Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   chromosome counts
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 5 of 49 (97481)
04-03-2004 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by like god
04-03-2004 9:54 AM


like god writes:
I searched the site and did not find any information on Ron Wyatt. It seems odd that the fact that he claims to have found the blood of Jesus which literally landed on the mercy seat in a hidden cave under Golotha is missing from this discussion board.
We are happy to discuss almost any subject that people are willing bring up if they find it of interest. No-one has ever brought up Wyatt before. He is widely regarded as merely an embarrassment, even by creationists.
I've discussed this claim in other forums, however. Ron died a few years ago; but his many discoveries are recorded and discussed at "Bible Revelations". Ron was an amateur archaeologist who claimed to have made many dramatic discoveries, including Noah's Ark, the Ark of the Covenant, the cave of Machpelah where Abraham Isaac and Jacob and their wives lie buried, the true site of Sodom and Gomorrah, the real Mt Sinai, the route of the Exodus, remains of Pharoah's chariots drowned in the Red Sea, the cave where Jesus was buried, the exact site of the crucifixion, and even a sample of Jesus' own blood.
Incredible even for a believer, the impact of having "live" white blood cells with only 24 chromosomes seems would be an excellent candidate for discussion. I took the time to pray about this and apply the concept back to Genesis at Adam and Eve Prophecy. A genetic model of creation and sin seems to line up Biblically and appears to answer a number of questions such as why people lived hundreds of years.
You need to edit your html; your anchor had "onhref=", which should be "href=". I've fixed it in the quoted extract above.
The page you cite will not precipitate any revolution in genetics or theology. There are too many fundamental errors.
For example, the page refers to chromosomes as "haploid" or "diploid pairs"; and speaks of organisms (angels) who have 22 haploid sequences and one diploid sequence. In fact, the terms "haploid" and "diploid" refer to cells; not to the chromosomes individually. In humans, all cells are diploid (46 chromosomes, as 23 pairs) except the germ cells: sperm and eggs. These are haploid. (In fact, this is not quite true. Eggs are in a state of arrested meiosis; but that is getting a bit more technical than we really need here.)
The page also describes XY as distinct from YX. This is also nonsense; because there is no particular order of the chromosomes in a cell. The notion of reflecting the order as being a genetic distinction is wrong.
It is possible to have an extra chromosome, however. This is usually fatal and prevents a child from coming to term. There are some cases which can be survived. Down's syndrome, Klinefelter's syndrome, Patau syndrom, and Edward syndrome are all due to an extra chromosome. The last two are particularly serious, and usually result in miscarriage, or death in the first year.
A foetus can also lose a chromosome; but this is invariably fatal. The only exception is Turner syndrome, which results when a child has only one X chromosome, for 45 chromosomes in all. About 99% of such children do not come to term; a small number may survive, particularly if they are "mosaics" with some cells having the full complement. Turner syndrome results in an infertile female.
For more detail, see chromosomal Mosaicism at University of British Columbia.
The page you have cited speaks of living humans that are essentially haploid, but with one extra sex chromosome (either X or Y) to match another X. That is not possible. Humans need a full diploid complement to survive. In very rare cases a human individual might be missing one of the 46 chromosomes; and even then to survive they are most likely a mosaic, with some but not all the cells having this genetic damage. Such cases are infertile.
The notion that Adam and Eve were haploid is not a biblical or Christian notion, nor is it biologically possible. The writer of that page is indulging in imaginative speculation, but with no scientific basis it ends up a bit like a bad science fiction novel. Theology it is nonsense.
My actual question for discussion is centered on whether it is possible that salvation can have a physiological measureable impact on the body?
Not a genetic change, no. This is not possible. Genetic karyotype is fixed from birth.
If it is true that Jesus and Adam had 24 chromosomes and that Adam lost his Y to Eve, and if the course of sin led to sex with a fallen angel to produce 46 chromosomed individuals, is it possible that the "work" of salvation produces a chromosome change in individuals? Strange as it sounds, the only instince of chromosome counting in humans appears to occur in pregnancy testing. Biblically we are born to sin and the sin of our mother, Eve. But if Jesus died for all past, present, and future sins, is it possible that the blood of believers is different than the blood of non-believers?? I know that there is a lot of DNA testing done, but how many chromosome counts have actually been done on humans?
It is certainly not true that Adam, or Jesus, had 24 chromosomes; it is biologically nonsense. It is not possible to give a change to chromosome number of a living organism. Differences in chromosome number occur in individual cells as a result of errors in cell division.
It is not true that chromosomes are only counted in pregnancy. A chromosome count is not all that difficult, and it can be used to diagnose some of the conditions I mention above.
The rain falls on the just and the unjust; and the blood that flows in our veins is the same also. The changes that can take place for an individual when they become a Christian, or when they lose their faith, are not changes that show up in blood and certainly not in genetic karyotype.
Of course none of the information presented here negates any of God's soverign plan, but it would be kinda cool to see if the elect are genetically different. Of course any evidence could also be spun to suggest that anyone with 24 chromosomes would have to be a Nephillum.
Are there any MDs out there that can provide me with answers regarding the nature of chromosome counting?
Please be gentle as this is my first post.
Welcome aboard. I'm not an MD; but the information given is pretty straightforward. I hope it may be of some use....
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by like god, posted 04-03-2004 9:54 AM like god has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Dr Jack, posted 04-08-2004 9:57 AM Sylas has replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 8 of 49 (97495)
04-03-2004 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by like god
04-03-2004 12:37 PM


