Does Chromosome 2 fusion prove divergence from Apes

[Tanj]

I stood corrected and conceded the point until I explore this further (and no I cannot access biologos). However I did find Meyer M, Kircher M, Gansauge MT, Li H, Racimo F, Mallick S, et al. (October 2012). "A high-coverage genome sequence from an archaic Denisovan individual". Science. 338 (6104) which does appear to support your point.

Thanks pshun2404, so rare nowadays to find people with the guts to concede anything. Kudos.

 

[Occams Barber]

I just thought it was funny that he wanted citation for his own comment.

Mark
Your attempts at humour can be seen in at least three different ways:
1. an attempt at humour
2. an attempt to deliberately confuse the issue by dishonest quote mining
3. an example of poor reading comprehension

Since I'm sure you'd rather not have a reputation associated with options 2 or 3, perhaps you should lay off the humour and be a little more thoughtful about what you post.
OB

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark
Your attempts at humour can be seen in at least three different ways:
1. an attempt at humour
2. an attempt to deliberately confuse the issue by dishonest quote mining
3. an example of poor reading comprehension

Since I'm sure you'd rather not have a reputation associated with options 2 or 3, perhaps you should lay off the humour and be a little more thoughtful about what you post.
OB

Oh for crying out loud, he demanded a citation for his own comment. You can't see the humor in that?

 

[USincognito]

Since the main premise of the OP has been put to rest, I'd like to offer a few design notes on a couple of points in it.

Gene Fusions within Chromosomes are not altogether uncommon. {snip} The modern horse exhibits a fusion of genes 23 and 24 as compared to the Mongolian of which they are a separate variation or subspecies.

These are chromosome fusions, not gene fusions. I'm not even sure there is a mechanism for gene fusion.

In either case however, they do however remain cow or sheep (not becoming a different life-form).

Hybridization is not mechanism for speciation so I don't know why you added the parenthetical comment except as a blanket denial of speciation. We could also go further on the discussion of monophyly and note that beings never stop being what they were. So that a descendant is only technically a "different" life-form.

It has been alleged for decades that this was indicative of the relationship between Chimps and Humans and probably occurred in the alleged last common ancestor as Chimps and Humans diverged. {snip}

The fusion occurred in the human lineage after the common ancestral population speciated. That has always been known.

The actual observable fact is the Chromosome 2 is indeed a fusion but it happened purely in the human lineage and has absolutely no relationship to anything that happened in chimps or in the elusive never identified presumed earlier ape-kind from which they allegedly diverged.

Yes, the fusion happened in the population that led to genus Homo. No, it is powerful evidence that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor because the fused chromosome has the same genes in the same positions as the two chimpanzee chromosome inherited from the common ancestor.

The repeated faith based belief...

You wen't Hovind. Don't ever go Hovind.

When chimps AND humans both had 24 pairs of chromosomes, chimps were still forever chimps and humans were still forever humans one having nothing to do with the other.

This sentence, in toto, doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I've always interpreted the chromosome 2 fusion as a failure to falsify that humans and and other primates share common ancestry. Not that the existence of the fusion shows that. The sequences suggest common ancestry. When it was found that humans and chimps have different numbers of chromosomes that interpretation was put in jeopardy, so to speak, of being falsified which would have thrown a huge wrench in our understanding of genetics and heredity at the time. The discovery of the fusion and the the sequences associated with that chromosome and the 2 homologous chromosomes in the chimp genome gave an explanation regarding the difference in the number of chromosomes between the species and failed to falsify the original interpretation of common ancestry. Further analysis of the chromosome and the homologous sequences strengthened the common ancestry interpretation.

 

[mark kennedy]

Since the main premise of the OP has been put to rest, I'd like to offer a few design notes on a couple of points in it.



These are chromosome fusions, not gene fusions. I'm not even sure there is a mechanism for gene fusion.



Hybridization is not mechanism for speciation so I don't know why you added the parenthetical comment except as a blanket denial of speciation. We could also go further on the discussion of monophyly and note that beings never stop being what they were. So that a descendant is only technically a "different" life-form.



The fusion occurred in the human lineage after the common ancestral population speciated. That has always been known.



