Question About Creationists

[Minimalist]

[libalchris]

I never claimed knowledge of the DNA function affected chromosomal fusion, so that's a misunderstanding on your part. However, it affects the accuracy of said claim. Which is being sold as "fact".

Then what exactly are you arguing? Chromosomal fusion occurred, the evidence for that is overwhelming (2 centromeres, a telomere in the middle.)

And you're saying this doesn't support common ancestry of apes and chimps, but don't explain why. When we sequenced chimp and human genomes, we noticed we had a fewer pair of chromosomes than they did, this would be a problem for common descent, since an organism simply can't lose a pair of chromosomes. This means the only way common descent could be valid is if we found 2 fused chromosomes in the human genome that matched the pair we were missing. And we did, human chromosome number 2. How exactly does this not support common ancestry?

What it does more is demonstrate how common ancestry is supported; that is that human and chimp DNA is so similar. We find very similar sequences in the same locations all over the genomes (I named ALUs as well as ERVs earlier for a more definitive example.) This not need be the case. If God made chimps and humans separately, he set everything up in such a way that we appear to share a common ancestor.

[Abishalom]

I never claimed knowledge of the DNA function affected chromosomal fusion, so that's a misunderstanding on your part. However, it affects the accuracy of said claim. Which is being sold as "fact".

Then what exactly are you arguing? Chromosomal fusion occurred, the evidence for that is overwhelming (2 centromeres, a telomere in the middle.)

And you're saying this doesn't support common ancestry of apes and chimps, but don't explain why. When we sequenced chimp and human genomes, we noticed we had a fewer pair of chromosomes than they did, this would be a problem for common descent, since an organism simply can't lose a pair of chromosomes. This means the only way common descent could be valid is if we found 2 fused chromosomes in the human genome that matched the pair we were missing. And we did, human chromosome number 2. How exactly does this not support common ancestry?

What it does more is demonstrate how common ancestry is supported; that is that human and chimp DNA is so similar. We find very similar sequences in the same locations all over the genomes (I named ALUs as well as ERVs earlier for a more definitive example.) This not need be the case. If God made chimps and humans separately, he set everything up in such a way that we appear to share a common ancestor.

It's simple logic...

How do you know that chromosome 2 in humans has the same function as the said corresponding chromosomes in apes? We don't. For all we know the function of chromosome 2 could affect organ makeup in humans, and the 2 chromosomes in apes could affect height limitations in apes. Now imagine if said chromosomes in apes differed in function depending on the species. This clearly wouldn't prove common ancestry.

Now both of us agree that this single fusion could not have caused such drastic changes alone. So obviously the fusion alone could not suggest common ancestry. However, you say that said fusion event was a catalyst. Well then where are the other processes that led to a human from an ape after the fusion event?

[libalchris]

It's simple logic...

How do you know that chromosome 2 in humans has the same function as the said corresponding chromosomes in apes?

We don't. Both of us agree that this single fusion could not have caused such drastic changes. But you say that said fusion event was a catalyst. Well then where are the other processes that led to a human from an ape after the fusion event?

We DO because the DNA sequences are very similar. You don't have to know what they do to know that they are very similar. What caused the increasing divergence between chimps and humans? The same thing that causes the divergence of other species: mutations and natural selection. It's the primary driving force of evolution!

[Abishalom]

It's simple logic...

How do you know that chromosome 2 in humans has the same function as the said corresponding chromosomes in apes?

We don't. Both of us agree that this single fusion could not have caused such drastic changes. But you say that said fusion event was a catalyst. Well then where are the other processes that led to a human from an ape after the fusion event?

We DO because the DNA sequences are very similar. You don't have to know what they do to know that they are very similar. What caused the increasing divergence between chimps and humans? The same thing that causes the divergence of other species: mutations and natural selection. It's the primary driving force of evolution!

What exactly do you mean by "the DNA sequences are very similar"? Could you clarify? All living things made up of DNA only have 4 nucleotide bases to choose from...adenine, cytosine, guanine, thymine. I wouldn't be surprised if there were "similarities" in the sequencing all living things. But that does not explain how the function of chromosomes evolved amongst various organisms.

