Chromosome 2
Yesterday, I was searching the Internet for possible answers to why the mythology of the ancient Sumerians was, in one very important respect, different from the mythology of ancient Egypt.
One thing led to another, and I came across something I had never known before: Chromosome 2.
We are told that the DNA of humans and chimps are 98. something % alike; we are not told that the haploid number of chromosomes in the genus Homo is one less than in other primates.
Apparently there was a random "mutation"---and it probably occurred in more than one individual---that caused the fusion of two chromosomes, resulting in the second largest chromosome in the cell structure of hominids.
Some implications of this occurrence are:
1. It gives credence to the "cladogenesis" theory of evolution: "Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another."--Wikipedia
2. An abnormality associated with Chromosome 2 is synesthesia: "a neurological phenomenon in which stimulation of one sensory or cognitive pathway leads to automatic, involuntary experiences in a second sensory or cognitive pathway." From here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthe...
3. Apply cladogenesis to rampant and legal abortion, and you have another reason it is illegal.
One thing led to another, and I came across something I had never known before: Chromosome 2.
We are told that the DNA of humans and chimps are 98. something % alike; we are not told that the haploid number of chromosomes in the genus Homo is one less than in other primates.
Apparently there was a random "mutation"---and it probably occurred in more than one individual---that caused the fusion of two chromosomes, resulting in the second largest chromosome in the cell structure of hominids.
Some implications of this occurrence are:
1. It gives credence to the "cladogenesis" theory of evolution: "Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another."--Wikipedia
2. An abnormality associated with Chromosome 2 is synesthesia: "a neurological phenomenon in which stimulation of one sensory or cognitive pathway leads to automatic, involuntary experiences in a second sensory or cognitive pathway." From here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthe...
3. Apply cladogenesis to rampant and legal abortion, and you have another reason it is illegal.
“What it begins to suggest is that we’re looking at a ‘Lord of the Rings’-type world — that there were many hominid populations,” says Mark Thomas, an evolutionary geneticist at University College London who was at the meeting but was not involved in the work.
The first Neanderthal and the Denisovan genome sequences revolutionized the study of ancient human history, not least because they showed that these groups interbred with anatomically modern humans, contributing to the genetic diversity of many people alive today.
All humans whose ancestry originates outside of Africa owe about 2% of their genome to Neanderthals; and certain populations living in Oceania, such as Papua New Guineans and Australian Aboriginals, got about 4% of their DNA from interbreeding between their ancestors and Denisovans, who are named after the cave in Siberia’s Altai Mountains where they were discovered. The cave contains remains deposited there between 30,000 and 50,000 years ago.
Those conclusions however were based on low-quality genome sequences, riddled with errors and full of gaps, David Reich, an evolutionary geneticist at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts said at the meeting. His team, in collaboration with Svante Pääbo at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, have now produced much more complete versions of the Denisovan and Neanderthal genomes — matching the quality of contemporary human genomes. The high-quality Denisovan genome data and new Neanderthal genome both come from bones recovered from Denisova Cave.
The new Denisovan genome indicates that this enigmatic population got around: Reich said at the meeting that they interbred with Neanderthals and with the ancestors of human populations that now live in China and other parts of East Asia, in addition to Oceanic populations, as his team previously reported. Most surprisingly, Reich said, the new genomes indicate that Denisovans interbred with another extinct population of archaic humans that lived in Asia more than 30,000 years ago, which is neither human nor Neanderthal.
The meeting was abuzz with conjecture about the identity of this potentially new population of humans. “We don’t have the faintest idea,” says Chris Stringer, a paleoanthropologist at the London Natural History Museum, who was not involved in the work. He speculates that the population could be related to Homo heidelbergensis, a species that left Africa around half a million years ago and later gave rise to Neanderthals in Europe. “Perhaps it lived on in Asia as well,” Stringer says.
"studies are showing that [humans and chimps] are not as similar as many tend to believe";
the 1% statistic is a "truism [that] should be retired";
the 1% statistic is "more a hindrance for understanding than a help";
"the 1% difference wasn't the whole story";
"Researchers are finding that on top of the 1% distinction, chunks of missing DNA, extra genes, altered connections in gene networks, and the very structure of chromosomes confound any quantification of 'humanness' versus 'chimpness.'"
Indeed, due to the huge caveats in the 1% statistic, some scientists are suggesting that a better method of measuring human/chimp genetic differences might be counting individual gene copies. When this metric is employed, human and chimp DNA is over 5% different. But new findings in genetics show that gene-coding DNA might not even be the right place to seek differences between humans and chimps.
But there is a deeper question: (2) If humans and chimps were truly only 1% different at the genetic level, why should that demonstrate common ancestry?
similarities in key genetic sequences may be explained as a result of functional requirements and common design rather than mere common descent. We might reasonably ask the evolutionist why the 1% difference value is considered powerful evidence for Darwinian evolution, and at what point does the comparison cease to support Darwinian evolution? What about 2% different? 3%? 5%? 10%? Is there an objective metric for falsification here, or is PBS putting forth a fallacious argument for human / chimp common ancestry?
the truth is that the percent difference says nothing about whether humans and chimps share a common ancestor. The percent genetic similarity between humans and apes does not demonstrate Darwinian evolution.
