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

[Capsid]

The idea the Chromosome 2 argument is evidence for common ancestry is truly odd. How can you guys believe that?

Let's say the data part of the claim is true, that at one point there was a fusion of chromosomes by a human being and then for some reason an extreme bottleneck so that most of us have the same fused chromosome.

What does that prove?

Think about it. This would all have happened within human lineage because chimps don't have the same number of chromosomes. In other words, this could not have been passed down from a common, non-human being ancestor.

What gives then? Makes no sense to then think this is evidence for common ancestry, and that's even if the chromosomes were fused.

So there was a human ancestor that had 48 chromosomes that then fused to give rise to humans. Wouldn't the 48 chromosome ancestor look like a chimp too?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

The idea the Chromosome 2 argument is evidence for common ancestry is truly odd. How can you guys believe that?

Let's say the data part of the claim is true, that at one point there was a fusion of chromosomes by a human being and then for some reason an extreme bottleneck so that most of us have the same fused chromosome.

What does that prove?

Think about it. This would all have happened within human lineage because chimps don't have the same number of chromosomes. In other words, this could not have been passed down from a common, non-human being ancestor.

What gives then? Makes no sense to then think this is evidence for common ancestry, and that's even if the chromosomes were fused.

You obviously don't understand the topic. Perhaps a bit of reading up would help.

The last common ancestor did not have the fused chromosomes. The fused chromosome matches the sequences of the unfused chromosomes in primates, coding for the same proteins, but as one chromosome instead of 2. The fused chromosomes are a marker of decendents on one line of the LCA, unfused mark the other line.

Your failure to comprehend this is your failure. People who've studied genetics and molecular biology for about 15 minutes understand it quite easily.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Kurious, you ought to listen to a wider pool of thought. Our DNA is not 98% or more similar, not even close. People made a lot of claims based on small samples that were expected to be more similar. As more of the chimp's genome is studied, we see more differences.

You have taken to straight lies now?

I'm disappointed.

(If not surprised)

Hans

 

[randman]

You have taken to straight lies now?

I'm disappointed.

(If not surprised)

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.

 

[randman]

You obviously don't understand the topic. Perhaps a bit of reading up would help.

The last common ancestor did not have the fused chromosomes. The fused chromosome matches the sequences of the unfused chromosomes in primates, coding for the same proteins, but as one chromosome instead of 2. The fused chromosomes are a marker of decendents on one line of the LCA, unfused mark the other line.

Your failure to comprehend this is your failure. People who've studied genetics and molecular biology for about 15 minutes understand it quite easily.

I haven't failed to understand anything about the issue. The simple reality is if the fused chromosome story is true, it occurred entirely within human lineage. It was not inherited from a mutual common ancestor.

So how is this evidence for common ancestry again?

 

[MRC_Hans]

The idea the Chromosome 2 argument is evidence for common ancestry is truly odd. How can you guys believe that?

Let's say the data part of the claim is true, that at one point there was a fusion of chromosomes by a human being and then for some reason an extreme bottleneck so that most of us have the same fused chromosome.

What does that prove?

Think about it. This would all have happened within human lineage because chimps don't have the same number of chromosomes. In other words, this could not have been passed down from a common, non-human being ancestor.

What gives then? Makes no sense to then think this is evidence for common ancestry, and that's even if the chromosomes were fused.

No, it happened from a human ancestor (presumably), the point is that it explains why we no longer have the same number of chromosomes. And it explains why we can share 98% DNA in spite of the different number of chromosomes.

Hans

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

True, the % difference/same thingie is not as clear cut as one might imagine. The deeper science dives into the genome the more they understand, and thus the details are made more clear.

Unlike the creationists, who have one source of information which cannot be changed in the face of new data.

 

[randman]

So there was a human ancestor that had 48 chromosomes that then fused to give rise to humans. Wouldn't the 48 chromosome ancestor look like a chimp too?

No. If there was a fused chromosome, it likely happened within the homo sapien lineage entirely, and keep in mind fused chromosomes are not that rare.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

So how is this evidence for common ancestry again?

The fused chromosomes match the unfused chromosomes, rather than being wholly novel chromosomes. There are 2 centromeres. I bet I could get my 9 year old to understand that part demonstrating with legos.

There are 2 centromeres. Why would some-god-or-another make a chromosome with 2 centromeres from scratch?

 

[randman]

No, it happened from a human ancestor (presumably), the point is that it explains why we no longer have the same number of chromosomes. And it explains why we can share 98% DNA in spite of the different number of chromosomes.

Hans

I guess the best thing you can say is use this to try to explain why people having less chromosomes is not strong evidence against common ancestry, but it's not positive evidence for common ancestry.

At best, it's an attempt to explain evidence away that disagrees with common ancestry, and the evidence overall would still be against common ancestry because only humans have these fused chromosomes.

I have heard arguments showing evolutionist claims in the details are wrong, but not really wanting to get into that. It's just that clearly this is not strong evidence for common ancestry. It's at best neutral, and actually leans a little to being evidence against common ancestry, but since there is a plausible explanation for the discrepancy, it goes back to neutral.

 

[Wowbagger]

Let's say the data part of the claim is true, that at one point there was a fusion of chromosomes by a human being and then for some reason an extreme bottleneck so that most of us have the same fused chromosome.

What does that prove?

