Bill Nye #2: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
341

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
anonym, have you seen this? It’s about the fusion of chromosome 2 .

I’ve posted it like 3 times now, and the creationists just seem to ignore it.[/quote]

Because they are idiots, but I will give a response for them from their source of information.

It astonishes me thay these guys actually are swayed by this shit. Look at the sources at the bottom hilarious! (especially source 14)

A Tale of Two Chromosomes

by Jean K. Lightner, D.V.M. on

November 14, 2007
A Tale of Two Chromosomes

by Jean K. Lightner, D.V.M. on

November 14, 2007
Evolutionists can be excellent storytellers. For example, Dr. Ken Miller, a biology professor from Brown University who testified against Intelligent Design (ID) at the Dover trial,1 tells an engaging story that he claims is compelling evidence for evolution. The problem is that because of his naturalistic assumptions, he himself is unable to distinguish fact from fiction, science from conjecture.

Background

Humans normally have 46 chromosomes. However, sometimes two chromosomes will fuse together to form one big chromosome. Centric fusions are where two acrocentric chromosomes (chromosomes with the centromere very close to one end) fuse to make a large metacentric chromosome (one with the centromere near the middle). It is estimated that around 1/1000 people carry this type of chromosomal rearrangement. While they are sometimes associated with problems such as infertility or serious chromosomal aberrations in the offspring, often they are asymptomatic.2 This is because all of the necessary information is there in the proper amount; it is just packaged differently.

The tale of missing chromosomes

There are many anatomical similarities between humans and apes. Our chromosomes are similar as well. We can see these similarities in the banding patterns of the chromosomes. One obvious difference between the human and ape karyotype is that apes have 48 chromosomes (24 pairs) and humans normally have 46 (23 pairs). Dr. Miller likes to tell an entertaining �¢??who done it�¢?? type story asking where the missing chromosome pair went. He then points out the scientific evidence for a fusion event on human chromosome 2. There is evidence that implies a fusion event may have occurred.3 Human chromosome 2 corresponds to ape chromosomes 12 and 13. Dr. Miller states, �¢??Our chromosome number 2 was formed by the fusion of two primate chromosomes.�¢??4 Dr. Miller assumes common ancestry and the number of chromosomes is consistent with his belief. However, he misses other important evidence that contradicts his basic claim.

Most importantly, reliable eyewitness testimony is more powerful than circumstantial evidence in establishing historical details. The Bible, inspired by the Creator himself, indicates that humans were created in the image of God and distinct from other animals.5 Humans are clearly distinct from other animals in cognitive and language ability. Occasionally, the ability of chimps to use tools or simple sign language is touted as evidence for their close relationship with us. In reality, chimps are not significantly different in these areas from many other mammals and birds (except that they can use their hands more like us). Chimps lack the anatomy for human speech. Ironically, a few birds have been known to use human language quite well, at least for an animal.6 Simple tool making ability is also seen in a variety of animals.7 While intelligence in animals is quite fascinating, it is still significantly different from that of humans and gives no hint of common ancestry. The similarities are much more easily explained by the fact that these animals all had a common designer who reused certain excellent design elements much like engineers do in their creations today.

Observed patterns of chromosomal rearrangement

Dr. Miller’s enthusiasm about this chromosomal rearrangement may be tied to the older notion that such mutations are the basis for speciation.8 This belief was shown to be overly simplistic decades ago when papers appeared describing chromosomal variations which were not eliminated by selection. One intriguing example is a single species of rodent (Holochilus brasiliensis) where 26 different karyotypes were identified in the 42 individuals tested.9 Chromosomal rearrangements have been identified within many ruminant species. There are examples in both goats and sheep where individuals with one or more centric fusions are phenotypically indistinguishable from other animals.10 One researcher who studied sheep carrying up to three different centric fusions concluded, Ã?¢??It is now considered that there is little or no evidence to suggest that centric fusions in a variety of combinations affect the total productive fitness of domestic sheep.Ã?¢??11 So, the bottom line is that centric fusions themselves do not inevitably result in a new species. It is conceivable that some apes exist with 46 chromosomes. Yet these animals will be distinctly apes; they will not be Ã?¢??evolvingÃ?¢?? to become a human. If the observed evidence is really from a fusion, it is best explained by the fusion of two human chromosomes.

