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.
"Because it is a MYTH, nd even IF it were true, Chromosome Count is
MEANINGLESS (wouldn't you agree?)"
I'm not the one who raised the topic. I'm simply explaining how the theory of evolution explains the reasoning behind us having fewer chromosomes. The answer being that two of our chromosomes are fused together and thus we quantitatively have less. Then our ancestors did.
Someone else suggested the idea that us having fewer chromosomes would contradict evolution. But in actuality evolution can absolutely account for this.
A more valid explanation for the telomere-like features present at the putative fusion site is that they may represent some form of a distinct genomic motif. To test this idea, a 798-bp fragment (figure 2) encompassing the fusion site and the region where the telomeric motifs are more densely populated was used as a query subject in a BLATGenome Res. 12:656–664, 2002." data-offset="-10" data-variation="small wide">17 search on the most recent build of the human genome (v 37.1; www.genome.usc.edu) with masking disabled. The results revealed a total of 159 significantly placed hits throughout the genome on human chromosomes 1–11, 15, 18–20, X and Y. The homologous regions for these hits included areas near telomeres, pericentric areas, and a wide variety of internal euchromatic sites. Identity values ranged from 80.5 to 100%, supporting the conclusion that the telomere fusion site core sequence is not unique to its pericentric location on chromosome 2, and instead represents a sequence feature (motif) scattered throughout the human genome.
Figure 3. BLASTN results against the most recent builds of the human and chimpanzee genomes using a 798 bp human query sequence representing the core of the chromosome 2 fusion region.
To verify the BLAT results and to identify homologous sites in the chimpanzee genome, the BLASTN algorithm was used (with no masking or gap extension) for comparisons between the 798-bp core 2qfus sequence and the most recent builds of the human (v 37.1) and chimp (v 2.1) genomes maintained at NCBI (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/). Although the BLASTN query against the human genome was more data intensive than the index-based BLAT search, the results produced a total of 85 significantly placed hits on all human chromosomes except chromosomes 13, 16 and 17 (1–12, 14, 15, 18–22, X and Y). While the number of hits was reduced, compared to BLAT, more chromosomes with homologous sites were identified with the BLASTN search because of the more direct nature of the algorithm (figure 3). Interestingly, human chromosomes 2, 16, 21 and 22 were peppered with the ‘fusion site’ sequence over the length of their entire euchromatic landscape (figure 3).
When the 798-bp core fusion sequence was BLASTN queried against the chimpanzee genome, the significantly placed hit count was reduced to 19, only 22% of the amount observed in the human genome. This is a startling find in light of the wide-spread claims that the human and chimpanzee genomes contain DNA sequence that is supposedly 96 to 98% similar, a claim perhaps related to the fact that the human genome was used as a scaffold to build the chimpanzee genome.8 In addition, the human-chimp hit locations did not show strong synteny, as only 13 of the 19 hits (68%) shared visually similar locations in the genome (on chimpanzee chromosomes 1, 2B, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 18, 20 and 22).
The most startling outcome of this analysis is that the fusion site did not align with chimp chromosome 2A, one of the supposed pre-fusion precursors. Furthermore, the alignment at two locations on chromosome 2B, an internal euchromatic site and the telomere region of its long arm, did not match predicted fusion-based locations based on the fusion model. If the fusion model was credible, this should have produced an alignment with the telomeric region on chimpanzee 2B on the short arm.
The alignment data also severely calls into question claims of high overall sequence similarity of 96 to 98% between the genomes.
There is, therefore, no real evidence for DNA homology between human and chimpanzee for the 798-bp core fusion sequence. The alignment data also severely calls into question claims of high overall sequence similarity of 96 to 98% between the genomes. Our results are indirectly supported by the exceptionally high levels of dissimilarity observed in a recent study of a section of the Y chromosome landscape between human and chimpanzee.
