes this the wrong way I think it should be pointed out that:
1. This insert is actually separated from the fusion site by over 20 million base pairs (see the image on the same article you quote).
2. Inserts are fairly common and have been observed in the lab.
3. 150,000 base pairs sounds big, but human chromosome 2 is 240 million base pairs so it's 1/1,600th the size of this one chromosome (itself 8% of our DNA).
kandtell 2 years ago
cont...
Further to this, since the insert is 20Mega base pairs away from the fusion I'm not sure how the molecular biologists conclude that it probably happened *before* the fusion. If anyone knows how they conclude that I'd be grateful for a PM since this is going off topic.
kandtell 2 years ago
@kandtell
The point seems to be that the string of genes exists in 2 chromosomes. The results look like what we would find if our ancestors had human genes at the time of the fusion.
It is also logical that we inherited the loci of our genes from the first 46/46 mating.
It is also logical that the end-to-end fusion marks the events in Genesis chapter 3 which started telemeric failure, which results in eventual death for us all.
Mdebacle 2 years ago
@Mdebacle "The point seems to be that the string of genes exists in 2 chromosomes."
I'm not an expert, but I believe this may be an example of "Gene duplication". I.e. a type of mutation.
Gene duplication is common and has been observed in the lab.
It's a useful means of driving Natural Selection since two copies of a gene means one can be worked on by further mutations without losing the other.
kandtell 2 years ago
Interestingly the fusion event we are discussing is just the latest of several evidenced in Human Chromosome 2.
Since the other fusions are also apparently in the 2A and 2B chromosomes of the other Great Apes they must have occurred in the DNA of our common ancestor.
kandtell 2 years ago
@kandtell [Gene duplication ]
Since (I am told) that apes have PGML/FOXD/CBWD genes in chr 9,
an interesting test would be
(1) do humans have one copy that is "apelike" and another copy that is "humanlike" ?
or (2) do both human copies look "human like" ?
Of the 6 or 7 million humans with 45 chromsomes as a result of fusion, how many have an end-to-end fusion ?
Can you tell us of even one ?
Mdebacle 2 years ago
I'm have a problem with the expressions "apelike" and "humanlike" referring to genes. First, humans are apes, and second genes are often identical between us and the rest of the great apes.
I guess I understand what you are asking though. But I don't think it's important.
If a gene is duplicated it should start out identical to the original (unless it is frame shifted at the same time).
cont...
kandtell 2 years ago
After duplication either copy is more likely to have preserved mutations than the original was prior to the duplication (since Natural Selection can now preserve both the original and the copy, whereas before a mutation would have destroyed the original and probably been selected out of the population).
So, after 6 million years, I would expect differences between the original and the copy.
But there could also be differences between both copies and the ch9 versions in the other great apes.
kandtell 2 years ago
Finally, in answer to your question on head to head fusions in humans today, my knowledge is too limited to do more than guess, but here goes:
I guess than a benign head to head fusion would happen at least once per million humans (based on 150 mutations per human and 3000 million base pairs with 22 possible fusion sites).
So there should be about 6000 people alive today with a benignly fused chromosome.
They probably would not know they had a fused chromosome.
kandtell 2 years ago
@kandtell [1 in 1000000]
Your theory would imply the first 46/46 were inbreeding double-mutated siblings.
Someone should test a double mutation to find out if it really produces something survivable and fertile.
We should consider that the first 46/46 male/female
A) were intentionally altered from 48 to 46
B) incentive to mate was being the only humans in existence.
C) Descendants could inbreed because their genes were newly created.
Science,logic fit Genesis like hand in a glove.
Mdebacle 2 years ago
@Mdebacle
"Your theory would imply the first 46/46 were inbreeding double-mutated siblings."
Sorry if I gave you that impression, I thought I had been clear in 2 previous comments.
This is *not* necessary.
A post fusion 46 chromosome individual could have mated with a 48 chromosome individual. I'm not an expert, but what I have read suggests the following:
cont...
kandtell 2 years ago
50% of the pregnancies would be unsuccessful (either still born, or resulting in infertile offspring).
25% would result in healthy 48 chromosome individuals.
25% would result in *healthy 46 chromosome individuals*.
pre and post head on fusion DNA contain the *same genes* so health interbreeding is possible.
No need for double mutations!
For sure *no need for mating siblings*!!!!
A small population would help.
kandtell 2 years ago
Note that this is not the only fusion event evidenced in our DNA. There are dozens.
This one is the only one which happened after our lineage separated from the other great apes.
The other fusion events are also in the DNA of the other great apes so they must have happened to ancestors that *we share with great apes*.
kandtell 2 years ago
@kandtell [No need for double mutations]
A 46-chromosome ape would by necessity have a double mutation. A single fusion would produce a 47-chromosome ape.
A 46 chromosome ape mating with 48 would have gametes of 23 and 24 yielding a 47 chromsome ape.
The first humans had
A) end-to-end fusion
B ) Doubled up
C) extra centromere de-activated
D) had matching male and female.
E) with incentive and ability to inbreed
You cannot even give a current example of step A.
Mdebacle 2 years ago
@Mdebacle
That is not my understanding.
In this case combining gametes of 23 and 24 can result in healthy individuals with 46 or 48 ch.s. (see my previous comments).
