questioner121 wrote:Excellent. Thanks.

Author put's the point across well that it's not the fusion that's the evidence of common ancestry but the genomic content.

Excellent. So you now accept that the genomic evidence demonstrates that common ancestry between humans and chimpanzees is a fact. More progress.

It's great how the creationists were able to predict the existence of that fusion before the technology even existed to detect it, isn't it? They sure showed those evolutionists!

I've heard it said here before that the aim of arguing against this ridiculous position is not to convince the poster that his/her argument is erroneous, but instead to point out its ridiculousness to lurkers reading the thread. Indeed, that seems to be what's going on here, as Questioner has displayed that he/she is not willing to accept any evidence that counters his/her claims.

What I'm wondering, though, is if Questioner is also engaging in this behavior. Obviously, because Questioner has failed to produce evidence of creation or the fixity of species, etc., no one here is going to be swayed by his/her arguments. So, I am left to wonder if it is also Questioner's aim to convince the lurkers who may be on the fence. If so, I'm afraid he/she is failing miserably, as the amount of evidence presented here to counter Questioner's assertions is monumental.

Shrunk wrote:

questioner121 wrote:Excellent. Thanks.

Author put's the point across well that it's not the fusion that's the evidence of common ancestry but the genomic content.

Excellent. So you now accept that the genomic evidence demonstrates that common ancestry between humans and chimpanzees is a fact. More progress.

It's great how the creationists were able to predict the existence of that fusion before the technology even existed to detect it, isn't it? They sure showed those evolutionists!

Sorry what I meant to say was that he's put the point across in a better way but not that the genomic evidence can be used for common ancestry in ALL situations. You can use it, within reason and under certain conditions, for determining parentage. Using it as evidence of chimp and human ancestry is too far fetched.

Skate wrote:I've heard it said here before that the aim of arguing against this ridiculous position is not to convince the poster that his/her argument is erroneous, but instead to point out its ridiculousness to lurkers reading the thread. Indeed, that seems to be what's going on here, as Questioner has displayed that he/she is not willing to accept any evidence that counters his/her claims.

What I'm wondering, though, is if Questioner is also engaging in this behavior. Obviously, because Questioner has failed to produce evidence of creation or the fixity of species, etc., no one here is going to be swayed by his/her arguments. So, I am left to wonder if it is also Questioner's aim to convince the lurkers who may be on the fence. If so, I'm afraid he/she is failing miserably, as the amount of evidence presented here to counter Questioner's assertions is monumental.

I hadn't thought about it like that. I was doing this more for educational purposes for both myself and others. It's forced me to look at DNA more in depth, understand definitions, understand what the opponents are coming from. Hopefully this will make me come up with better arguments.

First thing I think I need to do is get everyone to understand what an allele since I believe the understanding is incorrect by some people on here. If I can prove my case then hopefully it will make them rethink their understanding of other things and make them more open minded instead of trying to put down the believer.

questioner121 wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

questioner121 wrote:Excellent. Thanks.

Author put's the point across well that it's not the fusion that's the evidence of common ancestry but the genomic content.

Excellent. So you now accept that the genomic evidence demonstrates that common ancestry between humans and chimpanzees is a fact. More progress.

It's great how the creationists were able to predict the existence of that fusion before the technology even existed to detect it, isn't it? They sure showed those evolutionists!

Sorry what I meant to say was that he's put the point across in a better way but not that the genomic evidence can be used for common ancestry in ALL situations. You can use it, within reason and under certain conditions, for determining parentage. Using it as evidence of chimp and human ancestry is too far fetched.

Interesting viewpoint.

So how were those evolutionists able to predict the existence of that fusion before it was found? Did common ancestry have anything to do with it?

And if it has nothing to do with common ancestry, why are many creationists still trying to deny that the fusion exists?

questioner121 wrote:

Skate wrote:I've heard it said here before that the aim of arguing against this ridiculous position is not to convince the poster that his/her argument is erroneous, but instead to point out its ridiculousness to lurkers reading the thread. Indeed, that seems to be what's going on here, as Questioner has displayed that he/she is not willing to accept any evidence that counters his/her claims.

What I'm wondering, though, is if Questioner is also engaging in this behavior. Obviously, because Questioner has failed to produce evidence of creation or the fixity of species, etc., no one here is going to be swayed by his/her arguments. So, I am left to wonder if it is also Questioner's aim to convince the lurkers who may be on the fence. If so, I'm afraid he/she is failing miserably, as the amount of evidence presented here to counter Questioner's assertions is monumental.