A diversion from the real issue

The biggest problem with Dr. Miller�¢??s story is that it distracts the audience from the real issue. It is not the number of chromosomes that is really a significant difference between humans and apes, but the information contained on those chromosomes. According to the evolutionary scenario, our apelike ancestors underwent major anatomical restructuring to develop upright posture, speech ability, and an astounding increase in cognitive function all by random, chance processes. Such profound changes were never observed; they are inferred because evolution has an atheistic basis and assumes there is no creator.

Despite the superficial similarities between human and ape chromosomes, there are important differences on the molecular level. There are many protein coding genes in humans that are distinctly human and are not found in chimps. Perhaps more significantly are the differences in genes that don’t code for proteins. Genes have been described which code for microRNA (miRNA). The miRNA molecule is not translated, but acts directly to control gene expression. A single miRNA can regulate the expression of dozens or even hundreds of genes. A study of miRNAs expressed in the brain found 51 of 447 new miRNAs were distinctly human and 25 were only found in the chimp.12 The idea that so many genes were altered so that they are expressed in the proper concentration according to cell type and can effectively control the many different genes they regulate is not what we would expect of chance processes.13 It is more rational to believe that God created humans distinct from chimps, just as He tells us in the Bible.

Blind to alternatives

While the evidence for a fusion appears consistent with the evolution model, Dr. Miller implies that it is inconsistent with ID or creation models. He makes the ludicrous claim that the only way creationists can respond to this evidence is: �¢??That�¢??s the way the designer made it.�¢??4 This statement reveals Dr. Miller�¢??s inability to think outside his paradigm. As a creationist who finds chromosomal rearrangements fascinating, I can honestly say I never thought of that possibility. One possibility I had considered is that humans and apes (and perhaps other animals too) were created with the same number of chromosomes with similar banding patterns.14 Since chromosome numbers vary within created kinds, it is not in the chromosome number where we should expect the most significant differences to lie, but in the coded information.

Although Ken Miller�¢??s story does not properly consider current scientific understanding of chromosomal fusions or significant genomic differences between apes and humans, he promotes it enthusiastically to support his belief that humans descended from apes. Furthermore, he is ardently opposed to teaching intelligent design in the schools, claiming that it is not scientific.15 He appears to be blind to the fact that the belief that humans descended from apes is a religious (atheistic) one; such changes have never been observed. Thus, he is not able to distinguish between science and religious indoctrination.

True science and the Bible believer

Despite the misunderstanding and wild story telling of evolutionists, science is truly a fascinating and rewarding field for Christians who believe the Bible. The sciences were founded by people with a strong Christian worldview.16 There are still many fascinating questions waiting to be answered. For example, why do chromosomal rearrangements occur? It has been pointed out in the literature that they are non-random.17 Do they have a purpose? (Evolutionists aren’t supposed to ask this.) Do they play a role in speciation? If so, how? Do they help animals adapt to new environments? Why are there times when they cause problems (i.e. some carriers have a high percentage of unbalanced gametes18 which results in infertility or abnormalities in their offspring)? How can they become fixed in a population? God’s world is out there waiting to be explored. The truth is far more fascinating than fairy tales.

Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.