Examining DNA sequence for a cryptic centromere
Following the supposed head-to-head telomere-based fusion of two smaller chromosomes, two centromeres would have had to exist in the newly formed chimeric chromosome, one from each of the two fused chromosomes. According to the evolutionary model, sequence degeneration plus selection would continue until the second centromere was completely non-functional. The DNA evidence in question is based on the fact that human, great-ape, and other mammalian centromeres are composed of a highly variable class of DNA sequence that is repeated over and over called alpha-satellite or alphoid DNA.et al., Genome-wide characterization of centromeric satellites from multiple mammalian genomes, Genome Research 21:137–145, 2011." data-offset="-10" data-variation="small wide">18 Alphoid DNA, although found in centromeric areas, is not unique to centromeres and is even highly variable between homologous regions throughout the same mammalian genome.18
Figure 4. PhyML result with tree rendering by TreeDyn involving the nine Chromosome 2 alphoid sequences (prefix = AF) identified by accession numbers submitted to GenBank by Lonoce et al. (2000; unpublished—see genbank accessions at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). The 171 bp consensus alphoid is included as a monomer and as repeats (2X, 3X, 4X). Two human alphoid sequences representing functional centromeric fragments identified by accession number are also included (prefix = M).
The basic human alphoid monomer is a 171-base motif represented by a patented synthetic consensus sequence in Genbank (Acc. # CS444613). There also exists two small sequenced clones representing alphoid repeats with proven cellular centromere function.et al., Chromosome instability associated with human alphoid DNA transfected into the chinese hamster genome, Molec Cell. Biol. 8:3611–3618, 1988." data-offset="-10" data-variation="small wide">19 Nine different alphoid fragments in the cryptic centromere site associated with the purported chromosome 2 fusion event were also sequenced and submitted to GenBank by an Italian laboratory (see figure 4 for accession numbers). In total, we downloaded and analyzed all 12 of these sequences for similarity to each other and individually for genome-wide homology.
Using the BLAT tool on the most recent version (v 3.7) of the human genome assembly, the nine italian lab alphoid sequences elicited the strongest hits at the chromosome 2 putative cryptic centromere site for all accessions. This confirmed that they were cloned from this region of the genome. The consensus 171-bp alphoid sequence aligned at the cryptic centromere site with 90.6% identity, supporting the conclusion that the site contains alphoid-like sequences.
However, the concern is not if this location contains alphoid sequences that are known to be ubiquitous in the human genome, but how similar these sequences are to each other and to known functional centromeric alphoid repeats. Alphoid sequences located at centromeres form long series of repeat patterns that are very homogeneous in their repetitive structure, producing distinctive higher-order patterns. Alphoid regions that are non-centromeric are more diverse in their monomer content and form higher order patterns with different characteristics compared to centromeres.et al., Organization and evolution of primate centromeric DNA from whole-genome shotgun sequence data, PLoS Comput Biol 3:1807–1818, 2007." data-offset="-10" data-variation="small wide">20 At present, there are five known supraclasses of human alphoid monomers that combine in various combinations.Nucleic Acids Res 34:1912–1924, 2006." data-offset="-10" data-variation="small wide">21 There is also evidence from research in progress that alphoid monomer classes themselves can be broken down further into specific subfragments that may be present in the genome by themselves or as a sub-fragment in an alphoid repeat region (Tomkins, unpublished data).
