Jump to content


Photo

The Curious Case Of Human And Chimps


  • Please log in to reply
81 replies to this topic

#21 Yorzhik

Yorzhik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 233 posts
  • Age: 42
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 24 March 2009 - 05:25 AM

Well i changed it back. i speak with integrity in saying i am yec. please don't say i'm lying or stupid in my claims to identity.

You didn't understand what i said.
Ididn't say god made man from a ape but rather ikt was the model for the human body.
yes adam was from dust and not born.
Yet the ape body is clearly the besty one for a being in gods image to b e put into unless someone has a better idea.
my idea is excellent and makes a better yec case for why the sameness of apes/man is not a problem.

View Post

Actually, the case you put forth that the most likely reason is a modified number (1) is good. I'll have to remove (1) as the most unlikely, or add a "modified (1)" to the list.

#22 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 24 March 2009 - 06:37 AM

Here? I have a hard time believing that... we're all a bunch of rebels here, we only believe things if they're true. Can you provide a link?

View Post

I presume Archea is referring to the Welcome->Hi everyone thread here, where he outright called Professor JC Sanford a liar in respect of what he said in this interview. It seems to me very reckless for a first-year student to assume he understands the subject better than someone who has studied it for years. More likely he has misunderstood things himself.

In such a case I as a non-expert have to choose between authorities and I reckon Sanford is much more likely to be a good one.

View Post

Ahhh, I see. I'm personally all for questioning what people say, regardless of education, but spending time trying to ponder and learn from those who have more experience is definitely well warranted as long as your baloney detector is tuned.

What you guys are talking about would be worth a new thread. Think about it.

The idea of mutations is a target of increasing ambiguity in the evospeak dictionary. Before arguing over mutations maybe we ought to try and define what qualifies as a mutation and if that definition lends itself to studying and uncovering evolution or if it muddies the water so evolution is, once again, protected from honest scrutiny by this ambiguity.

#23 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 24 March 2009 - 08:19 AM

The idea of mutations is a target of increasing ambiguity in the evospeak dictionary. Before arguing over mutations maybe we ought to try and define what qualifies as a mutation and if that definition lends itself to studying and uncovering evolution or if it muddies the water so evolution is, once again, protected from honest scrutiny by this ambiguity.

That's an excellent idea, so we all are talking about the same thing!

I looked around for a good not too technical overview, and as it turns out the Wiki entry is pretty solid and accurate. It also goes into a bit of detail on the different types of mutations observed in DNA replication.

Mutation:

In biology, mutations are changes to the nucleotide sequence of the genetic material of an organism. Mutations can be caused by copying errors in the genetic material during cell division, by exposure to ultraviolet or ionizing radiation, chemical mutagens, or viruses, or can be induced by the organism, itself, by cellular processes such as hypermutation. In multicellular organisms with dedicated reproductive cells, mutations can be subdivided into germ line mutations, which can be passed on to descendants through the reproductive cells, and somatic mutations, which involve cells outside the dedicated reproductive group and which are not usually transmitted to descendants. If the organism can reproduce asexually through mechanisms such as cuttings or budding the distinction can become blurred. For example, plants can sometimes transmit somatic mutations to their descendants asexually or s*xually where flower buds develop in somatically mutated parts of plants. A new mutation that was not inherited from either parent is called a de novo mutation. The source of the mutation is unrelated to the consequence, although the consequences are related to which cells are affected.

Mutations create variation within the gene pool. Less favorable (or deleterious) mutations can be reduced in frequency in the gene pool by natural selection, while more favorable (beneficial or advantageous) mutations may accumulate and result in adaptive evolutionary changes. For example, a butterfly may produce offspring with new mutations. The majority of these mutations will have no effect; but one might change the color of one of the butterfly's offspring, making it harder (or easier) for predators to see. If this color change is advantageous, the chance of this butterfly surviving and producing its own offspring are a little better, and over time the number of butterflies with this mutation may form a larger percentage of the population.

