Evolution Test!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dr.Trax
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 445
  • Views Views 62K

Do you believe in Evolution?


  • Total voters
    0
Status
Not open for further replies.
You should also visit our threads on this forum on mosaicism and chimeras, since the topics have been discussed here with such expansion, humans such as with Trisomy 21 (47,XX,+21), Turner syndrome (45XO/46XX) , Klinefelter's syndrome, 47, XXY or XXY syndrome amongst many other documented in genetic books though still human, have a difficult time reproducing... and that is the the expected outcome of any chromosomal anomaly if the genes affected code for something vital. If it is an area with nonfunctional genes, then luckily it can have no effect on the individual but may have devastating effects on later generation especially in the case of mitochondrial inheritance.. but no such outcome as ape to human becomes of it.. it is the very wishful thinking of dreamers who even if fully believe and subscribe to such folly, fail to explain what Apes speciated from, or what specie before them all the way back to a single celled organism that doesn't require a major leap of faith on behalf of the rest of us..

It is a bit awkward to pass of your beliefs as science, I am not really sure what the lot of you gain by it.. I think having faith in something, should be all about having peace and satisfaction? although given the similarities in your beliefs I at sometimes believe you to be just one individual under a host of alter egos..

all the best
 
Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. If you have 24 pairs and one pair joins with another you have 23, hence 48 individual chromosomes becomes 46.

On the surface that seems correct. It sounds right and appears to make sense. But if you have 24 pairs and fuse one pair you get 23 pairs plus the fused pair which is the 47th Chromosome. This is a trisomy situation and results in either a non-viable organism or one that is incapable of reproduction. It is possible for some humans to have 47 chromosomes as in the case of Turners or Kleinfelters sydromes, but the mechanics that cause that are not the result of fusion.
 
^OMG you are so right! Since when was math so difficult?

Now here are my questions regarding this: Supposing that somehow some chromosomes did combine and become 46, did this happen for a whole bunch of ape babies or a few or just one? If a few ape babies had their chromosomes combined, what is the probability that the exact same chromosomes would combine in the same way?

If only one ape baby's chromosomes combined, what is the probability that this ape would survive and produce a new species?

How did the new ape (or was it a form of human?) (with 46 chromosomes) mate? Did it mate with an ape that had the normal 48 chromosomes? Or did somehow another ape also have mutated chromosomes? What is the probability that this happened? How did these two meet and how compatible were they?

If miraculously there were two 46 chromosomed animals that found each other and have some babies, did those babies then mate with each other or was it possible for them to mate with the 48 chromosomed (original) animal?

What if there wasn't another animal with 46 chromosomes. Would the one animal with 46 chromosomes be able to mate with an ape with 48 chromosomes? If it could, then would these two be able to produce children? How many chromosomes would the children have? 23 from one parent and 24 from the other parent totalling 47?
 
^OMG you are so right! Since when was math so difficult?

Now here are my questions regarding this: Supposing that somehow some chromosomes did combine and become 46, did this happen for a whole bunch of ape babies or a few or just one? If a few ape babies had their chromosomes combined, what is the probability that the exact same chromosomes would combine in the same way?

If only one ape baby's chromosomes combined, what is the probability that this ape would survive and produce a new species?

How did the new ape (or was it a form of human?) (with 46 chromosomes) mate? Did it mate with an ape that had the normal 48 chromosomes? Or did somehow another ape also have mutated chromosomes? What is the probability that this happened? How did these two meet and how compatible were they?

If miraculously there were two 46 chromosomed animals that found each other and have some babies, did those babies then mate with each other or was it possible for them to mate with the 48 chromosomed (original) animal?

What if there wasn't another animal with 46 chromosomes. Would the one animal with 46 chromosomes be able to mate with an ape with 48 chromosomes? If it could, then would these two be able to produce children? How many chromosomes would the children have? 23 from one parent and 24 from the other parent totalling 47?

If anybody ever takes comparative anatomy at the university level they will soon discover it is anatomically impossible for humans and any of the apes to mate. Not just impossible to have offspring. The actual physical act is impossible between any of the great apes (Gorillas, Chimps, bonobos, etc)
and humans in spite of what some old Jungle stories say.
 
^OMG you are so right! Since when was math so difficult?

Now here are my questions regarding this: Supposing that somehow some chromosomes did combine and become 46, did this happen for a whole bunch of ape babies or a few or just one? If a few ape babies had their chromosomes combined, what is the probability that the exact same chromosomes would combine in the same way?

If only one ape baby's chromosomes combined, what is the probability that this ape would survive and produce a new species?

How did the new ape (or was it a form of human?) (with 46 chromosomes) mate? Did it mate with an ape that had the normal 48 chromosomes? Or did somehow another ape also have mutated chromosomes? What is the probability that this happened? How did these two meet and how compatible were they?

If miraculously there were two 46 chromosomed animals that found each other and have some babies, did those babies then mate with each other or was it possible for them to mate with the 48 chromosomed (original) animal?

What if there wasn't another animal with 46 chromosomes. Would the one animal with 46 chromosomes be able to mate with an ape with 48 chromosomes? If it could, then would these two be able to produce children? How many chromosomes would the children have? 23 from one parent and 24 from the other parent totalling 47?

