Is evolution a fact or theory?

[dcalling]

Of course. As you now realize, any two chromosomes can fuse. I gave you a good number of examples of such fusion.

I know that long before, it is you who mistaken the icr article for declaring no chromosome fussion, but in fact it is showing how it is human chromosome 2 is unlikely a product of fussion.

Originally, it was hypothesized that there was a fusion in humans, because one human chromosome looks almost exactly like two ape chromosomes fused together. Later on, examination of the chromosome revealed remains of telomeres right where they would be if chromosomes 2 and 14 had fused.

The above is what the icr article is trying to clearify.
"Chromosomes are double-stranded DNA molecules and contain genes on both strands that are encoded in opposite directions. Because the DDX11L2 gene is encoded on the reverse-oriented strand, it is read in the reverse direction (see Exon 1 arrow). Thus, the alleged fusion sequence is not read in the forward orientation typically used in literature as evidence for a fusion—rather, it is read in the reverse direction and encodes a key regulatory switch."

Initially I had doubts since this is an icr article, but the rebuttals from several reputable sources is not much a rebuttal at all, so that actually proves the icr article stands (till actual evidences are found).

 

[dcalling]

If God did not do it quickly man would have died before he could evolve to his new environment. And, man would not want to be where the Lord was scattering them to unless he was instantly acclimated. God wants separate peoples at this time.

God wants separate nations to keep Satan's grimy hands off controlling the world. The price to pay for that need to protect man, sometimes comes out in racism.

Yet, in Christ? Those barriers are removed. For we all should know that what we see with our eyes when looking at another has been crucified with Christ. Our souls is what has been saved. To receive a new glorious everlasting body that will be of the same substance as His own glorious body.

Then he will look at His church and say...

" Now! This is bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh. "

We will be transformed into one type of male and female body. Just as Eve was the same body as Adam.

Keep in mind, in Genesis 1:27? It was the soul that God created in His image... not the body. For, the body for the soul was not provided for until later, after God had finished all His creating in Genesis One.

I agree with you on most of your statements except last one. Since there the statement is not in Bible it is at best a hypothesis.

 

[The Barbarian]

The above is what the icr article is trying to clearify.
"Chromosomes are double-stranded DNA molecules and contain genes on both strands that are encoded in opposite directions. Because the DDX11L2 gene is encoded on the reverse-oriented strand, it is read in the reverse direction (see Exon 1 arrow). Thus, the alleged fusion sequence is not read in the forward orientation typically used in literature as evidence for a fusion—rather, it is read in the reverse direction and encodes a key regulatory switch."

Initially I had doubts since this is an icr article, but the rebuttals from several reputable sources is not much a rebuttal at all, so that actually proves the icr article stands (till actual evidences are found).

The ICR author seems to be unaware of transposons, first documented by Barbara McClintock, (for which she was awarded a Nobel). Reversed sequences are not uncommon.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21495/

 

[GenemZ]

I agree with you on most of your statements except last one. Since there the statement is not in Bible it is at best a hypothesis.

Its in the Bible....

Keep in mind, in Gen 1:27? It was the soul that God created in His image... not the body. For, the body for the soul was not provided for until later in the next chapter, after God had finished all His creating in Genesis One.

How do I know that?

The Hebrew word to create -'bara' - speaks of Elohiym -plurality, creating something out from nothing. The mere body in the next chapter was not created out from nothing. And, was lifeless at first.

In Genesis Two? It does not mention the plurality of God (Elohiym), nor any creating (bara) of the body 'out from nothing.' Instead, the Hebrew word, jatsar, is used - meaning that the Lord alone (no plurality) "molded and formed" Adam's body out from the existing elements of the earth. Two different types of accounts in the process of bringing man into being.

What took pace in Gen 1:27 was a completed act. Both male and female were created. The 'invisible' male and female souls were created simultaneously.

In Gen 1 it says throughout the chapter that "God saw." God sees the invisible. We are not made to be a direct witness to see what was created when man was created. In contrast. In Genesis Two, we can see plainly what was taking place with the physical human body. And, only one body was provided at first. Not, both simultaneously.

Speculation? Or, insight?

And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more
in knowledge and depth of insight, so that you may be able to
discern what is best and may be pure and blameless for the day
of Christ." Philip 1:9-10​

 

[dcalling]

The ICR author seems to be unaware of transposons, first documented by Barbara McClintock, (for which she was awarded a Nobel). Reversed sequences are not uncommon.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21495/

Why does jumping genes has anything to do with the article? The icr article is showing how unlikely the "fussion" site is a real natural fussion. And the original article never claimed Reverse sequences are uncommon, it only said "not the typical". Have you really read the article?

 

[dcalling]

Its in the Bible....

Keep in mind, in Gen 1:27? It was the soul that God created in His image... not the body. For, the body for the soul was not provided for until later in the next chapter, after God had finished all His creating in Genesis One.

How do I know that?

The Hebrew word to create -'bara' - speaks of Elohiym -plurality, creating something out from nothing. The mere body in the next chapter was not created out from nothing. And, was lifeless at first.

In Genesis Two? It does not mention the plurality of God (Elohiym), nor any creating (bara) of the body 'out from nothing.' Instead, the Hebrew word, jatsar, is used - meaning that the Lord alone (no plurality) "molded and formed" Adam's body out from the existing elements of the earth. Two different types of accounts in the process of bringing man into being.