Footnotes
1.Pam Sheppard, �¢??Dover, Pennsylvania (USA) Intelligent Design trial ends today,�¢?? Answers in Genesis, Dover, Pennsylvania (USA) Intelligent Design Trial Ends Today | Answers in Genesis. Back
2.F. Morel et al., Meiotic segregation of translocations during male gametogenesis, Int. J. Androl. 27 no. 4 (2004):200�¢??212. Back
3.There are patterns of DNA that generally occur at the end of chromosomes which appear in the middle of chromosome 2 where the fusion is believe to have occurred (subtelomeric duplications). While there is no second centromere, there are patterns of DNA found near centromeres that occur in chromosome 2 where the second centromere is believed to have previously existed (pericentromeric duplications). Hillier, L.W., et. al., Generation and annotation of the DNA sequences of human chromosomes 2 and 4, Nature 434 no. 7034 (2005):724�¢??731.
The possibility of human chromosome 2 being the result of a fusion is not a problem for creationists. It is only the idea that this chromosome was derived from a nonhuman ancestor that we would take issue with. Back
4.Ken Miller on Human Evolution, Ken Miller on Human Evolution - YouTube. Back (1) Back (2)
5.Genesis 1:26�¢??28; 2:7 Back
6.David Catchpoole, �¢??Petulant parrot proves a point�¢??but atheists can�¢??t (or won�¢??t) see it,�¢?? Creation Ministries International, Petulant parrot proves a point; Ryan Jaroncyk, �¢??Parrot prodigy,�¢?? Creation Ministries International, Parrot prodigy. Back
7.Ryan Jaroncyk, Ã?¢??Jumbo Minds,Ã?¢?? Creation Ministries International, Elephants—jumbo minds as well as bodies; A. A. S. Weir, et al., Ã?¢??Shaping of Hooks in New Caledonian Crows,Ã?¢?? AAAS, http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/crow/. Back
8.Chromosomal rearrangement may play some role in speciation, but it is not associated with the type of major anatomical rearrangements that ape to human evolution demands. They also come at a cost, since some DNA is generally lost during the rearrangements. Also, some rearrangements are associated with abnormalities. For example, it is estimated that 5% of Down�¢??s syndrome cases are the result of an extra 21st chromosome carried on a translocation. Ref. 10. Back
9.M.W. Nachman and Myers, P., �¢??Exceptional chromosomal mutations in a rodent population are not strongly underdominant,�¢?? PNAS 86 no. 17 (1989): 6666�¢??6670. Back
10.J.K. Lightner, �¢??Changing chromosome numbers,�¢?? Journal of Creation 20 no. 3 (2006):14�¢??15. Back
11.A.N. Bruere and Ellis, P.M., �¢??Cytogenetics and reproduction of sheep with multiple centric fusions (Robertsonian translocations),�¢?? J. Reprod. Fertil. 57 no. 2 (1979):363�¢??375. Back
12.E. Berezikov et al., �¢??Diversity of microRNAs in human and chimpanzee brain,�¢?? Nature Genetics 38 no. 12 (2006):1375�¢??1377. Back
13.P. Borger and Truman, R., �¢??Ultraconserved sequences pose megaproblems for evolutionary theory,�¢?? Journal of Creation 21 no. 2 (2007):8�¢??9. Back
14.While it may turn out that this is not the case, it is fully consistent with a straightforward interpretation of the Bible. Nothing in Scripture implies that God must have created different kinds with different chromosome numbers or even different banding patterns. Back
15.�¢??A Victory for Science and Education in Dover,�¢?? http://www.millerandlevine.com/dover/index.html. Back
16.Roger Patterson, Evolution Exposed, (Petersburg, Kentucky: Answers in Genesis, 2006), chapter 1. Back
17.R. Bandyopadhyay et al., �¢??Parental Origin and Timing of De Novo Robertsonian Translocation Formation,�¢?? Am. J. Hum. Genet. 71 no. 6 (2002):1456�¢??1462. Back
18.Gametes normally contain one of each chromosome pair. When there is a loss or gain of chromosomal material during formation, an unbalanced gamete results. This can be from a missing chromosome, or from a translocated chromosome occurring along with one (or both) of its homologues. If a translocation is present without either homologue, then the gamete will be balanced. Back

342

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
anonym, have you seen this? It’s about the fusion of chromosome 2 .

I’ve posted it like 3 times now, and the creationists just seem to ignore it.[/quote]

That’s a pretty interesting video – thanks for posting that, man.

I hadn’t heard about that before, though since I’ve never taken any sort of evolutionary biology course I guess I can’t be too surprised. My education in genetics focused more on the clinical aspects… so it’s certainly not a strong point of mine.

It’s definitely something I’m gonna do a bit more reading on, though.

343

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
anonym, have you seen this? It’s about the fusion of chromosome 2 .

I’ve posted it like 3 times now, and the creationists just seem to ignore it.[/quote]

There is one teensy-weeensy little gnat to strain at. Dr. Miller does not address the gnat. Please join me.

The question is, “How does the Human Ancestor acquire a full compliment–46–chromosomes including 2 copies of a fused chromosome 2?”

