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

[KingMerv00]

Clearly, shared features do not need to indicate common descent since shared features are present where this is considered impossible, even shared genetic sequences.

Incorrect. Please see my link above.

Edit: Regarding parallel evolution of physical features, you are forgetting to include the concept of nested hierarchies. If the concept of nested hierarchies is ever violated, it would prove extremely difficult or impossible for evolutionary science to explain.

 

[Wowbagger]

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.

If your prediction is true, it will likely be the evos who discover why, not the creationists.

My money is that the fusion will remain an accurate explanation, though I also think it is possible that the accepted details about how that fusion occured will change over time.

What I do not expect to see is the need to invoke a creator to explain the evidence.

 

[randman]

If your prediction is true, it will likely be the evos who discover why, not the creationists.

My money is that the fusion will remain an accurate explanation, though I also think it is possible that the accepted details about how that fusion occured will change over time.

What I do not expect to see is the need to invoke a creator to explain the evidence.

Well first off, creationists have a long history of being correct (meaning their discoveries were true) and evos being wrong whether it be the fossil record, Haeckel, etc,...

On the subject of Chromosome 2, the more you look into it, the more problematic it is for Darwinists. As is typical, evos don't like to delve too deeply into the data and analysis once they parade something as evidence for their theory.

But let's see if you will?

First, it's clear that if there was a fusion, it was specific to the human lineage and so is not evidence of common ancestry. The fact no other primates have 46 chromosomes shows that very clearly.

Secondly, why is it just humans that can have fused chromosomes and do well if we are as closely related as evos claim to apes and chimps.

Thirdly and this is where I hope you will take a minute and think about this. How did this happen? If one individual had this fusion, they could not pass it on to all individuals. They'd have to at best mate with someone that had the exact same fusion. And then, their children could only mate with their brothers and sisters.

Or do you suppose an entire population experienced the same fusion at the same time?

If this family inbred and continued to inbreed so that all of humanity descends from this one in-bred family, how likely is that? That they would not breed with others in the population, and would not such inbreeding cause major health problems likely leading to extinction.

The Darwinian narrative does not add up here.

 

[KuriousOrange]

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

That's an interesting read. So how is this explained away by the creationists? Or do they just ignore it - out of site, out of mind?

As for the Chromosome 2 issue, is there anything to suggest this could've caused the split between us and apes? Could there have been some information changed/lost/duplicated in the fusion that resulted in some minor change that evolved over time? (or am I way off?)

Wikipedia says "The closest human relative, the chimpanzee, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes.", so I was wondering if this could be the case.

 

[Wowbagger]

First, it's clear that if there was a fusion, it was specific to the human lineage and so is not evidence of common ancestry. The fact no other primates have 46 chromosomes shows that very clearly.

Why would we need to assume there had to be 46 chromosomes, in order for evolution to be true? Evolution works on many dimensions, not merely the number of chromosomes in a species.

Thirdly and this is where I hope you will take a minute and think about this. How did this happen? If one individual had this fusion, they could not pass it on to all individuals. They'd have to at best mate with someone that had the exact same fusion. And then, their children could only mate with their brothers and sisters.

Your assumption is wrong. Someone with a fused chromosome CAN mate with someone without one. It happens more frequently than you think:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robertsonian_translocation

About 1 in 1,000 babies has this re-arrangement of chromosomes, but it does not hinder them from breeding with most other humans. (Though, it could complicate things if they breed with other forms of re-arrangements.)

If this family inbred and continued to inbreed so that all of humanity descends from this one in-bred family, how likely is that?

There is no reason why this type of fusion could only occur once. It could have happened multiple times. If it was part of a survival advantage, it would stick around, whenever it did.

I do not know the specifics of the history of this Chromosome 2 fusion. But, the "Darwinian narrative" is not really threatened by it.

 

[Capsid]

First, it's clear that if there was a fusion, it was specific to the human lineage and so is not evidence of common ancestry. The fact no other primates have 46 chromosomes shows that very clearly.

What would a human look like before its chromosome 2 fused?

Secondly, why is it just humans that can have fused chromosomes and do well if we are as closely related as evos claim to apes and chimps.

How do we know it was just humans? There may have been other primates with fused chromosomes that did not survive.

Thirdly and this is where I hope you will take a minute and think about this. How did this happen? If one individual had this fusion, they could not pass it on to all individuals. They'd have to at best mate with someone that had the exact same fusion. And then, their children could only mate with their brothers and sisters.

Yet it did happen. Remember that this rare event had many millions of years to occur.