like god writes:
I recognize that there are genetic diseases resulting in abnormalities or death, but my understanding is that the first 22 pairs of information are in fact pairs. If the information is redundant than a being could live without it? How often are chromosome counts done on "normal" individiuals ie ones that have not gone to the doctor with a defect or ailment? Has anyone ever looked??
The information is not redundant; all chromosomes contribute to the proper workings of a diploid cell. A human cannot live with cells that only have 23 chromsomes; they need all 46. They can manage with an exrta chromosome; but only in exceptional cases.
Loss of a chromosome is very serious genetic damage, and except in very unusual cases indeed an embryo with a missing chromosome will not even come to term. It is like wings on an aircraft. They may be pretty much identical, but you still need both of them to fly.
The only chromosome which can be lost and a child still survive is the smallest chromosome of them all... the Y chromosome. This usually results in death as well; but survival may be possible, usually if the child is a mosaic, with some cells still having the full 46 and others having 45. This can result from an error in a cell division in the very early states of embryonic development.
Such damage remains severe, and the child will be infertile.
There are isolated reports of a child surviving with only one copy of chromosome 21; a couple of instances only.
Nobody has gone through to check the chromosome of every individual; but yes, people have looked at chromosomes of many ordinary healthy adults. There are many research projects which involve examining chromosomes. The objective is not just to count chromosomes; but to make some more detailed study. A haploid human would stick out like a beacon.
You do need both copies of all your chromosomes, even more definitely than you need both arms or both legs. We do look at and study chromosomes. There has been a lot of study into operation of cells and chromosomes, and yes, we can say without any shadow of doubt that a human being could not possibly live with only one copy of each chromosome.
Sorry; but your idea is wrong.
Best wishes -- Sylas
[This message has been edited by Sylas, 04-04-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by like god, posted 04-03-2004 12:37 PM like god has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Buzsaw, posted 04-08-2004 10:57 PM Sylas has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 14 of 49 (97725)
04-04-2004 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by like god
04-04-2004 5:59 PM


like god writes:
If I understand the thread thus far, no one has suggested that chromosome counts are ever done on "normal" people. I know I have never had my chromosomes counted.
Both Lam and I have already indicated that there have been plenty of chromosome counts done on normal people.
If you want one done, it would be easy. The test is called a "karyotype test". It is quite standard, but not normally applied unless there is some rational reason to think it would actually tell you something useful.
Still, even if you only have completely irrational reasons, you can get the test done. I don't know the cost; but it would not be prohibitive if you were serious about this. Perhaps a couple of hundred dollars. The test is not merely a count of chromosomes; it identifies each one and also looks for gross size errors in any of them.
Just counting the number of chromsomes is comparatively easy. A decent lab could probably do it; you can count chromosomes directly with sufficiently powerful microscope and some preparation of the sample. Someone doing a university course on genetics would most likely have looked at chromosomes under a microscope, and I am sure many courses would have a practical laboratory class in which students examine their own karyotype for themselves.
If you find anyone with a major chromosomal abnormality, even just one extra chromosome or one less chromosome, and yet who shows no physical pathology, you'll hit medical headlines. Don't hold your breath; chromosomes have been counted in normal people plenty of times. You don't imagine that the number 46 is used just on the basis of observing one or two people, do you?
This is because, despite what you may have imagined, chromosomes are not redundant. You've got 46 of them; and they are all used in your cells.
Cheers -- Sylas
(Added comments on university labs)
Also added in edit... OK. I have found a nice example. In the Air Academy High School, there is an advanced biology lab in which students karyotype their own chromosomes.
[This message has been edited by Sylas, 04-04-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by like god, posted 04-04-2004 5:59 PM like god has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 18 of 49 (97754)
04-04-2004 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by like god
04-04-2004 10:14 PM


