|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: How will creationists react to the first human-chimp hybrid? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SpicyCurry Junior Member (Idle past 5540 days) Posts: 3 From: Ocala, Florida Joined: |
Generally hybridization of two species is prevented in nature by the characteristics of the gametes such as chromosomal count and genetic instruction sets.
Simply put, DNA is quite literally like a blueprint for a house. For example, it may very simply state, "put bathroom in north-west corner of first floor." The problem is, in incompatible gametes in the counterpart may say, "Put walk-in closet in north-west corner of first floor." As you can imagine a nice little fist fight breaks out in the cellular structure and the zygote self destructs. This is not to say that interspecies speciation does not occur. According to the following article, about 10% of animal speciation occurs this way: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...03/070314-hybrids.html
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Simply put, DNA is quite literally like a blueprint for a house. This is NOT the place to discuss this at length. But the blueprint analogy is one I took for granted for years until someone here, somewhere pointed out that it is utterly wrong. DNA is not literally like anything but it is most analogous to a recipe. A recipe doesn't say to put the bathroom anywhere and it doesn't have little pictures of what to build (though cookbooks put some in for some recipes to help sell the books). It simple says, add this, add that, stir, bake etc. The outcome is not obviously predictable from the recipe (and in my case not what actually comes out sometimes).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jigsaw207 Junior Member (Idle past 5539 days) Posts: 3 From: Amman, Jordan Joined: |
Thanks RAZD
I was reading about Neanderthals, it is amazing subject and it may be one of the most powerful evidence of evolution. but, I have a question about Neanderthals genome, latest researches says that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens share more than 99% of genes, some creationists claim that Neanderthals are humans with deformed skeleton or the adaptation makes them look like as they are. My question is: do you think the fact that we share more than 99% of our genes with Neanderthals supports creationists claim ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------I feel sorry sometimes that people easily take outstanding scientific achievements and add it to the credit of religion and say that God told them about that thousands of years .... unethical !!!!!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi jigsaw207
... some creationists claim that Neanderthals are humans with deformed skeleton or the adaptation makes them look like as they are. My question is: do you think the fact that we share more than 99% of our genes with Neanderthals supports creationists claim ? If we balance the evidence of 99% similarity against the mtDNA evidence that neanders and cro-magnons did not inter-breed in spite of mucho opportunity to do so, means that Homo neanderthalis and Homo sapiens are indeed different species, and thus the "deformity or adaptation" is the evidence of speciation. We can then also compare the relative similarity of neanders with chimps and with sapiens, and conclude that as the difference is similar, that chimps are also evidence of speciation in a slightly more distant past: the differences plot as a triangle rather than a line, as there are differences between neander and chimp where each shares different traits with homo and similarities they share that sapiens does not - showing that both neander and sapiens diverged in different ways from a common ancestor that was more similar to chimps. There is an old thread that compares the mtDNA of these three lineages. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5527 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
As for the neanthers' homology with sapiens, lets wait a little. They're currently at 63% of completely mapping their genome. But the real relative question will be centered on the gene expression in the brain. This is the quintessence of what differentiates sapiens and homonids. If gene expression in neanthers turns out within similar levels as sapiens, then there is a serious creationist case, in spite of other physiological aspects.
However, this would not validate the underlying premise of a purist christian creationism, which is to deny the relationship between man and primates. But now, here's one problem I have, since this thread is about humans and chimps. I'm trying to understand how is it that according to Hiller (2005), the "extra" centromere found in chromosome 2 is related to chromosome 13 in the chimp. Shouldn't that centromere be the one from either chimp chrom 2a or 2b, since they constitutionally form chromosome 2 in man? How did chrom 13 in chimps get in this equation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
But now, here's one problem I have, since this thread is about humans and chimps. I'm trying to understand how is it that according to Hiller (2005), the "extra" centromere found in chromosome 2 is related to chromosome 13 in the chimp. Shouldn't that centromere be the one from either chimp chrom 2a or 2b, since they constitutionally form chromosome 2 in man? How did chrom 13 in chimps get in this equation? I'm not sure I actually remember reading about this but I'm semi, kinda, sorta sure that this is just an historical accident. The two sets of chromosomes were labeled separately before there was any way to compare them in detail. At the time who cared which one you labeled 1 and a human and 1 in a chimp, no one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5527 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
I wonder though, if the centromere in chrom 2 is from chimp chrom 13, it should theoritically leave us with a third inactive centromere in chrom 2, but we only found 2 (one active, one not). Moreover, the centromere from chimp chrom 13 was not part of the fusion event between 2b and 2a (formally 2p and 2q)? Therefore we have a strange situation. What happened there? I can't seem to find any scientific paper to explain this phenomenon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3319 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
ausar_maat writes:
Huh? Third centromere? If two chromosomes, each having 1 centromere, fuse into 1, where did yo get the third centromere from?