In a human alphoid multiple-sequence alignment analysis, we combined the two functional centromeric alphoid sequences with the set of nine Italian alphoid sequences along with the consensus 171-base alphoid sequence in our data set (figure 4). We also created tandem repeats of the consensus 171-base alphoid sequence representing repeats of 2X to 4X in length as individual sequences. Alignments were conducted using the MUSCLE software packageNucleic Acids Res. 32:1792–1797, 2004." data-offset="-10" data-variation="small wide">22 then refined using the Gblocks program.Systematic Biol. 56:564–577, 2007." data-offset="-10" data-variation="small wide">23
The human alphoid alignments clearly revealed dissimilarity between alphoid sequences and distinct patterns of clustering. Patterns of similarity were computationally evaluated using PhyMLet al., PHYML Online—a web server for fast maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic inference, Nucleic Acids Res. 33:W557–W559, 2004." data-offset="-10" data-variation="small wide">24 with tree rendering performed by TreeDyn (figure 4).et al., TreeDyn: towards dynamic graphics and annotations for analyses of trees, BMC Bioinformatics 7:439, 2006." data-offset="-10" data-variation="small wide">25 Four major groups were distinguished by the PhyML analysis with the functional centromere sequences clustering by themselves and not with the alphoid sequences located at the purported cryptic centromere site on chromosome 2. The sequences at the cryptic centromere site are clearly a diverse mixture of alphoid monomers, forming three separate groups and not distinctly representative of functional centromeric DNA. In a structural comparison of both the functional centromere and cryptic centromere sites on chromosome 2 with the genome visualization tool, Skittle,BMC Bioinformatics 10:452, 2009." data-offset="-10" data-variation="small wide">26 the putative cryptic centromere site was considerably more sequence-diverse and structurally unordered compared to the functional centromere on chromosome 2 (data not shown). The complex higher-order architecture of this Alphoid-diverse site is clearly unique and not characteristic of a silenced degenerate centromere.
Multiple reports involving both hybridization and sequence-based research of alphoid/centromere similarity between humans and apes have found virtually no apparent evolutionary homology, except for moderate similarity on the X-chromosome centromere.20,et al., Comparative mapping of human alphoid sequences in great apes using fluorescence in situ hybridization, Genomics 25:477–484, 1995." data-offset="-10" data-variation="small wide">27 Baldini et al. found that the “highest sequence similarity between human and great ape alphoid sequences is 91%, much lower than the expected similarity for selectively neutral sequences.”et al., An alphoid DNA sequence conserved in all human and great ape chromosomes: evidence for ancient centromeric sequences at human chromosomal regions 2q21 and 9q13, Human Genetics 90:577–583, 1993." data-offset="-10" data-variation="small wide">28 Alphoid regions, in contrast to many classes of DNA sequences, are not well-conserved among taxa and even show high levels of diversity between chromosomes in the same genome.18 When the human alphoid sequences in our data set were queried against the chimpanzee genome using both BLAT and BLASTN, we were unable to obtain a single significant hit, verifying the extreme dissimilarity observed in alphoid motifs between taxa. These data corresponded well with several decades of previous research by multiple labs, discussed above.
Summarized findings
Materials and Methods
- The reputed fusion site is located in a peri-centric region with suppressed recombination and should exhibit a reasonable degree of tandem telomere motif conservation. Instead, the region is highly degenerate—a notable feature reported by a previous investigation.
- In a 30 kb region surrounding the fusion site, there exists a paucity of intact telomere motifs (forward and reverse) and very few of them are in tandem or in frame.
- Telomere motifs, both forward and reverse (TTAGGG and CCTAAA), populate both sides of the purported fusion site. Forward motifs should only be found on the left side of the fusion site and reverse motifs on the right side
- The 798-base core fusion-site sequence is not unique to the purported fusion site, but found throughout the genome with 80% or greater identity internally on nearly every chromosome; indicating that it is some type of ubiquitous higher-order repeat.
- No evidence of synteny with chimp for the purported fusion site was found. The 798-base core fusion-site sequence does not align to its predicted orthologous telomeric regions in the chimp genome on chromsomes 2A and 2B.
- Queries against the chimp genome with the human alphoid sequences found at the purported cryptic centromere site on human 2qfus produced no homologous hits using two different algorithms (BLAT and BLASTN).
- Alphoid sequences at the putative cryptic centromere site are diverse, form three separate sub-groups in alignment analyses, and do not cluster with known functional human centromeric alphoid elements.
