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

Iain:

This is just the point I was trying to draw out of Bernie,
but was not certain that it would be the case since my
ignorance of the subject is of such a monumental order.

bill

On Fri, 17 Jul
2009, Iain Strachan wrote:

>> 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).
>
> Sorry but I don't think it is evidence of apelike creature to human evolution.
>
> It is strong evidence that two chromosomes fused into one at a certain
> stage. But as we've seen from Dennis's and Darryl's explanation, it's
> not really a change that's a big deal; the genetic material is all the
> same. I don't know if we know when this fusion happened - but it is
> possible that the 48 chromosomed individuals were humans, not apes.
> (Doubtless someone more knowledgeable may be able to correct me on
> this, but from what I've read so far, it seems an implicit assumption
> that the 48 chromosome individual had to be an ape-like creature.
> That assumption has to be justified. Was the sequence 48(ape) ---->
> 46(ape) ----> Human, or was it 48(Human) ---> 46(Human).
>
> And in any case, I think the point of Miller's presentation is that if
> we DIDN'T find evidence of a fusion then evolution was in big trouble.
> It was effectively a falsifier of the theory. So all you can say is
> that common descent isn't falsified - not that it's proven. What you
> have is a NECESSARY, but not SUFFICIENT condition for common descent
> of apes and humans. There is a subtle but important difference.
>
> Now, I'm not saying that I doubt common descent; but playing Devil's
> advocate (or rather Progressive Creationist's advocate !) one could
> easily say that you haven't proved that God did not intervene at
> various points in time to effect the major changes that were required
> in the transition from ape to human.
>
> If you're going to seriously use this argument to try and convince
> YEC's (indeed I often cite it talking to YEC-leaning friends), then
> you're going to have to consider this point, otherwise a smart YEC is
> going to hit you over the head with it. Fusion is necessary but not
> sufficient to prove macroevolution.
>
> Iain
>
>
> 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 21:01:52 2009