This is because the DNA is identical except for the inactivated telomeres.
In fact the original gamete with the fusion would have had 2 active centromeres.
kandtell 2 years ago
We appear to have reached a point where this argument has become "Greek".
You have insisted several times that it is not possible for an individual with 46chs to mate with an individual with 48 chs and produce healthy 46 ch offspring without further mutations.
I have stated the opposite opposite at least 3 times.
Since neither of us appear to be experts I suggest we both go off in search of molecular biologists to end the argument.
Sources if possible please.
kandtell 2 years ago
@kandtell
First, the wikipedia article chromosomal_translocation " in humans leaves only 45 chromosomes " (and in an ape would leave 47.).
Scan on 'robertsonian Trofatter', the healthline article (orthodox evolutionist) also says 45. Such a person will have unbalanced genes in two thirds of their gametes.. One out of six will have 45 chr and the same reproductive problems. One out of six will revert to 46 and end the problems.
Doubt if any site will explain that 23 and 24 add up to 47.
Mdebacle 2 years ago
Conceivably you are thinking what would happen if two 45-chr humans (or two 47-chr apes) mated.
Theoretically the apes could have one-fourth 48, one-fourth 46, and one-half 47.. But using the Trofatter rule, only one in 9 conceptions would have balanced genes. Only the 48 chr offspring would have no reproductive disabilities...
Mdebacle 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mdebacle
"First, the wikipedia article chromosomal_translocation " in humans leaves only 45 chromosomes " (and in an ape would leave 47.)."
I admit I was wrong.
My research is showing the same thing, except that the result of two gametes with the fusion should be a normal individual with a fused ch and no reproductive problems (if they mate with similar individuals).
Apparently this is observed in a similar case in matings between the Przewalski's wild horse and domestic horses.
kandtell 2 years ago
Refs:
w w w{dot}hhmi{dot}org /askascientist/ answers / if_humans_have_23_pairs_of_chromosomes_and_apes_have_24_pairs_of_chromosomes_then_there_must_have_b{dot}html
and
kandtell 2 years ago
scienceblogs{dot}com / pharyngula / 2006 / 09 / luskins_ludicrous_genetics{dot}php
kandtell 2 years ago
I could be wrong again. But it still seams that you only need one mutation and a lot of luck.
One blog I read had a funny exchange:
Q: You have presented good evidence that translocations and Robertsonian fusions do not have a negative effect on fertility.
But the putative fusion of chromosome 2 would have been a telemere-telemere fusion. Is there evidence to suggest that such fusions do not have a negative effect on fertility?
A: Besides us, you mean? :-)
kandtell 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kandtell [fusions do not have a negative effect on fertility]
If we use the Trofatter rule, two 46-chr apes would have balanced genes in 1 out of 81 conceptions.
About all we can find on end-to-end fusions is medscape article Telomeres, Telomerase, and Tumorigenesis : "Telomeres protect the chromosomes from end-to-end fusion, recombination, and degradation, all events that can lead to cell death."
Your scenario requires inbreeding of doubled-up biological absurdities.
Mdebacle 2 years ago
@Mdebacle
Someone marked your reply as spam. 1st let me say this was not me!
2nd if whoever marked it as spam reads this please please do not behave in this way.
Currently we are fighting against freedom of speech attacks on people like dprjones.
If you support people like dprjones *you cannot go round denying the freedom of speech you are supporting from people you disagree with*.
I will *not* tollerate attacks like this.
cont...
kandtell 2 years ago
For a comment to be spam it must in my view either:
1. be an obvious diliberate attempt to use youtube to make money by drawing people to a website which has nothing to do with the topic (e.g. a p*rnsite).
or
2. appear on many (2-3 dosn't count as many) threads as a diliberate cut and paste job.
This is neither of these.
Whoever did this should be ashamed of themselves!
kandtell 2 years ago
Sorry about that Mdebacle I really am!
Finnaly to respond to your comment.
"If we use the Trofatter rule, two 46-chr apes would have balanced genes in 1 out of 81 conceptions."
Humans are 46-chr apes. Do 80/81 human conceptions have un-balanced genes?
"Your scenario requires inbreeding of doubled-up biological absurdities."
I really don't think it does. What about the case of Przewalski's wild horses and domestic horses interbreeding?
kandtell 2 years ago
@kandtell [unbalanced genes]. The reason fused chromosomes produce gametes with unbalanced genes is because there is a chromosome with two active centromeres. Predict ape with 46 chromosomes would have 2 chromosomes with active centromeres and produce 1 of nine with balanced genes. See wikipedia centromere.
The reason humans do not produce unbalanced genes is because the extra centromere was de-activated, we believe by design.
Evolutionists should show de-activation in random fusions.
Mdebacle 2 years ago
@Mdebacle [interbreeding horses]
Hybridzation would not trun 48 into 46. It would mean 46 could breed with 48 and produce 47.
If a human bred with an ape it would produce a 47 chr hominid, probably an australopithicus.
Mdebacle 2 years ago
@Mdebacle Re. 2 Active Centromeres etc.
Did you read the two articles I posted? They both suggest that fusion taking over in a population is difficult but not impossible.
This is exactly what I would expect. I.e.
1) If it was impossible we would not be here.