BTW I believe you overlooked my question about the other processes that followed the fusion event that was the "catalyst" for human evolution. Unless you were attempting to answer it with your "mutations and natural selection" claim. That will not suffice. Since ape to human evolution is a "fact", I would like to know the processes that occurred after the fusion event that led to humans from apes (since we both agree that the fusion event alone could not cause such drastic changes). If natural selection alone produced humans well then we better start cracking the genetic code to understand the function of the genome. If mutations acted alongside NS, then please do tell which mutations led to such drastic changes...

[libalchris]

What exactly do you mean by "the DNA sequences are very similar"? Could you clarify? All living things made up of DNA only have 4 nucleotide bases to choose from...adenine, cytosine, guanine, thymine. I wouldn't be surprised if there were "similarities" in the sequencing all living things. But that does not explain how the function of chromosomes evolved amongst various organism.

Let me be more specific. First of all, I would like to mention that the fact that all life using the same 4 nucleotides is evidence for common descent, considering there are many more could be used. Along with that, all life uses the same 20 amino acids, when there are also many many more that could have been used, providing very strong support of evolution.

Now, the similarities in the chromosomes has to do with the proteins and where they are found on the genome. In this case, when we look at the human genome vs the chimpanzee genome, based on the correspondence of different proteins in different locations on different chromosomes, we can show that each human chromosome corresponds to 1 chimpanzee chromosome (because they have the same, or similar, genes coding for the same things at the same location on the protein.

Again, in summary, each human chromsome can be found to correspond to a chimp chromosome. Now we find that one of our chromosomes (chromosome 2) has fused, when we "take apart" this chromosome we find that each of the pieces corresponds to the pairs of chimp chromosomes we were missing.

I'm sure I'm not very good at explaining this, so let me show you a diagram of chimp and human chromosomes



the left ones are humans and the right ones are chimps. You can see how similar they are, and how each human chromosme has a corresponding chimp chromosme. You see how we can tell that the 2 parts of the human corresponds to the 2 separate chimp chromosomes.

Let me emphasize real quick that this need not be the case. If there were a creator he easily could have made the chromosomes in such a way that would render common descent impossible. For example if chromosome 2 existed not as the result of a fusion (ie if we found no extra centromeres and telomeres) then common descent would be destroyed.

[Annik]

[libalchris]

In the documentary I mentioned earlier, they showed this experiment that's been going on for, like, 50 years involved the domestication of a kind of fox. As the foxes got more and more domesticated, they began to show differences in appearance. These were things like curly tails, their ears not perking up, strange colorings on their fur. Super interesting and worth a watch. I think it also shows how dogs have evolved to recognize human faces and their connection to emotion. So fucking cool.


I hope that made sense. I might be a little drunk.

I've read a little about that study. The reason is that certain genes are linked, so when you affect one you affect the other.

[Godscreated]

[Annik]

In the documentary I mentioned earlier, they showed this experiment that's been going on for, like, 50 years involved the domestication of a kind of fox. As the foxes got more and more domesticated, they began to show differences in appearance. These were things like curly tails, their ears not perking up, strange colorings on their fur. Super interesting and worth a watch. I think it also shows how dogs have evolved to recognize human faces and their connection to emotion. So fucking cool.


I hope that made sense. I might be a little drunk.

First of all I made no response to Min, you have fabricated a response that is not true, so who's lowering the bar on stupidity.
Now to get this straight, one of the early responses to the pic of the coyote, was to call it wolf, then others started accepting what was said, all I have done was to point out that you city people, can't tell the difference between a coyote and a wolf. If your scientific identification of animals is no better than that, then why should I pay attention to anything you say.

Why the fuck did you quote me? Lol, I was making an aside about a cool thing I learned about dogs, wtf?

And also, I grew up on the grounds of a prison 20 minutes out of anything resembling a town. Don't assume things.