The argument, in short, goes like this: Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, and all the other great apes have 24. Before we look into the details, we can make a prediction: If evolution is accurate, we should find where one pair fused with another, in the human genome. If we can't find such a thing, a good chunk of our theory could be in trouble.

It happens that we did find evidence of a fused pair of chromosomes!

Now, this does not, by itself, prove evolution is true. What this shows us, at least, is that evolutionary thinking is good for conducting science.

At any rate, it proves that the number of chromosomes can change, over time, in a lineage... without an intelligent designer needed to do it. If you still wish to invoke a designer, you have to show us evidence of its intervention.

 

[randman]

The fused chromosomes match the unfused chromosomes, rather than being wholly novel chromosomes. There are 2 centromeres. I bet I could get my 9 year old to understand that part demonstrating with legos.

There are 2 centromeres. Why would some-god-or-another make a chromosome with 2 centromeres from scratch?

So what?

Clearly chimps don't have this fusion, nor other apes. So if it happened, it happened within human lineage, not inherited from a mutual common ancestor.

Additionally, healthy people still are born with fused chromosomes. Some even are born and grow up needing glasses, and some cannot dunk a basketball......why would God do that?.....That's about what your question amounted to.

 

[randman]

At any rate, it proves that the number of chromosomes can change, over time, in a lineage... without an intelligent designer needed to do it. If you still wish to invoke a designer, you have to show us evidence of its intervention.

So what? You are obviously very confused about what Intelligent Design is. ID does not claim traits cannot be inherited.

That's a ridiculous straw man on your part.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

So what?

Clearly chimps don't have this fusion, nor other apes. So if it happened, it happened within human lineage, not inherited from a mutual common ancestor.

Exactly. Your argument is with yourself. Nobody is saying the common ancestor had the fused chromosomes. That makes no sense. The fused chromosomes are a genetic marker of ONE LINE OF DESCENT ONLY from the Last Common Ancestor, the unfused chromosomes are the other line of descent.

Read wowbagger's explanation above again. Scientists observed a condition, made a prediction and confirmed the hypothesis. Had the presence of a second centromere not been found that would invalidate the hypothesis that humans and chimps split from a common ancestor.

 

[randman]

The argument, in short, goes like this: Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, and all the other great apes have 24. Before we look into the details, we can make a prediction: If evolution is accurate, we should find where one pair fused with another, in the human genome. If we can't find such a thing, a good chunk of our theory could be in trouble.

It happens that we did find evidence of a fused pair of chromosomes!

Now, this does not, by itself, prove evolution is true. What this shows us, at least, is that evolutionary thinking is good for conducting science.

At any rate, it proves that the number of chromosomes can change, over time, in a lineage... without an intelligent designer needed to do it. If you still wish to invoke a designer, you have to show us evidence of its intervention.

Well, now seeing how this whole thing came about as a defense of evolutionary theory, I bet a closer examination of the facts will show the chromosome 2 claims in terms of data are overstated and likely wrong.

I had mainly just stuck with the illogic of thinking this was evidence for common ancestry, accepting there was a chromosome fusion, but now I see evos were looking for something to bolster their argument, my prediction is it will be like the Biogenetic Law and Haeckel and the numerous other icons of evolution that turned out to be overstatements, sometimes fakes and way overblown in their logic.

We shall see, but bet there are major differences evos have totally glossed over....in other words, bet this was agenda-driven "science" instead of objective analysis.

 

[randman]

Exactly. Your argument is with yourself. Nobody is saying the common ancestor had the fused chromosomes. That makes no sense. The fused chromosomes are a genetic marker of ONE LINE OF DESCENT ONLY from the Last Common Ancestor, the unfused chromosomes are the other line of descent.

Read wowbagger's explanation above again. Scientists observed a condition, made a prediction and confirmed the hypothesis. Had the presence of a second centromere not been found that would invalidate the hypothesis that humans and chimps split from a common ancestor.

So how in the world can something that occurs entirely within human lineage somehow be strong evidence for common ancestry with chimps?

Answer: it's not evidence. Wowbagger's comments just show how evos have tried to explain away evidence against their theory and have come up with something, but it's still not evidence FOR their theory.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

You have a confused notion of scientific methodology.

Scientists (good ones, at any rate) don't set about to prove something. They set about to DISPROVE something. If you have a hypothesis you need to attack it from as many directions as possible before turning it over to peer review.

This is the opposite of how pseudoscience operates.

 

[KingMerv00]

I know, but how do we know? That's my question. How do we know that "Lucy" for ex. wasn't part way between an actual chimpanzee and an early homo?

Because of endogenous retroviral evidence. It is even better than the chromosome evidence.

 

[KuriousOrange]

Deleted.

 

[randman]

You have a confused notion of scientific methodology.

Scientists (good ones, at any rate) don't set about to prove something. They set about to DISPROVE something. If you have a hypothesis you need to attack it from as many directions as possible before turning it over to peer review.

This is the opposite of how pseudoscience operates.

No, it works both ways. You have to evidence for specific claims. Unfortunately, evos just change the rules instead of dealing with the data. Take the independent emergence of shared features. This would appear to falsify the notion that shared features are due to common descent but evos just say, well, it's parallel evolution.

So either way the data shakes out, they claim it is evolution rather than sticking to a principle. Clearly, shared features do not need to indicate common descent since shared features are present where this is considered impossible, even shared genetic sequences.