2) If it was not difficult there would be more examples. Even in our own DNA it appears to have happened just once in 6 million years.
On the specifics of 2 active centromeres, here is another article:
kandtell 2 years ago
Pandasthumb{dot}org/archives/2009/02/the-rise-of-hum.html
This article says that 2 active centromeres are possible despite what the Wikipedia article suggests.
kandtell 2 years ago
[askascientist]
What is missing from these discussions is some actual tests of the "double whammy". If one fusion causes low fertility and disabilities, will TWO of the SAME fusion fix the problems or make them worse ?
In my QA with askascientist, the geneticist "Barry" said he knew of no such tests.
It would surely be within the abilities of the Master's thesis level to breed some mice or monkeys having one of the SAME fusion and observe the viability of an offspring with the double.
Mdebacle 2 years ago
I think we are some way off having the technology to create a new fusion in the lab and breed it through to stability. Plus there are ethical issues.
I think your talking about looking for a creature with a new head on fusion and trying to breed it through to stability?
I think that would be difficult with current technology as well. To find a mouse say with such a fusion you would have to sequence an awful lot of mouse DNA. The cost is coming down, but DNA sequencing remains very expensive.
kandtell 2 years ago
It is true we won't find an end-to-end fusion for testing. But in a population of 20 chr mice, find one with a fusion and 19 chr, half its survivabl;e descendants have 19, inbreeding those should produce a few with 18 and the double whammy.
Almost bet this test has been attempted and someone didn't like the results.
Mdebacle 2 years ago
@Mdebacle
Look at this from the other sides point of view.
No one is going to be that interested in proving that head to head fusion is possible since we *know* it happened.
The draft Panda genome has just been published (see Nature Vol 463, Issue 7279). It cost $900,000 to sequence 1 individual! And that's considered a cost breakthrough!
The real need at present is for more genomes and more individuals. This should have a huge impact on medicine, ecology, material science etc etc.
kandtell 2 years ago
The guy at askascientist thought it would be a useful test. Someone could become the Christopher Columbus of Neo-Darwinism.
Imagine a meteor exterminating the 46 chr humans, leaving few million 45 and few thousand 44.
Within one generation 45/45 matings would produce one fourth with 46, and this would be the stable population.
Evenually 46 chr would be back to where it is now.
Ther idea that one fusion could eliminate all unfused is like defying the law of gravity.
Mdebacle 2 years ago
@Mdebacle "Evenually 46 chr would be back to where it is now."
Why wouldn't the result be a stable population of 44?
Another possibility would be two stable populations of 44 and 46 leading eventually to 2 species.
"like defying the law of gravity."
We will have to agree to disagree I think. Despite one article I read claiming a fusion would be close to "neutral" I do tend to think it's against the grain of Natural Selection. But not "defying gravity".
kandtell 2 years ago
[stable population of 44]
This would depend upon the double whammy stabilizing two of the same fusion. Some unkown researcher could become a hero.
If we see a pencil on the floor, then an hour later pencil is on a desk, either
(1) pencil defied gravity, or
(2) pencil was moved intentionally.
The purpose of many jury trials is to determine accident or intent.
The mating of the first two chromosomes in the ancestry of any species is convincing evidence of intent.
Mdebacle 2 years ago
@Mdebacle
Still don't agree, sorry.
The articles I posted make it clear to me that no "double whammy" is required.
1) 1st gen has 47 chr,
2) some of his/her gametes have 23 chr so some next gen also have 47 chr.
3) some of their gametes have 23 chr so some 3rd, 4th, 5th gen etc also have 47 chr and some gametes with 23 chr.
4) eventually two 23 chr gametes meet and form the 1st 46 chr individual.
5) further 46 chr individuals are born and their gametes will *all* have the fussion.
cont...
kandtell 2 years ago
6) eventually, perhaps many generations later the second centromere is disabled by unrelated mutations.
So there is only a need for one mutation in one individual.
kandtell 2 years ago
Have I misunderstood something in your argument?
I don't see how you get your analogy of pencils defying gravity from this.
Are you still worried about the 2 active centromeres, or is it something else?
kandtell 2 years ago
[eventually two 23 chr gametes meet and form the 1st 46 chr ]
That is the first double whammy that supposedly would have cured the problems. This could be tested in many species.
Your philosophy is that if something COULD be accidental, then it MUST be accidental.
If cats (38) and dogs (78) had a common ancestor (say 2n=50) then 38 chr mutant cats replaced 40 which replaced 42 etc., and all by accident.
To an outsider, such a belief has a religious flavor.
Mdebacle 2 years ago
@Mdebacle
"Your philosophy"
Nope, I don't think like that :)
I think your confusing me with someone who thinks that if something could be designed it must be designed.
As I said, evidence of fusions is all over the place in the DNA sequenced so far. Even human chr 2 has a mix of genetic material from 4 separate dog chrs indicating two earlier fusions that we shared with the other great apes.
I don't think like this without evidence.
kandtell 2 years ago
[if something could be designed it must be designed]
Such a view is religious, but so is its opposite.
The first two 38 chr cats (and first 78 chr dogs) from all evidence expanded outward from a point of origin. Cats were re-designed into various species, some with 36 . The trend started with larger and more powerful, like sabretooth, into smaller and weaker, which is the opposite of what evolution would tell us.
