Darvin's theory in shools
-
frontiersmantanis — 16 years ago(June 23, 2009 11:49 PM)
You don't disagree, you only lack understanding. No 'simultaneous updating' would have been required, genes are duplicated and shifted all the time.
It wasn't an assumption that they were hominid, it was a prediction, one that was confirmed -
Roquefort — 16 years ago(June 24, 2009 07:33 AM)
Because the end-on-end fused chromosome was so rare and difficult we can conclude:
(1) The fusion was intentional re-design,
(2) The incentive to mate bewtween the first 46/46 was because there were only two humans in existence,
(3) The reason the descendants were genetically capable of inbreeding was because there genes were newly created. -
frontiersmantanis — 16 years ago(June 24, 2009 08:26 PM)
Uh, no, telomeric fusion itself has little to no effect on gene expression. Different organisms of the same species with different chromosome counts are capable of successfully breeding because of this. New genes are continually created, its cumulative, populations evolve not individuals.
-
Roquefort — 16 years ago(June 25, 2009 07:27 AM)
Telemeric fusions are from genetic redesign. In nature, end-to-end fusions result from telemeric failure and cause cell death.
Here's another little tidbit that is sure to please you.
Time magazine spent the second half of the twentieth century writing puff pieces on Lucy and the Leakey family.
Then in 09OCT06 p. 50 they tell us:
"That could explain why some of the most ancient fossils now considered human ancestors have such striking mixtures of chimp and human traits - some could actually have been hybrids." -
frontiersmantanis — 16 years ago(June 25, 2009 11:09 PM)
"Telemeric fusions are from genetic redesign."
Evidence?
"In nature, end-to-end fusions result from telemeric failure and cause cell death."
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=517405
Time is not, nor has it ever been a scientifically peer reviewed source -
Roquefort — 16 years ago(June 26, 2009 08:54 AM)
The first statement in you web referenece is :
"Terminal deletions of Drosophila chromosomes can be stably protected from end-to-end fusion despite the absence of all telomere-associated sequences."
Human chromosome 2 has an end-to-end fusion which is in nature is cell destructive. -
Roquefort — 16 years ago(June 27, 2009 07:34 AM)
Telomeres protect the chromosomes from end-to-end fusion, recombination, and degradation, all events that can lead to cell death.
When this structure is absent, end-to-end fusion of the chromosome may occur, with ensuing cell death.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/482667_1
Our first two ancestors each had 2 identically end-to-end fused chromosomes with the extra centromeres suppressed,
but that is not evidence of an accident. Au contraire. -
frontiersmantanis — 16 years ago(June 28, 2009 03:24 PM)
Except that absolutely noone has claimed that either telomere was missing, try actually paying attention, you'll be amazed at what you miss.
There was no suppressed centromere, one became deactivated but its still there -
Roquefort — 16 years ago(June 29, 2009 08:27 AM)
[Except that absolutely noone has claimed that either telomere was missing]
Nor do I claim a telemere was missing.
Can you give an example of a human cell surviving an end-to-end fusion more recently than our first two ancestors ?
Can you give an example of a human de-activated centromore more recently than out first two ancestors ? -
frontiersmantanis — 16 years ago(July 01, 2009 06:20 PM)
"Nor do I claim a telemere was missing."
Actually thats exactly what you did when you said
"Telomeres protect the chromosomes from end-to-end fusion, recombination, and degradation, all events that can lead to cell death.
When this structure is absent, end-to-end fusion of the chromosome may occur, with ensuing cell death."
Not only that, you ignore the fact that the telomere is what causes the fusion.
Asking for an example of fusion or centromere deactivation while ignoring chromosome 2 is another example of moving the goalposts -
Roquefort — 16 years ago(July 02, 2009 04:12 PM)
[you ignore the fact that the telomere is what causes the fusion]
No, a failed telemere is what causes the fusion, and the fusion causes cell death, unless somebody has an example of a survivable first generation end-to-end fusion.
The point is that there are two types of end-to-end fusion:
(1) A random fusion resulting in cell death, which is what telemeres prevent.
(2) Our first two ancestors with (not one but) the two only known successful end-to-end fusions in human history and which occurred without telemere failure, which is one of several reasons for condidering it non-random. -
Fork_Q — 16 years ago(July 02, 2009 05:13 PM)
I remember you, didn't you argue once that Adam and Eve were "genetically stronger" then modern humans so that their offspring weren't born inbred or some BS like that? I see that you are still trolling these boards. Begone troll, least I cast my level three fireball spell on your troll arse.
$ sudo make CHEEZEBURGER mayo -off
system made you CHEEZEBURGER but ated it
-
Roquefort — 16 years ago(July 06, 2009 05:05 PM)
[that their offspring weren't born inbred ]
The offspring of the first two humans, like the offspring of every species, certainly ARE inbred. Richard Dawkins' own definition of a species is: an inbreeding population.
There is only one possible explanation for why those original genes were so good. -
Roquefort — 16 years ago(July 09, 2009 08:14 AM)
[Populations evolve, not individuals, at no point were there ever only two humans. ]
To those persons capable of enough science and logic to realize there was a first occurrence in human ancestry of something (human,ape,or hominid) with 46 chromosomes, then there was an immediate necessity to find a member of the opposite sex with 46 matching chromosomes.
A person need not be real bright to conclude that all humans have inherhited 46 chromsomes and the loci of their genes within those 46 chromosomes from that original pair, and that original pair was quite human. -
Roquefort — 16 years ago(July 17, 2009 05:36 PM)
[No, number of chromosomes is generally unimportant, chromosomes are basically just suitcases for genes]
As a defense contractor once said, "We had contracts for spare parts for 25 years. Nobody cared whether it worked or not." -
Fork_Q — 16 years ago(July 20, 2009 02:33 PM)
We been through this before 'tard: different number of chromosomes does not prevent reproduction. If there was a "first human" with 46 chromosomes, he or she would have no trouble mating with another human with more or less. The actual number is not an indication of similarity.
Before you bring up Down's Syndrome: that's another case (trisomy) altogether.
Talk of "superior" genes is hogwash. Adam and Eve's children would be inbred and down the line the children would eventually be mad and stupid.
$ sudo make CHEEZEBURGER mayo -off
system made you CHEEZEBURGER but ated it -
Roquefort — 16 years ago(July 21, 2009 03:34 PM)
[different number of chromosomes does not prevent reproduction]
No, but fused chromsomes are a permanent impairment to reproduction.
A Robertsonian fusion "has only a 2 in 6 (33.3%) chance of having a baby that has the correct TOTAL amount of genetic material; one of these will be entirely chromosomally normal and the other will be a translocation carrier just like herself. Two-thirds of her babies are at risk for being chromosomally ABNORMAL"
http://www.healthline.com/blogs/pregnancy_childbirth/2008/01/case-of-robertsonian-translocation-and.html
[Before you bring up Down's Syndrome: that's another case (trisomy) altogether]
"The extra chromosome 21 material that causes Down syndrome may be due to a Robertsonian translocation in the karyotype of one of the parents."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome
Assume 1 in 1000 apes has a fused chromsome, total 47.
1 in 1000000 might have 46 chromosomes.
1 in a trillion random ape matings would be 46/46.
Evolution would depend on the first 46/46 mating to be siblings with disabled descendants.