like god writes:
Now as for fantasies about Adam, I don't believe there is anything fundamentally different about getting from Adam's 24 chromosomes to our 46 then there are getting from apes to man.
The problem is that what you "believe" about these things seems to come out of thin air.
It is not from the bible; nothing in the bible mentions chromosomes. It is not from science; you have pretty much acknowledged that you don't really know anything about chromosomes from a scientific perspective.
The proposal for Adam having 24 chromosomes involves a karyotype that is haploid for most chromosomes, but diploid for the sex chromosomes only. That is biological nonsense, and getting from such a karyotype to a human is radically different from getting from apes to humans.
Apes are genetically very similar indeed to humans. They have a different kayotype; 48 rather than 46 chromosomes; but this is not due to loss or gain of chromosomes, but a "fusion". Comparison of human and chimpanzee chromosomes shows unambiguously which two chimpanzee chromosomes can be combined to make a match for one of the human chromosomes.
Such a chromosomal anomaly can arise in humans today. (See this paper on Robertsonian translocations.) It is more common and less damaging than adding or removing a whole chromosome, because all the genetic information is still present in the appropriate amounts. However, individuals with fused chromosomes are usually infertile, since there is a much higher incidence of major chromosomal abberations in their children.
The genetic difference between apes and humans is comparatively slight.
What you are proposing is far more drastic; no vertebrates have the kind of karyotype you imagine.
And if there are Nephillum present today, they most assuredly would be avoiding chromosome tests. And by the method suggested herein the natural course of mating would produce 46 chromosomed individuals.
If there were X-men mutants present today with retractable stainless steel claws, they would most assuredly be avoiding manicures.
Sorry; but this is just failing to deal with the information you have requested and been given on your model. The karyotypes, and the mating methods of your model are biological nonsense.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by like god, posted 04-04-2004 10:14 PM like god has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 20 of 49 (97776)
04-05-2004 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by like god
04-04-2004 11:37 PM


like god writes:
gen 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days-and also afterward-when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them.
I am believing you are not asking for a discussion on the birds and the bees. lol. All the Bible study guides I have seen refer to the Nephillum as fallen angels. I have found no reference to women as gender and the scripture above suggest that Nephillum were male. Therefore, like a horse and a donkey, the offspring of 46 chromosome humans with 24 chromosome Nephillum would produce 46 chromosome beings. The Nephillum had to have either special properties to survive the flood or that there are additional falls post flood. And Nephillum would not necessarily have the same life span limited to 120 years.
If you look again at my post to which you are responding, you will find that you have ignored the point I am making.
What I said about the bible is that "nothing in the bible mentions chromosomes".
Sure; the bible mentions Nephilim; that is not in any dispute. The point you are avoiding is that the bible does not mention chromosomes.
What you are doing is making up a biologically nonsensical description from nothing but your own imagination, and adding that to what we find in the bible.
All the stuff about chromosomes or the karyotype of Nephilim is something you have invented out of thin air, and it makes no biological sense. This is what you were asking about, isn't it? You were asking if you biological ideas make sense? They don't. No offense intended, but all the stuff about chromosomes is gibberish.
Horse and donkey are both diploid. The number of chromosomes are different; but not because one has an incomplete complement. The difference is in the arrangement of genes into chromosomes. Donkeys have 62 chromosomes, and horses have 64. One of the donkey chromosomes corresponds to a fusion of two of the horse chromosomes, so they can still match up and make viable offspring. (Added in edit: sorry; the differences are a bit more complex and subtle than this; but that does not alter the basic point that this has nothing whatsoever to do with mating haploid and diploid organisms; let alone the biologically bizarre notion of an organism that is haploid in some chromosomes and diploid in others.)
This is nothing like your proposal, which involves a biologically nonsensical haploid individual with one extra sex chromosome mating with a normal diploid individual. You just don't know enough biology to understand how to make biologically meaningful hypotheses yet.
Cheers -- Sylas
[This message has been edited by Sylas, 04-05-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by like god, posted 04-04-2004 11:37 PM like god has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 22 of 49 (97800)
04-05-2004 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by like god
04-05-2004 1:17 AM