Ancestors with 40 were not eliminated, because they never existed.
.
Mdebacle 2 years ago
@Mdebacle
" which is the opposite of what evolution would tell us."
No. Evolution by Natural Selection does *not* mean progress towards larger and more powerful.
I'm sure you know this, but it can't be said too often. "Survival of the fittest" means "Survival of the most appropriate". I.e. the best adapted to the environment.
Obviously that can mean smallest. Since small has it's advantages too.
It can even mean weakest if that means saving resources for use elsewhere.
cont...
kandtell 2 years ago
and yes of course it can also mean strongest and most powerful too.
It depends on the selection pressure.
An animal becomes top predator, and gets into an arms race with it's prey forcing it to get bigger and stronger.
The same animal, faced itself with a new predator, gets smaller to hide in the undergrowth.
You know all this I'm sure. I just don't want anyone to make the oldest, most basic misunderstanding of Natural Selection based on your comment.
kandtell 2 years ago
Looking at ancestors of modern we see:
Wolves up to 175 lb
Cats up to 800 lb
Crocodiles up to 40 feet
Gorillas up to 10 feet (no relation to humans)
The more ancient were closer to the original chromosomes, and logically had the best genes (most variety, fewest mutations).
Humans were never megafauna, but the Kiffian fossils, older than the Tenerean, humans , including females, were fully 6 foot 6 inches.
The human genome is being copied with errors. It ain't improving.
Mdebacle 2 years ago
@Mdebacle
I've got to ask! Have you been spoofing the whole time? Are you really an "evolutionist" having a bit of fun with me?
If not, is this a deliberate troll comment?
Only a total dunce could make a comment like this and mean it.
Do I really have to explain the shrinking megafauna to you after all we've been though together?
Do I really have to explain why a species with 6000million members, 25 year generations, and very little selection preasure is not going anywhere fast?
kandtell 2 years ago
Mdebacle, sorry if that sounded rude, but I'm convinced you are an educated intelligent man.
You have to have studied the other sides arguments well enough to know that Natural Selection would not have lasted a year, let alone 150 years if it could not explain shrinking megafauna!
I also can't believe you don't know what that explanation is!
kandtell 2 years ago
[gets smaller to hide in the undergrowth.]
A 10 foot gorilla does not get smaller to hide in the undergrowth.
Ancestral wolves should look more like MRCA of dogs/cats or dogs/gorillas.
Did cats go from small to 800 lb, then get small again ?
If human genome is evolving 100 new base pairs per generation, will the 12000 year old human fossils have 60000 base pairs different ? Will those base pairs be "chimp-like" (whether or not you like the term) ?
Mdebacle 2 years ago
@Mdebacle
"does not get smaller to hide in the undergrowth."
If it needs to hide and it does not have the genetic variability to adapt fast enough, then guess what happens?
That's right! It goes extinct and smaller species of gorilla don't.
"MRCA of dogs/cats or dogs/gorillas."
Wolves are firmly in the order "Carnivora" their MRCA with Bears would probably have looked a bit like one of the Amphicyonidae (transitional, but not ancestoral fossil bear-dogs).
kandtell 2 years ago
For the MRCA of dogs and cats you have to go back at least another couple of my to something like a Miacids (transitional but not ancestoral between Feliformia and Caniformia).
For MRCA between apes and dogs you probably have to go back at least 125mya to something like an Eomaia.
"Did cats go from small to 800 lb, then get small again ?"
It's important not to confuse transition and descent.
Cats have been around for at least 40my.
kandtell 2 years ago
During this time there probably would have been periods when there were more big cat species and other times when there would have been more small cat species.
So, yes, I would expect to see transitional fluctuations in the average size of cats.
But that's not the same as saying the ancestors of any particular living cat fluctuated in size.
Having said that, if you think about it, it would be a big surprise if there were not ancestoral fluctuations in size as well.
kandtell 2 years ago
But ancestoral fluctuations in size are irrelevant when considering the long term evolution of a whole sub-order like Feliformia.
Finally, your last question:
"If human genome is evolving.."
My personal opinion (there is some dispute on this subject) is that humans are not really evolving at present.
Natural Selection would not fix a new gene into the human genome at the moment because the selection pressure is just not great enough.
Sex selection might, but I personally doubt it.
kandtell 2 years ago
Add to this the fact that (if not now, then soon) we can in theory "decide" our own genome the foreseeable future of humans (again, this is just my opinion) is likely to be stable.
It will probably be a very long time before we want to play with the genome by inventing new stuff, but we may take a cautious attitude and decide to screen out new genes we haven't seen before.
I'm talking about parents deciding which sperm and eggs get to meet up, not about screening at any later stage.
kandtell 2 years ago
Another issue I have with the question is the next bit "100 new base pairs per generation".
Each one of us has different DNA from our parents (I believe the current figure is 150 bp). But you can't multiply that figure up and get the no of bp differences between us and a particular previous generation for 2 reasons.
1. not everyone has the same mutations.
2. only some mutations get fixed into the genome by Natural Selection.
kandtell 2 years ago
For these reasons I would expect 12ky old human DNA to be very similar to modern human DNA.
