RE: [asa] chromasome fusion #2 (how vs. did, YEC/OEC's proved wrong)

"Now, it may very well be that the interpretation of the evidence as
fusion is plausible or even likely, but how do you (or anyone) make
such a judgment?"

It is the same thing as observing footprints in the snow and then knowing from that that someone walked across your yard. Pseudogenes and fused chromosome 2 are 'footprints' in the DNA. DNA preserves a historical record in this way.

" As I understand it there are generally some kind of markers at the
beginning and ending of a chromosome. In human chromosome #2 these
markers exist, but not at the end and beginning of the chromosome.
For this reason, it is argued that two chromosomes were fused."

There are markers at the ends and the middle. If two chromosomes fuse, then you see the end, middle, end, end, middle, end (in that order) on one chromosome. That's what we see. That's why it is obvious they were fused. The gene content on those two pre-joined chromosomes is the same gene content as is on the joined one, also (exactly as you'd expect from a evolutionary prediction of a fusing hypothesis). That's how I understand it.

Let me know if you have more questions- because I seriously do think there is no reasonable objection and the evidence is now obvious for macroevolution (apelike creature to human evolution).

" Now this is probably utter nonsense, so I hope your not
laughing so hard that you might hurt yourself."

That would be rude, prideful, and immature of me to do that... certainly wouldn't be Christ-like.

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: wjp [mailto:wjp@swcp.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 8:37 PM
To: "" Dehler@ame7.swcp.com; Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] chromasome fusion #2 (how vs. did, YEC/OEC's proved wrong)
Importance: Low

Bernie:

I've been steering clear of this discussion, lacking time and expertise.

But I've just got ask you something again because I don't believe I ever
received a clear answer.

You've been discussing the possibility that there can be evidence
that something has happened without knowing how it happened,
e.g., the Resurrection.
It seems to me that this ought to be clear, although it is not
always simple to separate an explanation from the recognition of
an event occurring. Quite often when we detect an event, we already
have something of an explanation in mind.

You say:

"Fused human chromosme #2 clearly demonstrates descent of humans from an
apelike creature."

Since you are speaking of an event as happening prior to knowing how
it happened, you must be referring to the fusion as the event.
However, the fusion is NOT the evidence. Fusion is an interpretation
of the evidence.

Now, it may very well be that the interpretation of the evidence as
fusion is plausible or even likely, but how do you (or anyone) make
such a judgment? It seems to me that it is in the context of an
explanation that you already have in mind. But I will let you answer
for yourself.

As I understand it there are generally some kind of markers at the
beginning and ending of a chromosome. In human chromosome #2 these
markers exist, but not at the end and beginning of the chromosome.
For this reason, it is argued that two chromosomes were fused.

This understanding is probably false in many details. In fact it
doesn't make clear sense to me since if it were to make sense, there
must be some independent means of determining chromosome boundaries
other than these markers.

But let's assume that it makes some rough sense.

The argument would then be something like the following
1) Chromosomes always have markers at the beginning and
ending.
2) Chromosome boundaries are determined by property C.
3) Chromosome markers may not always coincide with those
boundaries determined by property C.
4) When the markers do not coincide with boundaries
determined by property C, a process called "fusion" has
occurred.
5) The existence of internal markers is always an indication
that "fusion" has occurred, and that there was a time when
the genome was not fused.

Now this is probably utter nonsense, so I hope your not
laughing so hard that you might hurt yourself.

But it hopefully indicates the kind of answer that I'm looking
for, one that will make it clear what you mean by "clearly."

Thanks,

bill

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jul 17 13:44:13 2009