If this is true, than each parent contributed a fused 2 to its offspring (singular and plural.)

I can think of only 2 scenarios in which this might happen.

  1. The Common Ancestor was a mosaic of 46/48 chromosomes with half the cells containing fused chromosome 2. Then half the gametes would have 23 chromosomes including a fused chromosome 2.
    But that explanation would require 2 parents, each a mosaic, male and female, to contribute the gametes with respective 23 chromosomes and a fused chromosome 2.

And how common is that? In 40 years, I have encountered one human mosaic (46x/46y). One. Imagine the statistical probability of finding 2 mosaics in the same generation which mate with each other. Well, the statistical probability would increase if one were to allow an incestuous origin for mankind. (To be clear: brother and sister mosaics of 46/48 composition mate and produce a 46 chromosome human being with the fused chromosome 2.)

  1. During reductive meiosis, the Common Ancestor (who has 48 chromosomes) produces a gamete in which chromosome 13 has condensed to chromosome 2. (Not exactly a Robertsonian translocation, but plausible.) At the same time, in the same generation, another Common Ancestor produces a gamete in the same way, and these two find each other and the child which ensues is a human being with 46 chromosomes including the fused chromosome 2.

Is this statistically plausible? It does not require consanguinous mating, but what are the chances?

–

The explanation of chromosome 2 is a piece of beauty. But the questions that ensue–well, they remain questions.
The answer is probably accessible, and lies not in chromosomal analysis, but in a comparison of ape and human mitochondrial DNA. Let’s see if I can find it.

344

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Precisely what the creationist argument is against macro evolution, or “increases in genetic information.”

It’s not visible, observable, or testable.

Thanks for your post![/quote]

So increases in genetic information equals macroevolution?[/quote]

Not exactly. I have learned over the years not to equate the two.[/quote]

You know, I kinda figured that might be the case. I think I already know your main issue with macroevolution (which is reasonable, even if I don’t agree), so that seemed like a pretty big hole for you to stumble into.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:
And these increases are neither visible, observable nor testable?[/quote]

Don’t have time right now. On the go again, traveling. I do appreciate your subsequent post though. Seriously. You bring up some points that actually add to the discussion instead of the usual blather - the ranting and screaming and condescension.[/quote]

Well, I’d be happy to hear your thoughts on the “increases in genetic information” part, since I think I already know what you’re getting at by macroevolution not being observable, testable, etc.

But… I’m really not too interested in duking it out for the next 10+ pages, tbh. I’ve done this enough times (and I know you have, too) to know that “live and let live” is really the only thing that’s gonna be agreed upon once the dust settles.

345

I love science. I really do. I wish I had more time to study it. This kinda stuff absolutely fascinates me. I also hope Colt44 lives a very good long time. Too bad it couldn’t be a couple hundred years so he could see the scientists of the future chuckle at so much of what we KNOW today. They’ll still hate God so that wouldn’t be too discouraging for him, but I wouldn’t be shocked if aliens were being advanced to explain the presence of humans on this planet by then. Oh wait, some of em are already doin that now.

346

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
anonym, have you seen this? It’s about the fusion of chromosome 2 .

I’ve posted it like 3 times now, and the creationists just seem to ignore it.[/quote]

There is one teensy-weeensy little gnat to strain at. Dr. Miller does not address the gnat. Please join me.

The question is, “How does the Human Ancestor acquire a full compliment–46–chromosomes including 2 copies of a fused chromosome 2?”

If this is true, than each parent contributed a fused 2 to its offspring (singular and plural.)

I can think of only 2 scenarios in which this might happen.

  1. The Common Ancestor was a mosaic of 46/48 chromosomes with half the cells containing fused chromosome 2. Then half the gametes would have 23 chromosomes including a fused chromosome 2.
    But that explanation would require 2 parents, each a mosaic, male and female, to contribute the gametes with respective 23 chromosomes and a fused chromosome 2.

And how common is that? In 40 years, I have encountered one human mosaic (46x/46y). One. Imagine the statistical probability of finding 2 mosaics in the same generation which mate with each other. Well, the statistical probability would increase if one were to allow an incestuous origin for mankind. (To be clear: brother and sister mosaics of 46/48 composition mate and produce a 46 chromosome human being with the fused chromosome 2.)

