Humans Didn't evolve from Apes - How Do We Know?

[Jrrarglblarg]

Genetic markers in DNA are different from chromosomes, right?

I'm using the term 'genetic marker' in the broadest possible sense, ie, any genetic information that is actually passed from parent to child. In this case, we're talking about a major change in the structure of the chromosomes, where 2 chromosomes become 1. Subsequent generations will follow this pattern.

Most scientific uses of the term "genetic marker" refer to smaller bits of a single chromosome, down to the level of a few base pairs, but it can also be used to refer to larger sets of traceable genetics, such as the red hair and freckles set found in Ireland but also found in far Eastern Europe. In the case of the Irish "genetic marker" this gives additional data to researchers following the Celts across Europe. Some opine that the Celts were merely a statistical set of successive invasions from one side of Europe to another carrying certain cultural data along with them as they went rather than a racial/ethnic group moving from place to place. But the red hair and freckles suggest that at least SOME of the genes from Eastern Europe made the journey all the way to Ireland.

Likewise, I have a friend in another company of my National Guard battalion who shares an odd genetic marker with me -- we're both missing our upper left lateral incisors. They never grew in, it's congenital. Talking about our genetic histories, we figured that marker comes from the Viking ancestors we both share -- part of the Saxon immigration wave into England.

These kinds of markers are useful to study population flow, with the caveat that some phenotypes can arise from any of several different genotypes.

 

[KingMerv00]

Randman, do you have a response to my endogenous retrovirus and nested hierarchy links?

 

[A'isha]

"Happy" is a rather strong word, but I suppose I could try teaching freshman genetics to unwilling students on the internets. Not that I expect success.

I apologize for volunteering you without your permission!

Though I totally agree with you regarding your projected success rate...

 

[randman]

It's talking about Mendelian ratios, randman, not a "non-Mendelian process". It says that meiotic segregation as seen in the study does not occur according to Mendel's First Law, skewing the inheritance so that the mutant fused chromosome is passed on to more offspring than would otherwise be the case in a straight Mendelian ratio, resulting in more balanced (heterozygous) offspring vs. unbalanced (homozygous) offspring and completely normal offspring than there would be had the gametes been distributed according to the First Law.

EDIT: I'm sure ApolloGnomon would be happy to explain this to you in further detail, if you ask him.

I think the reference to aneuploidies is clearly not indicating the likelihood of normal or healthy offspring but the opposite, the likelihood of detrimental genetic disorders. In other words, there is an increased risk of unbalanced chromosomal translocations, not balanced.

Here is the quote:. Note the bolded part about "increased overall risk."

This non-Mendelian inheritance will result in increased overall risk of aneuploidies in the families of Robertsonian translocation carriers, independently of the origin of the transmission ratio distortion.

They are talking about increased health risks to children here.

 

[randman]

Want to modify one comment.....apparently I was mistaken to think a fused chromosome cannot be passed down to healthy offspring if both parents don't have it. I thought either the child would not have it and be healthy or the child would have an unbalanced chromosomal arrangement.

I was wrong.

But on the larger point, the Darwinian narrative does not hold true. Fused chromomoses that nevertheless produce a healthy person have not been shown to confer a selective advantage. If the fused chromosome results in a balanced translocation, the DNA functions the same. So there is no selective advantage.

But regardless of that, children of parents with fused chromosomes are not going to automatically have the fused chromosomes. There has to be a fairly intense process of not mating with those with the normal number of chromosomes in order to solidify and make permanent the fused chromosome state for all members of a population.

So I admit I was wrong on one point but don't see how it changes the basic argument since as long as those with the normal number of chromosomes are around, not everyone's offspring will have the same number.

So we're back to inbreeding as the mechanism here.

 

[Lowpro]

Only to point out I've already reported this part of the thread because we're really having parallel arguments here and within the "Dear Evolutionists" thread and at this particular moment they're pretty much exactly the same.

Are we going to continue these parallel discussion or are we sticking to one thread because randman's effectively got a double post.

 

[randman]

Randman, do you have a response to my endogenous retrovirus and nested hierarchy links?

I responded in depth on another thread and don't have time for it. You can google some fine responses. It's another red herring for evolutionists.

Keep in mind every time an evolutionist brings up nested heirarchies, they ignore the evidence that disagrees and just say that was parallel or convergent evolution. So when the data shows similar genetic sequences for chimps and gorillas but not humans, they don't say that contradicts the idea humans and chimps had an ancestor that split off from gorillas....no, all most people hear is the data that supports what evos want it to support without acknowledging the parts that disagree.