Neutral mutations are defined as mutations whose effects do not influence the fitness of an individual. These can accumulate over time due to genetic drift. It is believed that the overwhelming majority of mutations have no significant effect on an organism's fitness. Also, DNA repair mechanisms are able to mend most changes before they become permanent mutations, and many organisms have mechanisms for eliminating otherwise permanently mutated somatic cells.

Mutation is generally accepted by the scientific community as the mechanism upon which natural selection acts, providing the advantageous new traits that survive and multiply in offspring or disadvantageous traits that die out with weaker organisms.

link with lots more info


Of course anyone should feel free to add additional sources for discussion.

One thing I've noticed over the years is that people tend to associate the word mutation with bad. Their only exposure to the concept of mutation was from late night TV horror flicks. A mutant was something ugly and evil – the slime dripping zombie whose mutations were caused by atomic fallout, etc. Saying to them “DNA undergoes random mutations in the copying process” can’t help but evoke such ghastly images. Even saying “DNA replication produces imperfect copies, or copies with errors” has negative connotations (‘imperfect’, ‘errors’) to the untrained.

Do you think it would help if we began describing DNA replication as ‘copying with changes’? The changes can still be bad (deleterious mutations) or have no effect (neutral mutations), but the changes can also be good (beneficial mutations). And if it's also pointed out that the bad changes tend to get weeded out, while the good changes tend to accumulate – would that get around the mental "mutation" block?

Just thinking out loud.

#24 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 24 March 2009 - 09:00 AM

I really like this chart that Assist shared:

Chimpanzee and human chromosomes are very similar.   The human chromosome 2 is made up of two fused chromosomes from the common human-chimp ancestor, giving the humans 23 pairs instead of 24 seen in chimps.

Posted Image
H=Human, C=Chimp

My theory keeps getting confirmed. The best arguments against evolution are always the evidences used to support it through twisted logic. For this post keep the above chart in mind and carefully examine it to make sure you know what you are looking at.

Now look at these two images from this website that deals with genetic mutations that cause miscarriages. One of the most common survivable severe genetic mutations is Down Syndrome:

http://www.miscarria...epage.cfm?id=16

Normal Chromosome set (karyotype):
Posted Image

Down Syndrome Chromosome set (karyotype):
Posted Image

Down Syndrome, a harmful mutation, is the result of one of the minor chromosome with an extra copy. Women with Down Syndrome are fertile while men with Down Syndrome are almost always sterile except for a couple of extremely rare cases. I don't want to sound insensitive but either way Down Syndrome is a harmful mutation that natural selection would select out without our artificial intervention.

Now take that knowledge and apply it to what you see in the chart provided by Assist24. There are wild differences between Chimps and Humans. Look at the 'Y' chromosome as an example.

The largest obvious difference is that Humans and Chimps have a different number of chromosomes so of coarse any chance of painting a picture of ancestry would require a past fusion of chromosomes. Don't get me wrong the observation about telomeres and centromeres in the middle of the number two human chromosome is interesting but inconclusive. Those bits of genetic code may have a very important and necessary function in humans right where they are. Since God doesn't make junk I bet we just don't understand them enough to make such pronouncements. With that one interesting anomaly a person just has to compare the obvious mismatch between the other Chromosomes to realize that evolutionists are straining at gnats here.

Evolutionists are expecting us to believe that this fused area ultimately produced humans but it would have been shear dumb luck that two chimp like animals of opposite s@x would have had an enormous mutation where two of the longer chromosome sets fused producing an unheard of beneficial mutation (never been observed) and the same anomaly happened in the neighborhood some where so the super mutant chimp could have a super mutant mate and be attracted to each other and have enough offspring to start an entirely new kind of organism. What ever this mutation was it simultaneously made them infertile with the parent type and fertile with each other.

Haldane, call your office:

http://www.evolution...ne_rebuttal.htm

That is one strong faith.

