Does Chromosome 2 fusion prove divergence from Apes

[mark kennedy]

Lol. You've had the full sentence repeated several times, in context, and you still want to pretend you're not quote mining? You may not respect other posters, but have some respect for yourself.

He demanded a citation for something he said, he should be the one to provide it. It's as simple as that.

 

[mark kennedy]

What WAS your point in quoting that part of his post, then?

If it wasn't to assert that there is support for option A, then your post was completely pointless.

Of course it was completely pointless, it always is. You can chase that kind of pointless rhetoric endlessly in circles and he is proficient at demanding you do. Then he demands a citation for something he said, admittedly I took it out of context, but of course, so did he. He fell into his own rhetorical trap, I just find that so ironic.

 

[mark kennedy]

Ok, I've had my fun with Ucog. If anyone is interested in actually discussing the evidence surrounding the Chromosome 2 fusion I'm actually interested.

 

[46AND2]

If I am understanding pshun correctly, it seems that he thinks that the chromosome fusion argument is used as "proof" of evolution in such a manner that it was purported to be the CAUSE of the split between chimps and humans.

The actual evidence that it provides is not even remotely related to this line of thinking.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

It's clear that if they arose it was from a presently unknown mechanism.

That is certainly not clear. What's also not clear is that there was any sort of god involved. You don't just get to insert you personal deity and call it a day. You have to show it. You haven't.

But this is a sideshow, because we're talking about common ancestry. We know how reproduction works and the patterns of heredity it produces and nothing about de novo genes refutes that. More importantly, nothing has been shown to be responsible for those patterns other than the mechanisms we've observed.

 

[xianghua]

It doesn't matter how rare they might be. Do you have any evidence that they arose by any other mechanism than those we've observed?

whats wrong with the design scenario? and by the way evolution doesnt predict the chromosomal fusion. its a simple conclusion base on the fact that chimp and human share about 98% similarity. so we can know for sure that these chromosomes didnt lost.

 

[tas8831]

Chromosome 2 discussions with creationists are always fascinating to me. On the one hand, you have creationists that happily accept that the fusion is real, but just argue that it happened in the human lineage. On the other hand, you have creationists that argue tooth-and-nail against the idea of such fusions happening at all.

There is no consistency of creationist thought about fusions.

And the bolded part is all evolutionists have ever claimed!

 

[tas8831]

Is this the transparently ridiculous tactic where you want a first, last, SSN and mailing address?

Perhaps pshun2404 could provide HIS last common ancestor between himself and Vladimir Putin, since we are all, you know, related via descent from Adam and Eve...

And if he cannot, well, creationism must be fake news!

 

[tas8831]

Gene Fusions within Chromosomes are not altogether uncommon. In fact, they are very common among what man has labeled Equids (horses, Zebras, and donkeys). Modern horses we are more familiar with and the Mongolian Wild horse (also called Przewalski's horse) demonstrate such an example. 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.

You seem to be conflating 'gene' and 'chromosome' already. What was it you said you had - 30 years of biology-related experience?
Hmmm...

We have also seen this in varieties of cows and mice, though the offspring of mating the two different varieties are often infertile or produce infertile offspring thereby limiting heritability. This however is not always the case. Some subspecies with fusions can produce fertile offspring with their unfused cousins (in bulls for example, but the offspring are still a variety of cow/bull). Thus there are cases where the fusion is found causing the development of different varieties of cow, or sheep, and so on as well as cases where it is not a factor. In either case however, they do however remain cow or sheep (not becoming a different life-form).

There are several examples of mammals that retain karyotypic polymorphisms in their populations.

We get it, you did some googling and paraphrasing over the weekend... Get to it...

Finally, modern humans (homo-sapien Sapiens) all have 23 pairs of Chromosomes due to a fusion at Chromosome 2. 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.

By whom was this alleged?
Perhaps you can provide some references for this?

However now we KNOW that was not correct and in fact that premise was wrong. People had failed to separate the data we did actually have from the historical narrative that had been attached to interpret the facts through the hypothesis as opposed to letting the data drive the hypothesis,

The fusion at Chromo 2 occurred after humans had already long existed and had nothing to do with ape-kind at all. It turns out that Neanderthals and Denisovans each had 24.

I would like to see your (probably creationist) source on this.