Thing is it generally just takes one fact that doesn't fit to show a narrative is wrong. So handwaiving so much evidence against evo models really shows how badly it misses the mark.

 

[pakeha]

The fused chromosomes match the unfused chromosomes, rather than being wholly novel chromosomes...

Thanks for summing that up in a nut-shell!

...Again, I'll suggest googling punnet squares to understand how this chromosome difference will spread through a population. .. We're talking about a MILLION generations or so, which is a lot of iterations in a recursive feedback loop..

I think this is where the problem for YECs kicks in. Remember the idea of millions of generations doesn't fit in with the OT timeline.

 

[DC]

I responded in depth on another thread and don't have time for it. You can google some fine responses. It's another red herring for evolutionists.

Keep in mind every time an evolutionist brings up nested heirarchies, they ignore the evidence that disagrees and just say that was parallel or convergent evolution. So when the data shows similar genetic sequences for chimps and gorillas but not humans, they don't say that contradicts the idea humans and chimps had an ancestor that split off from gorillas....no, all most people hear is the data that supports what evos want it to support without acknowledging the parts that disagree.

Thing is it generally just takes one fact that doesn't fit to show a narrative is wrong. So handwaiving so much evidence against evo models really shows how badly it misses the mark.

the problem is, you still were not able to come up with another theory that would be able to replace the theory of evolution. and as long your not able to, modern medicine will keep using the theory of evolution to work with, and your fairytale of an intelligent designer goes back to churches.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Where have I lied? You don't still believe chimps and humans are 98% the same, do you?

Try to keep up with the science before you accuse someone else of lying here.

Without quibbling about decimals, can you point to a recent, trustworthy source that names a significantly different figure?

Hans

 

[pakeha]

I responded in depth on another thread and don't have time for it. You can google some fine responses. It's another red herring for evolutionists.

Keep in mind every time an evolutionist brings up nested heirarchies, they ignore the evidence that disagrees and just say that was parallel or convergent evolution. So when the data shows similar genetic sequences for chimps and gorillas but not humans, they don't say that contradicts the idea humans and chimps had an ancestor that split off from gorillas....no, all most people hear is the data that supports what evos want it to support without acknowledging the parts that disagree.

Thing is it generally just takes one fact that doesn't fit to show a narrative is wrong. So handwaiving so much evidence against evo models really shows how badly it misses the mark.

Classic randman here.
You were shown to wrong about the fused chromosone inheritance.
And Haeckel, too.
Your own quoted sources have been repeatedly shown to mean the contrary to what you say.
Should we apply that

Thing is it generally just takes one fact that doesn't fit to show a narrative is wrong.

to you?

 

[randman]

Without quibbling about decimals, can you point to a recent, trustworthy source that names a significantly different figure?

Hans

No, I am tired of doing your work for you. It's easy enough to look up. The highest, latest estimates evos give are 95-96% but other studies show it may be more like 85%.

The simple fact is you need to look at how they are weighting and judging what is similar and what is not.

For example, do they count the fact we don't have the same number of chromosomes as differences or not.....really all sorts of things need to be looked at and it's not really worth my time if you aren't willing to do some reading on your own.

 

[randman]

Classic randman here.
You were shown to wrong about the fused chromosone inheritance.
And Haeckel, too.
Your own quoted sources have been repeatedly shown to mean the contrary to what you say.
Should we apply that
to you?

Never been wrong on Haeckel. It's a strange case of cognitive dissonance you guys have that even when it's clear and facts have been posted on how Haeckel's drawings were faked and how widespread they were and are used even, you guys still deny it....kind of cult-like.

 

[DC]

Never been wrong on Haeckel. It's a strange case of cognitive dissonance you guys have that even when it's clear and facts have been posted on how Haeckel's drawings were faked and how widespread they were and are used even, you guys still deny it....kind of cult-like.

who denies what exactly?

come back once you have a theory and not just fairytales.

 

[pakeha]

No, I am tired of doing your work for you. It's easy enough to look up. ...
The simple fact is you need to look at how they are weighting and judging what is similar and what is not.

For example, do they count the fact we don't have the same number of chromosomes as differences or not.....really all sorts of things need to be looked at and it's not really worth my time if you aren't willing to do some reading on your own.