I hadn't thought about it like that. I was doing this more for educational purposes for both myself and others. It's forced me to look at DNA more in depth, understand definitions, understand what the opponents are coming from. Hopefully this will make me come up with better arguments.

First thing I think I need to do is get everyone to understand what an allele since I believe the understanding is incorrect by some people on here. If I can prove my case then hopefully it will make them rethink their understanding of other things and make them more open minded instead of trying to put down the believer.

I don't think most here are trying to "put down a believer." Rather, it seems that most are showing that your claims are unsupportable by providing evidence.

questioner121 wrote:First thing I think I need to do is get everyone to understand what an allele since I believe the understanding is incorrect by some people on here.

On what basis, other than that you've already got your conclusion?

If I can prove my case then hopefully it will make them rethink their understanding of other things

That would require that a) you had any idea of what you're waffling about and b) that there was anything wrong with our understanding.

Protip: You don't and there isn't.

and make them more open minded

From the person who's stated flat-out that nothing can make him change his mind...

instead of trying to put down the believer.

Well, I don't put down believers, I put down idiotic beliefs, especially dangerous beliefs such as put forward by your dickhead prophet (piss be upon him) with all the attendant immorality.

Religion is a plague on mankind, Islam doubly so.

Shrunk wrote:

questioner121 wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

questioner121 wrote:Excellent. Thanks.

Author put's the point across well that it's not the fusion that's the evidence of common ancestry but the genomic content.

Excellent. So you now accept that the genomic evidence demonstrates that common ancestry between humans and chimpanzees is a fact. More progress.

It's great how the creationists were able to predict the existence of that fusion before the technology even existed to detect it, isn't it? They sure showed those evolutionists!

Sorry what I meant to say was that he's put the point across in a better way but not that the genomic evidence can be used for common ancestry in ALL situations. You can use it, within reason and under certain conditions, for determining parentage. Using it as evidence of chimp and human ancestry is too far fetched.

Interesting viewpoint.

So how were those evolutionists able to predict the existence of that fusion before it was found? Did common ancestry have anything to do with it?

And if it has nothing to do with common ancestry, why are many creationists still trying to deny that the fusion exists?

Show me a citation where they predicted the fusion before they even found it.

If you're smart why don't predict how many chromosomes monkeys should have since they too are a common ancestors. Should it be less, more or the same and why?

questioner121 wrote:

Show me a citation where they predicted the fusion before they even found it.

Google is your friend. I found a citation from 1978 putting forward such a hypothesis.

HTH's

campermon wrote:

questioner121 wrote:

Show me a citation where they predicted the fusion before they even found it.

Google is your friend. I found a citation from 1978 putting forward such a hypothesis.

HTH's

OK, so the consensus on here is that the redundant centromere in chromosome 2 of the human genome is an allele.

Calilasseia wrote:
Definition of allele: one of a number of alternative forms of the same genetic locus. Usually, this term is applied to genes, and in elementary lessons on the subject, the classic examples chosen tend to be single-factor genes exhibiting Mendelian inheritance patterns, but of course, other, more complex examples exist. Consequently, any genetic locus for which the existence of alternative forms can be demonstrated to exist, constitutes an allele in a genome. The redundant centromere in human chromosome 2 is precisely such a locus, one shared by all humans. That same locus in other primates, happens not to be a redundant centromere, but an active centromere. Whilst Hackenslash's language was less than ideally rigorous, in these terms, he's largely right. Namely, there exists a well-defined locus on human chromosome 2, that is found to reside on a separate chromosome in other primates, and takes an alternative form, by virtue of being an active centromere.

I don't believe this is correct because first of all the redundant centromere in the chimps chromosome cannot be classed as being in the same locus. The same locus in terms alleles means it has to be in the same chromosome of the living organism. You can't compare it to a locus in the chromosome of another living organism.

questioner121 wrote:If you're smart why don't predict how many chromosomes monkeys should have since they too are a common ancestors. Should it be less, more or the same and why?

I said nothing about predicting the number of chromosomes. The prediction was the presence of the fusion, which was based on the number of human chromosomes, compared to that of other great apes.

It's a very poor student who doesn't pay attention and still thinks he knows everything.

"Prediction" is probably too weak a word. That the fusion would be found was a certainty. Just as, when you find a healthy human being today with 44 chromosomes, you know for certain that he has a additional fusion somewhere, as well.

BTW, can you kindly give us the references for how the creationists predicted the existence of the fusion? They must have predicted it, if they understand human origins better than evolutionists do.

questioner121 wrote:OK, so the consensus on here is that the redundant centromere in chromosome 2 of the human genome is an allele.