Ron Wyatt links
like god writes:
I am simply trying to apply the premise of Wyatt's 24 Chromosome "living" blood back to Genesis.
Ah! Sorry... I had forgetten about Wyatt. I was wrong to say that you invented the stuff about chromosomes out of thin air; my apologies.
The chromosome stuff is based on Wyatt's claim to have found a sample of Christ's blood, and determined that the cells contain 24 chromosomes.
I can't take Wyatt at all seriously. He is (was) just too silly for words.
The people who make the most effort to debunk his many ridiulous claims are other creationists. See, for example Lambert Dolphin's Ron Wyatt page; and the Tentmaker page; and the Answers in Genesis page. The whole thing seems to be some kind of bizarre hoax; and the most amazing aspect of it is that anyone took it seriously to start with. That anyone still takes it seriously just leaves me utterly amazed.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by like god, posted 04-05-2004 1:17 AM like god has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 24 of 49 (97843)
04-05-2004 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by like god
04-05-2004 9:56 AM


like god writes:
At least in theory is it possible that Adam and Jesus had 24 chromosomes? Or does the theory go away based on a hoax?
Shug. If it is all based on imagination, then you are welcome to imagine what you like. I'd not elevate this to the status of "theory"; it does not answer any of the questions you pose.
The notion of the haploid human, but with the sex chromosomes in pairs, is not possible in biological theory. It is only possible if you throw away all biological theory. For loose notions of "possible" (such as: anything is possible) and theory (such as: arbitrary speculations), it is possible in theory; in this sense it is also a theoretical possibility that Adam and Jesus had 69 chromosomes -- triploidy. You can imagine that this explains long life and salvation and whatever else as easily as monoploidy.
Or let's forget karyotypes; perhaps Adam and Jesus had an extra lung. Perhaps all the pre-flood humans had three lungs, and that explains long life. Recently there were two brothers in Bosnia who had four kidneys each. Perhaps they were Nephalim? Why pick on chromosomes? (See: Extra kidneys give hard-drinking brothers the edge. Apparently the major consequence was a phenomal capacity for strong drink. The story is true, and other such cases are known.)
The bible does not give any detail on genetics; so why bother thinking there is any reason to say Adam and Eve are biological twins? The story of the garden could hardly be more obviously symbolic if lit up in bright neon signs saying "caution; symbolic language ahead". It has a tree of knowledge, and a tree of life, and a talking snake, and God who walks in a garden, and much else that must have the writer turning in his grave that people have taken it as history. The making of Eve from a rib is rich in symbolism also.
But what the hey; let's play along, and see what questions it "answers".
If Eve was "taken" from Adam, then where did her other X come from?
If Adam and Eve were biological twins, how do we account for genetic variety?
How many chromosomes did Jesus have if His birth was truly from a virgin?
How were Biblical people able to live for hundreds of years?
Was there a physiological consequence for the sin in the garden?
There is no reason to say Eve is a biological twin of Adam. The bible describes God as making Eve from a rib; but that's all. Since God formed her with a body and limbs and breasts and all the rest starting from a rib, what is the problem with Him forming X chromosomes?
If you are willing to imagine that in the garden humans could survive with what would be fatal chromosomal anomalies in modern times, then why does Eve need another X anyway? In modern times a Turner's syndrome human (one X) is a woman. Maybe God just threw away the Y chromosome. If Eve really needed two X chromosomes; then why not recognize the need for two of every other chromosome also? After all, biological evidence indicates that she needs the others much more than she needed the second X.
Your model does not explain genetic variety. It makes it harder to explain genetic variety, because all Adam and Eve's children would effectively be identical twins. That is one hell of a lot LESS variety.
Your model does not do anything to help explain Jesus' genes. The problem here is where the Y chromosome came from. If you just invoke a miracle, then that is the "explanation"; not any nonsense about haploid karyotypes. There are animals that have virgin births; but the resulting descendents are just genetic copies of the mother... and hence female, of course. Genetically the answer is simple. Jesus can't have been a virgin birth; if a virgin birth happened in humans the only possible result scientifically speaking is a diploid copy (clone) of the mother. Not haploid. So either there was a father, or a miracle. Stuff about haploidy does not serve as an explanation.
Your model does nothing to explain long life. The chromosomal aberations just make long life harder to explain, not easier. In fact, it makes it hard to explain life at all! If you are willing to invoke a miraculous ability to live as haploids; then the explanation is the invocation of miracles; not the result of haploid karyotype.
The last question, of physiological consequences of sin, is bizarre. Why on earth would you expect such a thing? We can be confident that salvation does not suddenly remove half your chromosomes. Incredibly, that seemed to be your original proposal. Now you appear to recognize that you do keep all your chromosomes when you get saved. What will you try next? Perhaps salvation clears up acne... is that a meaningful theological question?
Cheers -- Sylas
PS. It never gets easier... if you ask questions about a model in a forum inhabited by science geeks, then problems will be pointed out unmercifully. If they can't be resolved, the usual scientific approach is to drop the model and find one that fits the evidence. If you hang on to a model riddled with flaws, people will keep pointing them out. That's how we get effective scientific models.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by like god, posted 04-05-2004 9:56 AM like god has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 32 of 49 (98668)
04-08-2004 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Dr Jack
04-08-2004 9:57 AM


