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.
Originally posted by IntastellaBurst
In your face Creationism.
In..... Your....... Face !!!!
Originally posted by Studenofhistory
My understanding of human versus ape chromosomes is well researched.
..
Take the fused chromosome for example. It isn't just two chromosomes sticking together. Oh no! There's more to it than that. Let's call the two chromosomes A and B. What apparently happened is that A lost a few of it's base pairs on one end and B lost a few of it's base pairs on one end and then a chunk of DNA, which doesn't match any DNA in any of the other chromosomes, somehow appeared out of nowhere and just happened to connect to both of the shortened ends of A and B. So this fused chromosome does have a lot of the same genes as the two chromosomes that preceded it but it's not exactly the same because of the changes in the middle. This information I did find in a scientific journal. The author describes the missing bits on each end and the fact that the piece in the middle isn't a copy of, or broke off of, any other chromosome. The author did NOT go into the implications of this information nor did he explain why or how it happened.
Originally posted by Studenofhistory
How can that first 46 chromosome version have more 46 chromosome offspring if he or she is surrounded by 48 chromosome potential mates? Why didn't that one individual have sterile offspring the same way that horses and donkeys have sterile offspring? It's not entirely clear that apes and humans could produce any offspring at all. Evolution should be able to come up with at least a plausible theory of how this could happen but it doesn't. I know because I've looked for one.
Originally posted by Studenofhistory
reply to post by rhinoceros
Look at the picture of chromosome 2 in the link supplied by terapin.
It's as plain as the nose on your face. Parts of the two ape chromosomes disappeared and were replaced by different DNA when those two chromosomes supposedly fused into one. Telomeres not withstanding, the two ape chromosomes didn't just stick together like two cigars with crazy glue. Something else happened.
Originally posted by Studenofhistory
reply to post by Terapin
Here's another 'miracle' that evolutionists are unable to explain. How did millions of single-celled organisms, that are not specialized in any way, suddenly all decide to 'stick' together to form the first multi-cell creature, with some of the formerly single cell organisms now specializing as muscle, others as lungs, others as skin, others as...etc. ? If you or anyone else has a scientificly accurate explanation of how that happened, I'd very much like to hear it.
Originally posted by Studenofhistory
reply to post by rhinoceros
Yes yes, that's the generally accepted theory. All nice and neat and simple. So how come horses and donkeys can't do the same thing? ie. have fertile offspring that are either horses OR donkeys? Because that's exactly what you're describing. You're saying that the first proto-human (defined as the first one with 46 chromsomes) can mate with apes and produce offspring that are either ape(48 chromosomes) or proto-humans(46 chromosomes). That IS what you're saying right?
Originally posted by Studenofhistory
reply to post by rhinoceros
Ah!!! I get it! All of the genetic material in the middle has mutated into something different....except for the remaining telemeres sequence of course. That didn't change. Funny how that happened, eh?
Originally posted by abecedarian
Why does it have to be an "either/or" choice between evolution and creation? I find it equally plausible that evolution is the means of creation and the timeline was not measured by our current definition of years.
For the sake of argument, if the Old Testament were written by men why would it be necessary to explain every step of how man was created from dust need explained in the books / scrolls, when the important aspect is that we and everything else "were" created from dust, star dust if you will? Isn't that, in essence, what evolution seeks to explain: "how" we were created- the jump from simple molecules to complex life forms?
The great fallacy, in my opinion, is the confusion surrounding the definition of years. According to Relativity, time is experienced differently based on the frame of reference. Is it not possible that to someone outside of the Universe, our evolution took place in ~6500 of their years, while to us inside the expanding Universe, it took nearly 14 billion years?
And for the record, I'm not religious. I just have an open mind.
Originally posted by Donny 4 million
Originally posted by IntastellaBurst
In your face Creationism.
In..... Your....... Face !!!!
Why are you so against the writtings of the Jewish folks.
Are you anti-semetic? Are you a decendant of a monkey?
[edit on 4-4-2010 by Donny 4 million]
I looked at the genetic link. Thank you for providing that link. The explanation was very enlightening. Lots of 'we think this happened', 'this may have happened', etc.
So 1 in a 1,000 humans has a fused chromosome and this anomaly is used as the basis for saying that somewhere along the line a proto-human went from 48 to 46 and this anomaly gave it some advantage which then spread to all other proto-humans and eventually to us.
Funny thing is that all apes STILL only have 48 chromosomes. Do they not also have 1 in a 1,000 anomalies?
*
Originally posted by Studenofhistory
reply to post by rhinoceros
I disagree. It's is the same thing when it comes to the number of chromosomes that horse and donkey offspring have. Mules ARE in fact sterile because they have an odd number of chromosomes. Mules can't breed with anything, not themselves, not with donkeys and not with horses period.
But my skepticism about your theory is this. Look at the picture of chromosome #2 again. If 2a and 2b merely attached themselves end to end, then the combined single chromosome would be longer than the human version. So why aren't they the same length? What I suspect is the case here is that in humans 1 in a 1,000 people really will have 2 chromosomes that are literally stuck together end to end. But that's not what we see with human versus ape chromosome #2. And the explanation that only the center section changed over time while the rest of the chromosome didn't change isn't convincing. In fact it smells of desperation.
Originally posted by Studenofhistory
reply to post by Donny 4 million
Think about what you're saying. A single-celled organism that is not specialized ie. it doesn't only DO one thing like skin or muscle or liver, it does everything, has a change in genes that means that when it spilts into two cells, one of them will go on to specialize in something like muscle and the other one will specialize in something else like lungs and then those two will somehow also mutate so that they split and specialize even further into blood cells, brain cells, liver, pancreas, etc. etc. We are talking about huge changes in the genetic code. By the way, I'm assuming that a multi-cell organism would be an animal. If you assume a plant instead, it's just as bad because plants are made up of specialized cells too. How does a preliminary multi-cell organism survive if it doesn't have all of the specialized types of cells it needs? ie. muscle but no skin...etc. It's seems to me that a multi-celled organism, whether it be a plant or animal has to be an all or nothing kind of deal. Either it's all there and functioning or it's dead before it has a chance to reproduce.