Darvin's theory in shools
-
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. -
Fork_Q — 16 years ago(July 21, 2009 03:58 PM)
No, but fused chromsomes are a permanent impairment to reproduction.
No they're not.
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"
Does not apply to all cases.
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.
You talk gibberish:
http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=229
Begone.
$ sudo make CHEEZEBURGER mayo -off
system made you CHEEZEBURGER but ated it -
Roquefort — 16 years ago(July 21, 2009 04:44 PM)
Look at the gibberish in your own web reference:
"One way we may have all ended up with 23 pairs of chromosomes is if there was some advantage to having the chromosomes fused together. This would counter the disadvantage of increased risk of miscarriage.
Then we can easily see how it could spread in a population. This is how natural selection works after all. But we have no evidence to support this."
They might as well say: "We have the contract for 25 years. Nobody cares if it works or not." -
Fork_Q — 16 years ago(July 21, 2009 06:00 PM)
Look at the gibberish in your own web reference:
You mean the website sponsored by both a respected science museum and Stanford University Biology department? OK, am I supposed to believe you?
They might as well say: "We have the contract for 25 years. Nobody cares if it works or not."
Your reasoning is flawed. It's not they DON'T care, they don't know.
You lost many years ago. Give up. Liar.
$ sudo make CHEEZEBURGER mayo -off
system made you CHEEZEBURGER but ated it -
Rangely8723 — 15 years ago(July 10, 2010 02:45 AM)
The ability to realize and even accept an obvious fact (which disagrees with the personal opinion), needs a minimum of rationality, objectiveness and honesty.
Et moi, je lui ferai porter la sienne comme Saint Denis