It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

evolution, where is the evidence???!!! I see none

page: 40
6
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Do you believe that it is possible for any living creature to evolve into another through genetics or any other method?

If you mean fish to reptile, reptile to bird, then NO, NO, NO!

BTW I’m NOT an evolutionist!



[edit on 17-4-2007 by smartie]




posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by speaker
I've grown up and the contradiction remains. It's there for all to see in your posts. Maybe you need to learn what contradiction means?


It's okay, I've not contradicted myself, you've just not understood what I've said.


Originally posted by speaker
Whether you focus on one possibility or not, you are aware of the other possibilities, thus you don't believe the horse winning the race is the only possibility.


Of course I'm aware of other possibilities, I even stated there were other possibilities other than evolution. However, FOR ME evolution is the only possibility I think about, I could of course look at other possibilities like 'Scientology', but I don't want to. I've not contradicted myself anywhere.


Originally posted by speaker
You chose to answer the possibility of evolution happening with the infinite timescale. You brought this up, not me.


No you brought up the discussion of probability. As you tried to say that because evolution was 'extremely unlikely' that it somehow made evolution less valid. I used an example, to show that bringing up that evolution is 'extremely unlikely', is absolutely ridiculous. Fact is evolution is a natural occuring process, therefore if you give it a probability like 'extremely unlikely', the universe being infinite means that every natural process will happen. This still seems to confuse you.


Originally posted by speaker
You brought up the Bible too. I'm just pointing out that the Bible is not evidence for the life and miracles of Jesus Christ. Not too difficult to understand.


Whether you like it or not The Bible is evidence for the life and miracles of Jesus Christ. This isn't open for debate. It's a fact. Whether this evidence is valid and 100% true, that is open for debate.

You seem to have a problem with understanding exactly what 'evidence' means.


Originally posted by speaker
Evolution has everything to do with a timescale! Why? Because you reckon evolution has already occurred to get us from the point of apes to humans!!!


No one is saying we came from apes. It's that we share a common ancestor with the apes of today.

My absolute favourite evolution quote is from Dr.Hovind, cracks me up everytime I see it: ''Do you know chimpanzees are still having babies? Why don't they make another human?''


Originally posted by speaker
Is the timescale between when we were supposedly apes and now infinite?


What do you mean 'when we were apes'? I've never been an ape. Our ancestors were though. Ofcourse it's not infinite, because we have our two points in time, the time where our ancestors were apes, and now, hence you have a given period of time.


Originally posted by speaker
The only way your infinite timescale argument can hold up is if you believe evolution hasn't occurred yet, but will at some point in time in the infinite future!


Not at all. You've just not understood and completly missed the point.

Again I'll ask you for specific examples of evolution you have a problem with. Is it cosmic evolution? Things like the big bang, our planet evolving over billions of years? Or is it that we shared a common ancestor with apes living today? Other types of evolution? Or just everything about evolution you don't like?


Originally posted by speaker
2) This is evidence that different species can have chemical and anatomical similarities, not evolution.


You can look at these similarities and think 'coincidence'. However, I don't think it's a coincidence that the arms of humans, forelegs of dogs and cats, wings of birds, and the flippers of seals all have the same types of bones (humerus, radius, ulna), these features are retained from our common ancestors. Plenty of other examples, this is one of many.



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Believe what you want Shaunybaby. Choose to ignore the proof in your own posts if you wish. As I mentioned previously, the contradictions are there for all to see.

The Bible is evidence that it was written at some point in time. The story it tells is not proof of anything. It is you who has the problem. Add evidence to the list of terms you need to look up the meaning for which already includes the term contradiction.

If the timescale is not infinite between when our ancestors were supposedly apes and us as humans now, then probability is most DEFINITELY a factor in the likelyhood of the transition between the two being a result of evolution.

I have a problem with all of evolution, as I have already stated previously. Of the examples you raise, I have a problem with the Big Bang (How did something come from nothing?), I have a problem with sharing an ancestor with apes as the probability is just too ridiculously unlikely, and all other types of evolution as it relies on too many random events to occur in such a short timespan. I am aware the 4,600,000,000 years is a considerable amount of time, but it's a blink compared to the length of time required for evolution to account for the diversity of life we see today.

