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

Also- as far as the hypothesis that maybe God created humans with 24 pairs of chromosomes and microevolution took us down to 23 since the fall of Adam... does anyone know what Ken Ham (YEC) or Hugh Ross (OEC) would say about that? Would they actually propose it? If not, it may be because they thought through the technical implications/consequences and so it wouldn't make sense to propose.

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 12:09 PM
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] chromasome fusion #2 (how vs. did, YEC/OEC's proved wrong)

" 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. "

But what IS falsified is the idea of creation by fiat- because the evidence shows that humans lost a chromosome pair due to fusion.

That's a new argument I didn't hear before- that humans may have had 48 and the chromosome fused after humans were created... let's think about that... from the big picture...

The OEC picture on that may be murky, so let's look at YEC:

YEC hypothesis: Humans created with originally 48 chromosomes no more than 10,000 years ago. Can we confirm/deny that with DNA?

I can't answer off the top of my head, esp. because I'm not a professional biologist. But here's something to immediately think about- this hypothesis is saying that in 10,ooo years microevolution was fast enough to change the human genome from 48 chromosomes, and ripple through all human population to make it 46 for everyone alive on earth today. I wonder if that is on par with how some scientists make fun of YEC's because YEC's deny evolution and then YEC's have a form or microevolution that is way too fast (for scientists to accept) after the flood to explain existing species from the representative species aboard the ark.

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Iain Strachan [mailto:igd.strachan@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 2:43 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] chromasome fusion #2 (how vs. did, YEC/OEC's proved wrong)

> 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 Wed Jul 22 11:51:06 2009