Your right, I'm not happy with the term "chimp-like" in the question, But if we agree "DNA showing similarities with our MRCA with chimps" then I suspect you would have to go back much further than 12ky before you started to see differences you could support scientifically as showing this.
It's a great shame DNA does not fossilise very often.
kandtell 2 years ago
@kandtell
The Economist Nov 13 says, "We will also identify the many genes that create physical and mental differences across populations, and we will be able to estimate when those genes arose. Some of those differences probably occurred very recently, within recorded history. ... some human groups experienced a vastly accelerated rate of evolutionary change within the past few thousand years,"
They are clearly expecting chimp-like genes to show up somewhere.
Mdebacle 2 years ago
Since we currently share over 90% of our genes with chimps I guess you mean "more chimp like genes"?
But that's not the way I would put it anyway.
Some genetic changes are seen in our DNA as a result of a shift to agrarian societies. I'm not sure how anyone would determine these as being "vastly accelerated" since that implies you know the rate of change prior to that, and without preserved DNA from 100kya etc I am not sure how you determine that.
kandtell 2 years ago
The main genetic change I am thinking of is the one that makes us Lactose tolerant after we are weaned.
This is a positively selected mutation in human DNA.
It's Allele still exists, and, as you would expect, the Allele is found in much higher frequencies in populations which did not depend on dairy farming in the past.
Were we more "chimp like" before this mutation?
I would prefer to describe it as a classic example of NS improving fitness in a new environment.
kandtell 2 years ago
@kandtell
They tell us that chimps and humans have 3 billion base pairs and that humans have 30-50 million different from chimps. This would require on average something like 100 base pairs per generation.
The "Out of Africa, Again and Again' theory
is a polite way of saying African humans should have more chimp-like DNA than other races.
If this is not true, we should conclude the entire human race is simply re-shuffling genes of our first (two ?) ancestors.
Mdebacle 2 years ago
@Mdebacle
Congratulations on the first paragraph! Your making me think again!
I had missed the point that 150 mutations per person does not mean 150 base pairs since a single mutation can affect a lot of base pairs.
But don't forget chimps have been evolving too, so some of the (I'm not going to question your facts, I'm assuming your right) 30-50mbp difference will be on their lineage.
I would expect most of the changes on our side to have occurred a long time ago.
cont...
kandtell 2 years ago
I.e. before we became humans.
This would be difficult to prove. But NS works fastest on small populations with high selection pressures and short generations. As we evolved from the MRCA with chimps through other stages untill we finally became human the generations probably lengthened, the populations probably increased and the selection pressures probably decreased.
kandtell 2 years ago
There is still supposed to be more genetic variability between the 8% of the population of the world left in African that between the rest of the world put together.
So I don't think we need to concern ourselves over who has the more "chimp like DNA" (I still hate that phrase) me, or the President of the US. We could both in theory procreate with Shilpa Shetty, so all of us are humans.
It's been millions of years since any of us could successfully procreate with chimps.
kandtell 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
[years since any of us could successfully procreate with chimps. ]
Probably no one has tried for ethical reasons. Internet has stories of attempts.
[populations probably increased ]
This would create more mutations , not less. This should speed up evolution.
Mdebacle 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mdebacle
"This would create more mutations , not less. This should speed up evolution."
I have not done all the maths on this. And it's a complex subject.
But I think the overall result is larger populations mean less change for various reasons.
One starting point for the maths is the wiki article on genetic drift. It says that time to fixation of a neutral mutation in generations is, on average, proportional to the "effective population size".
cont...
kandtell 2 years ago
In fact it gives a result of Tf=4Ne for a neutral mutation to go from one individual to fixation.
I.e. the time to fixation is 4 times the effective population size in generations unless the mutation is beneficial.
Note that this does not mean all neutral mutations are fixed. The chance of fixation is proportional to the frequency of the mutation in the effective population (when only one individual has the mutation it is therefore inversely proportional to the effective population).
cont...
kandtell 2 years ago
Now you could argue that since the number of mutations is also proportional to the size of the population the number of fixed mutations should be independent of population size.
But I think this is wrong. I'm going to give you my best guesses as to why, but as I said I have not attempted the maths. And I'm hoping I can find someone else's answer on this to save me the effort.
OK here are the guesses:
kandtell 2 years ago
1. Effective population less than actual. I think that this relationship is not proportional and that in very small populations the effective population may be much smaller than the actual population.
2. In very large populations the number of individuals alive during the time to fixation is proportional to the square of the effective population (eg approx 10^20 in modern humans) this might mean that some mutations occur more than once during the time to fixation.
kandtell 2 years ago
Thus the no. of mutations may not be entirely proportional to the population size.
3. The "fitness" of a mutation may change with time. A mutation that seems neutral today may prove to be essential in saving a species from extinction from a new pandemic tomorrow. Fluctuating fitness may act against fixation in larger populations because of the longer time to fixation,
kandtell 2 years ago
Origionaly i posted this comments on (Ken Miller on Human Evolution) video and then i reposted to your video because it inspired me to wright this comment. One persons said that i dont have enough of scientific evidence to it, but since both of us are not scientists you wouldnt say that my comment is not worth of reading it.
Simpleandmean 2 years ago
PART 1.