You are entitled to your opinion as I'm entitled to mine. Unfortunately opinions don't count for much on a thread posing the question, "Where is the evidence for evolution?." Perhaps if it was asking, "What do you think about evolution?", you might have something.



posted on Apr, 18 2007 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by speaker
Believe what you want Shaunybaby. Choose to ignore the proof in your own posts if you wish. As I mentioned previously, the contradictions are there for all to see.


As I've already explained, there are no contradictions. I'm not sure what your obsession with this is. It's childish, it's not on-point, and we're not here to discuss my character, which you seem so focused on.


Originally posted by speaker
The Bible is evidence that it was written at some point in time. The story it tells is not proof of anything. It is you who has the problem. Add evidence to the list of terms you need to look up the meaning for which already includes the term contradiction.


No one said anything about proof. There's a difference between evidence and proof. The problem here is your lack of understanding.


Originally posted by speaker
If the timescale is not infinite between when our ancestors were supposedly apes and us as humans now, then probability is most DEFINITELY a factor in the likelyhood of the transition between the two being a result of evolution.


So when you said evolution was extremely unlikely, you meant that it was extremely unlikely that during this period of time we evolved from the same species that apes evolved from?


Originally posted by speaker
I have a problem with all of evolution, as I have already stated previously. Of the examples you raise, I have a problem with the Big Bang (How did something come from nothing?)


Nothing?

Well there was something, energy is neither created nor destroyed, so it's been here in one form or another. So it wouldn't start with 'nothing'. Who says it starts with nothing?


Originally posted by speaker
I have a problem with sharing an ancestor with apes as the probability is just too ridiculously unlikely, and all other types of evolution as it relies on too many random events to occur in such a short timespan. I am aware the 4,600,000,000 years is a considerable amount of time, but it's a blink compared to the length of time required for evolution to account for the diversity of life we see today.


Your strongest arguement is that? Wow. You really do work on facts and evidence. Your arguement here is complete guess work, relies on nothing at all apart from the probability of evolution occuring, which is absolutely ridiculous.


Originally posted by speaker
You are entitled to your opinion as I'm entitled to mine. Unfortunately opinions don't count for much on a thread posing the question, "Where is the evidence for evolution?." Perhaps if it was asking, "What do you think about evolution?", you might have something.


I've already stated examples of evolution. You chose to ignore that part about bone structure, maybe that was on purpose, or maybe you had no answer for why we share the same bone structure as other vertebrate mammals. I'm stating examples for evolution, yet you're more interested on whether or not I'm a contradiction, now are you here to disprove evolution, learn more about evolution, or to attack other people's character?



posted on Apr, 18 2007 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by smartie
What are you talking about!!!!!

READ THE POST PROPERLY.

NO LIFE CAN EXIST WITHOUT PROTEINS ETC.

THE BASIS FOR THE WHOLE EVOLUTION THEORY IS THAT LIFE STARTED IN A PRIMORDIAL SOUP.
It doesnt matter how many times I read your post but your still wrong in your assessment that the ToE has anything to do with the creation of life - The ToE is how life evolved from the first lifeform (how that first lifeform got there is an entirely different story than the ToE)


Do you believe that it is possible for any living creature to evolve into another through genetics or any other method?

If you mean fish to reptile, reptile to bird, then NO, NO, NO!
Why not? - So you would have no problem with a fish evolving into a similar fish?

G


[edit on 18-4-2007 by shihulud]

[edit on 18-4-2007 by shihulud]



posted on Apr, 18 2007 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Without that first life form there is NO EVOLUTION.

Evolution from what? Thin air?

Evolutionists believe that ALL life sprang from the ‘primordial soup’, how can this be?

If you choose to ignore how the very first spark of life was created then everything else that follows is not possible, and yet here we are.

If you also believe that the diversity we see today was a result of ONE life form evolving over millions of years and that we evolved from apes - prove it beyond doubt, I bet you cannot.

eg

An Ant millions of years ago is still that same ant today, thats because it did not evolve from something else, it was already an ant. As a fish was a fish and a dragonfly was a dragonfly, need I go on...

I could but I fear I would be here all week.

I don’t have the time or the patience for that.



BTW I mean I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE WHOLE EVOLUTION THEORY.

[edit on 18-4-2007 by smartie]



posted on Apr, 18 2007 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by smartie
Without that first life form there is NO EVOLUTION.
Yep quite correct


Evolution from what? Thin air?
Dont know - but has nothing to do with evolution


Evolutionists believe that ALL life sprang from the ‘primordial soup’, how can this be?
I suppose some might believe that but there are more explanations than that - Abiogenesis or

If you choose to ignore how the very first spark of life was created then everything else that follows is not possible, and yet here we are.

