Evolution and Sex.

a reply to: cooperton
I get your point but , you are saying that in this case there is only one individual with this mutation and they need to survive and pair with another with this same mutation.
as if to say there were only two individuals on the entire planet with this mutation.

yet the likely hood is that there were many individuals with these extra chromosomes given that if a geological area or barrier is enough to cause mutation in one individual then its likely that a geological barrier would give rise to mutations within a group

and then extrapolate to the total number of groups going through these environmental adaptations and mutations which have given rise to the additional chromosomes.

then the chances of two meeting and breeding arent as slim

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: cooperton
I get your point but , you are saying that in this case there is only one individual with this mutation and they need to survive and pair with another with this same mutation.
as if to say there were only two individuals on the entire planet with this mutation.

yet the likely hood is that there were many individuals with these extra chromosomes given that if a geological area or barrier is enough to cause mutation in one individual then its likely that a geological barrier would give rise to mutations within a group

But chromosomal fusion is extremely rare, if not impossible, to occur naturally. This doesn't even consider whether or not the new organism with 46 instead of 48 chromosomes is going to be a viable organism. As we see with many chromosomal abnormalities, they either never make it past birth or maturity, or if they do, they are infertile and cannot reproduce. Now given how rare a chromosomal fusion would be, and as far as I know we have never seen it occur naturally, what are the odds that not just 1, but 2 viable chromosomal fusions happen in the same generation so that they can mate?

And then yes, they would have children who were also chromosomal fusions... which they better have a son and a daughter who are willing to procreate as brother and sister otherwise the chromosomal fusion miracle ends there.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: cooperton
I get your point but , you are saying that in this case there is only one individual with this mutation and they need to survive and pair with another with this same mutation.
as if to say there were only two individuals on the entire planet with this mutation.

yet the likely hood is that there were many individuals with these extra chromosomes given that if a geological area or barrier is enough to cause mutation in one individual then its likely that a geological barrier would give rise to mutations within a group

But chromosomal fusion is extremely rare, if not impossible, to occur naturally. This doesn't even consider whether or not the new organism with 46 instead of 48 chromosomes is going to be a viable organism. As we see with many chromosomal abnormalities, they either never make it past birth or maturity, or if they do, they are infertile and cannot reproduce. Now given how rare a chromosomal fusion would be, and as far as I know we have never seen it occur naturally, what are the odds that not just 1, but 2 viable chromosomal fusions happen in the same generation so that they can mate?

And then yes, they would have children who were also chromosomal fusions... which they better have a son and a daughter who are willing to procreate as brother and sister otherwise the chromosomal fusion miracle ends there.

There are a several examples of individuals who are born with two chromosomes fused together in all their cells.
We even have a few examples where these fused chromosome is in a diploid state, ie all instances of that chromosome are fused in the individual. Such individuals come from families in small isolated villages that are very inbred.
Chromosome number does not prevent fertility but it does reduce it in heterozygous state as it is now harder to get correct chromosome distribution during meiosis and thus fewer functional gametes are made. However in terms of function, as all genes are present in a somatic cell in the correct number, function is usually normal and the individual is alive.
If the population is inbred, it is possible to get an egg and a sperm that carry the same fused chromosome to meet. In which case you get a diploid individual with fused chromosomes. Fertility is now restored. And in an inbred population, a homozygote individual for the fused chromosome can meet another similar individual, and have offspring who are fully fertile.
AS you can imagine, over time there is a selection pressure for the population to separate. The homozygous state (be it fused or unfused chromosome) is more fertile that the heterozygous state.
So to put it short, chromosome fusion does not kill a cell. All gene are still present. However in the heterozygous state, where both fused and unfused chromosomes are present, fertility is dramatically reduced BUT is none zero. Fertility is restored in a homozygous state when an individual is diploid for either fused or unfused chromosomes. In small isolated populations, inbreeding allows for the emergence of diploid individuals which can reproduce with each other

genetics.thetech.org...

originally posted by: peter vlar
There are a several examples of individuals who are born with two chromosomes fused together in all their cells.
We even have a few examples where these fused chromosome is in a diploid state, ie all instances of that chromosome are fused in the individual. Such individuals come from families in small isolated villages that are very inbred.