Yes, the fusion happened in the population that led to genus Homo. No, it is powerful evidence that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor because the fused chromosome has the same genes in the same positions as the two chimpanzee chromosome inherited from the common ancestor.



You wen't Hovind. Don't ever go Hovind.



This sentence, in toto, doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Did you ever find that citation?

 

[mark kennedy]

I've always interpreted the chromosome 2 fusion as a failure to falsify that humans and and other primates share common ancestry. Not that the existence of the fusion shows that. The sequences suggest common ancestry. When it was found that humans and chimps have different numbers of chromosomes that interpretation was put in jeopardy, so to speak, of being falsified which would have thrown a huge wrench in our understanding of genetics and heredity at the time. The discovery of the fusion and the the sequences associated with that chromosome and the 2 homologous chromosomes in the chimp genome gave an explanation regarding the difference in the number of chromosomes between the species and failed to falsify the original interpretation of common ancestry. Further analysis of the chromosome and the homologous sequences strengthened the common ancestry interpretation.

Like there is another interpretation out there other then creation. There is no null hypothesis for Darwinism, just a core naturalistic assumption and a blind prejudice against the only viable alternative.

 

[46AND2]

Did you ever find that citation?

Mark, USCog never made the claim for which he was asking for citations...He said that the paper proposed 3 independent possibilities.

He implied that ONE of those possibilities seemed like a no brainer, but did not actually commit to any of them in words.

Then YOU implied that explanation #1 was true, based on your comment.

THAT is what he asked for a citation for, because the "no brainer" answer is #3.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Like there is another interpretation out there other then creation. There is no null hypothesis for Darwinism, just a core naturalistic assumption and a blind prejudice against the only viable alternative.

What? We're not talking about the origin of life here. We're talking about the origin of species.

• We know that organisms reproduce by making copies of themselves.
  
• We know what the mechanisms of that reproduction are.
  
• We know that mistakes happen in that process leading to diversity.

Pure logic tells us that if 2 organisms have the same genetic sequence the most likely explanation based on the observed facts I listed above is they shared a common ancestor in their past that also had that sequence. We can use the differences in the sequences to map out the family tree with multiple examples from many individuals. It's not an assumption. We know how this stuff works.

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark, USCog never made the claim for which he was asking for citations...He said that the paper proposed 3 independent possibilities.

He implied that ONE of those possibilities seemed like a no brainer, but did not actually commit to any of them in words.

Then YOU implied that explanation #1 was true, based on your comment.

THAT is what he asked for a citation for, because the "no brainer" answer is #3.

I cut and pasted his own statement and he demanded a citation, did you miss that part.

 

[mark kennedy]

What? We're not talking about the origin of life here. We're talking about the origin of species.

• We know that organisms reproduce by making copies of themselves.
  
• We know what the mechanisms of that reproduction are.
  
• We know that mistakes happen in that process leading to diversity.

Pure logic tells us that if 2 organisms have the same genetic sequence the most likely explanation based on the observed facts I listed above is they shared a common ancestor in their past that also had that sequence. We can use the differences in the sequences to map out the family tree with multiple examples from many individuals. It's not an assumption. We know how this stuff works.

No less then 60 de novo (brand new) brain related genes with no known molecular mechanism to produce them. Selection can explain the survival of the fittest but the arrival of the fittest requires a cause:

The de novo origin of a new protein-coding gene from non-coding DNA is considered to be a very rare occurrence in genomes. Here we identify 60 new protein-coding genes that originated de novo on the human lineage since divergence from the chimpanzee. The functionality of these genes is supported by both transcriptional and proteomic evidence. RNA– seq data indicate that these genes have their highest expression levels in the cerebral cortex and testes, which might suggest that these genes contribute to phenotypic traits that are unique to humans, such as improved cognitive ability. Our results are inconsistent with the traditional view that the de novo origin of new genes is very rare, thus there should be greater appreciation of the importance of the de novo origination of genes…(De Novo Origin of Human Protein-Coding Genes PLoS 2011)​

Whatever you think happened one thing is for sure, random mutations are the worst explanation possible. They cannot produce de novo genes and invariably disrupt functional genes. You can forget about gradual accumulation of, 'slow and gradual accumulation of numerous, slight, yet profitable, variations' (Darwin). That would require virtually no cost and extreme benefit with the molecular cause fabricated from vain imagination and suspended by pure faith.