If you also believe that the diversity we see today was a result of ONE life form evolving over millions of years and that we evolved from apes - prove it beyond doubt, I bet you cannot.

eg

An Ant millions of years ago is still that same ant today, thats because it did not evolve from something else, it was already an ant. As a fish was a fish and a dragonfly was a dragonfly, need I go on...

I could but I fear I would be here all week.

I don’t have the time or the patience for that.



BTW I mean I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE WHOLE EVOLUTION THEORY.

[edit on 18-4-2007 by smartie]



posted on Apr, 18 2007 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by smartie
An Ant millions of years ago is still that same ant today, thats because it did not evolve from something else, it was already an ant.




The most recent complete tabulation of ant species is that by Barry Bolton in his 1995 catalog of the ants of the world. He recognized 9563 names of ants described by science, each a distinct form. Since that publication, dozens of new species have been discovered by myrmecologists. The Social Insects/Antbase Web site gives the most recent count at 11844 ant species as of January 24, 2006. Since most of the ant species in studies of tropical areas are as yet unnamed, and new ones continue to be discovered even in relatively well-studied Japan, Europe and North America, myrmecologists estimate that there may be over 20,000 different kinds of ants inhabiting the earth.


If there's no such thing as evolution, explain to me why there are such diversities between the same species. 11,844 seperate species of ant, and an estimated 20,000 may be inhabiting the planet. These were all individually created and have always been like this?


Originally posted by smartie
As a fish was a fish, need I go on...


One word.. 'Tiktaalik'. 375 million year old fossil, head like a crocodile, gills like a fish, their fins have thin ray bones to paddle like most fishes, but also have sturdy interior bones so it could prop itself up in shallow water and uses it's limbs for support like most mammels do. So is this 'just a fish'?


Originally posted by smartie
BTW I mean I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE WHOLE EVOLUTION THEORY.


Even macroevolution?

What about viruses.. or do you pass that of as mere 'genetic mutations'?



posted on Apr, 19 2007 @ 08:20 AM
link   
OK Here we go AGAIN...

Even the most convincing appearing intermediate forms for evolutionists can subsequently let them down very badly. One excellent example of this is the Coelacanth phenomenon.

As with the latest fossil Tiktaalik roseae, the Coelacanth is a fish that evolutionists once fondly imagined to be a missing link in the transition from water to land. Evolutionists examined 400-million-year-old fossil Coelacanths, which was once believed to be extinct, and drew a number of evolutionary conclusions from the remains. For example, they maintained that the bony structures in its fins were feet that helped the animal walk across the sea floor, and they also claimed that it possessed primitive lungs. The important point here is this: All these assumptions were made in the absence of any information about the Coelacanth’s soft tissue biology.

The erroneous nature of producing evolutionary fantasies in the absence of any information about the animal’s soft tissues emerged following an important discovery in 1938. A living Coelacanth was caught, showing that it was not, as had previously been thought, an extinct life form at all. Furthermore, many more living specimens were caught in subsequent years. Evolutionists immediately set about examining the fish’s anatomy and way of moving in its natural environment, and saw that the missing link assumptions they had ascribed to it were completely incorrect. The fish, which they had assumed to live in shallow waters and to move by crawling over the seabed, actually lived at depths of around 180 meters, and they also observed that its fins never made contact with the seabed at all. The structure they imagined to be an evolving lung turned out to be a fat-filled swim bladder that had nothing to do with respiration whatsoever.

The realization that the Coelacanth, which had once seemed such a convincing-looking intermediate form for evolutionists, was just an ordinary species of fish clearly shows that the intermediate form claim being made about this latest fossil is also based entirely on uncertainties and speculation, because it, too, is based on imaginative interpretation of soft tissues from the fossilized remains of an extinct life form. In short, the ongoing propaganda through the media is based on nothing more than the exaggeration of scientifically vague information in the light of evolutionist dreams.

Mutations...

Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism and which contains all its genetic information. These breaks or replacements are the result of external effects such as radiation or chemical action. Every mutation is an "accident," and either damages the nucleotides making up the DNA or changes their locations. Most of the time, they cause so much damage and modification that the cell cannot repair them.

Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. The changes effected by mutations can only be like those experienced by people in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl: that is, death, disability, and freaks of nature…

The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it.




posted on Apr, 19 2007 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Why are you copying and pasting from anti-evolution websites? Plagiarism is considered intellectual dishonesty.

It is also clearly wrong in places. Mutations can be beneficial, many are totally neutral, others are detrimental.

[edit on 19-4-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Apr, 19 2007 @ 08:38 AM
link   
sorry could not get the quote thing to work!



show me a beneficial mutation



[edit on 19-4-2007 by smartie]



posted on Apr, 19 2007 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by smartie
sorry could not get the quote thing to work!



wrap it in external quotes

[ex]incorrect anti-evolution rant[/ex]

and give webpage reference. Then we know from whence it came.

Beneficial mutation - Apo-AI milano. Decreases atherosclerosis and likelihood of cardiovascular disease.

Here's another 3...


Contribution of individual random mutations to genotype-by-environment interactions in Escherichia coli

Susanna K. Remold* and Richard E. Lenski
Center for Microbial Ecology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824

Edited by M. T. Clegg, University of California, Riverside, CA, and approved July 30, 2001 (received for review March 22, 2001)

Numerous studies have shown genotype-by-environment (G×E) interactions for traits related to organismal fitness. However, the genetic architecture of the interaction is usually unknown because these studies used genotypes that differ from one another by many unknown mutations. These mutations were also present as standing variation in populations and hence had been subject to prior selection. Based on such studies, it is therefore impossible to say what fraction of new, random mutations contributes to G×E interactions. In this study, we measured the fitness in four environments of 26 genotypes of Escherichia coli, each containing a single random insertion mutation. Fitness was measured relative to their common progenitor, which had evolved on glucose at 37°C for the preceding 10,000 generations. The four assay environments differed in limiting resource and temperature (glucose, 28°C; maltose, 28°C; glucose, 37°C; and maltose, 37°C). A highly significant interaction between mutation and resource was found. In contrast, there was no interaction involving temperature. The resource interaction reflected much higher among mutation variation for fitness in maltose than in glucose. At least 11 mutations (42%) contributed to this G×E interaction through their differential fitness effects across resources. Beneficial mutations are generally thought to be rare but, surprisingly, at least three mutations (12%) significantly improved fitness in maltose, a resource novel to the progenitor. More generally, our findings demonstrate that G×E interactions can be quite common, even for genotypes that differ by only one mutation and in environments differing by only a single factor.

www.pnas.org...

ABE: and one more for good luck...


High Bone Density Due to a Mutation in LDL-Receptor–Related Protein 5

Lynn M. Boyden, Ph.D., Junhao Mao, Ph.D., Joseph Belsky, M.D., Lyle Mitzner, M.D., Anita Farhi, R.N., Mary A. Mitnick, Ph.D., Dianqing Wu, Ph.D., Karl Insogna, M.D., and Richard P. Lifton, M.D., Ph.D.

ABSTRACT

Background Osteoporosis is a major public health problem of largely unknown cause. Loss-of-function mutations in the gene for low-density lipoprotein receptor–related protein 5 (LRP5), which acts in the Wnt signaling pathway, have been shown to cause osteoporosis–pseudoglioma.

Methods We performed genetic and biochemical analyses of a kindred with an autosomal dominant syndrome characterized by high bone density, a wide and deep mandible, and torus palatinus.

Results Genetic analysis revealed linkage of the syndrome to chromosome 11q12–13 (odds of linkage, >1 million to 1), an interval that contains LRP5. Affected members of the kindred had a mutation in this gene, with valine substituted for glycine at codon 171 (LRP5V171). This mutation segregated with the trait in the family and was absent in control subjects. The normal glycine lies in a so-called propeller motif that is highly conserved from fruit flies to humans. Markers of bone resorption were normal in the affected subjects, whereas markers of bone formation such as osteocalcin were markedly elevated. Levels of fibronectin, a known target of signaling by Wnt, a developmental protein, were also elevated. In vitro studies showed that the normal inhibition of Wnt signaling by another protein, Dickkopf-1 (Dkk-1), was defective in the presence of LRP5V171 and that this resulted in increased signaling due to unopposed Wnt activity.