See, responding to me like a human without degrading me in some way really produces thoughtful conversation. But can you give sources for this statement? I am genuinely interested.

Chromosome number does not prevent fertility

I haven't seen any clinical cases of chromosomal fusion, but I know that chromosome abnormalities, such as trisomy 21, have a significant impact on fertility. I think only about 15-30% of trisomy 21 females are fertile

If the population is inbred, it is possible to get an egg and a sperm that carry the same fused chromosome to meet.

But you still would need two humans to undergo the same chromosomal fusion.

In which case you get a diploid individual with fused chromosomes. Fertility is now restored. And in an inbred population, a homozygote individual for the fused chromosome can meet another similar individual, and have offspring who are fully fertile.
AS you can imagine, over time there is a selection pressure for the population to separate. The homozygous state (be it fused or unfused chromosome) is more fertile that the heterozygous state.

Homozygous or heterozygoes refers to the variable alleles in a given locus on the chromosome. It doesn't have anything to do with chromosomal fusion. Which is why I brought up the dilemma of centromeres, because there would be 2 centromeres if a chromosomal fusion were to occur, and would therefore severely disrupt or totally render impossible any sort of metaphase

a reply to: cooperton

So you didn’t read the link. Again. Got it. It’s explained rather clearly above how the whole thing plays out and real life examples that have been medically documented but you keep insisting that it hasn’t happened in nature and it has to occur to 2 individuals in the same generation. You’re incorrect on both counts.

a reply to: cooperton

well I mean if we exist there must have been a chance that "it " occurred

or , I mean what are the alternatives, a magical sky god made us all ?

what else do we have on the origin of life ?

Aliens mixed our dna with early hominids in the hopes wed produce viable offspring
to work as slaves

What are the odds of those things happening ?

Since we have never seen sky gods, or aliens

yet we are still here , what seems more likley
or maybe its something along the lines of evolution just that we dont have all the picture yet

what are the odds of life anyway ? they must be astronomical given that we are just us on earth and no other evidence .

Obviously I digress hahah

originally posted by: peter vlar
it has to occur to 2 individuals in the same generation is incorrect.

How would a 44 chromosome man be able to mate with a 46 chromosome female? Their baby's metaphase wouldn't work, and therefore no successful cellular reproduction leading to growth and maturity. You would need the same super-low-probability event to occur twice in the same region in order to have a fertile child with the chromosomal fusion. There is no getting around it.

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: cooperton

well I mean if we exist there must have been a chance that "it " occurred

or , I mean what are the alternatives, a magical sky god made us all ?

I don't think consciousness came from matter, I think matter was made by a primordial consciousness. Given the observations in quantum physics, the copenhagen interpretation, and the observer effect, we should be led to believe that consciousness is the fundamental pillar for the working of quantum physics. According to the copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics, we the observer are the cause of wave-functions collapsing into material particles. Therefore, consciousness could not have come from matter, since matter's existence relies on the conscious observer.

a reply to: peter vlar

That fusion is just two separate cells stuck together at the walls.

Not a fusion of 2 to become one.

a reply to: sapien82

More people have claimed to see God then have seen A change of species.

originally posted by: TheSkunk

... Wow I never knew people could get upset over a question and not actually answer it. ...

LoL ! Star and a flag for that comment.
Welcome to ATS, where opinion is prime, and ignorance flows freely and unchallenged. ( Including me. )

Don't have an answer to your question, 'cause: don't know and/or don't remember.



(Don't really 'know' these things. They are merely opinion/belief/temporary ideas/observations/thoughts/concepts).

originally posted by: TheSkunk
a reply to: peter vlar

That fusion is just two separate cells stuck together at the walls.

Not a fusion of 2 to become one.