The reason they are not questioned isn't the weight of the evidence, indicating chimpanzee-human common ancestry, but the animosity toward anything remotely theistic being suggested as a cause:

Idols of the Theater are those which are due to sophistry and false learning. These idols are built up in the field of theology, philosophy, and science, and because they are defended by learned groups are accepted without question by the masses. When false philosophies have been cultivated and have attained a wide sphere of dominion in the world of the intellect they are no longer questioned. False superstructures are raised on false foundations, and in the end systems barren of merit parade their grandeur on the stage of the world. (Novum Organum)
​

This grand theatrical production has been performing for over a century now, it's history littered with fabrication.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[46AND2]

I cut and pasted his own statement and he demanded a citation, did you miss that part.

Pay attention, Mark. he asked for a citation of your CLAIM that

Except there are 2 chromosome splitting events in both the gorilla and chimpanzee lineages

Which was listed AS 1 OF THREE POSSIBILITIES in the paper. When you made it a positive statement, you were supporting POSSIBILITY #1.

USCog supports POSSIBILITY #3.

He wants you to support what you backed.

 

[mark kennedy]

Pay attention, Mark. he asked for a citation of your CLAIM that



Which was listed AS 1 OF THREE POSSIBILITIES in the paper. When you made it a positive statement, you were supporting POSSIBILITY #1.

USCog supports POSSIBILITY #3.

He wants you to support what you backed.

He literally says

there were at least 2 chromosome splitting events in both the gorilla and chimpanzee lineages...

Then when I quote him he demands a citation. Ask him.

 

[46AND2]

He literally says



Then when I quote him he demands a citation. Ask him.

Did you miss his "either/or" statements?

I think you need to reread his quote.

 

[USincognito]

Pay attention, Mark. he asked for a citation of your CLAIM that

Which was listed AS 1 OF THREE POSSIBILITIES in the paper. When you made it a positive statement, you were supporting POSSIBILITY #1.

USCog supports POSSIBILITY #3.

Oh wow. He's still going on with this? How embarrassing. You'd think when three separate people are telling him he's misunderstanding what he read that he would get it by now.

He wants you to support what you backed.

I'd be happy if he'd just grasp the frankly baffling misunderstanding on his part that has been pointed out to him several times.

1. I listed three possibilities for why we observer the fusion pattern in different Hominid species.
2. The third possibility - that a fusion event occurred in the Homo lineage - is the obvious choice of the three possibilities.
3. Everyone other than him understood the point I was making.

 

[mark kennedy]

Did you miss his "either/or" statements?

I think you need to reread his quote.

No he needs to cite his own statement after demanding the citation.

 

[mark kennedy]

Oh wow. He's still going on with this? How embarrassing. You'd think when three separate people are telling him he's misunderstanding what he read that he would get it by now.



I'd be happy if he'd just grasp the frankly baffling misunderstanding on his part that has been pointed out to him several times.

1. I listed three possibilities for why we observer the fusion pattern in different Hominid species.
2. The third possibility - that a fusion event occurred in the Homo lineage - is the obvious choice of the three possibilities.
3. Everyone other than him understood the point I was making.

Or it's a random sequence, there are only two base pairs, an anecdotal sequence like that is almost comical as any kind of proof. Did you find that citation yet? Dude, you flamed your own statement, priceless...

 

[46AND2]

No he needs to cite his own statement after demanding the citation.

Wow.

Never cease to be amazed...

 

[mark kennedy]

Wow.

Never cease to be amazed...

He literally said, 'there were at least 2 chromosome splitting events in both the gorilla and chimpanzee lineages', then when I cut and pasted the statement in passing he demanded a citation. Yea, never ceases to amaze, he flamed his own statement.

 

[46AND2]

He literally said, 'there were at least 2 chromosome splitting events in both the gorilla and chimpanzee lineages', then when I cut and pasted the statement in passing he demanded a citation. Yea, never ceases to amaze, he flamed his own statement.

Yes, and in that same post, he implies that the possibility

'there were at least 2 chromosome splitting events in both the gorilla and chimpanzee lineages'

is NOT the right answer.