• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

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.
Wow. Even by your standards that is a particularly blatant and pathetic lie.
No matter how much you try and wish it gone this thread remains to expose you.
Ernst Haeckel's embryological diagrams and biology textbooks
Remember it? ANTPogo exposing your lies about Haeckel's drawings and you frantically denying and backpedaling? You abject failure to support your contentions about their importance with facts? Your failure to name the textbooks that you supposedly used in recent decades that used Haeckel's drawings?
Let me see. I give you my own personal experience. In the 70s and 80s, the textbooks we used had Haeckel in them. In evolutionist and creationist debates, public debates, Haeckel was brought up.
 
Although I completely disagree with Randman's Intelligent Design Creationism, I share some of his doubts.

I understand that human chromosome 2 resulted from the fusion of ape chromosomes 2p and 2q. For clarity, I'll refer to them as ''p'' and ''q''. How did the first individual with the fused chromosome come about? Did it happen during meiosis in one of its parents gametes? If that were so, at fertilization that individual would have one human chromosome 2 (from the parent with the distortion) and one of each of ape chromosomes p and q (from the other parent), a total of 47 but a complete genome. What happens when that individual is ready to mate? Will half of his gametes have one chromosome 2 with no p or q, and the other half one p and one q but no human chromosome 2? Or will his gametes show one chromsome 2 and one of either p or q?

I searched for information on this, and could only find a short abstract (reference #9 on http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html) of a study by Chadley, Short and Allen from 1975. They found spermatogenesis almost totally arrested in mules and hinnys. In contrast, in Przwaski horse (66 chromosomes)/domestic horse (64 chromosomes) hybrids meiosis proceeded to produce normally functioning spermatozoa. The abstract includes this important, but to me cryptic phrase. ''The investigation showed that a trivalent is formed at meiosis in the hybrid (65), segregation from which gives 2 classes of genetically balanced spermatozoa.''

From this, I understand that the first individual with the fused chromosome produced gametes that had one human chromosome 2 and one of either p or q. Am I correct? When it mated, its offspring would have one human chromosome 2 with 2 of either p or q and one of the other. Would that not be like a trisomy? I am confused.
 
Last edited:
Wow. Even by your standards that is a particularly blatant and pathetic lie.
No matter how much you try and wish it gone this thread remains to expose you.
Remember it? ANTPogo exposing your lies about Haeckel's drawings and you frantically denying and backpedaling? You abject failure to support your contentions about their importance with facts? Your failure to name the textbooks that you supposedly used in recent decades that used Haeckel's drawings?

ANT exposed nothing. I showed where Haeckel was used in textbooks in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. I named specific textbooks and reviews of textbooks. Your insistence I did not is a baldfaced lie.

You can have your own opinion but not your own facts.
 
humans did evolve from apes. If today´s apes (which includes humans) common ancestor still existed, it would CERTAINLY be considered an ape. Even Gibbons are considered apes (lesser apes), so I am sure chimps/humans/gorillas common ancestor, which was more similar to us than a Gibbon, would be considered an ape.
 
Thanks, Apollo. I'm a fan of PZ Myers' Pharyngula, but I hadn't discovered the blog in 2006 yet. The article, http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/09/luskins_ludicrous_genetics.php, clears most of my doubts. The ancestor with chromosome 2 already fused could produce fertile gametes with either only one chromosome 2 or with only both original ape chromosomes. Other combinations are possible, but they would be fatal. Here are a few relevant paragraphs from the article.
Pharyngula said:
''Let me explain why. Assume we have a set of genes (a) found on one chromosome, and a set of genes (b) found on another. Everyone has two copies of each set, so in a normal diploid cell, we have (a) (a) (b) (b). In meiosis, the cellular mechanisms segregate the chromosomes in an orderly way, so each gamete gets one set (a) and one set (b), each gamete looks like this: (a) (b).

In an individual with a Robertsonian fusion, though, each diploid cell looks like this: (a) (b) (a:b). They have three chromosomes instead of four, even if they do have the proper doses of (a) and (b). Now when meiosis occurs, the cell has to sort 3 chromosomes into two cells, and there are multiple ways this can happen:

(a) (b) a normal gamete : normal
(a:b) a gamete carrying the fusion, but with the normal complement of genes: normal
(a) (a:b) a gamete with an extra (a)—lethal
(a) a gamete with an no (b)—lethal
(b) (a:b) a gamete with an extra (b)—lethal
(b) a gamete with a no (a)—lethal

As you can see, several of the combinations produce viable gametes, and this individual can have healthy children with no detectable problems, although half of them will carry the Robertsonian fusion. The other gametes have serious problems, and will typically lead to very early miscarriages, especially if they involve a large chromosome, like chromosome 2. They will have more problems conceiving, but their children will be normal.''
 
Last edited:
humans did evolve from apes. If today´s apes (which includes humans) common ancestor still existed, it would CERTAINLY be considered an ape. Even Gibbons are considered apes (lesser apes), so I am sure chimps/humans/gorillas common ancestor, which was more similar to us than a Gibbon, would be considered an ape.

True, but the thread/my original post was about how we know we didn't evolve from one of the apes that exist today, such as a chimp for example, that some hominid fossils (Lucy), share similarities with.
 
Last edited:
True, but the thread/my original post was about how we know we didn't evolve from one of the apes that exist today, such as a chimp for example, that some hominid fossils (Lucy), share similarities with.

Fair enough. I assume you got sufficient answers?

Hans
 
.... In contrast, in Przwaski horse (66 chromosomes)/domestic horse (64 chromosomes) hybrids meiosis proceeded to produce normally functioning spermatozoa. The abstract includes this important, but to me cryptic phrase. ''The investigation showed that a trivalent is formed at meiosis in the hybrid (65), segregation from which gives 2 classes of genetically balanced spermatozoa.''

From this, I understand that the first individual with the fused chromosome produced gametes that had one human chromosome 2 and one of either p or q. Am I correct? When it mated, its offspring would have one human chromosome 2 with 2 of either p or q and one of the other. Would that not be like a trisomy? I am confused.

The expression "genetically balanced" indicates that the right number of genes ends up in each spermatozoon. So, in the human case, chr 2 would go one way, p and q the other.
 
I'll steal Richard Dawkins' analogy. If you imagine that you have a deck of cards with pictures of your ancestors all the way back to the primordial soup, you would see that each card looks pretty much like the one before. If you flip back through the deck far enough, you would start to see a species that no longer looked quite like homo sapiens. Eventually, after a big argument among taxonomists, there would be agreement that starting there is a different species. Evolution is a long term incremental process. Viewed one generation at a time, chimpanzees give birth to chimpanzees and great danes give birth to great danes, with selection/mutation it is only over time that new species develop. So while I am pleased to share a most recent common ancestor with a chimp, no chimp ever gave birth to a homo sapien. The subtlety is what makes it so beautiful.

My great-grandfather on my mother's side was a great dane.
 

Back
Top Bottom