  1. During reductive meiosis, the Common Ancestor (who has 48 chromosomes) produces a gamete in which chromosome 13 has condensed to chromosome 2. (Not exactly a Robertsonian translocation, but plausible.) At the same time, in the same generation, another Common Ancestor produces a gamete in the same way, and these two find each other and the child which ensues is a human being with 46 chromosomes including the fused chromosome 2.

Is this statistically plausible? It does not require consanguinous mating, but what are the chances?

–

The explanation of chromosome 2 is a piece of beauty. But the questions that ensue–well, they remain questions.
The answer is probably accessible, and lies not in chromosomal analysis, but in a comparison of ape and human mitochondrial DNA. Let’s see if I can find it.
[/quote]

Thank you for the response. That’s a lot for me to digest and comprehend.
Presently, I’m taking biochem, organic, and microbiology so I’m short of time to do a detailed analysis of your post. So I’m going to save it. I’m sure you’re not expecting any insight from me, but I wanted you to know that I appreciate your response and knowledge.

So keeping it brief. I think that sometimes we forget how short our lives are and how long our history has been. I don’t know what time frame the leap from 48 to 46 took place, but if it took a couple of million, that’s a lot of rolls of the dice.

347

[quote]colt44 wrote:
a whole bunch
[/quote]

I find it astonishing that people that seem hell bent on scrutinizing evolution are unable or unwilling to apply the same level of critical thinking to their creationism.

348

[quote]colt44 wrote:
Background…
[/quote]
Ok.

Ok sure, still making sense.

[quote]The tale of missing chromosomes…2nd paragraph

Most importantly, reliable eyewitness testimony is more powerful than circumstantial evidence in establishing historical details. The Bible, inspired by the Creator himself, indicates that humans were created in the image of God and distinct from other animals.
[/quote]

What! What!? WHAT?!?

This is great example of what I was talking about in my first post to you colt44.

349

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
anonym, have you seen this? It’s about the fusion of chromosome 2 .

I’ve posted it like 3 times now, and the creationists just seem to ignore it.[/quote]

There is one teensy-weeensy little gnat to strain at. Dr. Miller does not address the gnat. Please join me.

The question is, “How does the Human Ancestor acquire a full compliment–46–chromosomes including 2 copies of a fused chromosome 2?”

If this is true, than each parent contributed a fused 2 to its offspring (singular and plural.)

I can think of only 2 scenarios in which this might happen.

  1. The Common Ancestor was a mosaic of 46/48 chromosomes with half the cells containing fused chromosome 2. Then half the gametes would have 23 chromosomes including a fused chromosome 2.
    But that explanation would require 2 parents, each a mosaic, male and female, to contribute the gametes with respective 23 chromosomes and a fused chromosome 2.

And how common is that? In 40 years, I have encountered one human mosaic (46x/46y). One. Imagine the statistical probability of finding 2 mosaics in the same generation which mate with each other. Well, the statistical probability would increase if one were to allow an incestuous origin for mankind. (To be clear: brother and sister mosaics of 46/48 composition mate and produce a 46 chromosome human being with the fused chromosome 2.)

  1. During reductive meiosis, the Common Ancestor (who has 48 chromosomes) produces a gamete in which chromosome 13 has condensed to chromosome 2. (Not exactly a Robertsonian translocation, but plausible.) At the same time, in the same generation, another Common Ancestor produces a gamete in the same way, and these two find each other and the child which ensues is a human being with 46 chromosomes including the fused chromosome 2.

Is this statistically plausible? It does not require consanguinous mating, but what are the chances?

–

The explanation of chromosome 2 is a piece of beauty. But the questions that ensue–well, they remain questions.
The answer is probably accessible, and lies not in chromosomal analysis, but in a comparison of ape and human mitochondrial DNA. Let’s see if I can find it.
[/quote]

Thank you for the response. That’s a lot for me to digest and comprehend.
Presently, I’m taking biochem, organic, and microbiology so I’m short of time to do a detailed analysis of your post. So I’m going to save it. I’m sure you’re not expecting any insight from me, but I wanted you to know that I appreciate your response and knowledge.

