Skulls... 46-48 chromosomes..

[USincognito]

A link to a page with excerpts is always better than cutting and pasting the entire article.

I read the conclusion. Is AIG trying to suggest that KNM-ER 1470 is an Austraipithacine ape man rather than a Homo ape man? Hmmm. Interesting.

 

[Tomk80]

You draw the line at the point where the chromosomes switch from 46 to 48 in number. Now convince me that such a thing happened with only a subtle phenotype change!

Would you be happy if there were other species which do show something like that? I'd say you would, since I at least can think of no reason to hold humans and monkeys on a different standard in this respect than mammals like the horse.
Let's look at horses. I've seen different creationist articles which consider zebras, donkeys and horses as the same "kind". However, consider the following chromosome counts of these animals:

Przewalski's horse---66
domestic horse-------64
African wild ***-----62-64 (polymorphic for chromosome fusion)
domestic donkey------62
Asiatic wild ***-----54-56 (polymorphic for chromosome fusion)
kiang----------------50-52 (polymorphic for chromosome fusion)
Grevy's zebra--------46
plains zebra---------44
Hartmann's zebra-----32

Consider a few specifics of this. First, note that the Kiang, asiatic wild *** and african wild *** actually have different numbers of chromosomes, ranging from 50 to 52, 54 to 56 and 62 to 64 respectively. Thus, chromosome number are not necessarily always the same within species.

Next, the Prezwalski's horse and domestic horse can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.
Also, there are known rare cases were a female mule was fertile.
And last but not least, as already noted, zebras, donkeys and horses are mentioned in different articles (for example here) as being of the same kind. Thus, this should not be a problem for evolution, if it even fits in the "micro evolution" explanation of created kinds.

So evolution has no problems producing different numbers of chromosomes. Equus is an excellent current day example that chromosome numbers do not solely define different species.

But we can do more, namely look at human and ape DNA. The great apes have 24 pares of chromosomes, humans 23. Now, if we look at human chromosome 2, it is a close resemblence of chimp chromosome 2p and 2q. This makes the occurrence of fusion of the chromosome in human ancestors very likely.

***= a s s: can't even write down species anymore nowadays.

 

[artofwar]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i1/bird.asp



what about this?

 

[Tomk80]

***Artofwar's posts***

I'm genuinly confused. Are you really a creationist? I only scanned the article quickly but if I read the article correctly, the skull is never classified as human or as ape, but there is a fight over how the skull looked and where in the line of intermediates it should be. This fits easily in evolutionary theory, since classification should be a problem for it.
However, I have a lot of problems fitting it into creationist theory, since classification should not be a problem if it were true. But maybe I missed something.

 

[Jet Black]

You draw the line at the point where the chromosomes switch from 46 to 48 in number. Now convince me that such a thing happened with only a subtle phenotype change!

48 to 46 you mean? the rest of the great apes have 48 chromosomes and we have 46. we also have telomeres in the middle of chromosome 2. Telomeres normally only exist on the ends of chromosomes. We also have evidence of 2 different centromeres. Chromosomes normally only have the one centromere (in the middle)

If we run a comparison of human, chimp, gorilla and orang-utan chromosome 2s (we call the c,g and o chromosomes 2p and 2q) look what we get:

 

[monkenstick]

You draw the line at the point where the chromosomes switch from 46 to 48 in number. Now convince me that such a thing happened with only a subtle phenotype change!

i tried to explain to you in another thread that robertsonian translocations explain changes in chromosome number - and that they can have minimal phenotypic effect (in fact there are members of the human population who are carriers of robertsonian translocations who have no adverse phenotypic effects)

a look at the chromatin banding patterns on the different primate chromosomes along with the fact that the sequence near the putative fusions are telomeric should be enough to convince any rational person of the validity of this mechanism (and of hominid common ancestry)

 

[Tomk80]

Could we just wait a few moment so we can get an answer on our answers on the 46-48 chromosomes issue? Just out of curiousity?