Conclusions The LRP5V171 mutation causes high bone density, with a thickened mandible and torus palatinus, by impairing the action of a normal antagonist of the Wnt pathway and thus increasing Wnt signaling. These findings demonstrate the role of altered LRP5 function in high bone mass and point to Dkk as a potential target for the prevention or treatment of osteoporosis.

content.nejm.org...

x5

[edit on 19-4-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Apr, 19 2007 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by smartie
The erroneous nature of producing evolutionary fantasies in the absence of any information about the animal’s soft tissues emerged following an important discovery in 1938. A living Coelacanth was caught, showing that it was not, as had previously been thought, an extinct life form at all.




This is the 'Coelacanth', pretty much a fish. Also absolutely nothing like the Tiktaalik. Maybe if you didn't copy and paste from websites without knowing absolutely nothing about what you're talking about you wouldn't make such blunders.

This is the Tiktaalik:



Hardly the same thing.


Originally posted by smartie
The fish, which they had assumed to live in shallow waters and to move by crawling over the seabed, actually lived at depths of around 180 meters, and they also observed that its fins never made contact with the seabed at all.


I can't remember reading about any 'crawling' or 'walking' around on the seabed. The sturdy interior bones are thought to have enabled this fish to 'prop' itself up in shallow water. Who says it lives at 180 meters? The website you copied this information from? I was sure I read something about this creature being fresh water, not salt water.


Originally posted by smartie
In short, the ongoing propaganda through the media is based on nothing more than the exaggeration of scientifically vague information in the light of evolutionist dreams.


The only propaganda here is what you're spreading by posting useless information from websites, and passing it off as 'truth'.



posted on Apr, 19 2007 @ 03:14 PM
link   
shaunybaby:
You're a waste of time talking to. I'm sicking of going over the same things again and again. From now on, I'll only address anything new you bring to the table.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
So when you said evolution was extremely unlikely, you meant that it was extremely unlikely that during this period of time we evolved from the same species that apes evolved from?


Congratulations! You finally understood something I said.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
Nothing?

Well there was something, energy is neither created nor destroyed, so it's been here in one form or another. So it wouldn't start with 'nothing'. Who says it starts with nothing?


And you are accusing me of guesswork without facts or evidence. When are you likely to find some evidence for that? Will it be this eternity or the next?


Originally posted by shaunybaby
Your strongest arguement is that? Wow. You really do work on facts and evidence. Your arguement here is complete guess work, relies on nothing at all apart from the probability of evolution occuring, which is absolutely ridiculous.


Here we go again. Another evolutionist ignores probability as a valid counter-argument. On that basis, I have no reason to believe that I won't win tattslotto every week for the rest of my life. The only reason I have to think I won't is the probability, which according to you doesn't make a satisfactory argument! Whose being ridiculous?


Originally posted by shaunybaby
I've already stated examples of evolution. You chose to ignore that part about bone structure, maybe that was on purpose, or maybe you had no answer for why we share the same bone structure as other vertebrate mammals. I'm stating examples for evolution, yet you're more interested on whether or not I'm a contradiction, now are you here to disprove evolution, learn more about evolution, or to attack other people's character?


I believe I answered this already. Different mammals share similarities, such as bone structure with other mammals. It doesn't prove evolution! I'm not trying to prove or decide whether or not you are a contradiction, it has been proven, you are! I'm also not here to disprove evolution, seeing as how it hasn't been proven in the first place!



posted on Apr, 19 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by speaker
Here we go again. Another evolutionist ignores probability as a valid counter-argument. On that basis, I have no reason to believe that I won't win tattslotto every week for the rest of my life. The only reason I have to think I won't is the probability, which according to you doesn't make a satisfactory argument! Whose being ridiculous?


what is the probability of humans descending from the same proto-ape as chimpanzees?

You see, we can work out the probability of an individual winning a lottery, that's easy - for a 49 number lottery needing a 6 number selection it is 1 in 13,983,816. Amazingly, people actually do win it.

How do you work out the probability of humans descending from the same ancestor as chimpanees?

Or is it just a case of your incredulity?

[edit on 19-4-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Apr, 19 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by speaker
And you are accusing me of guesswork without facts or evidence. When are you likely to find some evidence for that? Will it be this eternity or the next?


Energy is neither created nor destroyed, that's a fact, it's not guess work. Hence, the Universe did not start with this 'nothing' which you stated it started with. The only guess work is on your side of the arguement.


Originally posted by speaker
Here we go again. Another evolutionist ignores probability as a valid counter-argument. On that basis, I have no reason to believe that I won't win tattslotto every week for the rest of my life. The only reason I have to think I won't is the probability, which according to you doesn't make a satisfactory argument! Whose being ridiculous?


