There’s no need for a model. Fusions and breaks happen all the time, in real time.
5 Likes
Translocations happen for 1/1000 live births
1 Like
This is like saying there is no need for a model. Apples fall from a tree all the time. Mutation is very different than fixation in a population. An apple falling from a tree is different than a model that predicts local gravitational effects.
Really Bill? You think if no one can show you a model which predicts which apple will fall from which tree and when in all the world’s apple orchards that means apples can’t fall from the tree?
2 Likes
No, it’s not like saying that, it is saying that. Verbatim.
Breaks, fusions, and inversions also become fixed in populations in real time.
Such fixation obviously has the potential to drive sympatric speciation. We don’t need a model for fixation, either.
Where’s your model for intelligent design, BTW?
4 Likes
But in the absence of such a model, it would still be true that apples fall from trees, just like it would still be true that chromosomal fusion occurs. And finding an apple on the ground under an apple tree would be strong evidence an apple fell without a model, just as an obvious fusion site is evidence of a fusion without a model. But just like gravity, we do have a model.
2 Likes
And if that is too much work for @colewd, here us a very brief summary that almost anyone should be able to understand:
1 Like
What model are you referring to? Kimura’s?
why not? we can argue that the reduction of chromosome number was somehow beneficial, and thus the essential genes just moved to other chromosome, while the rest of them (the non essential) have been lost from the chromosome.
since when evolution has a problem with new genes? by the way, i actually never said that im a YEC (i didnt choose my title).
see my explanation above.
That’s like saying we can’t model the lottery unless we can specifically predict the winners for the next 100 drawings.
1 Like
There is no evidence that merits the hypothesis that humans gradually lost two chromosomes by having all the adaptive and essential genes moved to other chromosomes. Instead what we have evidence for is that two chromosomes fused.
But yes, translocation of genes from one chromosome to another is one way in which a chromosome can be gradually lost. But in the absence of such evidence, and given the high levels of similarity between the fused human chromosomes and unfused chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan(and so on) chromosomes, the evidence supports and is best explained by chromosomal fusion on the human lineage.
You’re being deliberately obtuse. There is a question of degree at work here obviously and I would humbly and sincerely request you take a break from pretending to not be able to reason this far yourself. Evolution doesn’t have a problem with new genes, but it does have a problem with de novo evolution of so many hundreds of them which aren’t mere duplicates, many of which manage to become essential for human life, within the timespan of a few million years. Even to the extend any of these genes are actual paralogoues of other genes in the human genome, it would seem rather absurd to suppose they suddenly evolved and then diverged so much in such a short span of time. Is it impossible? No, but there is no evidence for it, and it it is entirely without precedent, thus much less plausible than the alternative: There was a chromosomal fusion.
Can you please stop pretending you can’t figure this stuff out, or am I wrong and your perpetual inability to think one or two steps ahead is genuine?
2 Likes
Let’s see…
Missed that, eh?
Here, let’s try more directly: Google Scholar
I’d recommend Lande 1985 and Barton and Rouhani 1991 to start.
The benefit you’re suggesting comes from the chromosome reduction, so each transposition of an essential gene would have no benefit. So the only way to do it without a selective transposition mechanism (which itself would require an explanation) would be hundreds of simultaneous events. Compared to a single fusion. So no, you can’t argue that as a reasonable alternative. It’s like saying that me getting to my kitchen by walking is equally probable as me accomplishing it by quantum teleportation.
It doesn’t. It has a problem with hundreds of them evolving convergently in a few thousand years. Like @evograd said and you quoted. Do you not actually read things when you reply? You should try it.
Nothing in this comment addresses the fact that the referenced citation is not an example of simultaneous loss of multiple genes, much less a chromosome of genes.
2 Likes
Irrelevant to this discussion.
Either way, a chromosome’s worth of genetic material ended up either being lost or moving to elsewhere in the genome.
How did evolutionary biologists know this had happened, before it was even possible to sequence a genome? And why were Creation Scientists unable to use their beliefs to predict this?
1 Like
of course. but we are not discussing here about the fusion itself, but about the question if it ws a prediction or not before that finding.
have you forgotten orphan genes? evolution has no problem to explain about 100 orphan genes in about few million years.
so evolution doesnt necessarily predict that fusion. this is my point.
we can say that any reduction was beneficial.
i never said its an equal alternative. im saying that its a possible alternative, and thus evolution doesnt necessarily predict that fusion. we even have another possible alternative, which is changing human position in the primate phylogeny:
i actually talked about millions of years, so I encourage you to adopt your own proposal.
first, do you have any reference for that claim?
No one here has ever suggested that literally the only possible option was fusion. Nothing is that clear cut. It doesn’t have to be literally the only possible option to be a prediction of evolution though.
Because the fusion is more likely, the prediction that evolutionary theory made was that it was most likely a fusion. When it turned out to be a fusion, this fulfilled the prediction. The key point is that evoluion predicted the fusion to a greater extent than creationism did, so the fusion supports evolution over creationism. That’s just how predictions work.
3 Likes
If I flip a coin 1000 times, do you predict I’ll have an approximately even number of heads and tails, or nearly all heads?
1 Like
Here it is, quite unmistakeable.
Evidence for a common ancestor of man and chimpanzee also comes from chromosome 2, since human chromosome 2 is most simply explained by telomeric fusion of a chimpanzee-like 2p chromosome and a 2q chromosome similar to that of chimpanzee and gorilla (Figs. 1 and 2). These findings on chromosomes 2, 7, and 9 together suggest a common ancestor of human and chimpanzee. From this forefather, man emerged after the formation of a small pericentric inversion in chromosomes 1 and 18 and the fusion of chromosomes 2p and 2q to form the characteristic human chromosome 2.
1 Like
I should revise my claim somewhat, however, as that article is from 1982 and the first genome was sequenced in 1976. However, that is a minor point since neither the human nor the chimpanzee genome was sequenced until long after.
Don’t revise anything! Here’s a 1973 paper that makes the point fairly clearly.
4 Likes