DNA sequences described in this paper were downloaded from the National Center for Biotechnology (NCBI) web site in FASTA format text files.29 Results from online BLAT (Blast-Like Alignment Tool)17 searches were downloaded from the Genome Browser at the UCSC Genome Bioinformatics web site (genome.ucsc.edu/) as plain text files and parsed using a POSIX shell script written by J.P. Tomkins. Analyses for telomere motif occurrence and GC content were performed using a Perl script written by J.P. Tomkins. Bioinformatic scripts developed and utilized in this study may be requested by contacting author Tomkins at jtomkins@icr.org. Figures depicting genome-view BLASTN (nucleotide BLAST) alignments were obtained using online software available at NCBI. For alphoid sequence alignments, the MUSCLE (Multiple Sequence Comparison by Log-Expectation)22 program (v 3.7; www.ebi.ac.uk/Tools/muscle/index.html) followed by curation with Gblocks (v 0.91b; molevol.cmima.csic.es/castresana/Gblocks.html)23 was used to evaluate alignments and select conserved blocks for analysis with PhyML (v 3.0; atgc.lirmm.fr/phyml/).24 Tree data from PhyML was rendered with TreeDyn (v 198; www.treedyn.org/).25 Sequence visualization of repeats and motif patterns were performed using the genome viewer software program Skittle26 and the entire consensus sequence of human chromosome 2 downloaded as a compressed fasta file from NCBI.
"NO, they DONT "Add Variation" "
You can call it whatever you want, but point mutations introduce new DNA to a species. it is not DNA that is pre-existed in the species it is completely new. and by new what I mean is that this DNA has not existed in the species prior to the mutation.
and these types of mutations that introduce new DNA to a species and additional DNA to a species in the form of duplications it's not debatable.
Duplications quantitatively increase genetic material. Point mutations shuffle added genetic material.
In which case a species with genetic information:
AAAA can duplicate to AAAA AAAA, and can then subsequently mutate further via insertions, deletions, frameshifts, etc. And can end with AAAA ATGC.
In the end, the above hypothetical leaves us with a species that not only still retains it's original genetic code of AAAA, but it now has completely new, additional DNA that did not previously exist.
The different types of mutations (video) | Khan Academy
Roman's says sin brought in death.
Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned--
Life is in the soul, the nephesh and Biblical death means both humans and animals as both are described as having nephesh. This quality is not connected to plants. It would not make sense for sin to enter the whole world if it was already there taking out animals before Adam's sin.
The world as created was 'very good' by God's standards not by mans.
If the lions had turned around, attacked and ripped apart the deer directly after God had created them on day five this would not have been 'very good'. But even at the end of the sixth day, more than an entire day after the swimming and flying type animals had been created God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
the creation wasn't marred by an insert being eaten by a bird or getting squashed.
Both man and animals were given only plants for food.
Genesis 1:29-30
29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
The animals had no fear of man
19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.
Adam and Eve were only in the garden a short time because they were given a command to be fruitful and multiply and that had not yet happened.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.
What reason do you have to suspect animals died before adam's sin?
There's more than 20,000 species, there's about 1.3 million, and they came from about 20,000 different families, that is evolution, because they are no longer just 20,000 species there are 1.3 million or more, that means that they evolved FROM those original 20,000 or so (well more than 20,000, many families have gone extinct, but I'm talking about 20,000 or so that survived the last mass extinction, the flood)"No, I don't think using a word with its original meaning needs to end."
Should we still use the term Flogiston as well and keep its original meaning?
Should we go around teaching kids that Flogiston exists and is real?
Flogiston (Like Evolutionism) is ALSO a FAILED Scientific idea that has been proven wrong.. Why not just place it into the dustbin of history where it belongs?..…
I agree that there were maybe 20,000 kinds on the Ark,, They ALL remain the exact same KIND to this day! All that happened is that they Adapted, Varied, or Speciated !! ZERO Evolution to be found.. anywhere!
"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question, "How did this ever happen?"
(Dr. Sorren Luthrip, Swedish Embryologist)
I
There's more than 20,000 species, there's about 1.3 million
There are over a million arthropod species alone. By what criteria are you leaving out the other 7+ million species of animal on earth? Just out of curiosity.
How many species on Earth? About 8.7 million, new estimate says
Oh, sorry I think I had the estimate for insect species yeah. There's just too many individual species to cram onto the ark, but, if we're just talking terrestrial animals and bird families, you can narrow down how many representative species were needed to repopulate.