We did not come from great apes that now exist. The 48 chromosome ancestors we came from are gone. Here's from the theory that explains this:

From: http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/

Chromosome Speciation (fast - Human, Fruit Fly, Mosquito)

Chromosome fusion speciation[17] is the result of two chromosomes joining to become a single one which in turn causes enough of a change in behavior and morphology a new species is produced. First the telomeres at each end of the 2 supercoiled chromosomes that fused became sticky by removal of the repeating code that forms a protective layer that makes the ends not-sticky. Then when not-sticky ends are in close enough proximity molecular forces of attraction take over then fusion occurs.

What causes telomeres to become not sticky to fuse like this, is not fully known. Phylogenetic evidence from the human genome indicates this has happened a number of times to increase chromosome complexity, along with extra copies of chromosomes being added to increase the number of chromosomes to increase total genome complexity. It is possible that through time an epigenetic mechanism has learned how to take good guesses this way, using an additional mechanism that when necessary prevents fusion by adding telomere repeat coding on ends to make not-sticky.

Fusion changes the locations of at least some of the chromosome territories that are formed upon uncoiling of the supercoiled chromosomes where each territory works as a single system, with neighboring specialized chromosome territory systems. The fusion event also scrambles some of the genes at each end as would be expected where there is a collision, and is evidenced at the fusion site of human chromosome number two where fragments from each side still embedded in the other. Even though there was not a significant amount of gene scrambling the rearranging of the chromosome territories may have already produced a noticeable morphological change. The mother of a child with this large a fusion might have been able to tell there was something unique about them but would be expected to still love them just the same, or more.

The fused chromosome is in either allele (either mother or father) of the haploid (has one of two sets of chromosomes) germ cell (egg or sperm) that divides down to develop into a 47 chromosome heterozygote (alleles are different not homozygous where alleles the same) humanoid that has the human chromosome #2 being expressed along with copy of the two chromosomes with no fusion that provides all that the cell had before, with something new in the fused copy for epigenetic systems to control to meet the needs of the growing cell. The fusion now replicates in the population as follows:

48 and 48 parents produce a 48 offspring only.
48 and 47 parents produce a 48 or 47 offspring.
47 and 47 parents produce a 48 or 47 or 46 human offspring.
47 and 46 parents produce a 47 or 46 human offspring.
46 and 46 parents produce a 46 human offspring only.

The first 46 chromosome humans who were born to the existing 47 chromosome lineage may have right away been fertile, or at first had sterility problems in which case human chromosome #2 had to first learn to survive to replicate without the unfused chromosomes of the other allele there to help maintain proper cell functions. It would then become increasingly difficult for a 46 to reproduce with 48 and possibly 47 in part because along with the new genome design came a new self-image that made the 48's look "apish" and 47's relatively "unattractive" to 46's.

Where "human" is defined as having the unique 46 chromosome genome design that separates us from 47 and 48 ancestors there was a first human couple in our ancestry that was already fully human. There is here a human man and a woman Chromosomal Adam and Eve who together could only produce 46 chromosome descendants whose children would prefer to be with their own kind as would their children's children through time, all the way from them to us.

Full Resolution:
BandTshirtJPG-2.jpg


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Gyn0-PcXrJY/SqXcc0brw-I/AAAAAAAAAnA/DHbZCA3VOFs/s1600-h/BandTshirt.bmp

News story:
http://tinyurl.com/ms8mah
 
Last edited:
when you require folks to take such a leap of faith simply to substitute one belief for a lesser belief and to sweep it under the alleged rug of science, when in fact it is anything pseudo science, don't come and expect that others should lap it up or 'else' -- of course the else is any number of insulting things that totally assume the person ignorant of science... in fact it is because we know how science works, and have seen the mechanism of said action at work, mutations/breaks/jumping genes at work that we draw the obvious conclusion.
Empiric evidence is not scientific, and I can think of no logical reason to create this schism save to foster a lesser set of beliefs that will send you back and incapacitate you from making actual scientific progress in areas that actually matter!
 
when you require folks to take such a leap of faith simply to substitute one belief for a lesser belief and to sweep it under the alleged rug of science, when in fact it is anything pseudo science, don't come and expect that others should lap it up or 'else' -- of course the else is any number of insulting things that totally assume the person ignorant of science... in fact it is because we know how science works, and have seen the mechanism of said action at work, mutations/breaks/jumping genes at work that we draw the obvious conclusion.
Empiric evidence is not scientific, and I can think of no logical reason to create this schism save to foster a lesser set of beliefs that will send you back and incapacitate you from making actual scientific progress in areas that actually matter!

In a complimentary way, that was an excellent rant Gossamer skye! I'll add that it's up to us to make the best of what science has to offer without worrying about it harming religion because religion is stronger inside us than that.

Even though science adds "Chromosomal" to their names, Adam and Eve are now back in science. Can now try to find out what they looked like using phylogenetics. That is something that can be done to science so it is up to us to make it so.

And it might not be obvious at first, but in the picture it's showing a chimp branched off long before our more humanlike ancestors were around with a modern chimp looking back on the right (about to get a trumpet in the ear) to show that they did not change much at all. Humans appeared quickly because of something special happening to us, that did not happen to the others.