An abnormality associated with Chromosome 2 is synesthesia: "a neurological phenomenon in which stimulation of one sensory or cognitive pathway leads to automatic, involuntary experiences in a second sensory or cognitive pathway."
There are at least two implications here: a. Could this anomaly reflect human's (but not a chimp's) ability to conceptualize: "...the stimulation of one...cognitive pathway, leads to the involuntary stimulation of a second...cognitive pathway." and b. Could synesthesia occur if the two chromosomes were separate?
Don't you think Dob's refutation of the validity of evolution is a pretty pi**poor argument for the legality of abortion?
Another problem for evolutionary origin is the sheer volume of different species. Given how difficult it is for even a single successful combination of genes to come to play and the lengths of time evolutionists claim for even minor organisms, it would take trillions of years for the sheer volume of forms of life on this planet to have been generated along the proposed evolutionary paths. That exceeds both the life of our sun and the life of the universe itself.
Another problem is that of complex systems. According to evolutionary theory, the only way a complex system can happen is if it evolves over time each individual piece in turn (each taking millions of years) or if every single mutation occurred at the same time in the same organism (statistically impossible). Take the digestive system, which starts with mastication and salivary breakdown of simple sugars then slides down into the most caustic environment in the human body - the stomach - which simultaneously assaults the food with both chemical and physical means of breakdown. Then you have a small sphincter mechanism which spurts this half-digested material into the small intestines, where nutrients are absorbed, bile is introduced to aid in breakdown of fat, and fillers and other non-digestibles pass right through. Then the large intestines which absorb excess water and condense the final material for expulsion. There are simply too many complex steps involved of which none makes sense by itself for evolutionary origin to provide for me a sufficient explanation. And digestion is a rather critical process to leave to chance. The same problems exist with circulatory and nervous systems and an even bigger one with the endocrine/lymph system because it is a system for controlling and coordinating other systems (we couldn't even digest much without insulin). All this within a single organism. Extend this to every separate genus and species on the planet and the sheer odds alone defy any rational explanation.
There are also the astronomical aspects of the Earth's position, tilt, rotational speed or composition; the moon itself or even the presence of Jupiter all as critical aspects in making this a habitable sphere.
Hope that helps.
Complex systems theory explains how evolution can proceed so rapidly:
“Complexity theory shows how, under the right conditions, orderly structures can arise spontaneously in large, initially chaotic systems. This spontaneous order provides a rich background of material for natural selection. So it is not necessary for natural selection to sculpt every detail of an organism, because many structures and patterns emerge spontaneously. For example, in a multicellular organism, cell division creates a natural hierarchical structure that provides the basis for modular organs.”
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-rel...
Stuart Kaufmann’s book At Home in the Universe (1999) explains the concept clearly and much more extensively.
If you want to believe that God created man out of a lump of clay, be my guest. I happen to think God was a little more subtle than that.
And, of course, I don't have to post them.
Which I may not do. It's a pain in the ass.
Please don't tell me you are a chreationist!
I told you I think God was a little more creative and subtle than creationists want to believe.
I will add this, though. Just as early man was able to create images from clay, or stone, or metal, so primitive man imagined God would do the same, then "breathe" life into his creation, which was something man could not do.
I invited you to share how the problems with the notion of evolutionary origin I presented above have been addressed by evidence or adjustment of the hypothesis. If none such exists, I am left no recourse other than to reject such a theory as incomplete at best, fallacious at worst.
Haven't I said that when God created man he created the most obstinate and arrogant species in the known universe?
There are many legitimate scientists who entertain the idea of a "panspermia", or some aspect of that, to explain how life formed on earth.
How do you think it did?
I have said, at times, to those who believe life on earth originated from outer space, that perhaps you think Earth is such a stingy planet it could not have supported the "creation" of life.
And I have called evolution: God's way of creating a robust people for a robust planet."
And, lastly, I think there should be research into how paleoclimatology could have influenced the genome of the various peoples of the earth.
Do you not believe in evolution, Dob? My reply has always been; How can you not believe in evolution?
But that wasn't the purpose of this topic.
The presence of Chromosome 2 implies that even though 98.something % of human and chimp genes are alike (and what exactly does that mean: genes---are they talking about "codes" for enzyme production?) it is the position of those "genes/codes" that determine attributes of species, not their existence itself.
I did.
The second is the mutation theory of genesis. The problems with this is that we see precisely zero examples of mutating genes in the world around us. If it happened for millions (or billions) of years as evolutionists claim, why did it stop? Why do we see nothing in the fossil record and nothing in present zoology? A far more likely conclusion is that it has never happened at all.
I have those same questions
But of course she doesn't want to come forward with her objections.
But I doubt enough of you will be able to read this before it disappears.
That is, as a child outgrows his immature thought processes, and primitive "displays" (not the emotion itself, but the lack of awareness of it) of emotion, so man has done so, himself, throughout his long childhood.
My reference to how early humans analogized the creation of man with the creation of images by man, is an example.
If you look closely at evolution, you will see that it is actually proof for the existence of God, not his non-existence.