 

[Crispie]

First of all both humans and apes have similiar skulls. Also how do we know that God didnt create human like species with minor intelligence but nothing at the level of a human. Third of all, which I believe in, is that since the bones in our body grow at a constant durring our adulthood, if you were to emulate that bone growth for hundreds of years, around 600 years, that the humans skull would be near identical to early hominids such as neanderthals. Strange coincidence eh?

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july2001/milner.htm

 

[Jet Black]

First of all both humans and apes have similiar skulls. Also how do we know that God didnt create human like species with minor intelligence but nothing at the level of a human. Third of all, which I believe in, is that since the bones in our body grow at a constant durring our adulthood, if you were to emulate that bone growth for hundreds of years, around 600 years, that the humans skull would be near identical to early hominids such as neanderthals. Strange coincidence eh?

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july2001/milner.htm

look at their teeth dude. Teeth show characteristic lines as the layers of enamel are laid down. Neanderthals show less of these patterns since they actually grew quicker and achieved adulthood earlier than sapiens. It is also possible to identify neanderthal juveniles. how does that fit in with the idea that neanderthals are old humans? there should be no juvenile stage.

Neanderthals young and old, male and female are identified by a whole raft of features including

• An occipital bun.
• A suprainiac fossa.
• Position of the mastoid crest.
• Position of the juxtamastoid crest.
• Position of the mastoid process.
• The supraorbital torus.
• The supratoral sulcus.
• A receding frontal.
• Presence of lambdoidal flattening.
• inner ear morphology

 

[Ampoliros]

...Also how do we know that God didnt create human like species with minor intelligence but nothing at the level of a human....

Simple, unless your God is trying to decieve the rest of us, he wouldn't create a series of fossils that seemed to support human evolution.

 

[JohnR7]

Hey John, speaking of evidence, here's those 14 skulls starting with a Chimpanzee and ending with a modern human again. Please point to where the dividing line is between ape and human should be placed.

Your little display of skulls is actually very good evidence for Creation. Because DNA evidence shows that the modern human is not related to any of the other species represented by the skulls in your photo.

Your idea that somehow humans must be related to those other species just shows another error in the thinking of those who do not know that much about evolution.

The missing link is still missing. Back in Darwin's time, there was still some hope that a missing link could be found, because they had not searched for it. Now, after 100 years of searching for it in all the places they expected to find the missing link, it is still missing.

 

[Jet Black]

Your little display of skulls is actually very good evidence for Creation. Because DNA evidence shows that the modern human is not related to any of the other species represented by the skulls in your photo.

plz present this evidence. The evidence I posted shows that we are quite closely related to chimps, orang utan and gorilla

 

[Gracchus]

Your little display of skulls is actually very good evidence for Creation. Because DNA evidence shows that the modern human is not related to any of the other species represented by the skulls in your photo.

Your idea that somehow humans must be related to those other species just shows another error in the thinking of those who do not know that much about evolution.

The missing link is still missing. Back in Darwin's time, there was still some hope that a missing link could be found, because they had not searched for it. Now, after 100 years of searching for it in all the places they expected to find the missing link, it is still missing.

In other words, you can't tell us which are human and which are not and back up your choices with evidence. Do you really expect us to believe that you know anything about the DNA associated with any of those skulls? You have admitted that you often don't even read the posts to which you "respond". If I am wrong about this, please cite your sources, and I will apologize for drawing the conclusion about you that forum rules forbid me to to express.

 

[Split Rock]

Conclusion
What is clear is that the later reconstructions of skull 1470, along with Bromage’s bone-scanning technique, reveal a craniofacial structure similar to gracile australopithecine, except for the larger brain size. The old flat, human-type face is gone, the forehead has disappeared, the marked supraorbital ridges are firmly established, and the facial prognathicity is obviously in line with all other australopithecines. Along with Skull 1470, another intriguing puzzle seems to have been solved—the alleged habiline ER 1813 is also now seen to belong not to Homo, but to the genus Australopithecus. Until recently, Skull 1470’s supposed human-like traits were constantly being emphasized while its pongid characters were simply largely ignored—now the latter can no longer be neglected.
[/list]

If Skull 1470 is better described as an australopithecine, I would then ask you how do you explain the existance of australopithecines in the fossil record? Especially in light of the the fact that the conclusion you cited above, states that Skull 1470 has BOTH Pongid AND Human-like characteristics!

