Vanderzyden

Scigirl,

As long as you want to pursue this discussion, I am willing. Let's see if we can't take this submarine to crush depth.

YET ANOTHER PROBLEM

The assumption has been made that the supposed ancestral fusion occured in the haploid egg cell. But I think that additional problems arise when we consider the sexual reproduction of this hypothetically abnormal cell.

In the supposed common ancestor, the claim is made that 24 single chromsomes were present in both the egg and the sperm. If two of the chromsomes fused in the egg, then no longer do you have a homologous egg chromosome for TWO of the chromsomes in the sperm. Let me say it another way: it would appear that two sperm chromosomes have become "orphans", since they have no complements in the egg. I wonder, what happens to these orphans? Also, the fused chromosome (in the egg) has no complement (homologue) in the sperm, since neither of the "orphans" will match up with it.

Consider the moment just prior to fertilization. Previously, there were 24 chromosomes in the egg. With a fusion, now there are 23 in the egg. There are still 24 in the sperm, two of which have no homologues. Questions:

-- Which of the two non-homologous sperm chromosomes is discarded?
-- How will the remaining non-homologous chromsome combine with the fused chromosome?

Note: Now, of course, it is possible that a complementary fusion occured in the precisely the same sperm that fertilized the egg. But then, this would introduce additional problems, including an insurmountable probability barrier.

Regarding the position question: I do not find mapping region 2q13 on this page. Is it a subregion?

<a href="http://www.biologia.uniba.it/rmc/2-YAC-BAC/BAC-Chromosome/BAC-02q.html" target="_blank">http://www.biologia.uniba.it/rmc/2-YAC-BAC/BAC-Chromosome/BAC-02q.html</a>

Vanderzyden

Kosh

There is no such thing. And yes, I minored in Statistics.

Starboy

Vanderzyden,

What you are trying to do is fascinating. Let us say for the sake of argument that you found biological phenomena that could not be explained with current scientific theories. Why would that have anything at all to do with creationism/ID vs. evolution from a scientific point of view? If it was important from a religious point of view, why would anyone here care about it? Those that already posses a religious point of view don’t need more evidence. Those with a scientific point of view would continue to seek a natural explanation. What do you expect to accomplish with this line of argument?

Starboy

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Vander, are you looking for the precise mechanism that causes evolution? Ain't gonna be found. We have, for the last 400 years or so, been looking for the mechanism for gravity. All the further we have come is from angels pushing planets around their orbits to angels pushing planets inwards.

Why don't you rail against these "Newtonists" and this evil "gravitationism"?

Skeptical

Very simple question Vander: Are you explicitly stating you deny that human chromosome #2 has the appearance as listed by Scigirl? A simple yes or no will do.

Vanderzyden

Lacking substantial demostration of intact-telomere end-to-end fusion, yes. I deny it on conceptual grounds also, assuming there are no positive answers to my last post.

Also, a definitive answer to the question must necessarily concerning position. What is the position of the supposed telomeric region? Where is the region 2q13 relative to the ends and center of human chromosome #2?

Vanderzyden

Mageth

2q13 is a band (chromosome 2, q arm, band 13).

See <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/Entrez/framik?db=Genome&gi=2" target="_blank">here for a nice idiogram,</a> among a thousand other possible places.

And here's some <a href="http://www.faseb.org/genetics/ashg01/f18.htm" target="_blank">more stuff</a> on 2q13 for you to chew on.

Skeptical

Hold on. I did not ask you, nor did Scigirl in her quote I included, _anything at all_ about fusions. I asked about the _factual data_, not about the _explanatory reason_ for the data. You are answering that you don't think fusion occured which is not what was asked. The question of what chromosome #2 _actually in fact looks like_ is not in any way dependent on the _explanation_ for that appearance.

I'll ask again, do you deny the that the _actual_ appearance of chromosome #2 is in fact as posted by Scigirl? Again, the question has nothing to do with what may or may not be the explanation for the appearance, only whether or not you deny what the actual appearance is.

Xixax

Vander, I've been lurking for quite some time on this board after a long string of posts after I joined early.

You are really doing a great disservice to your 'cause' by continuing your particular line of objections. I'm not going to make any claim as to the reasoning behind your 'cause', only that you emphatically refuse to acknowledge any information and evidence presented to you as accurate that relates to evolution.

There are a few things I have learned ( or already understood and will just throw myself into the fray trying to drag you into the light of the painfully obvious ) from this discussion.

1) Fusions DO occur constantly, and are NOT always harmful ( as was presented earlier that around 200,000 U.S. citizens are walking around just fine with a chromosome fusion ).

2) We have a chromosome that has the APPEARANCE of a fused pair of chromosome from a chimp ( it's ancestor to be more accurate ).

3) For a chromosome fusion to be passed onto offspring, it HAS to happen in the egg or sperm.

4) Multiple tests on the chromosome we have that APPEARS to be fused show that telomeric fusion is the most likely candidate, and can be TENTATIVELY considered as fact until a theory that somehow has MORE evidence supporting it replaces it.

Your constant babbling about terminology, your personal lack of understanding, and epistimology does -nothing- to displace those four points. Not even a little bit.

Your bull headedness is embarassing to everyone but you. Instead of making long winded attempts at showing off your vocabulary, perhaps you could CONCISELY answer the questions posed to you as they have done FOR YOU. Stay on TOPIC.

The attitude you are displaying is exactly why I stopped posting in the first place. There are so few out there able to actually learn from those they initially disagree with that it's nearly useless to make an attempt to educate. Thankfully some have more patience than I, as I learn a great deal reading from the more educated and wise posters on this forum ( I would leave out so many if I started listing them, but scigirl is definitely one of my favs. )

I'm currently busting my rump off to get a biology degree while working as a computer programmer because the subject DEEPLY interests me. So when I hear someone behaving like you are, dismissing what is really a FREE biology lesson as pure nonsense.... it's extremely irritating.

I would call you a troll, but you're much longer winded and orders of magnitude more stubborn than any I've seen lately.

KnightWhoSaysNi

Vanderzyden,

Here's something interesting for you to think about. This is in regards to a study mentioned in the same <a href="http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html" target="_blank">website</a> that argues for chimp/human chromosome fusion.

According to the article, the Przewalski wild horse has 66 chromsomes. The domesticated horse has 64 chromosomes. However, despite the genome diffences, the two horses can be crossed and produce fertile offspring. This brings about some interesting questions for you:

Do you believe that the Przewalski horse and domesticated horse were created from the same "kind" and thus had a common ancestor? If so, then there must have been a split or fusion in chromosomes at some point in the horses' ancestry. If you would allow this for horses, then why not the chimp/human chromosome example?

If you reject the first option, then do you believe that the Przewalski horse and domesticated horse are separate special creations with no common ancestor? If that's the case, then why would a Creator design two separate types of horses that can interbreed with each other? Why bother making two types of horses in this case? As a consquence, do you believe that a species that has groups with different chromosome counts than other groups indicate distinct creations within that species?

By the way, I'm not sure if you've looked at this <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001336&p=2" target="_blank">thread</a> yet, but I'd very interested to see your comments on Denis Lamoureux's views on the matter of "naturalistic dogmatism" and "evolutionary creation."

[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: Nightshade ]</p>