Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
54 online now:
kjsimons, nwr (2 members, 52 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,175 Year: 4,287/6,534 Month: 501/900 Week: 25/182 Day: 13/12 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How will creationists react to the first human-chimp hybrid?
SpicyCurry
Junior Member (Idle past 4747 days)
Posts: 3
From: Ocala, Florida
Joined: 02-12-2009


Message 121 of 138 (500125)
02-23-2009 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Peg
02-23-2009 4:59 AM


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/news/2007/03/070314-hybrids.html


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Peg, posted 02-23-2009 4:59 AM Peg has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by NosyNed, posted 02-23-2009 11:02 AM SpicyCurry has taken no action

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8968
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 122 of 138 (500132)
02-23-2009 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by SpicyCurry
02-23-2009 8:49 AM


An aside
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).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by SpicyCurry, posted 02-23-2009 8:49 AM SpicyCurry has taken no action

  
jigsaw207
Junior Member (Idle past 4746 days)
Posts: 3
From: Amman, Jordan
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 123 of 138 (500239)
02-24-2009 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by RAZD
02-21-2009 2:38 PM


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 !!!!!!!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2009 2:38 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2009 10:01 PM jigsaw207 has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 124 of 138 (500519)
02-26-2009 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by jigsaw207
02-24-2009 2:55 AM


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.


we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by jigsaw207, posted 02-24-2009 2:55 AM jigsaw207 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by ausar_maat, posted 03-07-2009 12:40 PM RAZD has seen this message

  
ausar_maat
Member (Idle past 4734 days)
Posts: 136
From: Toronto
Joined: 10-04-2005


Message 125 of 138 (501676)
03-07-2009 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by RAZD
02-26-2009 10:01 PM


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2009 10:01 PM RAZD has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by NosyNed, posted 03-07-2009 2:09 PM ausar_maat has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8968
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 126 of 138 (501702)
03-07-2009 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by ausar_maat
03-07-2009 12:40 PM


Labelling Chromosomes
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by ausar_maat, posted 03-07-2009 12:40 PM ausar_maat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by ausar_maat, posted 03-07-2009 3:11 PM NosyNed has replied

  
ausar_maat
Member (Idle past 4734 days)
Posts: 136
From: Toronto
Joined: 10-04-2005


Message 127 of 138 (501717)
03-07-2009 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by NosyNed
03-07-2009 2:09 PM


Re: Labelling Chromosomes
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by NosyNed, posted 03-07-2009 2:09 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Taz, posted 03-07-2009 3:24 PM ausar_maat has replied
 Message 131 by NosyNed, posted 03-07-2009 5:31 PM ausar_maat has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 2526 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 128 of 138 (501725)
03-07-2009 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by ausar_maat
03-07-2009 3:11 PM


Re: Labelling Chromosomes
ausar_maat writes:

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...


Huh? Third centromere? If two chromosomes, each having 1 centromere, fuse into 1, where did yo get the third centromere from?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by ausar_maat, posted 03-07-2009 3:11 PM ausar_maat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by ausar_maat, posted 03-07-2009 3:40 PM Taz has taken no action

  
ausar_maat
Member (Idle past 4734 days)
Posts: 136
From: Toronto
Joined: 10-04-2005


Message 129 of 138 (501735)
03-07-2009 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Taz
03-07-2009 3:24 PM


Re: Labelling Chromosomes
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Taz, posted 03-07-2009 3:24 PM Taz has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by lyx2no, posted 03-07-2009 4:25 PM ausar_maat has taken no action

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3951 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 130 of 138 (501766)
03-07-2009 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by ausar_maat
03-07-2009 3:40 PM


Labelling Chromosomes
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by ausar_maat, posted 03-07-2009 3:40 PM ausar_maat has taken no action

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8968
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 131 of 138 (501782)
03-07-2009 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by ausar_maat
03-07-2009 3:11 PM


Centromeres
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by ausar_maat, posted 03-07-2009 3:11 PM ausar_maat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by ausar_maat, posted 03-07-2009 7:12 PM NosyNed has replied

  
ausar_maat
Member (Idle past 4734 days)
Posts: 136
From: Toronto
Joined: 10-04-2005


Message 132 of 138 (501792)
03-07-2009 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by NosyNed
03-07-2009 5:31 PM


Re: Centromeres
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by NosyNed, posted 03-07-2009 5:31 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by NosyNed, posted 03-07-2009 7:19 PM ausar_maat has taken no action
 Message 134 by Taz, posted 03-07-2009 7:41 PM ausar_maat has taken no action
 Message 135 by lyx2no, posted 03-07-2009 11:54 PM ausar_maat has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8968
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 133 of 138 (501793)
03-07-2009 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by ausar_maat
03-07-2009 7:12 PM


Re: Centromeres
Hillier made the propostion that there should be 3 centromeres?

Could you explain his reasoning? It doesn't make sense to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by ausar_maat, posted 03-07-2009 7:12 PM ausar_maat has taken no action

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 2526 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 134 of 138 (501799)
03-07-2009 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by ausar_maat
03-07-2009 7:12 PM


Re: Centromeres
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by ausar_maat, posted 03-07-2009 7:12 PM ausar_maat has taken no action

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3951 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 135 of 138 (501822)
03-07-2009 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by ausar_maat
03-07-2009 7:12 PM


Re: Centromeres
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by ausar_maat, posted 03-07-2009 7:12 PM ausar_maat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by ausar_maat, posted 03-08-2009 7:38 AM lyx2no has taken no action
 Message 137 by Taz, posted 03-08-2009 12:52 PM lyx2no has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022