Im not a scientist, but I respect creationism more than evolution.
I cant explain this with science, yet I can use my logic to point out what the theory of chromosome 2 is lacking. Ken says that God is deceptive because he has made chromosome 2 fused, to me it sounds like bunch of crap & here is why.
If you think that God is deceptive because he made small change in some part of DNA, yet its still similar to monkeys, u should also think that God is deceptive because he made all animals..
Simpleandmean 2 years ago
Didn't he say he doesn't believe in a deceptive god? I'm pretty sure he is a theist but believes in evolution 100%. He was just saying that using creationism to explain the fusion would imply a deceptive god.
fwackata 2 years ago
PT 2) ..with similarities like muscle and bone. First we dont know what this chromosome represents or which part of the body is build by this information. If you fuse one chromosome or divide were it shouldnt be it will show a major, Major change in appearance of body structure and these changes are always damaging. As we already know animals cant talk because they are missing the taking part of the brain, this might be an explanation what effect fusion can cause. If you fuse something were...
Simpleandmean 2 years ago
@Simpleandmean "If you fuse one chromosome or divide were it shouldnt be it will show a major, Major change in appearance of body structure"
Sorry, this is not true.
Chromosome fusion does not affect the Genes in your DNA since the mutation which causes the fusion occurs in the "telomere" regions which are genetic markers, not genes. I.e. this is the region which shows where the DNA is to be split into chromosomes.
Fusion events are found everywhere in life (cont...)
kandtell 2 years ago
cont...
I.e. as far as I am aware we have found evidence for fusion events in the DNA of every single species whose DNA has been sequenced to date. Sometimes, as in the case of Human Chromosome 2, there is evidence for multiple fusion events *in the same Chromosome*.
There *is* a reason why we would expect most fusion events to be selected out of the population.
cont...
kandtell 2 years ago
cont...
In a population of individuals where most have the original DNA but one individual had the fused DNA that individual must obviously mate with an individual without fused DNA.
I wont go into the science, but basically when that happens 50% of the offspring should die or be infertile, 25% should have fused Chromosomes, and 25% the original DNA.
Thus *if you assume Natural Selection works* ;) fusion events should only be successful on rare occasions.
kandtell 2 years ago
PT 3) ..it shouldnt be then a person might get borne without a spine cord which will make this person with a low chance of survival, I would say that this baby wouldnt even get borne alive. There was an evolutionist that raised the argument that God is not an amazing creator because He has a small imagination, for he has made us out of the similar components, but if every creacher in the world would be different, imagine how difficult life would be and science would advance very, Very slowly..
Simpleandmean 2 years ago
PT 4) ..If you dont understand what I mean here is an explanation, imagine if all animals would be very different from us, 1) if our organs would be different it would cause major problem in a surgeon field, because they wouldnt have any animal to practice their surgeons on, they would have to use humans for practice, which means a lot of people would have to die just for someone to become a surgeon. 2) We use pigs insulin in order to help diabetics, but if animals would be different then we..
Simpleandmean 2 years ago
PT 5) ..would have to use others peoples insulin, which would put these people in danger of developing diabetes, I wouldnt say that this would be an awful solution. I would say that chromosome 2 is not a prove of evolution or that God is being deceptive, it is a prove of how little scientists know about Gods incredible design. You see God has made everything for a purpose we just have to exapt what we see it instead of denying it. . I DO UNDERSTAND PEOPLE THAT THINK DIFFERENTLY, their hearts..
Simpleandmean 2 years ago
@Simpleandmean
Ch2 is strong evidence against the "same design, same designer" argument.
Why would a designer include inactivated Telomeres in our Ch2? Why would a designer put those Telomeres right at the point where they match two un-fused Ch.s belonging to the other great apes?
Why would a designer put an inactive centromere exactly at the point where it should be if the fusion had occurred?
Why not accept that a designer may have just decided to design evolution?
kandtell 2 years ago
why did a designer used chemicals to design everything?
it is like asking why Honda design wheels that will fit on ford if it is not a same car, the cars are different in their controls but it uses similar parts in order for it to function properly.
the designer knows what he is doing and he knows that his designs are not the same even if someone else thinks differently
you should know the complexity of a chromosome before you make such a simple statement.
Simpleandmean 2 years ago
@Simpleandmean
"you should know the complexity of a chromosome before you make such a simple statement."
No offence intended, but I think I know more about the complexity of chromosomes, this one in particular, than you do.
I think you should see these videos:
watch?v=GPp0c_5_m6Q
and
watch?v=Uk5W2ISYvjM
kandtell 2 years ago
Cont...
Then at least part of this:
watch?v=Ohd5uqzlwsU
The part I suggest you watch is between 0:35:14 and 0:39:36. But only watch it *after* you have seen the other two.
kandtell 2 years ago
so the bullet screeches similarity and dna similarities have something in common?
If you go to the junk yard you will be able to find bolts with similar damage, but it will never mean that this bolts came from one another or that they came from the same manufacturer.
If you think logically, than if we did evolve from something by chance millions years ago, we have a problem here if one present of dna is different from the other it could destroy our ability to reproduce with our own species.
Simpleandmean 2 years ago
We all have different DNA from each other (except identical twins, triplets, etc).
Having different DNA can destroy our ability to reproduce, but it doesn't have to.