What I did, is make a picture that at first glance might look normal but when you look carefully at it there is no lemur monkey slowly turning into a human like others might show. The newest scientific evidence allows changing the picture by this much, and it is possible that our 48's and the 47 ancestors were more human looking than are shown. But that can be added to the next batch of science changing again in the right direction.

The path through science where there is intelligence for there to be a Creator looks like this when fully scientifically worded. It does not say "Creator" it explains a phenomena that can be followed into the subatomic where consciousness itself might come from:

From: http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/

Introduction

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause where from nonrandom behavior of matter comes a progression of self-assembling emergent behaviors where at the molecular, cellular and multicellular levels each is an increasingly complex fully autonomous self-learning associative memory confidence driven intelligence system that in turn produces fractal-similar emergence at the next intelligent level on up to us. Computer models of this common intelligence system that is present at each level shows its mechanism reduces to four necessary requirements; Something for intelligence to control (motors, muscles, metabolic cycle), sensory addressable memory to store motor actions in response, feedback to gauge failure or success in actions taken, and a guess mechanism that tries a new action either a "good guess" as in crossover exchange recombination and conserved domains being tried in new combinations or a "random guess" as in replication errors that can from-scratch design the small conserved domains that are the nuts and bolts and motors of complex molecular machinery.

Designs that successfully reproduce remain in memory in the population (gene pool) to keep going the billions year old learning process that is the cycle of life where through continual reproduction of previous state of genetic memory one replication at a time builds upon previous designs in memory. Thus a cladogram of resultant lineage shows a progression of adapting designs evidenced by the fossil record where never once was there not a predecessor of like design present in memory for the descendant design to have come from.

It is this progression of intelligent causality from nonrandom subatomic behavior in matter that makes possible the complexity of cells, speciation, Cambrian Explosion and all existing biodiversity. Without this intelligent cause, living things that we now see would not exist.

There is no "natural selection" variable in the mechanism. And right away it is stated "nonrandom" phenomena, so there are no random accidents. It is following the phenomena of "intelligence" through levels towards where there could be more levels into consciousness where a Creator would be expected to be for it to 24/7 be a part of us.

You know how when a theory even hints of religion some will go ape on it. So outside of the theory like in this forum I can explain how this keeps the search for the Creator going, and other things. The theory itself only states what science requires be explained to scientists so they can easily "accept" the science part, so it can be taught in the US public school science classes.

Everything in religion still makes sense. What changes is the path through science that is being followed. Instead of Adam and Eve being taken out of science, they get chromosomally put back in. The search for the Creator goes on and on from there, even though theory that makes it possible does not look like much at first. Just have to take one thing at a time and have patience, and science will keep going all our way even though it might still not be changing fast enough but at least it's progress in the right direction that would be a shame to waste.
 
In a complimentary way, that was an excellent rant Gossamer skye! I'll add that it's up to us to make the best of what science has to offer without worrying about it harming religion because religion is stronger inside us than that.
I am not a christian, the Quran doesn't assert that the earth is 6000 years, or that man and woman were expelled because of snakes and not eating the apple of knowledge.. Evolution could have been very well God's plan for things, except the evidence that we have, or rather that science proposes is incorrect in that respect.. you can't speak of chromosomal fusion one day causing a woman to have a spontaneous abortion or a child with anomalies if she makes it to term and by same token speak evolution of apes into humans using those same means without introducing an article of faith since you can't prove it!
Even though science adds "Chromosomal" to their names, Adam and Eve are now back in science. Can now try to find out what they looked like using phylogenetics. That is something that can be done to science so it is up to us to make it so.
They were described to us, and you are correct in the regard, they didn't look like us, but they weren't apes either, and may I further comment that 'science' hasn't pieced together correctly what they looked like. In fact, science would be better off finding a cure for the common cold, something so trivial seems like such a challenge before deciding what ancient man looked like!

And it might not be obvious at first, but in the picture it's showing a chimp branched off long before our more humanlike ancestors were around with a modern chimp looking back on the right (about to get a trumpet in the ear) to show that they did not change much at all. Humans appeared quickly because of something special happening to us, that did not happen to the others.
If it is obvious, then obvious to a select few illuminati, frankly I am at a loss as to how putting pictures some which are shamelessly drawn not even unearthed assures that said beings split off one another.
What I did, is make a picture that at first glance might look normal but when you look carefully at it there is no lemur monkey slowly turning into a human like others might show. The newest scientific evidence allows changing the picture by this much, and it is possible that our 48's and the 47 ancestors were more human looking than are shown. But that can be added to the next batch of science changing again in the right direction.
Looking at pictures does nothing for me, when the details are quite farcical.. how about using science to account for every little detail rather than putting pictures next to one another and expecting that we should believe it as face value?
The path through science where there is intelligence for there to be a Creator looks like this when fully scientifically worded. It does not say "Creator" it explains a phenomena that can be followed into the subatomic where consciousness itself might come from:
You'll forgive me but I am not much into makeweight words. In fact extraneous words are known more to infuriate me than sway me to see it one way or the other, as stated previously, do you have science to back it up or do you have theories and day dreams and imaginative artists? We need experimental science and we certainly have the vectors to duplicate it to make it factual, I don't want the fifty page essay on empiricism!