No nm, the estimate is 8.7 million species but "only" 1.2-1.3 million animals, and about a million of those are arthopods.
Forms we've found are the "transitional" forms.
Fossil Records and mass extinctions. Key word extinctions as in multiple. Adam's sin only explicitly caused humans to die. extending it to animals using a hebrew word is like I said, conjecture. Nature and the bible are BOTH witnesses of God's work, if they do not line up with each other, it's not because 1 is lying, it's because we have an imperfect interpretation. Animal death only occurring after sin is not EXPLICIT in the bible, therefore it's an implication, and implications can be wrong.
ohWhen applied to all five known eukaryote* kingdoms of life on Earth, the approach predicted:
- ~7.77 million species of animals (of which 953,434 have been described and cataloged)
- ~298,000 species of plants (of which 215,644 have been described and cataloged)
- ~611,000 species of fungi (moulds, mushrooms) (of which 43,271 have been described and cataloged)
- ~36,400 species of protozoa (single-cell organisms with animal-like behavior, eg. movement, of which 8,118 have been described and cataloged)
- ~27,500 species of chromista (including, eg. brown algae, diatoms, water moulds, of which 13,033 have been described and cataloged)
You can't prove they are transitional forms the same way that I can't prove God created them. You may have decided that evolution is the best possible answer for the evidence in front of you, but that is still only your opinion. You can have 10 creatures which may appear to be transitioning from this creature to that creature, but that still isn't proof because you have no proof to say that God did not simply make each creature that way. Looking like something happened is not proof.
I was asking why you think animals died from a scriptural point of view because your previous reply was on scripture.
You said "Animal death is not specified, it is conjecture."
Which is why I gave back scriptural support for my view that animals did not die.
1)The world was made very good
2)Animals were given only plants to eat not each other
3)They had no fear of man
You have not said anything about each of the verses that I quoted or shown any scripture to the contrary. Your reply back seems to be focused on the fossil record and mass extinctions rather than scripture.
No one is saying there are no fossils or mass extinctions but they came later, mostly during the flood. The garden of Eden before death came in was a very short period of time, probably only a few days or weeks at best. How is saying fossils and mass extinctions as proof that animals died before sin also not conjecture?
You can't prove they are transitional forms the same way that I can't prove God created them. You may have decided that evolution is the best possible answer for the evidence in front of you, but that is still only your opinion. You can have 10 creatures which may appear to be transitioning from this creature to that creature, but that still isn't proof because you have no proof to say that God did not simply make each creature that way. Looking like something happened is not proof. ...
...
"In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable, and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory."
(Dr. David N. Menton, PhD in Biology from Brown University)
You can't prove they are transitional forms the same way that I can't prove God created them.
Indeed exactly! "Evolution" isn't even a hypothesis, and is a misnomer. Within that context, I try to filter out points that are even less arguable. Even hypotheses and theories are a matter of degrees of inference.
Transitional forms actually are not defined based on whether a species biologically evolved into another or if that species went extinct.
Transitional forms are actually determined based on their morphology and the timing of their appearance.
For example, with tiktaalik, there is a 99% chance that tiktaaliks lineage went extinct at some point in time. Which means that it likely isn't our direct ancestor. But what makes tiktaalik a transitional form isn't whether or not it was our ancestor. What makes it transitional is that it is a fish with legs which appeared at a time after fish and before animals with legs, ie it's morphology and position in the geologic column.
So technically this is an incorrect statement. It is a laymen's understanding, not a scientific stance.
Transitional forms actually are not defined based on whether a species biologically evolved into another or if that species went extinct.
Transitional forms are actually determined based on their morphology and the timing of their appearance.
For example, with tiktaalik, there is a 99% chance that tiktaaliks lineage went extinct at some point in time. Which means that it likely isn't our direct ancestor. But what makes tiktaalik a transitional form isn't whether or not it was our ancestor. What makes it transitional is that it is a fish with legs which appeared at a time after fish and before animals with legs, ie it's morphology and position in the geologic column.
So technically this is an incorrect statement. It is a laymen's understanding, not a scientific stance.
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?