Re: [asa] chromasome fusion #2

 Bill,
You are giving generalities, but there are specific reasons why the
single human chromosome came from two in the earlier ape line. The human
chromosome has two centromeres, one functional and one degenerate. The
sequence of DNA is the same in the two halves of the human chromosome as
in the two ape chromosomes. So we have either the development of the one
chromosome from two during evolution or else the Creator made it look, to
all honest investigators, as if that happened. I forgot, there is one
other possibility, Satan, in opposition to God, is the one who created
man in such a way that human beings would be led away from God.

To the best of my knowledge, the fusion of chromosomes is very unusual.
There are small parts, genes, that move from one part to another (jumping
genes), or viral genes that become incorporated in the genomes of more
advanced creatures. There are deletions, duplications and rearrangements
within chromosomes and genomes, along with trisomy and polyploidy. But
these also lead to the essential certainty of evolution or to the
deliberate misleading of humans. I don't know whether the lie by the
deity or by the devil is worse.
Dave (ASA)

On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 19:55:41 -0600 wjp <wjp@swcp.com> writes:
> Apparently chimpanzees, and other primates, have 48 chromosomes
> while humans only have 46.
>
> From an evolutionary standpoint this is suppose to be a problem.
> Why is that?
>
> It is presumed that chimps and humans have a common ancestor.
> So I suppose the reasoning is that if one ancestor of the
> common ancestor has 48 chromosomes and another has 46 there
> is a problem in believing they had the same ancestor.
>
> The reasoning might be that since chromosome number is
> directly related to inherited traits that it might be
> difficult to see how an ancestor with 48 chromosomes could
> produce (in no matter the number of steps) an offspring
> with only 46.
>
> Now I, being naive, don't see why this is suppose to be so
> great, or insurmountable a problem.
> After all, if evoultion is correct, something like this must
> be commonplace. Presumably the earliest of creatures had fewer
> chromosomes than later species. So somehow chromosomes must be
> added and I'm not certain why it should any more mysterious how
> chromosomes can be added than that they can be taken away.
>
> In any case, Ken Miller asserts that this is so great a problem that
> unless it were resolved evolution must be wrong.
> I am astonished by this statement and can hardly believe that he
> really
> means it. In fact, it seems far more obvious that the reason he
> says this is because he believed at the time of the statement that a
> resolution was already at hand.
>
> In any case, the resolution supposedly is that the second chromosome
> fused
> with another chromosome, and since chromosomes come half from each
> parent,
> this would result in 46 chromosomes instead of 48.
>
> All I want to say about the supposed evidence that a chromosome had
> fused
> is that it does not entail that evolution occurred, rather it is
> merely
> consistent with an evolutionary development.
>
> The story, I suppose, would be something like that the ancestor of
> both
> man and chimp has 48 chromosomes, but somehow one chromosome in man
> became fused to another, while that of the chimp and other primates
> did
> not.
>
> The notion of fused chromosomes is not necessarily associated with
> an
> evolutionary process, unless one means by evolution that something
> that existed previously was used in the creation of something new.
> Such a view of evolution could as well be the work of an intelligent
> designer, which is why I am confused by Ken Miller's apparent
> confidence that evolution is clearly a superior explanation.
>
> The very notion of fusion appears to entail a process whereby
> something
> changed from not being fused to being fused. The notion appears to
> entail that there was a time when they were not fused and somehow
> became
> fused. It is true that if we presume that such processes must take
> place,
> then fusion would be consistent with that presumption. But does the
> evidence for fusion really entail that a fusion has taken place?
> In order for fusion to have taken place we must have a time when
> they were not fused. But the mere fact that they appear to be fused
> does not entail that they were ever not fused.
>
> It seems then that here, as in all of science, we proceed
> abductively,
> from theory to evidence and then back again to theory.
> But in all cases the science finds a theory that is consistent with
> the
> evidence. There is no way to argue from the evidence to a unique
> theory. The supposed discovery of the fusion of chromosome #2 is
> consistent with an evolutionary story, but it could just as well be
> consistent with other theories and explanations. This is, of
> course,
> true of all our knowledge of the physical world.
>
> What is surprising to me is that some think that this discovery is
> of great importance. Yet it seems to me that the result is more
> or less assured by the supposed discovery that chimp DNA and
> human DNA are so very similar.
>
> I do not understand, I confess, why chromosomes are so important.
> It seems to me that they are mostly an artifact from an earlier
> state of biological science. Hence, I don't understand why fusion
> would
> seem so important. But, then again, I probably don't understand why
> the bunching of DNA that can be observed under a microscope should
> be so
> important.
>
> bill
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
 
____________________________________________________________
Get your dream car or truck. Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTLa8v05e4tyRgcumFDR1ff7yCVtq14WMTk06gTdENFfffSkLYBS4Q/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jul 12 23:30:39 2009