#25 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 24 March 2009 - 09:21 AM

Now take that knowledge and apply it to what you see in the chart provided by Assist24. There are wild differences between Chimps and Humans. Look at the 'Y' chromosome as an example.

Of course there are differences. And they have been accurately mapped by geneticists.

Genetic evidence for complex speciation of humans and chimpanzees
Nick Patterson, Daniel J. Richter, Sante Gnerre, Eric S. Lander, David Reich
Nature 441, 1103-1108 (29 June 2006)

Abstract:  The genetic divergence time between two species varies substantially across the genome, conveying important information about the timing and process of speciation. Here we develop a framework for studying this variation and apply it to about 20 million base pairs of aligned sequence from humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and more distantly related primates. Human–chimpanzee genetic divergence varies from less than 84% to more than 147% of the average, a range of more than 4 million years. Our analysis also shows that human–chimpanzee speciation occurred less than 6.3 million years ago and probably more recently, conflicting with some interpretations of ancient fossils. Most strikingly, chromosome X shows an extremely young genetic divergence time, close to the genome minimum along nearly its entire length. These unexpected features would be explained if the human and chimpanzee lineages initially diverged, then later exchanged genes before separating permanently.

source



Evolutionists are expecting us to believe that this fused area ultimately produced humans but it would have been shear dumb luck that two chimp like animals of opposite s@x would have had an enormous mutation where two of the longer chromosome sets fused producing an unheard of beneficial mutation (never been observed) and the same anomaly happened in the neighborhood some where so the super mutant chimp could have a super mutant mate and be attracted to each other and have enough offspring to start an entirely new kind of organism. What ever this mutation was it simultaneously made them infertile with the parent type and fertile with each other.


Er...no, a similar number of chromosomes is not required for interfertility. The best known modern example of this is Przewalski's Horse, which has 66 chromosomes while the domesticated horse has only 64 chromosomes. Despite this difference in chromosome number, Przewalski's Horse and the domesticated horse can be crossbred and do produce fertile offspring.

I thought you said you knew this stuff?

#26 oliver

oliver

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Brittany, France

Posted 24 March 2009 - 09:22 AM

Evolutionists are expecting us to believe that this fused area ultimately produced humans but it would have been shear dumb luck that two chimp like animals of opposite s@x would have had an enormous mutation where two of the longer chromosome sets fused producing an unheard of beneficial mutation (never been observed) and the same anomaly happened in the neighborhood some where so the super mutant chimp could have a super mutant mate and be attracted to each other and have enough offspring to start an entirely new kind of organism. What ever this mutation was it simultaneously made them infertile with the parent type and fertile with each other.

View Post

The hopeful monster theory again!

#27 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 24 March 2009 - 09:33 AM

Przewalski's Horse is an interesting question.

Przewalski's Horse (66 chromosomes) and domestic horses (64 chromosomes) must be the same horse "kind", since they are interfertile, right? So that means they must have both come from the original pairs on the Ark, right?

How do you suppose they ended up with a different number of chromosomes?

#28 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 24 March 2009 - 09:34 AM

Er...no, a similar number of chromosomes is not required for interfertility.  The best known modern example of this is Przewalski's Horse, which has 66 chromosomes while the domesticated horse has only 64 chromosomes. Despite this difference in chromosome number, Przewalski's  Horse and the domesticated horse can be crossbred and do produce fertile offspring.

View Post

I don't know anything about Przewalski's horses. Can you produce a chart of their genome so we can compare the chromosomes between them and domestic horses? You know, just so we can see what's going on exactly. Are Przewalski's horses Down Syndrome equivalent in the horse species which set them on the road to extinction without our intervention, of coarse?

#29 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 24 March 2009 - 09:38 AM

Przewalski's Horse is an interesting question.

Przewalski's Horse (66 chromosomes) and domestic horses (64 chromosomes) must be the same horse "kind", since they are interfertile, right?  So that means they must have both come from the original pairs on the Ark, right?

