JustIgnoreMe's Waterfall
If you don't think they are vestigial, then tell us what the purpose would be of a second centromere and extra telomeres would be on a chromosome.
And, why they just so happen to line up where one would expect during the process of a chromosomal fusion.
While you're at it, explain the benefits of wisdom teeth - perhaps they are where you get your wisdom...
Are you? Then I guess you haven't tried the capture experiment...
Are Democrats saying that CO2 levels are at 50,000 parts per million (the level where you suffocate), or just over 400ppm?
Which democrats have said that increased CO2 or global warming stops photosynthesis?
No evidence or any line of rational thought can explain how a single human underwent a genetic chromosomal fusion and passed that alteration to all of mankind
As I already pointed out, there is evidence of the fusion:
- Vestigial centromere.
Chromosomes generally have one centromere - human chromosome 2 has two.
- Vestigial telomeres.
Telomeres are, by definition, generally found at the ends of chromosomes, but human chromosome 2 has telomeres in the middle.
-The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes.
Here is a comparison showing the number and banding between human and chimpanzee chromosomes for people to judge for themselves.
It would not be intelligent to create people with 48 chromosones, it would be stupid because they would be apes and not people.
In your previous post, you say "It takes a lot more than a number 2 fusion to get a human from an ape" and here you seem to say that all it takes is chromosome count - you should probably pick one.
As I've already mentioned - not all people have 46 chromosomes. I'll add, not all monkeys have 48. Some have less than 30 and some have more than 60 ref
You should also take a look at the Muntiacus muntjac - the male has 7 chromosomes and the female has 6 - while a different species, the Reeve's muntjac, has 46.
Yes. Because it is far simpler to make up falsehoods than to disprove them.
And the current media has little room for longer discussions.
The shorter the discussion - facebook, twitter, bumper-stickers, etc. - the more idiots believe they are right.
A problem with the hypothesis of a chromosomal fusion in human ancestry lies in the complete absence of humans with 48 chromosomes.
Uh - no. not since the fusion happened before the emergence of the species homo sapien.
Also, lots of people have 47 (Down syndrome) and we've found a healthy person with 44 ref
The first explanation is that an intelligent designer created humans with 48 chromosomes
The old - whatever happened, God did it - idea.
It explains how something you (actually the site you copied it from) said couldn't happen definitely could have happened and gives the evidence that supports that it did happen. It was you who made incorrect assumptions.
Since you avoided the question - show how "adding DNA and adding new DNA to the genome of an organism are two different things" - I'll assume that you figured out that you were wrong.
Haldane’s dilemma
1. Haldane's "cost of natural selection" stemmed from an invalid simplifying assumption in his calculations. He divided by a fitness constant in a way that invalidated his assumption of constant population size, and his cost of selection is an artifact of the changed population size. He also assumed that two mutations would take twice as long to reach fixation as one, but because of sexual recombination, the two can be selected simultaneously and both reach fixation sooner. With corrected calculations, the cost disappears (Wallace 1991; Williams n.d.).
Haldane's paper was published in 1957, and Haldane himself said, "I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision" (Haldane 1957, 523). It is irresponsible not to consider the revision that has occurred in the forty years since his paper was published.
2. ReMine (1993), who promotes the claim, makes several invalid assumptions. His model is contradicted by the following:
• The vast majority of differences would probably be due to genetic drift, not selection.
• Many genes would have been linked with genes that are selected and thus would have hitchhiked with them to fixation.
• Many mutations, such as those due to unequal crossing over, affect more than one codon.
• Human and ape genes both would be diverging from the common ancestor, doubling the difference.
• ReMine's computer simulation supposedly showing the negative influence of Haldane's dilemma assumed a population size of only six (Musgrave 1999).
evolution is good for nothing
Whether it is good for something or not doesn't determine whether it is true.
I want you to get off my back and leave me alone, I don't want to talk to you any more, all you are doing is harassing me.
If you find debate/disagreement harassing then this might not be the right place for you.