This paper:
A High-Coverage Genome Sequence from an Archaic Denisovan Individual

Indicates:

Of more relevance may be examination of aspects of the Denisovan karyotype. The great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes while humans have 23. This difference is caused by a fusion of two acrocentric chromosomes that formed the metacentric human chromosome 2 (25), and resulted in the unique head-to-head joining of the telomeric hexameric repeat GGGGTT. A difference in karyotype would likely have reduced the fertility of any offspring of Denisovans and modern humans. We searched all DNA fragments sequenced from the Denisovan individual and identified twelve fragments containing joined repeats. By contrast, reads from several chimpanzees and bonobos failed to yield any such fragments (8). We conclude that Denisovans and modern humans (and presumably Neandertals) shared a karyotype consisting of 46 chromosomes.​

So, no need to entertain the rest of your polemic until this is sorted out.

 

[tas8831]

Dear Pita, in light of this newer scientific evidence (as indicated in the OP) the case for it DID happen in the human lineage is now supported and this gives reasonable doubt to the hypothesis (called a theory) that it came first at the alleged time of divergence 6.5 mya.

Wait - I did not see where you documented evolutionists claiming the fusion occurred at the split.

 

[tas8831]

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.

Odd that you couldn't be bothered to do a tiny bit of non-creationist website research on this topic BEFORE you committed to writing an over-lengthy 'I believe evolution, but not THIS part' essays?

 

[tas8831]

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

In duplicate genes, it seems to be a mechanism similar to what we see in indel generation - there is a fused gamma globin gene in a Family of New World Monkeys. Been a long time since I read that paper, so I don't remember any details, though.

 

[mark kennedy]

whats wrong with the design scenario? and by the way evolution doesnt predict the chromosomal fusion. its a simple conclusion base on the fact that chimp and human share about 98% similarity. so we can know for sure that these chromosomes didnt lost.

The DNA is 96% the same and some change.

 

[tas8831]

No less then 60 de novo (brand new) brain related genes with no known molecular mechanism to produce them.

New genes from non-coding sequence: the role of de novo protein-coding genes in eukaryotic evolutionary innovation




Evolution: Dynamics of De Novo Gene Emergence

 

[tas8831]

It's clear that if they arose it was from a presently unknown mechanism. Now there are de novo genes known to have occurred, the arctic cod antifreeze gene for example. It's a pattern of simple repeats that coevolved no less then four times, so it does happen. You wont find anything like that in such highly conserved brain related genes. There are molecular mechanisms for DNA repair, virtually none for rewriting DNA. In brain related genes, changes like this result in disease and disorder. A de novo brain related gene is inconceivable, but must be assumed, idols of the theater of the mind, nothing more.

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)​

Don't have the time right now to9 do any real analysis, but I note that in this paper, which I assume is where you got your 60 de novo genes theme from:

PLoS Genet. 2011 Nov; 7(11): e1002379.

De Novo Origin of Human Protein-Coding Genes

the link to 'nucleotide' is this:

Nucleotide Links for PMC (Select 3213175) - Nucleotide - NCBI

which consists of 9 genes (lncRNAs) for a bunch of other primates. Seems odd, but like I said, no time for any sort of analysis now. Maybe later in the week. I suspect that, as is usually the case, things are not as Mark describes them.

 

[tas8831]

But why would these scientists (not science itself)

Please provide ANY definition that "science itself" has provided.

Just 1.

 

[Aman777]

If the Sapien-sapien type humans were first, from which all other varieties evolved (the out of Africa theory), then this would imply an un-fusion took place rather than a fusion.

It's proof of God since Genesis 2:4-7 AGREES with what Science has discovered. Adam was FIRST made, long BEFORE any other living creature. No need for an un-fusion since Humans (descendants of Adam) did NOT descend from the common ancestor of Apes. Your post confirms this fact which was first shown in Genesis more than 3k years ago. It's proof of God unless someone can tell us HOW ancient men knew and correctly wrote this recently discovered scientific Truth in Genesis. God bless you.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If I am understanding pshun correctly, it seems that he thinks that the chromosome fusion argument is used as "proof" of evolution in such a manner that it was purported to be the CAUSE of the split between chimps and humans.

The actual evidence that it provides is not even remotely related to this line of thinking.

Isn't it fun, trying to guess the point of a creationist rant?

 

[Aman777]

Isn't it fun, trying to guess the point of a creationist rant?

It probably is fun for you two, as you avoid replying to my post which gives a scientific reason for the fusion. Or haven't you noticed that the evidence shows that today's Humans (descendants of Adam) did NOT evolve from the common ancestor of Apes. The common ancestor of Humans is Adam. Is this another scientific proof of God? Scary, isn't it?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

He demanded a citation for something he said, he should be the one to provide it. It's as simple as that.

That's a dishonest claim, as has been pointed out to you multiple times now.

Proverbs 12:22