Mr Jack writes:
Hi Sylas,
I think you're mistaken on one small point:
Sylas writes:
The page you have cited speaks of living humans that are essentially haploid, but with one extra sex chromosome (either X or Y) to match another X. That is not possible. Humans need a full diploid complement to survive
There are people who have XXY chromosones, i.e. an aditional X chromosone - ‘— has details. This sounds like what they are talking about. According to the page these people suffer from reduced sperm production but can, in rare cases, reproduce. There are also people with XYY chromosones, that are disproportionaly represented in prison populations.
This is called Klinefelter syndrome, and I mention it by that name in the post you are quoting. Variants of the Klinefelter syndrome include the 47 XXY you describe (the most common form), and also 48 XXXY, 48 XXYY, 49 XXXXY and 49 XXXYY. (See this article for some discussion.)
This syndrome is one of the most common of the major chromosomal abnormalities involving extra chromosomes. Many men with the syndrome will never find out. Early studies linked the syndrome to aggression and violence, and studies do indicate an increased incidence in prison populations. It is an error, however, to regard Klinefelter as implying a genetic predisposition to criminal behaviour. As with many such syndromes, it can have a range of deleterious effects. Anti-social behaviour can result from just not fitting in. With detection and recognition, people with the syndrome usually manage very well. Awareness, and some extra help given for affected children if they need it, is of great help to letting carriers live normal lives.
I really recommend Klinefelter Syndrome Support Group Home Page; most especially the personal story of Stephan, who started the group. He is XXY himself, and his story gives a real insight into the matter.
But I digress....
I'm not mistaken in the quoted comment. In the thread; I was responding to Message 1 by "like god", and he had cited Adam and Eve Prophecy. That page is not describing any actual syndromes in existence; and it is most definitely not describing Klinefelter syndrome. It is pseudoscientific gibberish proposing a biologically impossible karyotype, which is just as I described; haploid, except with sex chromosomes in pairs. The author thinks Adam had 24 chromosomes.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Dr Jack, posted 04-08-2004 9:57 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Dr Jack, posted 04-08-2004 11:29 AM Sylas has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 35 of 49 (98681)
04-08-2004 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by like god
04-08-2004 11:38 AM


like god writes:
Ok. We don't have any genetic evidence of the first generations unless we are going to count ape man. I will concede that the evolution of the species from Adam's generation has created a dependency on 46 NOW.
We don't have any genetic evidence of "ape men" either. We do have some DNA from Homo neanderthalis; but they are not sensibly described as "ape man", unless we are also "ape men". The Neandertals are no closer to the apes than we are.
There is nothing in the bible, or in theology, or in philosophy, or in science, which gives the slightest reason for thinking of 23 or 24 chromosomes for Adam and Eve. The whole thing is bizarre pseudoscientific nonsense invented out of thin air.
With 46 chromosome babies from Adam and Eve as 23 haploid parents, we are still faced with the conclusion that all of Adam's line had to be boys until satan's blood was combined to form women. If Eve was 23 with X and Adam was 23 with Y, and all the gametes were formed from a copy of their genetic code at the time Eve was taken from Adam, then all the offspring would have had XY and resulted in boys.
And the bible says explicitly that Adam had daughters. (Genesis 5:4)
After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.
Game set and match. The nonsense about chromosomes is in total conflict with all scientific evidence; but that is not all.
It is also in conflict with the biblical record.
The biblical view of being made in God's likeness is not about genetics. God is not some alien creature with a genome that was copied to make humans... though that kind of idea is sometimes used by various New Age wackos who do think God was an alien visitor. The haploid human stuff is just another variant of the New Age spirituality from UFOs; and has nothing whatsoever to do with biblical Christianity.
We are still left with explaining how Seth and Abel were "the image" of Adam if this is supposed to be taken literally as genetic code.
It is perfectly obvious that it has nothing to do with genetic code. That would make God into a physical biological organism with chromosomes of his own.
The biblical notion of likeness is not limited to Adam; it is a characteristic of humanity. See, for example, James 3:9
With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness.
Cheers -- Sylas
[This message has been edited by Sylas, 04-08-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by like god, posted 04-08-2004 11:38 AM like god has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by like god, posted 04-08-2004 2:35 PM Sylas has not replied
 Message 37 by SRO2, posted 04-08-2004 2:53 PM Sylas has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 40 of 49 (98777)
04-08-2004 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by like god
04-08-2004 7:25 PM