 

[JohnR7]

In other words, you can't tell us which are human and which are not and back up your choices with evidence.

The experts can not tell us which are humanoid and which are apes, they do not agree among themselves. But what they do agree on, is that none of them are related to us, because the DNA does not match up.

In fact, I just ran across a artical about a 12,000 year old human hair they found that does not match any DNA from any known human today.

http://www.kjvbible.org/earthfilesstory.html

Like I said, Chedder Man is the oldest skull they have found where there is a DNA match with a living human today. That is only 10,000 years and that is after the extinction that took place at the end of the last ice age.

The idea that humans go back 100,000 years to Euthopia is just a theory. There is no physical evidence to support that they actually go back 100,000 or more years.

If you want to accuse us of denying the evidence, then your going to have to produce some evidence first.

 

[revolutio]

But what they do agree on, is that none of them are related to us, because the DNA does not match up.

Could you clarify how one animals DNA might "match" anothers. I am fuzzy on what you mean here.

 

[JohnR7]

Could you clarify how one animals DNA might "match" anothers. I am fuzzy on what you mean here.

Click on the link, that explains it. http://www.kjvbible.org/earthfilesstory.html

 

[Split Rock]

The experts can not tell us which are humanoid and which are apes, they do not agree among themselves. But what they do agree on, is that none of them are related to us, because the DNA does not match up.

In fact, I just ran across a artical about a 12,000 year old human hair they found that does not match any DNA from any known human today.

http://www.kjvbible.org/earthfilesstory.html

The article only says that the DNA did not match with any current ethnic group. We do not have DNA from the intermediates shown in the skull series in question, so how can you conclude it "does not match up?"

 

[Gracchus]

The experts can not tell us which are humanoid and which are apes, they do not agree among themselves. But what they do agree on, is that none of them are related to us, because the DNA does not match up.

I request again: Please cite references purporting to demonstrate that DNA from any of those skulls shows them to be not human.

In fact, I just ran across a artical about a 12,000 year old human hair they found that does not match any DNA from any known human today.

http://www.kjvbible.org/earthfilesstory.html

And my DNA would not match any other known human today or anytime in the past. What the article said was:

William Orr, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus in Geology, University of Oregon, and Director of the State Museum of Paleontology, Eugene, Oregon: "You can identify human hair, forensic criminologist types, can identify human hair from a single strand because of the granules and color and all that kind of stuff. You can distinguish human hair from all other hair just from a little piece of follicle."

DNA analyses of hair follicles found at the site have so far failed to find a match with any known human racial type living on earth today.

Nothing about hominid skulls and the hair was definitely human. You have admitted that you often do not read the posts to which you respond, nor follow the links they provide. It would appear that you don't even read or understand the links you provide.

Like I said, Chedder Man is the oldest skull they have found where there is a DNA match with a living human today. That is only 10,000 years and that is after the extinction that took place at the end of the last ice age.

Which of the skulls under discussion was Cheddar man? You stated that DNA showed that none of the skulls was related to human. That is ridiculous on the face of it, and you have provided no citations even mentioning any DNA found associated with the skulls under discussion.

The idea that humans go back 100,000 years to Euthopia is just a theory. There is no physical evidence to support that they actually go back 100,000 or more years.

There is evidence. You just refuse to look at it.

If you want to accuse us of denying the evidence, then your going to have to produce some evidence first.

The evidence has been produced. You won't read books or even follow links. The fact that you have deliberately chosen to remain ignorant is not support for your position.

The good news is that I have almost decided that you are not a troll, JohnR7. Trolls are almost always far more clever and far more subtle.

 

[The Son of Him]

The experts can not tell us which are humanoid and which are apes, they do not agree among themselves. But what they do agree on, is that none of them are related to us, because the DNA does not match up.
.

JohnR7 you are wrong , (Gracchus is the missing link).