Exactly how do did you come to the conclusion that evolution has a probability in the first place, and then how did you come to a certain figure of this probability? 'extremely unlikely' as you put it. Could you express the probability of evolution as a fraction, and then perhaps enlighten us all on how you came to this conclusion.

I've not ignored your probability arguement. In fact I spent time addressing it. The universe is infinite.. remember that? Evolution is a natural occuring process, and in a universe that's infinite, evolution will eventually occur. I think this still confuses you.


Originally posted by speaker
I believe I answered this already. Different mammals share similarities, such as bone structure with other mammals. It doesn't prove evolution!


Who said it does prove evolution? I didn't. I said it was evidence. Again you've not understood, again you've used different wording, there is a difference between proof and evolution.


Originally posted by speaker
I'm not trying to prove or decide whether or not you are a contradiction, it has been proven, you are!


Sorry wrong again. No contradictions. This isn't even up for debate, it's a fact, there are no contradictions in anything I've said. You've tried to force the issue, but that's up to you. You keep being childish if you want, because you sound like a 12 year old to be honest.

[edit on 19-4-2007 by shaunybaby]



posted on Apr, 19 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   
shaunybaby:
Try finding some proof to back up your claims.

I would give you the probability for evolution occurring but unfortunately it is 1 over a number that is so large it hasn't been given a name yet! There also isn't a calculator that has been invented that has been able to handle the answer without generating an error. If you manage to get your hands on one, try blugging in the number of different permutations of groups of 60,000,000 in a pool of 3,000,000,000!

As mentioned before, the title of this thread poses the question, where is the evidence for evolution? If you ever come up with any, please let me know Einstein!



posted on Apr, 19 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by speaker
I would give you the probability for evolution occurring but unfortunately it is 1 over a number that is so large it hasn't been given a name yet! There also isn't a calculator that has been invented that has been able to handle the answer without generating an error. If you manage to get your hands on one, try blugging in the number of different permutations of groups of 60,000,000 in a pool of 3,000,000,000!


So, in other words, it's just a case of personal incredulity - that you can't believe it happened.


Origin of human chromosome 2: An ancestral telomere-telomere fusion

J. W. IJDO*t, A. BALDINIt§, D. C. WARDt, S. T. REEDERS**, AND R. A. WELLS*¶
*Howard Hughes Medical Institute and tDepartment of Genetics, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06510

ABSTRACT

We have identified two allelic genomic cosmids from human chromosome 2, c8.1 and c29B, each containing two inverted arrays of the vertebrate telomeric repeat in a head-to-head arrangement, 5'(TTAGGG),,- (CCCTAA),,3'. Sequences fln g this telomeric repeat are characteristic of present-day human pretelomeres. BAL-31 nuclease experiments with yeast artificial chromosome clones of human telomeres and fluorescence in situ hybridization reveal that sequences flanking these inverted repeats hybridize both to band 2q13 and to different, but overlapping, subsets of human chromosome ends. We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomeretelomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2.

www.pnas.org...

In simple language, this study shows that two chromosomes fused into one to produce human chromosome 2. The fused chromosome shows strong similarites with the relevant chimpanzee chromosomes.

Evolution readily explains this as common ancestry. More details of chromosome 2 evidence below.

www.evolutionpages.com...

We also have pseudogenes, endogenous retroviruses, and an identical cytochrome C in common. Readily explained by evolution by common ancestry. If evolution were not true, we would have no reason to expect such similarities. Why would we?



posted on Apr, 19 2007 @ 08:45 PM
link   
As I've stated previously, it is not whether or not I believe in evolution, as I openly admit, it is a possibility. However it is a most unlikely one. Your reasoning that evolution must be a fact because of the similarities between species, is reliant on probability also, is it not? The probability is too small for the similarities to be mere coincidences. However small they may be, they pale in comparison to the odds that would need to be overcome for evolution to succeed.

It's very interesting how evolutionists are happy to fall back on probability when it suits them, but ignore it when it doesn't.



posted on Apr, 19 2007 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by speaker
It's very interesting how evolutionists are happy to fall back on probability when it suits them, but ignore it when it doesn't.


You haven't even shown that evolution is improbable, you've just expressed your own personal incredulity.

Evolution predicts such relationships between species - a nested hierarchy, which is what we observe.




top topics



 
6
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join