after this, I can't be bothered with all that verbosity, you'll forgive me, you are an affable enough guy, but I can't be bothered with a substitution, simply because you feel it will let you in into the smarts club and have you recognized by your peers and not branded some sort of ignoramus bible thumper who is otherwise into cognitive conservatism believing the earth is flat and 6000 years old, trust me I can understand that, especially when you have so much achievement under your belt and then get a snotty nosed 16 year old atheist mocking it all because your other set of beliefs are unbelievable. To me this is just another religion and a lesser one at that. I don't like to subscribe to fairy tales. .. there is a middle ground, it need not be believe in this or have no scientific integrity.

all the best
 
Last edited:
They were described to us, and you are correct in the regard, they didn't look like us, but they weren't apes either, and may I further comment that 'science' hasn't pieced together correctly what they looked like. In fact, science would be better off finding a cure for the common cold, something so trivial seems like such a challenge before deciding what ancient man looked like!
.....

all the best

Honestly, I would not where to begin affording all the lab stuff I would need to cure the common cold or have an idea how it could be done. But I came back to this old thread to reply to an email I received that said "Reply to thread 'Evolution Test!'" where I noticed muhaba had a number of excellent questions that I specialize in answering, and I could cure that problem. Not that I wouldn't also like to be able to cure their sniffles!

I could tell that you had an interesting view of the human origin issue. If you have revealed insight that any didn't know about then it would be good to share. Scripture cannot be ruled out as a surviving account of our speciation so might as well add that in too.

Science is a mix of ideas to explain how things work from all cultures all over the world. All are invited, with there being no shame in asking good questions or searching for better answers to them. It's always best to know what the evidence is, and what can be concluded from it.

And I do not worry about the ignoramus bible thumper label, their story is actually very scientifically insteresting as in the "Why The Religious Minded Rule Science, With Science..." topic:

http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=12253#12253

I guess you could say, the thump starts there. And Islamic culture has science heros like that too, hopefully in time will have more.
 
Honestly, I would not where to begin affording all the lab stuff I would need to cure the common cold or have an idea how it could be done. But I came back to this old thread to reply to an email I received that said "Reply to thread 'Evolution Test!'" where I noticed muhaba had a number of excellent questions that I specialize in answering, and I could cure that problem. Not that I wouldn't also like to be able to cure their sniffles!
I know, indeed, it was meant in jest.. can't seem to get a grip on something trivial that lives in the nose for about a week, yet already unlocked the secrets to the universe!
I could tell that you had an interesting view of the human origin issue. If you have revealed insight that any didn't know about then it would be good to share. Scripture cannot be ruled out as a surviving account of our speciation so might as well add that in too.
The point is just that exactly, your, or the explanations offered are more or less as highly implausible, and frankly serve no purpose-- I can think of no good use of imagining what we could have speciated from... the concept is created solely to ease atheists into their life style of God rejection.. he either created the world and neglected it, or simply we sprouted from the ocean with a dash of wind and sunshine, or from a rock by the same means.. Everyone gets contentious and then go home happy!
Science is a mix of ideas to explain how things work from all cultures all over the world. All are invited, with there being no shame in asking good questions or searching for better answers to them. It's always best to know what the evidence is, and what can be concluded from it.
No argument there.. indeed using 'science' not empiricism should be the operative word!


all the best
 
The point is just that exactly, your, or the explanations offered are more or less as highly implausible, and frankly serve no purpose--

Our 46 chromosomes can be counted under microscope. The reason why there is not the usual 48 can be easily seen to be because of fusion in both allele pair from each parent that resulted in our second largest chromosome. It's only expected that people will want to know more about that, which gives a useful explanation a purpose.

I can think of no good use of imagining what we could have speciated from... the concept is created solely to ease atheists into their life style of God rejection..

Science does not belong to Atheists. Not anymore, anyway.

You would be surprised how fast concepts that must include a Chromosomal Adam and Eve in their logic changes things. Allowing the search for a Creator in science is unheard of in the Atheism camp. And what is most precious is how Creationist ideas in regards to retina design proved to have been correct, while those from the Atheism movement proved to be incorrect on a number of things. Science is not going their way right now, so it is honestly more like a slowly crumbling empire.

There is no way to deny that we have the human 46 chromosome design while the 48's all still have the original 48. This fusion is something that happened right away and with no natural selection required, not some "slowly evolved" trait which in this case makes the old evolutionary theory thinking kinda useless for understanding where we came from. Therefore the most modern view finds Adam and Eve at a "chromosome speciation" event, with scripture having an interesting way of describing it without contradicting scientific evidence.

People want to know what the 48 to 46 chromosome thing is all about. The estimated date of the fusion and when humans appeared in the fossil record cover are the same, which is very real evidence that Adam and Eve existed and that is how a whole new specie like us is created. And that is better than no scientific answer at all, especially since having none only gives your competition a knowledge void to fill with philosophical based arguments.
 