How do you suppose they ended up with a different number of chromosomes?

View Post

When you look at your above chart it's not just the number of chromosomes and you know I acknowledged workable mutations. I brought up Down Syndrome didn't I?

I'm more interested in the wild mismatches even with the fabled fused chromosome.

#30 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 24 March 2009 - 09:48 AM

I don't know anything about Przewalski's horses. Can you produce a chart of their genome so we can compare the chromosomes between them and domestic horses? You know, just so we can see what's going on exactly.

I'll try to track one down. In the mean time, here is a recent paper with some genetic analysis. (FISH stands for Fluorescent In Situ Hybridization, and is a popular method to measure chromosomal differences.)

FISH analysis comparing genome organization in the domestic horse (Equus caballus) to that of the Mongolian wild horse (E. przewalskii)
J.L. Mykaa, T.L. Leara, M.L. Houckb, O.A. Ryderb, E. Baileya
Cytogenet Genome Res 2003;102:222-225

Abstract:  Przewalski's wild horse (E. przewalskii, EPR) has a diploid chromosome number of 2n = 66 while the domestic horse (E. caballus, ECA) has a diploid chromosome number of 2n = 64. Discussions about their phylogenetic relationship and taxonomic classification have hinged on comparisons of their skeletal morphology, protein and mitochondrial DNA similarities, their ability to produce fertile hybrid offspring, and on comparison of their chromosome morphology and banding patterns. Previous studies of GTG-banded karyotypes suggested that the chromosomes of both equids were homologous and the difference in chromosome number was due to a Robertsonian event involving two pairs of acrocentric chromosomes in EPR and one pair of metacentric chromosomes in ECA (ECA5). To determine which EPR chromosomes were homologous to ECA5 and to confirm the predicted chromosome homologies based on GTG banding, we constructed a comparative gene map between ECA and EPR by FISH mapping 46 domestic horse-derived BAC clones containing genes previously mapped to ECA chromosomes. The results indicated that all ECA and EPR chromosomes were homologous as predicted by GTG banding, but provide new information in that the EPR acrocentric chromosomes EPR23 and EPR24 were shown to be homologues of the ECA metacentric chromosome ECA5.

source


Are Przewalski's horses Down Syndrome equivalent in the horse species which set them on the road to extinction without our intervention, of coarse?

Nope. They're a completely normal, viable, healthy horse species. They're the only truly wild horses still in existence, and are found only on the steppes of central Asia. Sadly, humans have pushed them to the brink of extinction.

#31 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 24 March 2009 - 09:56 AM


Przewalski's Horse is an interesting question.

Przewalski's Horse (66 chromosomes) and domestic horses (64 chromosomes) must be the same horse "kind", since they are interfertile, right?  So that means they must have both come from the original pairs on the Ark, right?

How do you suppose they ended up with a different number of chromosomes?


When you look at your above chart it's not just the number of chromosomes and you know I acknowledged workable mutations. I brought up Down Syndrome didn't I?

I'm more interested in the wild mismatches even with the fabled fused chromosome.

View Post


You didn't answer the question. I'm not asking for a definitive answer, just tell me what you think based on what you know. Why do animals of the same kind have a different chromosome number?

BTW, is is still just precious the way you think you can look at a single non-detailed drawing and deduce things that have somehow been missed by professional genetic researchers with years of detailed genomic mapping data. :)

#32 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 24 March 2009 - 10:10 AM


When you look at your above chart it's not just the number of chromosomes and you know I acknowledged workable mutations. I brought up Down Syndrome didn't I?

I'm more interested in the wild mismatches even with the fabled fused chromosome.

View Post


You didn't answer the question. I'm not asking for a definitive answer, just tell me what you think based on what you know. Why do animals of the same kind have a different chromosome number?