Or do you suppose an entire population experienced the same fusion at the same time?

Nope

If this family inbred and continued to inbreed so that all of humanity descends from this one in-bred family, how likely is that? That they would not breed with others in the population, and would not such inbreeding cause major health problems likely leading to extinction.

It's not likely but it happened. Inbreeding doesn't necessarily mean the species is doomed. The fused chromosome may have given an advantage.

 

[randman]

Your assumption is wrong. Someone with a fused chromosome CAN mate with someone without one. It happens more frequently than you think:

Of course they can, and I resent what could be interpreted as a lie on your part, suggesting you are the one informing me of this fact when it was the other way around as I amply delved into this very subject to correct evolutionist misconceptions here. I am the one that said there were healthy people today with chromosome fusions that do just fine and was challenged by evos here and I corrected them.

So quit pretending you are bringing some new information to me rather than the other way around.

And please address my specific questions. How would someone having a chromosome fusion lead to everyone having it?

Are you saying a whole bunch of people had it at the same time and just coincidentally all mated only within those families?

How likely is that?

Also, the fact it could happen more than once does not change anything all that much. How would the whole population of human beings have this identical fusion?

 

[randman]

How do we know it was just humans? There may have been other primates with fused chromosomes that did not survive

From the literature in published journals I have read and posted on another thread, it appears other primates cannot do well if they have chromosome fusions but humans can.

 

[randman]

Yet it did happen. Remember that this rare event had many millions of years to occur

.

How? Are you saying severe inbreeding is the process?

 

[Dancing David]

Except it has two centomeres and imbedded telomeres, why is that?

The fusion of two chromosones?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

How? Are you saying severe inbreeding is the process?

Yes. Why do you have a problem with it?

 

[Dancing David]

.

How? Are you saying severe inbreeding is the process?

Same false premise, severe inbreeding would require a limited population, not a demonstrated premise.

 

[KuriousOrange]

Does there need to be inbreeding? Doesn't in depend on how small the population size was and how widespread the fusion was?

 

[Wowbagger]

Are you saying a whole bunch of people had it at the same time and just coincidentally all mated only within those families?

How likely is that?

Very likely! In a large population, it is almost guaranteed that some of the fused chromosome folks to mate with each other.

If it imparts a survival advantage, that likelihood goes up accordingly.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

But randman is correct, that for an entire species to have the same mutation all members of the species have to derive from one original member of an ancestral species, and the mutation would have to be passed to the offspring.

He's putting some kind of negative value on endogamy that I don't understand yet. I suspect it's due to limited understanding of genetics and the immense significance of feedback loops operating for a million generations.

 

[Wowbagger]

But randman is correct, that for an entire species to have the same mutation all members of the species have to derive from one original member of an ancestral species, and the mutation would have to be passed to the offspring.

You are assuming this mutation could only occur twice in a population, and those two happened to mate with each other: The same sort of assumption randman is making.

There is no reason to assume it could not have occured more than twice. In fact, it might have occured roughly 1 in 1000 times or so, perhaps.

 

[randman]

But randman is correct, that for an entire species to have the same mutation all members of the species have to derive from one original member of an ancestral species, and the mutation would have to be passed to the offspring.

He's putting some kind of negative value on endogamy that I don't understand yet. I suspect it's due to limited understanding of genetics and the immense significance of feedback loops operating for a million generations.

Apollo, it's just not a mutation but a chromosome fusion which means it won't be passed on without the other partner having the exact same fusion. That's rare but conceivable.

But then that process has to repeat itself. Without both parents having the fusion, the children would not have it and so it would die out with the very next generation.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Very likely! In a large population, it is almost guaranteed that some of the fused chromosome folks to mate with each other.

If it imparts a survival advantage, that likelihood goes up accordingly.

True. Further, if a specific genetic sequence decreases the likelihood of exogamous breeding then the only way the sequence can be passed on is endogamously.

 

[randman]

You are assuming this mutation could only occur twice in a population, and those two happened to mate with each other: The same sort of assumption randman is making.

There is no reason to assume it could not have occured more than twice. In fact, it might have occured roughly 1 in 1000 times or so, perhaps.

Even if one in a thousand, please pay attention to the process. That one in a thousand must mate with another one in a thousand and so forth continually for some time.

What are the odds of that?

The only real explanation is there was some sort of severe inbreeding that did not result in calamity.

 

[randman]

Yes. Why do you have a problem with it?

Because severe inbreeding causes severe health problems for human beings.