Again, forums don't work that way.
You don't claim what you can't source.
randman, you know very well there are new readers and that as a courtesy to them you need to post the sources that back up your claims.

Never been wrong on Haeckel. It's a strange case of cognitive dissonance you guys have that even when it's clear and facts have been posted on how Haeckel's drawings were faked and how widespread they were and are used even, you guys still deny it....kind of cult-like.

Hand-waving won't make this thread go away.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Want to modify one comment.....apparently I was mistaken to think a fused chromosome cannot be passed down to healthy offspring if both parents don't have it. I thought either the child would not have it and be healthy or the child would have an unbalanced chromosomal arrangement.

I was wrong.

But on the larger point, the Darwinian narrative does not hold true. Fused chromomoses that nevertheless produce a healthy person have not been shown to confer a selective advantage. If the fused chromosome results in a balanced translocation, the DNA functions the same. So there is no selective advantage.

Nice of you to admit a fault. Keep that up.

Nobody claimed that the fusing, in itself,provided a selective advantage. In the case of humans, it is simply noted as a marker. It shows how close we are to other primates, while explaining why we still have a different number of chromosomes.

It can have a sort of selective pressure, however: If the individuals carrying it have difficulty producing viable offspring with those who don't, then if they survive that bottleneck, it will effectively force them to 'breed clean'. You know, the separation you feel is necessary for speciation.

But regardless of that, children of parents with fused chromosomes are not going to automatically have the fused chromosomes. There has to be a fairly intense process of not mating with those with the normal number of chromosomes in order to solidify and make permanent the fused chromosome state for all members of a population.

Yes, and this could happen as I outlined above: If mating with non-fused individuals leads to a poorer reproduction rate, those inbreeding (I'll give you that therm, here ) with other 'fuseds' will have a local advantage. As primates in nature tend to live in large family groups, with only limited interaction with other groups, it is quite likely that one such group could breed clean with fused chromosomes. Then, they need to survive and prosper, perhaps in a new habitat, but that is also possible.

So we're back to inbreeding as the mechanism here.

Yes, we are, in this case. No problem, that is one of several recognized scenarios under which rapid evolutionary change can happen. In fact, genetic research indicates that such a bottleneck did indeed occur during the evolution of hominids. References:

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/1/2.full

http://forum.lowcarber.org/archive/index.php/t-230679.html

http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/FeaturesAfrica/HominidChronology7.htm

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

No, I am tired of doing your work for you. It's easy enough to look up. The highest, latest estimates evos give are 95-96% but other studies show it may be more like 85%.

The simple fact is you need to look at how they are weighting and judging what is similar and what is not.

For example, do they count the fact we don't have the same number of chromosomes as differences or not.....really all sorts of things need to be looked at and it's not really worth my time if you aren't willing to do some reading on your own.

Well, I don't mind doing some work for you:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=human-chimp-gene-gap-wide

And this one explains some of the difficulties:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061013104633.htm

So indeed you are right, the current figure is about 95%.

Sooo, this proves ....... exactly what?

Hans

 

[randman]

Again, forums don't work that way.
You don't claim what you can't source.
randman, you know very well there are new readers and that as a courtesy to them you need to post the sources that back up your claims.



Hand-waving won't make this thread go away.

ANT was shown to be entirely wrong on that thread and more so even on the previous one.

 

[MRC_Hans]

ANT was shown to be entirely wrong on that thread and more so even on the previous one.

@everybody:

It would be very constructive if we could get away from 'who was wrong when on what' and over to what are the facts.

Hans

 

[KingMerv00]

I responded in depth on another thread and don't have time for it. You can google some fine responses. It's another red herring for evolutionists.

Yes, genetic evidence proving beyond a shadow of a doubt the order in which species evovled is a red herring.

I'm not doing your data search for you. I'll just take it as a dodge until you respond or post a link.

Keep in mind every time an evolutionist brings up nested heirarchies, they ignore the evidence that disagrees and just say that was parallel or convergent evolution.

No. You clearly do not understand nested hierarchies. Convergent evolution couldn't explain a frog with nipples or a conifer with flowers.

So when the data shows similar genetic sequences for chimps and gorillas but not humans, they don't say that contradicts the idea humans and chimps had an ancestor that split off from gorillas....no, all most people hear is the data that supports what evos want it to support without acknowledging the parts that disagree.

Again, the ERV data proves you wrong.