like god writes:
Ok. Wyatt may be a fake. But the idea of 24 chromosomes seems to line up Biblically although Sylas doesn't see the math.
This was amusing for a while. I was willing to assume for the sake of argument that the original post from "like god" was genuine; but with this latest post my participation in the charade is done.
You're being an idiot, "like god". You haven't given any maths. Your page doesn't use any maths. You have made no "line up" biblically. There is nothing in the bible suggestive of chromosomes as the answer; and the proposal has the added defect of being biological gibberish. Maths don't come into it. Your main source is unreliable; and most likely a deliberate fraud and huxster.
What is psychologically amusing -- and common -- is the phenomenon of hanging on to a pet idea no matter that every so-called line of evidence argument has been been shredded. It is pretty clear that nothing would possibly shake your faith in this fairy tale; so I'll leave you to it.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by like god, posted 04-08-2004 7:25 PM like god has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 45 of 49 (99150)
04-10-2004 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Buzsaw
04-09-2004 1:05 AM


buzsaw writes:
I guess you all believe in miracles also. Ape chromozomes fuse together un-naturally so as to produce a human offspring, allegedly? So mom and pop ape have a chromozone accident/miracle and suddenly raise the first human? Otherwise don't you have just as big a problem to explain if the process took a long period of change over time? I guess what I'm asking is how can you have anything produced from partially fused chromozomes while the transition is allegedly going on?
I don't think the fused chromosome has all that much to do with the difference between humans and other apes. The significant genetic difference, as far as sciece can tell, is in the genes themselves, rather than in the arrangement as chromosomes.
Robertson fusion and translocation is a natural process; not a special miracle. It amazes me that creationists are so slow to appreciate the "miraculous" aspects of the natural world, which we can see and study. You can shuffle off Robertsonian fusion into a distinct category of "miracle"; but don't project that onto others. I don't particularly care how you divide up phenomena into miraculous and non-miraculous. Personally, I think perfectly normal birth and reproduction is as miraculous as a thing can be. Various aspects of this process, including the processes by which cells manage the various problems of DNA not quite lining up as expected and yet still resulting in a viable living human, is a wonderful thing.
It is possible that you yourself have this kind of abnormality. They occur perhaps once in a thousand births. If the cells manage to get all the genes copied okay, even if arranged into one less chromosome, then it is quite likely that there is no immediate effect for you yourself.
The most likely immediate consequence is not on you directly; since you still have all the same genes. The difficulty is with your children, as the reproductive chemistry struggles to match up chromosomes with your partner. If you happen to have 45 chromosomes due to a Robertson fusion, your children are very likely to have more serious consequences, like trisomny or monosomny; and this is often fatal for a developing embryo.
For some simple background on fusions of this kind observed in humans right now, see translocations at the Genetics and Public Policy Center.
For some reason not fully understood, mice seem particularly susceptible to this kind of chromosomal combination; and so there has been a lot of study on the matter in that context. Basically, chromosomal fusion can contribute to speciation. If a fusion becomes fixed within a population then that population may become viable but with no gene flow to populations with the original parent species. A dramatic instance of this style of speciation is houce mice on the island of Maderia, where there are now six distinct species with their own characteristic karyotype. One of these populations is apparently in a midstage of transition, with two karyotypes present in the breeding population.
The implication is that around a time when a fused chromosome became established in a human population, you would not notice any great change in external form.
The answer to your question thus appears to be that we know, because we can observe it directly, that changes in karyotype are possible. The change is likely to be comparatively rapid on geological scales, and unlikely to represent a major change in form. It is likely to contribute to speciation, however, by making interbreeding with a subpopulation carrying fused chromosomes significantly less viable.
The major erroneous assumptions in your question are the implication that all it takes to make a human is to fuse two ape chromosomes, and the implication that there is something unnatural or inexplicable about karyotype changes in populations.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Buzsaw, posted 04-09-2004 1:05 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024