I wonder though, if the centromere in chrom 2 is from chimp chrom 13, it should theoritically leave us with a third inactive centromere in chrom 2...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5527 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
That's my point exactly. Since chrom 2 in man is made of chroms 2a & 2b of apes , each having one centromere, then Hillier's claim about the second inactive centromere in chrom 2 (man) being related to chimp chrom 13, then he's introducing third centromere into the equation. But where is the explanation for it? I can't find a scientific paper that deals with this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4744 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
When the human chromosomes were first labeled they were labeled from longest to shortest with an exception for the X and Y versions of 23. So were the chromosomes for chimps. When chromosome 2 in people was discovered to be a fusion of two chimp chromosomes, 13 and 14, (I think somebody) the chimp chromosomes were pulled out of line and relabeled 2a and 2b.
Genesis 2 17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness. 18 And we all live happily ever after.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
I'm with the others. I don't understand what you confusion is about?????????
If chimp chromosome 13 (aka chimp 2a) (with 1 centromere) and chimp chromosome 14 (aka chimp 2b) (also with 1 centromere) join we'd expect a human chromosome with two centromeres. We would not expect a third. Explain why you think there would be another one please?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5527 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
Hillier made this proposition in 2004. By then, chimp chromosomes 2b and 2a had been known as 2q and 2p respectively for over 30 years! Moreover, chimp chrom 13 had been known AS 13. So there is no confusion here. Pull up studies from the past 20 years on the sunject with chimp chromosome diagrams if you need confirmation. So Hillier was talking about chrom 13 specifically, not chrom 2b called 13.
Now that we've clarified this, I assume you have not come accross any article dealing with this question. Or else you would have done so. But... if you do find one, please let me know. It would help in a research I am conducting on this subject. thank you
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Hillier made the propostion that there should be 3 centromeres?
Could you explain his reasoning? It doesn't make sense to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3319 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
I'm sorry, I'm a moron. I still don't understand what you are saying. Hillier proposed there should be 3 centromere sites on chromosome 2? Perhaps you could reference the original texts?
Added by edit. I think the confusion comes from the names. You need to keep in mind that there is no such thing as chromosome 1 or chromosome 2. The names are there to help us keep track of which is which. Before it was known that chimp chromosomes 13 and 14 were homologous to human chromosome 2, they were called chimp chromosomes 13 and 14. Later on, people pulled them out of line and named them 2p and 2q, or 2a and 2b, because chimp chromosome 13 is homologous to human chromosome arm 2p (2a if you will) while chimp chromosome 14 is homologous to human chromosome arm 2q (2b if you will). Before, 2p referred to human chromosome arm 2p. If it helps, human arm 2p = human arm 2a = chimp 13 = chimp 2a = chimp 2p. The confusion is in the name! Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4744 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
By then, chimp chromosomes 2b and 2a had been known as 2q and 2p respectively for over 30 years! Wrong, 2q and 2p the are greater and lesser parts of human chromosome 2. Chimp 2a was once chimp 12 (not chimp 14 as I mistakenly remembered). Chimp 2b was once named chimp 13. The centromere in chimp 12 (2a) now divides human 2 into parts p and q. The centromere in chimp 13 (2b) now resides in human 2p, the lesser part, and is dormant. Edited by lyx2no, : Miseed a sentence. Edited by lyx2no, : It's hard to keep the letters straight. Edited by lyx2no, : Worded that wrong. Edited by lyx2no, : consistency Edited by lyx2no, : Add url: chimp 13 Genesis 2 17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness. 18 And we all live happily ever after.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024