What took pace in Gen 1:27 was a completed act. Both male and female were created. The 'invisible' male and female souls were created simultaneously.

In Gen 1 it says throughout the chapter that "God saw." God sees the invisible. We are not made to be a direct witness to see what was created when man was created. In contrast. In Genesis Two, we can see plainly what was taking place with the physical human body. And, only one body was provided at first. Not, both simultaneously.

Speculation? Or, insight?

And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more
in knowledge and depth of insight, so that you may be able to
discern what is best and may be pure and blameless for the day
of Christ." Philip 1:9-10​

Thanks!! That was an interesting insight. I am not totally convinced but will keep that in mind.

 

[The Barbarian]

Why does jumping genes has anything to do with the article?

ICR writer was surprised that some the sequences had been transposed. As you see, it's not a problem. The major problem for creationists is this:

As you see, the inactive centromere remain in place in the fused chromosome, which retains almost all the original structure of the two separate chromosomes, right down to remains of telomeres near the fusion site.

The icr article is showing how unlikely the "fussion" site is a real natural fussion.

Because,as you learned, they were unaware that trasposons explain the few transposed elements.

And the original article never claimed Reverse sequences are uncommon, it only said "not the typical".

No kidding. This one, for example.

 

[GenemZ]

Thanks!! That was an interesting insight. I am not totally convinced but will keep that in mind.

That's good. Its the Holy Spirit who will lead to where you can know, if you keep an open, yet guarded, mind. I could never have known that on my own. I admit that to you.

 

[The Barbarian]

Keep in mind, in Gen 1:27? It was the soul that God created in His image... not the body. For, the body for the soul was not provided for until later in the next chapter, after God had finished all His creating in Genesis One.

Your reasoning seems solid. And it's supported by the fact that God is a spirit. And as Jesus says, a spirit has no body.

 

[dcalling]

ICR writer was surprised that some the sequences had been transposed. As you see, it's not a problem. The major problem for creationists is this:

As you see, the inactive centromere remain in place in the fused chromosome, which retains almost all the original structure of the two separate chromosomes, right down to remains of telomeres near the fusion site.

The image you used is in accurate, as it intensionally show identical codes yet there are many differences, down to the supposed fussion site. Quote from the 2010 research (not icr) "the genes surrounding the fusion site in the 614,000-base window did not exist on chimp chromosomes 2A or 2B—the supposed ape origins location", and there is a 24m deletion even though fusion site is present

Because,as you learned, they were unaware that trasposons explain the few transposed elements.

Still, most of the questions in the article is not answered, just see the link yourself: https://answersingenesis.org/geneti...-dna-binding-domain-inside-a-complex-and-hig/

And most importantly, other than what we see as "looks like fussion happened to human chromsome 2", do we have a repeatable, verifiable test to show that such fussion can happen in nature?

 

[GenemZ]

I would like to hear how an evolutionist explains how mindless "nothingness" ended up producing DNA.

Is matter eternal? Its simply "always been existing?"

 

[The Barbarian]

The image you used is in accurate, as it intensionally show identical codes yet there are many differences, down to the supposed fussion site.

Not surprising that in a few million years, there would be transposed elements, and mutations. The remarkable thing is how close to identical they are, in spite of those mutations that occurred over that time.

As you know, fusions are known from a variety of vertebrates. We see it cattle, where it causes notable changes in phenotype.

HOW CHROMOSOMAL CHANGES CAN SURVIVE and LEAD TO NEW SPECIES
Some may raise the objection that if the fusion was a naturalistic event, how could the first human ancestor with the fusion have successfully reproduced? We have all heard that the horse and the donkey produce an infertile mule in crossing because of a different number of chromosomes in the two species. Well, apparently there is more to the story than we are usually told, because variations in chromosome number are known to occur in many different animal species, and although they sometimes seem to lead to reduced fertility, this is often not the case. Refs 5, 6, and 7 document both the existence of such chromosomal number differences and the fact that differences do not always result in reduced fertility. I can provide many more similar references if required. The last remaining species of wild horse, Przewalski's (sha-val-skis) Wild Horse has 66 chromosomes while the domesticated horse has 64 chromosomes. Despite this difference in chromosome number, Przewalski's Wild Horse and the domesticated horse can be crossed and do produce fertile offspring (see reference 9 below).

5. Chromosomal heterozygosity and fertility in house mice (Mus musculus domesticus) from
Northern Italy. Hauffe HC, Searle JB. Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PS, United Kingdom
(more examples at the site)
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/chrom.surviv.html

 

[pat34lee]

This is why chromosome fusions aren't more common. The only mutations that count for evolution are those that occur to sperm or eggs.

And in sexual reproduction, all mutations have a 1:2 chance
of disappearing each generation, no matter how beneficial.

 

[The Barbarian]

And in sexual reproduction, all mutations have a 1:2 chance
of disappearing each generation, no matter how beneficial.

Depends on things like how many offspring the organism has. There's a 0.5 probability of any one offspring having that allele. If there are two, the likelihood of the allele continuing is .75. And it goes up from there.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

....

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

....

 

[GenemZ]

Amazing thing to consider,,,,

When did the first male phallus appear as a mutation? And, how long was it before a female vagina appeared from a mutation?

How did mass, matter, and energy know?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

....

 

[GenemZ]

God must find dishonesty repulsive and disgusting.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

....