Calilasseia wrote:
Definition of allele: one of a number of alternative forms of the same genetic locus. Usually, this term is applied to genes, and in elementary lessons on the subject, the classic examples chosen tend to be single-factor genes exhibiting Mendelian inheritance patterns, but of course, other, more complex examples exist. Consequently, any genetic locus for which the existence of alternative forms can be demonstrated to exist, constitutes an allele in a genome. The redundant centromere in human chromosome 2 is precisely such a locus, one shared by all humans. That same locus in other primates, happens not to be a redundant centromere, but an active centromere. Whilst Hackenslash's language was less than ideally rigorous, in these terms, he's largely right. Namely, there exists a well-defined locus on human chromosome 2, that is found to reside on a separate chromosome in other primates, and takes an alternative form, by virtue of being an active centromere.

I don't believe this is correct because first of all the redundant centromere in the chimps chromosome cannot be classed as being in the same locus. The same locus in terms alleles means it has to be in the same chromosome of the living organism. You can't compare it to a locus in the chromosome of another living organism.

This is very wrong. It means that if you are homozygous for a particular allele, it can't be called an allele.

Shrunk wrote:

questioner121 wrote:If you're smart why don't predict how many chromosomes monkeys should have since they too are a common ancestors. Should it be less, more or the same and why?

I said nothing about predicting the number of chromosomes. The prediction was the presence of the fusion, which was based on the number of human chromosomes, compared to that of other great apes.

It's a very poor student who doesn't pay attention and still thinks he knows everything.

"Prediction" is probably too weak a word. That the fusion would be found was a certainty. Just as, when you find a healthy human being today with 44 chromosomes, you know for certain that he has a additional fusion somewhere, as well.

BTW, can you kindly give us the references for how the creationists predicted the existence of the fusion? They must have predicted it, if they understand human origins better than evolutionists do.

The question was what does the number of chromosomes have to do with common ancestry. You seem to be saying that humans are part of a group of apes who should have the same number of chromosomes hence the search for the missing chromosomes. However a group of apes having the same number of chromosomes (in most circurmstances) is nothing to do with common ancestry unless you can show how many chromosomes the common ancestor had AND how through the process of evolution the apes came to have 48. Even when you can prove that it's just supporting evidence of common ancestry and still does not make it a fact. It just makes the case stronger for it.

So, can you explain how and why monkeys and apes and some humans have differing number of chromosomes through evolution. Which mechanism of evolution are you going to use?

Shrunk wrote:

questioner121 wrote:OK, so the consensus on here is that the redundant centromere in chromosome 2 of the human genome is an allele.

Calilasseia wrote:
Definition of allele: one of a number of alternative forms of the same genetic locus. Usually, this term is applied to genes, and in elementary lessons on the subject, the classic examples chosen tend to be single-factor genes exhibiting Mendelian inheritance patterns, but of course, other, more complex examples exist. Consequently, any genetic locus for which the existence of alternative forms can be demonstrated to exist, constitutes an allele in a genome. The redundant centromere in human chromosome 2 is precisely such a locus, one shared by all humans. That same locus in other primates, happens not to be a redundant centromere, but an active centromere. Whilst Hackenslash's language was less than ideally rigorous, in these terms, he's largely right. Namely, there exists a well-defined locus on human chromosome 2, that is found to reside on a separate chromosome in other primates, and takes an alternative form, by virtue of being an active centromere.

I don't believe this is correct because first of all the redundant centromere in the chimps chromosome cannot be classed as being in the same locus. The same locus in terms alleles means it has to be in the same chromosome of the living organism. You can't compare it to a locus in the chromosome of another living organism.

This is very wrong. It means that if you are homozygous for a particular allele, it can't be called an allele.

You're not understanding allele incorrectly. An allele is just another form of a gene. A gene being a sequence of DNA code usually for a specific function.

For example, lets say the following is and encoding for a gene: AAABBB. This is located at a specific point in a chromosome. If in the same location of the chromomsome you found the following combinations in other living organisms of the same species then it's referred as alleles.

AABBAA
AADDEE
BBAACC

The above are all genes but they're called alleles because they occur at the same locus AND have variations in different living organisms of the same species.

If the same encoding was found in different loci in the chromosome then they are not alleles. It has to be in the same locus.

questioner121 wrote:

Shrunk wrote:
Interesting viewpoint.

So how were those evolutionists able to predict the existence of that fusion before it was found? Did common ancestry have anything to do with it?