1. It’s not cells that become fused, it’s the chromosome.

2. Only plants have cell walls. Animals have a cellular membrane and no, there’s a big difference . If you don’t understand some basic elements of the field of biology (like the differences in type Of cells in plants and animals for example). This simply demonstrates cognitive bias and possibly willful ignorance because you very clearly have not read any of the multiple citations provided throughout the thread By several members

originally posted by: TheSkunk
a reply to: sapien82

More people have claimed to see God then have seen A change of species.

But there’s no independently verifiable confirmation of any of the number of gods worshipped across this lovely blue marble. Contrary to that paradigm, We have well documented and verifiable evidence of chromosomes undergoing fusion in both humans and other mammals.

a reply to: crayzeed

Kind of.

Genetic variability states that some in any given population will be immune to any disease or resistant to any toxin to greater or lesser degrees. They tend to be the ones who survive, and since they survive, they breed and pass that trait on to their offspring making the resulting population immune or resistant.

It works a bit differently in organisms like bacteria that don't just rely on asexual reproduction (cellular division) but have also created the process of using plasmids in some cases to quickly propagate the resistance gene from organism to organism like a vaccine. Thing with bacteria is that they are essentially minimalists. They like streamlined DNA, so as soon as they feel they don't need that resistance gene anymore, they'll drop.

if we went zero antibiotics worldwide for 3 to 5 years, they'd all work again like were discovering penicillin all over again.

originally posted by: cooperton
Given the observations in quantum physics, the copenhagen interpretation, and the observer effect, we should be led to believe that consciousness is the fundamental pillar for the working of quantum physics. According to the copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics, we the observer are the cause of wave-functions collapsing into material particles. Therefore, consciousness could not have come from matter, since matter's existence relies on the conscious observer.

I see you not only have problems understanding evolution research, but also quantum mechanics, which is not a sin, they are both complicated topics, but hopefully this will clear up one of your misconceptions, if you can read it and understand it that is, and this doesn't even get into the fact that not even a majority of physicists polled thought the Copenhagen interpretation was the correct interpretation as explained in the opening post video in my signature link.

Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness (and the other way around)

originally posted by: peter vlar
This simply demonstrates cognitive bias and possibly willful ignorance because you very clearly have not read any of the multiple citations provided throughout the thread By several members

I have come to a similar conclusion that several anti-evolutionists in this thread are either not reading the links, or else if they are reading them, they are not understanding what's written, and there could be a number of reasons for that, such as the cognitive bias you mention extending even to material that is read.

Here's another link the anti-evolutionists can choose to not read or to read but not comprehend:

The Chromosome Shuffle

Anti‐evolutionists  suggest  that  evolution  cannot  be  correct  according  to  their naive  understanding  of  genetics.   When  comparing  a  karyotype  of  a chimpanzee  (or  gorilla)  and  a  karyotype  of  a  human  side  by  side  it  looks  like two  ancestral  ape  chromosomes  fused  to  produce  a  human  total  of  46 chromosomes;  where  gorillas  and chimpanzees  still  have  the  ancestral  48 chromosomes.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
hopefully this will clear up one of your misconceptions, if you can read it and understand it that is

Here's another link the anti-evolutionists can choose to not read or to read but not comprehend:

Wow how am I going to talk to you when you've put yourself on such a high pedestal?


What part of the study do you suppose disproves the Copenhagen interpretation?

originally posted by: peter vlar

But there’s no independently verifiable confirmation of any of the number of gods worshipped across this lovely blue marble.

Nor is there an independently verifiable confirmation of an organism evolving into another kind of organism. Microbes remain microbes, rats remain rats, fruit flies remain fruit flies, and so on.

originally posted by: cooperton
What part of the study do you suppose disproves the Copenhagen interpretation?