The original human with fused ch2 probably had difficulty reproducing. As I said earlier, my understanding is that 50% of his/her attempts would have been unsuccessful.
Obviously they persevered, otherwise we wouldn't be here :)
kandtell 2 years ago
ofcoures we do but 1% is already too much of a difference
1% makes a huge difference
what if the first male that evolved into a human was in Europe and first female human was in Africa how would they find each other to continue the human race?
the chance of human existence would pass by and we would have to wait for another chance for another billions years, with all the possibility of something going wrong in the evolution, we never get here, unless evolution was eternal, not bilions & bilions
Simpleandmean 2 years ago
PT 6) ..are different that is why they wouldnt understand us, nor we would be able to explain the importance of loving God. Ive bine there I know how it is. So in conclusion DNA doesnt prove that we are the same to monkey, it proves that we have a lot to learn before making foolish statements like these. Because it depends which part of dna you sue to find similarities, one dicodeination has shown that a jellyfish shares the common ancestry with a cloud. These thing sound foolish to me.The end
Simpleandmean 2 years ago
I think you did a very good job of explaining chromosome 2, and I totally concur that religion has been essentially "made up" by mankind.
1lightspeed 3 years ago
dna don't fuse.. not one premate or any other animal in the world has a fuse Dna..
my guess..genetic modified by allien.. yup
TurboD16z6 3 years ago
So the fall from heaven was a monkey knife fight.
MxBxC 3 years ago
chromosomes are the ingredients in the recipe for your dna.
and without chromosomes..you are without dna as well.
and therefore you are not considered a living being..
also inferring that you would not exist to even ask such questions
raynbowryan 3 years ago
so what your saying is that, basically, it fused and man evolved?
would you not need both the male and female to have the same number of chromosones to create a healthy offsrping?
erice161 3 years ago
wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong... I doubt we came from chimpanzees. There is a lot of evidence supporting my belief that is left out here. But, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we did. Either way, to think that there is no God is completely insane. To believe science alone, could randomly make the universe so great, where the sun is at te perfect distance from the earth, and that there even is an earth without a God is wrong. I guarantee it.
RossTheBoss7032 3 years ago
You're right, we didn't come from chimpanzees. No one is claiming that.
pfarnsworth84 3 years ago
@RossTheBoss7032 Apparently you don't understand evolution, we didn't evolve from chimpanzees, we shared a common ancestor.
speedproductions797 1 year ago
Lol Nevermind my last comment I read the description wrong lol
smoshman64 3 years ago
No worries, mate.
pfarnsworth84 3 years ago
Acually humans have 46 chromosomes and we have 23 pairs.
smoshman64 3 years ago
well what would happen if we had 24 cromazones
cody93rox 3 years ago
Well the bible does claim "all the world is decieved", and promises to send "strong delusions" amongst the minds of men. Look at propaganda, marketing. Any good salesman will tell you, yes we sell cars, but we also sell a fair amount of "blue skies" to go with it. Christians are big on this love trip. Actually, in my limited understanding, god really don't like people. Look at moses, the guy died on the job, on a mountian, after a lot of crap; and he was well liked.
PvtSchlock 3 years ago
So the common ancestor was before the evolution of these endcaps? Or do I have it backwards and the evolution of the common ancestor, was brought about by the introduction(evolution or mutation) of the endcaps? Sorry if my science prahma-yannah sucks, the teacher used to smack me with a stick. Alot.
PvtSchlock 3 years ago
Well the end caps didn't evolve, they basically got stuck together. But yes it could have taken place anywhere after the ape/human split.
The fusion isn't the cause of our evolution into modern man. It is, instead, vital evidence proving that humans and modern apes have common ancestors.
pfarnsworth84 3 years ago
Oh and just to make this clear, this isn't a mutation. Some hard-headed commenter on here a few months back was trying, I think, to say that this fusion wasn't evidence because mutations can only safely happen every so often.
But mutations have absolutely nothing to do with fusions.
pfarnsworth84 3 years ago
Oh, my inarticulation was not intended as a ruse. Would it be better to say, fluke or accident? So this shift or change does or does not imply cuasality? Would we look at a "missing link" to find this change in gene structure( or if I may "fluke"). Or is this discovery obviating the necesity of said missing link?
PvtSchlock 3 years ago
No worries. It's just that certain words have very specific meanings in science. But no, this fusion was not the cause of the homo genus' split from chimpanzees approx. 2.5 million years ago. You could look at this fusion as a result of our evolutionary divide.
Since then (the origin of the homo genus) several different species came and went, and we are the only ones left.
pfarnsworth84 3 years ago
So, let me ask you a question. If two chromosomes fused together to day, would that be evidence that humans evolved from apes? Of course not. So, why is this any different?
owchywawa 4 years ago
The difference is that for common descent to be true, such a fusion HAD TO exist in our genome - if it hadn't that would have toppled the theory. Whereas if we were created separately, there's no reason to expect a human to have one of it's chromosomes be a fusion of two ape chromosomes! In short, the existence of the fusion was predicted based on the theory of evolution, and this prediction was confirmed to be true, as the fused chromosome was identified...