BTW, is is still just precious the way you think you can look at a single non-detailed drawing and deduce things that have somehow been missed by professional genetic researchers with years of detailed genomic mapping data. :)

View Post


What are you asking. Are you asking kind as in species, or kind as in the same family??? Because Lions and Tigers are in the same family, but they cannot create fertile offspring... at least not to my knowledge.

You see, during the breeding process, we can formulate old and new breeds using the same information each time. Well, we can never truly know if the new breeds are new, because someone may have bred the same animal 100 years ago. Besides breeding is highly predictable.

#33 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 24 March 2009 - 10:16 AM

BTW, is is still just precious the way you think you can look at a single non-detailed drawing and deduce things that have somehow been missed by professional genetic researchers with years of detailed genomic mapping data.  :)

View Post

Yeah, and all that cross breeding between chimps and humans that I'm ignoring too right? I recall some experiments that were done on ape and human cross breeding done in totalitarian Europe and Asia to produce a killing machine. How did that go?

The evidence is in our favor even with the evolutionist gnat straining expeditions.

#34 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 24 March 2009 - 10:21 AM

What are you asking.  Are you asking kind as in species, or kind as in the same family???  Because Lions and Tigers are in the same family, but they cannot create fertile offspring... at least not to my knowledge.

View Post

Actually the concept of ring species doesn't work in the Lion/Tiger realm because they can hybridize viable offspring. Check it out:

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=25230

Hybridization is a very interesting thing.

This video actually is a little better. Jason777 offered it later in the same thread:



#35 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 24 March 2009 - 10:36 AM

You didn't answer the question.  I'm not asking for a definitive answer, just tell me what you think based on what you know.  Why do animals of the same kind have a different chromosome number?

BTW, is is still just precious the way you think you can look at a single non-detailed drawing and deduce things that have somehow been missed by professional genetic researchers with years of detailed genomic mapping data.  :)


What are you asking. Are you asking kind as in species, or kind as in the same family??? Because Lions and Tigers are in the same family, but they cannot create fertile offspring... at least not to my knowledge.

I'm asking kind as in kind, the definition that was provided to me here as "any two animals that are interfertile are the same kind".

So why do animals of the same kind have a different chromosome number?

You see, during the breeding process, we can formulate old and new breeds using the same information each time.  Well, we can never truly know if the new breeds are new, because someone may have bred the same animal 100 years ago.  Besides breeding is highly predictable.


How can just breeding produce a new chromosome number? Since all other horses have 64 chromosomes and Przewalski's is the oddball with 66, where did the "information" for the additional chromosomes in Przewalski's come from?

#36 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 24 March 2009 - 10:39 AM

[quote name='assist24' date='Mar 24 2009, 10:36 AM']
What are you asking. Are you asking kind as in species, or kind as in the same family??? Because Lions and Tigers are in the same family, but they cannot create fertile offspring... at least not to my knowledge.[/quote]
I'm asking kind as in kind, the definition that was provided to me here as "any two animals that are interfertile are the same kind".

So why do animals of the same kind have a different chromosome number?
How can just breeding produce a new chromosome number? Since all other horses have 64 chromosomes and Przewalski's is the oddball with 66, where did the "information" for the additional chromosomes in Przewalski's come from?

View Post

[/quote]

Are you sure the extra chromosome is new? Are you sure it didn't just take the right combination of male and female to create the prefered breed??? If this is a new breed, we should still be able to produce previous breeds from that breed, and vice versa.

#37 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 24 March 2009 - 10:53 AM

So why do animals of the same kind have a different chromosome number?

View Post

We already demonstrated it... Down Syndrome. Looking at your horses it looks like the mutation was real and also benign. They both have your standard horse features.

As for a more accurate but less easily verifiable definition of Kind once offered by CTD:

Those animals which could originally bring forth.

This does allow for the possible verification of diversity that would lead to what common biology calls ring species.