And if it has nothing to do with common ancestry, why are many creationists still trying to deny that the fusion exists?

Show me a citation where they predicted the fusion before they even found it.

Sure.
One such prediction came in 1982: The Origin of Man: A Chromosomal Pictorial Legacy

The confirmation that the "missing" chromosome was a fusion event was reported nine years later:
Origin of human chromosome 2: An ancestral telomere-telomere fusion

Satisfied?

questioner121 wrote:If you're smart why don't predict how many chromosomes monkeys should have since they too are a common ancestors. Should it be less, more or the same and why?

You just don't get it do you? I think you don't want to get it. It isn't about predicting how many chromosomes an organism "should" have, but explaining how the differences occurred.

It would have been a reasonable prediction that humans and the other great apes would have the same number of chromosomes. That fact that it was discovered that we do not, that humans have one less than all the rest offered an opportunity to test the viability of the evolutionary model; could there be an explanation for the discrepancy within the model or was this a refutation of at least a part of it (our common ancestry with chimps etc.)? Questions were asked, research was done and predictive hypotheses were made. The only really viable one was that "If the ToE is correct about our shared ancestry with the great apes then the only reasonable explanation would have to be that a fusion event occurred in our ancestry sometime after we split from the chimpanzee line." Some years later this was confirmed, the ToE had passed yet another falsification opportunity with flying colors.

questioner121 wrote:
AABBAA

Ahh! I see the pub has got a new karoake machine.

ADParker wrote:
Show me a citation where they predicted the fusion before they even found it.

Sure.
One such prediction came in 1982: The Origin of Man: A Chromosomal Pictorial Legacy

The confirmation that the "missing" chromosome was a fusion event was reported nine years later:
Origin of human chromosome 2: An ancestral telomere-telomere fusion

Satisfied?[/quote]

How is that a prediction? They could already see the similarities of the chromosomes so it's hardly a prediction. They even made comments on the similarity of the other chromosomes.

ADParker wrote:
You just don't get it do you? I think you don't want to get it. It isn't about predicting how many chromosomes an organism "should" have, but explaining how the differences occurred.

It would have been a reasonable prediction that humans and the other great apes would have the same number of chromosomes. That fact that it was discovered that we do not, that humans have one less than all the rest offered an opportunity to test the viability of the evolutionary model; could there be an explanation for the discrepancy within the model or was this a refutation of at least a part of it (our common ancestry with chimps etc.)? Questions were asked, research was done and predictive hypotheses were made. The only really viable one was that "If the ToE is correct about our shared ancestry with the great apes then the only reasonable explanation would have to be that a fusion event occurred in our ancestry sometime after we split from the chimpanzee line." Some years later this was confirmed, the ToE had passed yet another falsification opportunity with flying colors.

Hang on.

If the evolutionary model predicted the number of chromosomes then it should be able to predict the number of chromosomes in monkeys and other living organisms. Right? Otherwise there is no such evolutionary model.

Let's humans have a shared ancestor with apes since they have the same number of chromosomes. How many chromosomes should the common ancestor of humans and apes have? Less, more or the same?

questioner121 wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

questioner121 wrote:If you're smart why don't predict how many chromosomes monkeys should have since they too are a common ancestors. Should it be less, more or the same and why?

I said nothing about predicting the number of chromosomes. The prediction was the presence of the fusion, which was based on the number of human chromosomes, compared to that of other great apes.

It's a very poor student who doesn't pay attention and still thinks he knows everything.

"Prediction" is probably too weak a word. That the fusion would be found was a certainty. Just as, when you find a healthy human being today with 44 chromosomes, you know for certain that he has a additional fusion somewhere, as well.

BTW, can you kindly give us the references for how the creationists predicted the existence of the fusion? They must have predicted it, if they understand human origins better than evolutionists do.

The question was what does the number of chromosomes have to do with common ancestry. You seem to be saying that humans are part of a group of apes who should have the same number of chromosomes hence the search for the missing chromosomes. However a group of apes having the same number of chromosomes (in most circurmstances) is nothing to do with common ancestry unless you can show how many chromosomes the common ancestor had AND how through the process of evolution the apes came to have 48. Even when you can prove that it's just supporting evidence of common ancestry and still does not make it a fact. It just makes the case stronger for it.

You're a very bad student. Were you passing notes to your friends during the lesson?

If common ancestry wasn't a fact, then we wouldn't have been able to know in advance that humans had a fused chromosome.

If humans did not come from ancestors, but instead were each individually poofed into existence by Allah, would you know that a human with 44 chromosomes had a fusion?