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

Bernie:

Actually I do have a question.

I gather from what you say that the "same" genetic information is in
genome before fusion as after fusion.

If that is the case, what is the significance of having a different number
of chromosomes?

thanks,

bill

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 10:43:28 -0700, "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
> "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.

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 15:12:43 2009