Who cares if there is convincing evidence for god?
I thought you did...
Copying the same argument will get the same response:
"Dawkins pulls a bait-and-switch and defines information as "Shannon information"—a formulation of "information" that applies to signal transmission and does not account for the type of specified complexity found in biology."
This is duplicitous as they go on to describe Shannon information as measuring only the information capacity whereas Dawkins actually touches on 3 things aspects of information - total information capacity, the information actually used, and the non-redundant information used - the latter largely maps up to the ID definition for specified complexity.
It is important to note ID proponents did not invent the notion of "specified complexity,"
They didn't invent the phrase, but they did invent the meaning for it that they now use.
you have to cling to belief that mutation causes things like reptiles to morph into birds
And you seem to believe that mutations can't add anything to the genome and are somehow limited by something that you haven't yet described.
If evolution (and radiometric dating and the geologic column) were unreliable, then scientists should not be able to determine a period of time when one animal transitioned into another animal, then look for fossils in relevant strata and find transitional fossils.
However, scientists did date fish fossils and tetrapod fossils, set out to look in a part of the geologic column between those dates and found a transitional fossil - Tiktaalik.
http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/
This is evidence for evolution (and radiometric dating and the geologic column).
This is exactly why I say that basically all fossils are transitional fossils. Fish didn't give birth to lizards. Their children were slightly different, and different environments favored or disfavored some of those differences, repeat.
Human attempts at general classification have issues dealing with this pattern, but that doesn't make it untrue.
It's no different from the bacteria it came from any more than dogs are different from wolves.
If differences in body shape/size, fur/skin color, hearing, sight, sense of smell, intelligence, temperament, dentition, etc., etc. are all allowed, then:
Is the Coelacanth different from Eusthenopteron any more than dogs are different from wolves?
Is the Eusthenopteron different from Panderichthys any more than dogs are different from wolves?
Is the Panderichthys different from Tiktaalik any more than dogs are different from wolves?
Is the Tiktaalik different from Acanthostega any more than dogs are different from wolves?
Is the Acanthostega different from Ichthyostega any more than dogs are different from wolves?
Is the Ichthyostega different from Tulerpeton any more than dogs are different from wolves?
Changing the expression of information is not adding information
Does adding nucleotides to the DNA strand add information? Is improved functionality in a given environment added information?
the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground
How does that dispute what I said: "P.S. the bible says people came from dust."
Why do you believe in evolution?
Because there is convincing evidence for it. There is not convincing evidence for god.
Are you saying "increase in information" equals evolution?
As I have told you many times:
Evolution = mutation + heritability + selection
Some of those mutations are insertion mutations which add nucleotides to the DNA.
Are you going to dodge the question?
It is you who has repeatedly dodged the questions:
Do insertion mutations exist?
Do beneficial mutations exist?
Explain how:"adding DNA and adding new DNA to the genome of an organism are two different things"
then it is likely that they are a product of a separate evolution
Is "separate evolution" evidence against evolution?
Eggs on day 5, Milk on day 6
Where does Genesis mention milk and eggs again?
Reptiles lay eggs. Seems to still line up with Genesis
Land reptiles preceding birds does not line up with Genesis at all.
creatures that give birth by egg were day 5
Are whales sea creatures? were they created on day 5? do they lay eggs?
creatures who incubate their eggs in their bodies and deliver full developed young and then nurture by milk are a creature found on day 6.
Do you think no land animals lay eggs? how about lizards, spiders, etc.? did dinosaurs lay eggs? do even some mammals like the platypus lay eggs? Are chickens, ostriches, penguins, etc. birds that "fly above the earth" (day 5), or "creatures that move along the ground" (day 6)? do they lay eggs?
Dogs did not evolve from wolves, they were selectively bred from wolves.
Whether the selection is done by the natural environment or by people (part of the environment), it is still a selection done among heritable mutations.
Did amoeba evolve from rocks?
Evolution says that from the lesser can come the greater.
P.S. the bible says people came from dust.