Sorry about the delay
what did happen and how is it of relevance to the thread?
Well nobody knows, Dobzhansky didn't even know, so for you to say that the flies were directly manipulated to that end makes no sense. It's relevant to this thread because it involves the emergence of a new species.
Your article discusses such things as and let me quote directly:

'Huntington's disease gene, but also for genes associated with Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome, polycystic kidney disease and a form of muscular dystrophy'
That is a colossal example of quoting out of context to intentionally mislead. Full quote:

'Human chromosome 2 is unique to the human lineage in being the product of a head-to-head fusion of two intermediate-sized ancestral chromosomes. Chromosome 4 has received attention primarily related to the search for the Huntington's disease gene, but also for genes associated with Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome, polycystic kidney disease and a form of muscular dystrophy.'

We're talking about chromosome 2, not 4.
some humans are even a 45,XO (Turner's Syndrome) notice I used the term human.. not other specie into human!
Well that's a very interesting example you've given. Doesn't the definition of 'species' usually include a component of interbreeding? Those with Turner's Syndrome aren't capable of interbreeding with the general population are they?
however, I have gone ahead and posted articles and videos as to what observably and naturally occurs as a direct result of fusion/breaks/translocations...
There's a problem with this and it's the same one you see anywhere people are discussing strongly held beliefs, that of reinforcement bias. If the belief appears to conflict with real world occurrences the believer actively seeks out information which confirms their own ideals while ignoring anything which contradicts them.

You have started with an assumption that chromosome fusions are always detrimental. Therefore human chromosome 2 cannot be the product of a fusion because it is part of the 'normal' human makeup.

Perhaps if you started at a different point, deducing a conclusion from the evidence rather than the other way round, it might be more productive.

Anyway, you've wandered beautifully away from my question, which was "If you don't think chromosome fusion occurred, what explanation fits the evidence?"
 
Our 46 chromosomes can be counted under microscope. The reason why there is not the usual 48 can be easily seen to be because of fusion in both allele pair from each parent that resulted in our second largest chromosome. It's only expected that people will want to know more about that, which gives a useful explanation a purpose.
Indeed, they can be counted under the microscope.. we also have FISH ( fluorescence in situ hybridization) and a host of others..what is your point?


Science does not belong to Atheists. Not anymore, anyway.
Who said anything about science belonging to atheists? you clearly misconstrued what I wrote.
You would be surprised how fast concepts that must include a Chromosomal Adam and Eve in their logic changes things. Allowing the search for a Creator in science is unheard of in the Atheism camp. And what is most precious is how Creationist ideas in regards to retina design proved to have been correct, while those from the Atheism movement proved to be incorrect on a number of things. Science is not going their way right now, so it is honestly more like a slowly crumbling empire.
Science isn't concerned with religion.. its concern should be to produce solutions in some problem domain!

There is no way to deny that we have the human 46 chromosome design while the 48's all still have the original 48. This fusion is something that happened right away and with no natural selection required, not some "slowly evolved" trait which in this case makes the old evolutionary theory thinking kinda useless for understanding where we came from. Therefore the most modern view finds Adam and Eve at a "chromosome speciation" event, with scripture having an interesting way of describing it without contradicting scientific evidence.
You keep hammering in an unprovable point.. why do you insist on doing this and calling it science?


all the best
 
Sorry about the delayWell nobody knows,
I lost sleep nights awaiting fervently your input!

Dobzhansky didn't even know, so for you to say that the flies were directly manipulated to that end makes no sense. It's relevant to this thread because it involves the emergence of a new species.
I believe that I have quoted you directly from the paper and pls let me recap
.'species formation through doubling of the chromosomal hybrid is however, not the usual method of speciation'

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pag...20&pageindex=2

in other words it appears that you are looking for something that simply isn't the acting technique. Further what do flies have to do with humans and apes? It is a huge leap given the same proposed methods in humans yield a completely different outcome, see previous examples.

That is a colossal example of quoting out of context to intentionally mislead. Full quote:

'Human chromosome 2 is unique to the human lineage in being the product of a head-to-head fusion of two intermediate-sized ancestral chromosomes. Chromosome 4 has received attention primarily related to the search for the Huntington's disease gene, but also for genes associated with Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome, polycystic kidney disease and a form of muscular dystrophy.'
Actually it is rather an excellent example of how many of you come here referencing an ambiguous article from which we are to draw what we may. Not only do you not bother reason or explain content as relates to the thread, You bank that referencing to some unrelated scientific jargon is an assertion with an implicit conviction that you are wiser and more intelligent than the Bedouins on board, in fact doing yourself a great disservice of having no intellectual honesty whatsoever!
Human chromosome 2 being a product of some ancestral fusion is nothing but a conjecture with little hard evidence. We share 50% of our genes with Bananas not as stark as 98% with Apes, but the combination in any single chromosome are phenomenal.. if you apprehended that better, it would crystallize for you why even with allografts you need immunosuppressants for impending rejection, let alone xenografts. We are not descendants of apes anymore than we are bananas!
We're talking about chromosome 2, not 4.Well that's a very interesting example you've given. Doesn't the definition of 'species' usually include a component of interbreeding? Those with Turner's Syndrome aren't capable of interbreeding with the general population are they?
Thank you for invalidating yourself.. that is in fact the outcome of chromosomal anomalies/fusions/breaks etc.. Even if the fetus comes to term and manages to live it will not be able to reproduce let alone speciate!