So keeping it brief. I think that sometimes we forget how short our lives are and how long our history has been. I don’t know what time frame the leap from 48 to 46 took place, but if it took a couple of million, that’s a lot of rolls of the dice.[/quote]

Insight has many points of origin, and yours would be welcome.

Note that the event–the fusion of gametes with 23 chromosomes of which one is fused chromosome 2–cannot happen over millions of years. It must happen as a singular event, or in a very limited demography (a very few individuals living in proximity at one time.)

Now, mitochondrial dna clocks suggest many time frames for the various branches of great apes–gibbons, organutangs, gorilla, chimp, bonabo, human–but it is this last which is at issue. One mtDNA clock suggests 2.7 million years ago. Well, then, should one not look at the remains of Lucy, and others, and PCR her DNA, sequence chromosome 2, and…

350

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< Note that the event–the fusion of gametes with 23 chromosomes of which one is fused chromosome 2–cannot happen over millions of years. It must happen as a singular event, or in a very limited demography (a very few individuals living in proximity at one time.) >>>[/quote]Which of these do you believe happened? Or doesn’t it matter as long as it was one of them? Serious question.

351

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< Note that the event–the fusion of gametes with 23 chromosomes of which one is fused chromosome 2–cannot happen over millions of years. It must happen as a singular event, or in a very limited demography (a very few individuals living in proximity at one time.) >>>[/quote]Which of these do you believe happened? Or doesn’t it matter as long as it was one of them? Serious question.
[/quote]

I do not know which–or even if–either scenario can be true. They are hypotheses used to explain further Dr. Miller’s facile presentation.

His point was that evolution, as science, is disprovable; the explanation of “the missing chromosome” does not dis-prove evolution, and it happens to fit quite nicely with known evolutionary science. But if there were a more plausible explanation which was in conflict with biology, or evolution science, then what?

Every good study provokes more good questions, questions which may not have answers. Or some answers may challenge previously held belief. So, how did human beings acquire 2 complements of 23 chromosomes with matching fused chromosome 2s? Surely Dr. Miller, or the authors of the original study, must have asked this question.

(I have proposed the Nobel-prize winning experiment that marries mitochondrial phylogeny to the appearance of chromosome 2. Any takers out there?)

What I may believe, however, is uninteresting because it is unsupported. Asking the question is far more important.

352

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< I do not know which–or even if–either scenario can be true. They are hypotheses used to explain further Dr. Miller’s facile presentation. >>>[/quote]Fair enough.[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< His point was that evolution, as science, is disprovable; >>>[/quote]Indeed.[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< the explanation of “the missing chromosome” does not dis-prove evolution, and it happens to fit quite nicely with known evolutionary science. >>>[/quote]Ok, but it does the same with biblical creation. God created DNA in all it’s manifestations/configurations. Assuming Miller is correct it is in no way shocking to me that the necessary conditions (if that’s what they are, or just differences) designed by God would also be met by God in any way He reports (or not) to have met them.[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< But if there were a more plausible explanation which was in conflict with biology, or evolution science, then what? >>>[/quote]Plausibility is in the eye of the beholder. Which is precisely the point, or a component of the point, I’ve been making with DrMatt.[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< Every good study provokes more good questions, questions which may not have answers. Or some answers may challenge previously held belief. So, how did human beings acquire 2 complements of 23 chromosomes with matching fused chromosome 2s? Surely Dr. Miller, or the authors of the original study, must have asked this question. >>>[/quote]Fair enough too.[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< (I have proposed the Nobel-prize winning experiment that marries mitochondrial phylogeny to the appearance of chromosome 2. Any takers out there?) >>>[/quote]I’m not sure what you mean by “any takers?” You mean to second your nomination?[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< What I may believe, however, is uninteresting >>>[/quote]It’s interesting to me.[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< because it is unsupported. >>>[/quote]I’m not sure what you mean by this either. Why would you believe something you consider to be unsupported.[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< Asking the question is far more important.[/quote]It could be just me, but you seem to have a somewhat cryptic manner of communication. Asking questions, and the right ones, is certainly of very high importance everywhere in life, but I don’t understand how you relate this to the previous part of your post which it clearly seems to finish.
EDITED for clarity.