How do we verify that certain animals had a common ancestor? I would say that if they can bring forth today it's a clincher but there is room to say that kinds may have diversified far enough to have some breeds that are either difficult to interbreed (Lions and Tigers) or almost impossible to interbreed (Great Danes and Teacup Chiwawas) due to prezygotic barriers or other mutations.

We don't deny mutations. We deny the fairytale that mutations increase complexity and viability. I think Ligars are a great case. Those animals look like a throwback to me. Larger stronger and better looking then the parents.

I think the same case can be made for interracial marriages between black and white people. The offspring seem to have better skin tone and more striking features then the parents as if they represent a better bloodline from the past.

#38 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 24 March 2009 - 11:19 AM

We already demonstrated it... Down Syndrome. Looking at your horses it looks like the mutation was real and also benign. They both have your standard horse features.

Down's Syndrome is a specific genetic mutation that occurs in individuals. Here we're talking about entire species having a different chromosome number.

Unless you are saying that animal of the same kind can have a mutation somewhere back in their ancestral past that changes the chromosome count, and that mutation can spread through and become the norm in the population. Is that it? I don't want to be putting words in your mouth.

This does allow for the possible verification of diversity that would lead to what common biology calls ring species.


Ring species are a completely different phenomenon and have absolutely nothing to do with varying chromosome counts. Why are you even bringing them up? Is that your "don't understand what it means" buzzword du jour?

How do we verify that certain animals had a common ancestor? I would say that if they can bring forth today it's a clincher but there is room to say that kinds may have diversified far enough to have some breeds that are either difficult to interbreed (Lions and Tigers) or almost impossible to interbreed (Great Danes and Teacup Chiwawas) do to prezygotic or other mutations.


So if two animals can produce fertile offspring they have a common ancestor, but if they can't they still can have a common ancestor. Sorta kills your definition of "kind", doesn't it?

We don't deny mutations. We deny the fairytale that mutations increase complexity and viability. I think Ligars are a great case. Those animals look like a throwback to me. Larger stronger and better looking then the parents.

Then why do you have a problem with the genetic evidence for the human chromosome 2 fusion, since you accept similar things are seen in other mammals like horses?

I think the same case can be made for interracial marriages between black and white people. The offspring seem to have better skin tone and more striking features then the parents as if they represent a better bloodline from the past.

Whoa! So you're telling me you think interracial marriage can change a human's chromosome number??

So much for your understanding of genetics...

#39 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 24 March 2009 - 11:26 AM

Down's Syndrome is a specific genetic mutation that occurs in individuals.  Here we're talking about entire species having a different chromosome number.

Unless you are saying that animal of the same kind can have a mutation somewhere back in their ancestral past that changes the chromosome count, and that mutation can spread through and become the norm in the population.  Is that it?  I don't want to be putting words in your mouth.
Ring species are a completely different phenomenon and have absolutely nothing to do with varying chromosome counts.  Why are you even bringing them up?  Is that your "don't understand what it means" buzzword du jour?
So if two animals can produce fertile offspring they have a common ancestor, but if they can't they still can have a common ancestor.  Sorta kills your definition of "kind", doesn't it?
Then why do you have a problem with the genetic evidence for the human chromosome 2 fusion, since you accept similar things are seen in other mammals like horses?
Whoa!  So you're telling me you think interracial marriage can change a human's chromosome number??

So much for your understanding of genetics...

View Post



Kind = species... how could a different chromosome number kill a species??? Anyways what male and female make this type of horse??

So, it all boils down to is it a species, or is it a breed... take your pick. If it's a breed then you should be able to breed a previous breed by selective breeding. Understand?

Or, is it just in the family. You can't go wrong with just being a part of a family.

#40 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 24 March 2009 - 11:38 AM

Here we're talking about entire species having a different chromosome number.

View Post

I thought by normal definitions animals that can interbreed are the same species. What makes them a different species?

By your unintelligible definition of species, Down Syndrome people are differnent species too, right? It just isn't convenient for you that they have a more recent common ancestor.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users