There's a problem with this and it's the same one you see anywhere people are discussing strongly held beliefs, that of reinforcement bias. If the belief appears to conflict with real world occurrences the believer actively seeks out information which confirms their own ideals while ignoring anything which contradicts them.
It is called Cognitive dissonance. Do you believe that by pointing out that obvious that you are exempt from it? in fact your entire posts here have been nothing but an assertion to just that!
You have started with an assumption that chromosome fusions are always detrimental. Therefore human chromosome 2 cannot be the product of a fusion because it is part of the 'normal' human makeup.
And you are yet to prove otherwise, if we go your route it would be based on an a priori judgment, not necessarily supported by fact, I am wondering why in your mind you deem that superior to what we actually know and see?
Perhaps if you started at a different point, deducing a conclusion from the evidence rather than the other way round, it might be more productive.
Oh how so? shouldn't there be some sort of experimental results that support said hypothesis if we are to take them as hard facts.. we certainly have the vectors to do so, Liposomes, Ecoli bacteria to name a few, it would be wonderful to assuage everyone's doubts by reproducing the same results in lieu of opining another 21 pages of drivel!

Anyway, you've wandered beautifully away from my question, which was "If you don't think chromosome fusion occurred, what explanation fits the evidence?"
your question is akin to agrammatism, mindless drivel pieced together to serve no purpose, I really have no idea what you are driving at or what you are looking for or even what you are asking!

all the best!
 
Last edited:
I believe that I have quoted you directly from the paper and pls let me recap
What difference does it make that polyploidy is not the 'usual' method? It happens (here, for example) and it's perfectly valid, just not all that common.
Not only do you not bother reason or explain content as relates to the thread, You bank that referencing to some unrelated scientific jargon is an assertion with an implicit conviction that you are wiser and more intelligent than the Bedouins on board, in fact doing yourself a great disservice of having no intellectual honesty whatsoever!
You appear to be projecting your own problems onto me :)
I really have no idea what you are driving at or what you are looking for or even what you are asking!
You know what it is that I'm asking, because I've asked it twice already and you've declined to provide a response. Perhaps you'd prefer to write off as deluded anyone who disagrees with you, such as these.

If human chromosome 2 is not a result of fusion, how do you explain the telomeric sequences in the middle and the remains of an extra centromere, along with the fact that it looks almost identical to two chimp chromosomes laid end to end?
 
What difference does it make that polyploidy is not the 'usual' method? It happens (here, for example) and it's perfectly valid, just not all that common.

Thanks for the informative article, in a nut shell, this is adaptation. It isn't speciation. Such as that which occurs in metaplasia of the esophagus from squamous to columnar epithelium:

E2.jpg


to
ONC_10152007_01383f2-1.jpg


due to repeated stress, without getting into the molecular basis of it, allows organs or organisms involved to adapt and undergo histological changes to better acquiesce to their surrounding!
the above is an accepted and undisputed mechanism. I suggest before you quote me hordes of unrelated topics that you first familiarize yourself of the differences between macro and micro-evolution!

You appear to be projecting your own problems onto me :)
No, I believe it is an adequate assessment of you given the repeated blunders!
You know what it is that I'm asking, because I've asked it twice already and you've declined to provide a response. Perhaps you'd prefer to write off as deluded anyone who disagrees with you, such as these.
The article is based on empiricism--terms used in said articles such as 'the putative nature is unknown' and 'suggesting that the telomeres at the extreme end may have been involved' from what you cited are your clue euphemisms for empiricism-- from which at the end you are left to draw your own conclusions. The fact that you already have Apes living side by side us and can use the same suggested means to fuse centromeric or telmoeric ends to yield the same results as theorized to actualize your beliefs should carry this to the next level rather than make it the new toy for a playground of amateurs on some public blog and since the beliefs in said case are indeed ever changing at one point it was rapid bursts of genetic changes causing speciation and now it is a mere a series of jumps and fusions with long static periods perhaps in the future it will be something else all together...... and in the end there is no reason or drive for these successive events to have taken place, in other words we'd probably have been more successful as a species of algae or cockroaches than destructive humans with sentience which evolved from God knows what... but that is not our topic however what is important is that you not subscribe to this as you would a religion lest you end up with a foot in your mouth ten years down the line.. until such a time you reference me to an article with a sort of hard core data, everything you write here about flies and frogs and one large chromosome is an effort in futility.

at the end of the day, the only outcome we see of actualized fusions/breaks/translocations are in fact detrimental!

If human chromosome 2 is not a result of fusion, how do you explain the telomeric sequences in the middle and the remains of an extra centromere, along with the fact that it looks almost identical to two chimp chromosomes laid end to end?
Many things that you deem 'remains' or 'rudimentary', prove to either have a purpose later on, misunderstood as to its nature-- some are simply nonfunctional for our current state of understanding.

My answer is, those are the building blocks for our universe, the same as you can have 26 letter of the alphabet creating a 9000 page dictionaries and endless articles covering everything from tandem bikes to Cloning and debriefing as well over time more and more words evolve.. some words are related, some are complete opposites, all made of the same first principles yet they are not the same words.