353

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:<<< E: and you don’t have to, that’s true and pretty obvious.[/quote] I don’t even see anything that makes me uncomfortable about my faith. It’s not like there’s all this painfully persuasive evidence for atheism or even non Christian theism nevermind macro evolution like you guys are always claiming. That’s only believable from YOUR sinfully manufactured God denying mindset. The one you force upon yourself to escape moral accountability to a God you hate. And yes, merely questioning His existence IS hatred.
[/quote]

I argued for or against neither God or atheism, but I think you realized that. Anyway, I think I have said what I had to say. This sinful minset turns it’s 6V beam to other things now.

354

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Insight has many points of origin, and yours would be welcome.

Note that the event–the fusion of gametes with 23 chromosomes of which one is fused chromosome 2–cannot happen over millions of years. It must happen as a singular event, or in a very limited demography (a very few individuals living in proximity at one time.) [/quote]

I didn’t mean that it took that long, but that over millions of years, there was more potential trials for a match that could mate.
Would it be possible that a 46 chromosomer was able to mate with a 48er? Could there have been some epigenetic or environmental pressure that “forced” the fusion? or perhaps a microbe/virus? I really don’t enough of this, so I’m just letting my imagination go to work on what could have happened.

That seems like an appropriate response.

355

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
(I have proposed the Nobel-prize winning experiment that marries mitochondrial phylogeny to the appearance of chromosome 2. Any takers out there?)
[/quote]

So the appearance of euk. mitochondria somehow affected or caused the fusion? If that’s what you’re proposing, I don’t think we would have been mammals or apes if we didn’t already have our mitochondrial “powerhouses”, or no? I’d like to hear a more in-depth or as far as you’re willing to explain about your experiment.

356

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:<<< That seems like an appropriate response. [/quote]I don’t really keep up on the details of this kinda stuff and I could be wrong, but I think he’s saying that that’s already been done.

357

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
(I have proposed the Nobel-prize winning experiment that marries mitochondrial phylogeny to the appearance of chromosome 2. Any takers out there?)
[/quote]

So the appearance of euk. mitochondria somehow affected or caused the fusion? If that’s what you’re proposing, I don’t think we would have been mammals or apes if we didn’t already have our mitochondrial “powerhouses”, or no? I’d like to hear a more in-depth or as far as you’re willing to explain about your experiment.[/quote]

To be clear, there is no need to posit a connection between mtDNA and fusion-2.

What I was inferring was using maternally-inherited mtDNA “clock” to time the archaeologic appearance of fusion-2.
So, for example, if Lucy has no fusion-2; she is not a hominid. But if she has it, then look farther and farther back along the hominid line until you find no fusion -2, but a 48 chromosome ape. This would be a candidate for Common Ancestor, and the mtDNA “clock” would put a time on the event.

If only.

358

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]kaaleppi wrote:<<< E: and you don’t have to, that’s true and pretty obvious.[/quote] I don’t even see anything that makes me uncomfortable about my faith. It’s not like there’s all this painfully persuasive evidence for atheism or even non Christian theism nevermind macro evolution like you guys are always claiming. That’s only believable from YOUR sinfully manufactured God denying mindset. The one you force upon yourself to escape moral accountability to a God you hate. And yes, merely questioning His existence IS hatred. [/quote]I argued for or against neither God or atheism, but I think you realized that. Anyway, I think I have said what I had to say. This sinful mindset turns it’s 6V beam to other things now.[/quote]I actually didn’t get that and was not going out of my way to be extra offensive to you. I apologize.

DrSkeptix response to Matty shows ya what I know huh LOL! So why isn’t anybody doing this?

359

http://news.msu.edu/story/evolution-is-as-complicated-as-1-2-3/

360

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
…
Would it be possible that a 46 chromosomer was able to mate with a 48er? [/quote]

No. One would contribute a haplotype of 23 with fused 2 and the other would contribute 24 with a normal 13. The product would be 47 chromosomes, but there would be a functional trisomy of ape chromosome 13.
In general, most trisomies lead to death or severe disability. Very few or none would be able to reproduce.

Don’t know, but if so, the question nevertheless is left unanswered: how do we get to two gametes fusing, each with a complement of 23 chromosomes and a matched set of fused-2?