Two things you can learn:

First, nobody knows if the Copenhagen interpretation is true. Sean Carroll believes an alternate interpretation which he says is not agreed upon either nor are any of the other alternate interpretations, but his point is that what almost all physicists agree upon is that nobody is sure which interpretation is correct, none of them have been proven. Here is his explanation:

Quantum Mechanics (an embarrassment) - Sixty Symbols


Second, even if the Copenhagen interpretation was true, the linked paper above explains why no consciousness is required and how the need for consciousness isn't supported by experiments even using the Copenhagen interpretation. The misunderstanding may arise from confusion over the meaning of the word "observer" in physics; it doesn't have to be a conscious observer as explained in the paper and explained by Sean Carroll here, that a camera without any consciousness can be an observer, or even a rock can be an observer which collapses a wave function, which is not what laypeople think of as an observer:

Sean Carroll - What are Observers?

originally posted by: cooperton
Nor is there an independently verifiable confirmation of an organism evolving into another kind of organism. Microbes remain microbes, rats remain rats, fruit flies remain fruit flies, and so on.

I don't know what kind of standards you're setting for "independently verifiable" but look at the genetic varieties of dogs, some breeds of which are very very close genetically to wolves and others are genetically very different from wolves. Dogs and wolves are considered different species but there doesn't seem to be much doubt that human selection was involved in Dog breeding, resulting in tremendous genetic variablity.

Evolution of the Dog

Recent molecular evidence shows that dogs are descended from the gray wolf, domesticated about 130,000 years ago. But if they all share a common ancestor, why do toy poodles and Great Danes seem to have little in common? Years of selective breeding by humans has resulted in the artificial "evolution" of dogs into many different types...

The dog, Canis familiaris, is a direct descendent of the gray wolf, Canis lupus: In other words, dogs as we know them are domesticated wolves.

So it looks to me like humans used evolution (not the natural kind, but human intervention) to change the gray wolf, Canis lupus species into a different species Canis familiaris.

If you mean it's hard to see in a single generation, that's true, but it isn't disupted that humans breed dogs, and have been doing so for a long time, is it?

a reply to: peter vlar

ok it is just chromosomes stuck together not fused.

a reply to: peter vlar

We have not witnessed what you say. You say two chromosomes can join to become one. The study you showed was not chromosonal fusion in that way more like 2 side by side glued at the seam


Also still does not answer the sex question.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

First, nobody knows if the Copenhagen interpretation is true. Sean Carroll believes an alternate interpretation which he says is not agreed upon either nor are any of the other alternate interpretations, but his point is that what almost all physicists agree upon is that nobody is sure which interpretation is correct, none of them have been proven. Here is his explanation:

Observation of the slit (via a measuring device) is the variable that determines whether or not a photon behaves like a wave or a particle. This leads towards the conclusion that it is human consciousness, with the extension of a human-made observation device, that is what renders the photon to behave like a particle. This is empirical, observable evidence that insists the observer is the fundamental component of wave-function collapse. There have even been tests conducted to ensure it was not due to some interference from the measuring device... confirming it was the fact that it was being consciously measured that caused the wave-function collapse.

Second, even if the Copenhagen interpretation was true, the linked paper above explains why no consciousness is required and how the need for consciousness isn't supported by experiments even using the Copenhagen interpretation.

Explain in your own words using quotes from the paper.

Evolution of the Dog

Recent molecular evidence shows that dogs are descended from the gray wolf, domesticated about 130,000 years ago. But if they all share a common ancestor, why do toy poodles and Great Danes seem to have little in common? Years of selective breeding by humans has resulted in the artificial "evolution" of dogs into many different types...

The dog, Canis familiaris, is a direct descendent of the gray wolf, Canis lupus: In other words, dogs as we know them are domesticated wolves.

So it looks to me like humans used evolution (not the natural kind, but human intervention) to change the gray wolf, Canis lupus species into a different species Canis familiaris.

Taxonomy is just evolutionary semantics, not fact. A dog can breed with a wolf, indicating they are the same kind of animal. Dogs are bred for domesticated traits... But it will always remain the same essential thing. It will never become something other than the essential form that makes it a wolf. Plato postulated this long ago. It still stands. Despite millions of generations of attempting to evolve a fruit fly, they still remain fruit flies. It's hard to prove a negative, but that's about as close as you can get. If millions of generations of selective breeding can't evolve a fruit fly, then millions of generations could not evolve an ape, or any other creature.