You want to believe you have descended from apes.. be my guest, no one is forcing you to change your beliefs! we share 35% of out genes with algae or bananas and 82% are shared with the platypus-- did the Apes result from a fusion on the platypus and before the platypus bananas and before the banana some algae?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071011142628.htm

all the best
 
Last edited:
Gossamer, you're now attempting to argue that "polyploidy" is not a "speciation event" by showing a picture of cells that have nothing at all to do with "polyploidy". If you were born a 92 chromosome giant that was obviously not like the usual 46 chromosome humans then you would have experienced a macroevolution speciation event because of the way science defines what a species is. If you do not like the current definitions then argue that the definitions that do exist are in your opinion illogical, not try to argue that speciation is impossible.

We all know that the genome of a frog makes a frog, not a dog. And the genome of a dog does not produce frogs. Each is a unique species with its own set of chromosomes. Therefore it is very logical to conclude that very large and sudden changes in genome structure can and will produce a new species or subspecies.

We all also know we are not chimps, yet you are arguing that chromosome speciation is impossible which is the same as saying that even with the large genome differences we are still only a chimpanzee! And you are worried about Atheists doing that? Phew! Step back from your argument and look at what you are saying here!

There is something in our genome that makes us human and a chimp a chimp, what is it?
 
Gossamer, you're now attempting to argue that "polyploidy" is not a "speciation event" by showing a picture of cells that have nothing at all to do with "polyploidy". If you were born a 92 chromosome giant that was obviously not like the usual 46 chromosome humans then you would have experienced a macroevolution speciation event because of the way science defines what a species is. If you do not like the current definitions then argue that the definitions that do exist are in your opinion illogical, not try to argue that speciation is impossible.

Science, I am not arguing that polyploidy is akin to metaplasia, I am arguing that the end product of such anomalies if they survive will not give you a different species rather the same species perhaps with modifications as means to adapt to the environment and for such I have included the cells that have undergone metaplastic change as an example, although it is extremely rare as even the article itself so mentions; not the metaplasia but his example, as often the end result of such changes are truncated proteins, aborted fetuses, genetic anomalies, and in the case I personally mentioned above (a barrettes esophagus) is cancerous with a grim prognosis..and that is in fact what I have argued all along!..
We all know that the genome of a frog makes a frog, not a dog. And the genome of a dog does not produce frogs. Each is a unique species with its own set of chromosomes. Therefore it is very logical to conclude that very large and sudden changes in genome structure can and will produce a new species or subspecies.
indeed, however humans aren't a subspecies of apes if that is what you are deriving at!

We all also know we are not chimps, yet you are arguing that chromosome speciation is impossible which is the same as saying that even with the large genome differences we are still only a chimpanzee! And you are worried about Atheists doing that? Phew! Step back from your argument and look at what you are saying here!
I have no idea what this paragraph means in relation to the topic or what I have personally written!
Also, pls don't presume to know what it is that I worry or don't worry about, finding a suitable suede polish for my Marni shoes as to not ruin them in all fairness at the moment it taking precedence over why atheists believe in what they do and you by proxy!
There is something in our genome that makes us human and a chimp a chimp, what is it?
What do you think it is?


all the best
 
Last edited:
There is something in our genome that makes us human and a chimp a chimp, what is it?
What do you think it is?
Here is what I think it is. Where is your explanation?

From: http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/

Speciation

Speciation is a process which causes enough change in genotype or phenotype of an organism that they branch off from the lineage they once were to become a new "species" or "subspecies". In farming there are "breeds" of the cow species which are still able to interbreed with each other (but not always) and each a subspecies that can be given a unique scientific name. All cows are the same species, and each unique breed of cow is a separate subspecies.

To complicate the defining of a species some are different colors or are born with unique markings, yet they are all the same species and subspecies. Ants and bees are a good example where members of the same colony look entirely different depending on what they do.

Although it is sometimes very difficult or impossible to determine exactly where and when a "speciation event" occurred, the mechanisms that cause speciation can be listed as the following. In some cases speciation happens very slowly. In other cases it is immediate in which case there are no transitional forms, and there can be no transitional fossils.

Behavioral Speciation (very slow)

Speciation is in part guided by what the organism itself finds desirable in the variety available to select as a mate. This includes extreme examples such as peacocks where females selecting the largest most attractive tail design has led to males with giant brilliant displays, even though this makes it more difficult to fly from predators.

Although human speciation was chromosomal in origin, we have a similar intelligence guided mate selection preference. In magazine advertising the looks of "sex symbols" are sometimes computer enhanced to represent the conscious ideals not yet common in our morphology. What is added or removed from the picture helps show what human intelligence finds most desireable.

Geographic isolation can lead to behavioral speciation events. In the wild there is what are called "ring species" that slowly extended their territory in a direction that in time brings them back to where they started, forming a ring. By the time the ring forms a complete circle back again they are no longer able or no longer choose to breed with each other. In this case it is obvious that speciation occurred but there is no one place along the way where they suddenly changed, which then makes it impossible to find one single point along the way that they became a new subspecies (or possibly new species).

In behavioral speciation there is no one day and time that a pivotal event occurred, no single genome change resulted in a "speciation event" that created a new species. And the genome must first be already drifting in that direction or else such morphological change is impossible. In the peacock example we can say that the peacocks are aroused by the direction their genome is already set to go, anyway. Therefore what they in their mind find desirable is the same as what the genome finds desirable at the molecular level being expressed at the level of the emergent peacock brain. What they find desirable is not here hard-wired into neurons as an image or picture of what it should find desireable in a mate, it is an expression of the molecular genome itself that even responds chemically with hormones that cause physiological change where in humans just a picture of a desireable mate causes this molecular "arousal" to be produced.

