The fixation problem is not a problem for it being a fusion

This appears to be an argument from authority. @thoughtful appears to be skeptical simply because her working assumptions are different. Both you and @Mercer are trying to shame her. If your position is solid and not depending heavily on working assumptions why would this be necessary?

There is a real issue with the fusion claim and that is how all the changes get fixed in the population without very strong selection. The claim is still work in progress. @CrisprCAS9 provided a paper with a tentative model yet no one is rolling up their sleves and discussing the details.

1 Like

Genetic drift. Heard of it?

2 Likes

It’s exactly the opposite. This is typical of your powers of perception.

4 Likes

No, the real issue with the fusion claim is whether or not it actually is a fusion. That is still the question at issue with many creationists. If you are convinced by the evidence that it is a fusion, I encourage you to help convince creationists of this shockingly obvious conclusion.

6 Likes

Could be. Could be that there was some selective pressure for the fusion. Could be lots of things. Until everyone accepts what that thing in the middle of Hsa2 actually is, any discussion of how Hsa2 could have been produced by a fusion is irrelevant. If you see Bill or anyone else trying to deflect the conversation away from the ‘what’ question towards the ‘how’ question, kindly push them back to the question at hand.

1 Like

It seems to me that Bill has sold the farm and admitted this is a fusion. Otherwise, why resort to the “Look! Squirrel!” tactic?

But, then, @colewd is right over there, so I can ask him: Bill, do you accept that the fused chromosome in the human genome is actually a fused chromosome in the human genome? If not, what is it, and why yell “Look! Squirrel!” rather than just explain to us how it is something other than what it plainly is?

4 Likes

Here is one of the papers you cited. The issue is not just the fusion but the sequences that people attribute to neutral mutations that change the sequence from a recognizable centromere or telomere to the sequence observed. Are those sequences similar across the human population. Can we attribute this to drift based on Kimura’s model?

THE PROBABILITY OF FIXATION OF A NEW KARYOTYPE IN A CONTINUOUS POPULATION.pdf (16.2 KB)

That right there is Bill Cole trying to make the exchange taking place give off the appearance of genuine debate. I would be genuinely curious to know if there are any creationists here, or any lurkers, who feel like Bill asking that question succeeds in that endeavour. If you are out there, please register and comment. Does Bill’s blather there accomplish this?

5 Likes

Again, it is for many people. Including the original poster of this thread. And since the fusion, not the ‘sequences’, is the topic of this thread, I’d suggest that what you are doing is diverting from that subject to the detriment of the current conversation. If you agree, as you evidently do, that it is actually a fusion, then you should feel welcome to argue for that position in this thread. If you are uninterested in doing so, and would prefer to only argue the relative probabilities of how the fusion happened, then you should likely create a new thread for that discussion.

5 Likes

I am open to it being a fusion event but there are challenges with this claim. The fixation of a rare event is an issue to be resolved. Some creationists that believes that humans are specially created are going to come at this very differently. The burden of proof is then on the scientists to create a model that shows to a high probability how this event happened.

It’s been resolved.

Every neutral mutation has the same chance of being fixed as any other.

The rarity of a given mutation (whatever that is even supposed to mean) is immaterial.

8 Likes

If you are open to it, then you aren’t yet convinced. If you aren’t yet convinced, then the fusion is the issue.

There is no possible way in which this could conceivably represent a challenge to it being a fusion, so why even mention it?

6 Likes

Most of the people who believe in UCD will all agree with you. Most of the creationists will disagree until you have a tested hypothesis. I agree fusion is a reasonable hypothesis but it is not tested at this point. If the fusion event is indeed true you will only strengthen the evidence for it by developing and improving a testable model based on the evidence.

The fixation problem has not been resolved IMO. You cited a paper that was developing a model and thats a good first step.

BTW are you a UC Berkeley student? Berkeley was one of the development cites for CrisrCAS9.

Texas sharpshooter fallacy, again. The chances of the numbers appearing in the last 10 lottery drawings is nearly impossible, and yet it happened. We don’t need a specific explanation for why those specific numbers appeared, and for the same reason we don’t need a specific explanation for the appearance of specific neutral mutations in the human genome.

5 Likes

By ignoring the evidence.

There is zero need for any model. These events are frequently observed in real time.

Why didn’t you address the mouse paper I offered, Bill?

2 Likes

Most people actually acquainted with the relevant evidence agree with me. That wasn’t the question.

We have a tested hypothesis, they still disagree. Also, still not the question. Just to remind you, the question was whether or not you accept the rather obvious evidence that it is in fact a fusion event.

So you are in the camp of being unfamiliar with the relevant evidence. Perhaps actually reading this thread before commenting in it would have been advisable?

The fixation problem is not a problem for it being a fusion.

Saying it is would be like saying that the low odds of getting a royal flush is a problem for someone winning a hand of poker with one. They either have the cards or not. If they do, that’s the hand they’ve got. Likewise, the fusion is evident from the sequence data. The probability of it happening is completely irrelevant to this data.

6 Likes

Its relevant to the cause assigned to the hypothesis. Looking at a someone having a straight flush you could assign to chance. If you saw someone get 3 straight flushes in a row you might conclude the deck is fixed.

Which is irrelevant to whether or not it actually is a fusion.

I might, but I wouldn’t conclude they didn’t get the hands they did because the hands they got are unlikely. If you are saying that it isn’t a fusion because a fusion is unlikely, you don’t understand how probability, evidence, or reality work.

3 Likes

You are talking about a chromosome that is identified in an entire population and trying to figure out the cause or origin of that chromosome. Fusion is simply a proposed hypothesis. The chance of that event happing by the hypothesized cause is very relevant to the strength of the hypothesis.

The poker analogy was a response to @CrisprCAS9 who used this analogy. One event that has odds of 1billion to one is equivalent to 3 consecutive events with odds 1000 to one. Statistically 3 consecutive events can be equivalent to one single event.

That’s odd, Bill, as just 7 hours ago you claimed that the issue was fixation:

Are you afflicted with some sort of aphasia that prevents you from seeing the difference between fusion and fixation?

That seems to be happening a lot here:

We don’t assign causes to hypotheses. You just seem to be throwing around sciency-sounding words without understanding them.

Fusions happen all the time, in real time. There’s no mystery there.

As for fixation, here’s a real-time example. Why have you ignored it?

That still has nothing to do with this fusion, or with its fixation.

1 Like