- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,030
- 7,265
- 62
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
He demanded a citation for something he said, he should be the one to provide it. It's as simple as that.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
He demanded a citation for something he said, he should be the one to provide it. It's as simple as that.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.
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.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.
It's clear that if they arose it was from a presently unknown mechanism.
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?
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.
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...Is this the transparently ridiculous tactic where you want a first, last, SSN and mailing address?
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.
There are several examples of mammals that retain karyotypic polymorphisms in their populations.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).
By whom was this alleged?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.
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.
Wait - I did not see where you documented evolutionists claiming the fusion occurred at the split.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.
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?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.
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.These are chromosome fusions, not gene fusions. I'm not even sure there is a mechanism for gene fusion.
The DNA is 96% the same and some change.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.
No less then 60 de novo (brand new) brain related genes with no known molecular mechanism to produce them.
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: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)
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.
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?
That's a dishonest claim, as has been pointed out to you multiple times now.He demanded a citation for something he said, he should be the one to provide it. It's as simple as that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?