Although all living things are at the mercy of climate change, volcanoes, earthquakes, floods, and other disasters we can to some degree predict where a species is drifting towards by how it idealizes itself. For our species there is all of art and culture where we find exaggerations of real life where the size of Betty Boops pupil alone is the size of her whole mouth yet we still recognize this image as being human and sexy. What produces this may be that it is possible for our genome to drift in that direction, or already is.

How long it would take an isolated genome to speciate depends on its genetic learning rate (how fast it gains or changes new information/genes). Sexual reproduction has a good amount of crossover exchange which greatly accelerates the ability to adapt and change. Asexual reproducers such as E. coli produce clones of itself which are identical to the parent. Fast responses to environment is then from exchanging plasmids but these are separate transient genomes, not the primary genome that accomplishes cell growth and reproduction.

There are "living fossils" that have changed so little it seems to us that they should have become a new species by now or at least new morphology. But this change is relative to how fast our genome changes in comparison to theirs. So it is not time alone that matters, we must also consider the genome learning rate in our consideration of how long it takes for a given genome to speciate.

Hybridization Speciation (immediate)

Common in plants and used in agriculture a hybrid species is produced when two species combine to form a new non-sterile species. In single cell organisms one species may retain all or part of its original form inside of the other (endosymbiosis). In complex animals hybridization can be more difficult. Horses and donkeys normally give birth to a sterile mule but on rare occasions a fertile mule is born.

Polyploid Speciation (immediate)

Polyploid speciation is the result of all chromosomes doubling, tripling or more in number. With twice or more of everything the cells are proportionately larger, resulting in a larger plant or animal. This is relatively common in self-reproducing plants. In animals reproducing the new genome structure requires a genome compatible mate, therefore surviving polyploidy species are less frequent but are still found in some insects, fishes, amphibians, reptiles and rat.[18] Paleopolyploidy is the scientific study of prehistoric polyploid speciation events.

Chromosome Speciation (fast - Human, Fruit Fly, Mosquito)

Chromosome fusion speciation[17] is the result of two chromosomes joining to become a single one such as the origin of human chromosome #2. Chromosome fission speciation is the result of a chromosome division.

In human chromosomal fusion speciation the telomeres at each end of the 2 supercoiled chromosomes became sticky, possibly by removal of the repeating code that forms a protective layer that makes the ends not-sticky. Then when not-sticky ends are in close enough proximity molecular forces of attraction take over then fusion occurs.

What causes telomeres to become not sticky to fuse like this, is not fully known. Phylogenetic evidence from the human genome indicates this has happened a number of times to increase chromosome complexity, along with extra copies of chromosomes being added to increase the number of chromosomes to increase total genome complexity. It is possible that through time an epigenetic mechanism has learned how to take good guesses this way, using an additional mechanism that when necessary prevents fusion by adding telomere repeat coding on ends to make not-sticky.

Fusion changes the locations of at least some of the chromosome territories that are formed upon uncoiling of the supercoiled chromosomes where each territory works as a single system, with neighboring specialized chromosome territory systems. The fusion event also scrambles some of the genes at each end as would be expected where there is a collision, and is evidenced at the fusion site of human chromosome number two where fragments from each side still embedded in the other. Even though there was not a significant amount of gene scrambling the rearranging of the chromosome territories may have already produced a noticeable morphological change. The mother of a child with this large a fusion might have been able to tell there was something unique about them but would be expected to still love them just the same, or more.

The fused chromosome is in either allele (either mother or father) of the haploid (has one of two sets of chromosomes) germ cell (egg or sperm) that divides down to develop into a 47 chromosome heterozygote (alleles are different not homozygous where alleles the same) humanoid that has the human chromosome #2 being expressed along with copy of the two chromosomes with no fusion that provides all that the cell had before, with something new in the fused copy for epigenetic systems to control to meet the needs of the growing cell. The fusion now replicates in the population as follows:

48 and 48 parents produce a 48 offspring only.
48 and 47 parents produce a 48 or 47 offspring.
47 and 47 parents produce a 48 or 47 or 46 human offspring.
47 and 46 parents produce a 47 or 46 human offspring.
46 and 46 parents produce a 46 human offspring only.

The first 46 chromosome humans who were born to the existing 47 chromosome lineage may have right away been fertile, or at first had sterility problems in which case human chromosome #2 had to first learn to survive to replicate without the unfused chromosomes of the other allele there to help maintain proper cell functions. It would then become increasingly difficult for a 46 to reproduce with 48 and possibly 47 in part because along with the new genome design came a new self-image that made the 48's look "apish" and 47's relatively "unattractive" to 46's.

Where "human" is defined as having the unique 46 chromosome genome design that separates us from 47 and 48 ancestors there was a first human couple in our ancestry that was already fully human. There is here a human man and a woman Chromosomal Adam and Eve who together could only produce 46 chromosome descendants whose children would prefer to be with their own kind as would their children's children through time, all the way from them to us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Back
Top