MightyTiny 4 years ago
...It was one of innumerable specific predictions derived, and confirmed, from the theory of evolution. This is how we know the theory to be accurate - because it allows us to predict things which we can then empirically confirm. If you don't get why the theory of evolution would predict such a fusion, then look for a video titled "Ken Miller Human Chromosome 2 Genome" here on YouTube - that is the clearest, simplest explanation of this evidence I've found...
MightyTiny 4 years ago
...Then, for comparison of the human chromosome 2, and the two ape chromosomes that correspond to it, search for a video called "Chromosome 2 in the Great Apes".
MightyTiny 4 years ago
So, another way of saying this would be that the fact that we have 24 chromosomes without the fusion is evidence for evolution? Well, I'd say the implications of this evidence has been over exaggerated a little bit, but I agree this is evidence.
owchywawa 4 years ago
Hmm... I'm not quite sure you got it yet. The reason it is evidence is that such a fusion was predicted by the theory; evolution ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED that there be such a fusion in our genome, for it to be true. Had no such fusion been found - if the case had been that we just had all our genes in a lower number of chromosomes, without the SAME genetic material as can be found in the extra ape chromosome being found fused into one of the human chromosomes,...
MightyTiny 4 years ago
Hmm... I'm not quite sure you got it yet. The reason it is evidence is that such a fusion was predicted by the theory; evolution ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED that there be such a fusion in our genome, for it to be true. Had no such fusion been found - if the case had been that we just had all our genes in a lower number of chromosomes, without the SAME genetic material as can be found in the extra ape chromosome being found fused into one of the human chromosomes,...
MightyTiny 4 years ago
...then that would have shown that we could not have evolved naturally from a common ancestor with apes. On the other hand, the idea that we were separately created can accomodate ANY discovery whatsoever; there's no conceivable discovery which could disprove it. That idea allows our genetic structure to be structured in whatever way happened to please the creator. A theory that makes successful predictions is strengthened by each success, that is how science works....
MightyTiny 4 years ago
...I just today found a pretty good explanation of why on YouTube, so look for a video by urbanelf titled "Re:Human Chromosomal Fusion: Evidence for Common Ancestry?". As for whether this evidence is exaggerated, that might be the case if it was the only piece of evidence, of this kind, out there - however, it isn't. It is just one such genetic feature, in an ocean of such features, that is directly predicted...
MightyTiny 4 years ago
...from theory (a make-or-break prediction), and then confirmed by actually looking at the genetic structures. This example is used, because it is fairly dramatic, and not that difficult to understand. There are MANY more such pieces of evidence, most of which require a bit deeper knowledge of genetics to understand the impact of.
MightyTiny 4 years ago
I'm not knowledgeable in genetics, but, I have a question, I thought in order for a species to reproduce they had to have the same number of chromosomes, when the fusion occurred with the #2 chromosome, the new specie would have no mate. Wouldn't there need to be two of the new species? And if they could mate, wouldn't the new chromosome be non-dominate and breed out?
questioneverything8 4 years ago
The fusion that formed human chromosome 2 could have taken place any time after the human-ape split. No one is claiming that the fusion is what caused it and that's why we're different. It may have played a role, but it also may not. It is merely evidence of common ancestry.
pfarnsworth84 4 years ago
Genetic disorders such as Down's are caused by duplication, not fusion. The resulting fused creature, would have no fewer or greater pairs of genes than the rest of his un-fused brethren. All that's necessary for breeding would be that both creatures genes line up, and they would.
pfarnsworth84 4 years ago
With about thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements. Gene duplications are not even close, considering the 250K years of unguided evolution with allowing 1 mutation every 1K years, there just isn't enough time. Not to mention every mutation would have to have a positive outcome.
questioneverything8 4 years ago
Uh, what? Duplications happen all the time, perhaps you missed the mentioning of Downs Syndrome.
What we're talking about is a fusion. Nothing is mutated, duplicated, or removed in a fusion. A fusion is nothing more than a hybrid.
pfarnsworth84 4 years ago
What's this 250k figure? The Homo Species has been around for 2.4 million years. Modern intelligent man (homo sapiens) had already evolved by 250,000 years ago, and haven't changed much since then.
pfarnsworth84 4 years ago
Correction>>With about thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements. Gene mutations are not even close, considering the 2,500,000 years of unguided evolution with allowing 1 mutation every 1K years, there just isn't enough time. Not to mention every mutation would have to have a positive outcome.
questioneverything8 4 years ago
oh I didnt know this... that's interesting.. hmm...
kid29a 4 years ago
You did a great job of explaining it.
GeneticistAtheist 4 years ago
Thanks, GA, danny, and karmazach.
pfarnsworth84 4 years ago
I think you are really good.I look forward to many more videos,thank you sincerly for making your video
dannyjonathonlewis 4 years ago
"Religion is a creation of man to explain things it doesn't understand."
That was just beautifully put. Nice work, you taught me a considerable amount of intriguing concepts.
searchingflame666 5 years ago
"Human beings have twenty-three pairs of chromosomes . . . Chimpanzees, however, have twenty-four pairs in their blueprint . . . Evolution predicts that there should be a pair of chromosomes in humans that have double sets of ends and middles . . . and they should correspond to two unfused pairs of chromosomes in the chimpanzee genome."
lumacetate 5 years ago