What's new

Oldest primate fossil yet found. It is a tiny Chinese Archicebus fossil

Based on what my dear sir?

That's a HUGE accusation against a country of 200 million people.

Are we not teaching the subject?

Just curious.

Google yourself the no. of Pakistani Anthropologists you will find only two person i.e
Adam Nayyar (died on July
29, 2008 Islamabad) and Akbar S. Ahmed (living in American) thats all you have out of 200 million people .

Same goes for Nuclear physicists Google how many Pakistani are Nuclear physicists only 19 to20 and yes the so called Baba-e-Bum is Metallurgist not Nuclear physicists .
 
.
Google yourself the no. of Pakistani Anthropologists you will find only two person i.e
Adam Nayyar (died on July
29, 2008 Islamabad) and Akbar S. Ahmed (living in American) thats all you have out of 200 million people .

Same goes for Nuclear physicists Google how many Pakistani are Nuclear physicists only 19 to20 and yes the so called Baba-e-Bum is Metallurgist not Nuclear physicists .

Point well taken on 2 anthropologists.

had you stayed at that point. I'd consider your quest as pure intellectual one. And I'd really really appreciate it. and have some nice conversation over a virtual cup of chai.


However you just ruined your wonderful post by talking about the namak harram Qadeer Khan.

This shows that perhaps your pursuit here is not an intellectual one.

Rather the usual Pak-India style $hit-shoveling. I hope I am wrong. But your post kind of smells of the same old $hit.

please correct me.


Thank you
 
.
I have a religion and believe and it doesnt get in the way of my work...It compliments my work...


Religion can never compliment anything.It deeply affects the psyche of every individual it attaches too and brings the worst out of those people.Religion can never complement rationalism or freethinking,because its ideology itself is so irrational.Any one who believes that are making a wishful thinking.


Nope, not proven...You cant prove such a thing unless you have seen the process happening or it can be replicated or initiated in the lab....Mind you such things cant....

But we can observe the fusion in labs.We even know how it happened.That is good enough evidence.
The Mystery of the Missing Chromosome (With A Special Guest Appearance from Facebook Creationists) : The Loom


That is insulting science!

Science doesn't take an insult neither it screams blasphemy.That's the job of religion.What you meant here is you are insulted by that notion.


the only point that is true is that we share a large chunk of DNA....95% is not small....HOWEVER, the question still stays, we have been stable for 50k years, so when do we start evolving?!

We never stopped evolving.If we were we would still be using stone tools to hunt animals.So your question idiotic.

sorry that was to sandy...I just assumed you guys are the same....

Well I am not sandy keep that in mind:lol:



I never denied evolution....ALL I DENY is species jumping I made it clear at least twice in this thread maybe not directly to you but 1 of the other posters PROBABLY...I do not remember

You said evolution is an untestable Pseudoscience on this very post.So you do deny evolution.Evolution has stood every scrutiny

shows how little you know about genes and gene discovery it starts with stats.....The fundamentals of GENES and how to find, calculate and do similarities between genomes ALL RELY on statistical programs and the power of the stats!

JUST SHOWS that NO evidence has been produced or is available as you keep saying so!

I know what Statistical genetics and what its importance is.Its,Mostly used in Population genetics.There is nothing wrong in a biologist to scrutinize his tools.It happens all the time.But that no excuse to this proves evolution and its studies wrong.That's just oxymoronic.


Sigh...I am sorry I do not have the time to browse the whole thread to show you and then repeat myself...

Suit yourself.


Shows how little you know Arabidopsis is the basic model used to study plants in genetics...if you do not know Arabidopsis scientists dont even give you a 2nd look...it shows everything!

I know about Arabidopsis thaliana??It has a very small genome and was the first plant to have its genome sequenced.And is a one of the popular too to understand the evolution of plants.But what I don't understand is what are trying to convey here by quoting that.


neither do you by quoting 2005- 2006 discoveries, most of which dont hold much weight no more...

All discoveries hold weight.That's why they are called discoveries.

I think you described evolution there!

No I didn't.Now you sound like a pseudoscientist.

if evolution was valid, there wouldnt be soo much race in refuting it!

Still they couldn't debunk it.For nearly 150 years.That speaks a lot.

half the time facts are wrong? Seriously? so we should stick to theories? wow...cant produce proof degrade facts to your level :blink: bravo!

Yes,Shows how weak you are with fundamentals.In scientific world world Facts are observations whereas theories are the explanations to those observations.It can pertain to any objective and real phenomenon may it be the falling of the ball after being thrown upwards or other simple observable occurrences.So in short its more important to teach theories than just facts.By rigorous scrutiny many facts could be proven wrong.Heliocentricity for eg used to be such a fact.
 
.
Religion can never compliment anything.It deeply affects the psyche of every individual it attaches too and brings the worst out of those people.Religion can never complement rationalism or freethinking,because its ideology itself is so irrational.Any one who believes that are making a wishful thinking.

However, it so happens that Albert Einstein said Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind....Surprisingly he is more of a scientist then you...

2ndly, people who say what you said, didnt read up Islam nor understood it...

But we can observe the fusion in labs.We even know how it happened.That is good enough evidence.
The Mystery of the Missing Chromosome (With A Special Guest Appearance from Facebook Creationists) : The Loom
OK ...http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v55/n9/full/jhg201080a.html that was an interesting paper....But like it said, despite the
Chromosomal translocations and inversions

However, kindly stop reading magazines like the 1 you quoted, it is slightly insulting how the author twisted the words of the very article it sited:

. Remarkably, however, fused chromosomes are real, and there are surprising number of normal, healthy people carrying them.
While the article supporting this claim ONLY said
Chromosomal translocations and inversions are present in ~0.6–1% of individuals.
http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v55/n9/full/jhg201080a.html
However, I am surprised at how the article missed this bit of the fact:

In genetics, a chromosome translocation is a chromosome abnormality caused by rearrangement of parts between nonhomologous chromosomes. A gene fusion may be created when the translocation joins two otherwise separated genes, the occurrence of which is common in cancer.

Now if you do a little bit of reading which the nature article which was quoted by your magazine has Robertsonian translocation (ROB)
Robertsonian translocation (ROB) is a common form of chromosomal rearrangement that in humans occurs in the five acrocentric chromosome pairs, namely 13, 14, 15, 21, and 22. Other translocations occur but do not lead to a viable fetus.
This just means if any other chromosomes fuse, there will be no fetus, hence no ape born...so it is basically not proof...If you can not Naturally fuse chromosome 2 and get an ape then it is not proof....How can an act that can not happen now happened millions of years ago?! My guess is if we split the chromosomes in apes we will not get a human baby...


Science doesn't take an insult neither it screams blasphemy.That's the job of religion.What you meant here is you are insulted by that notion.
I didnt say blasphemy.....

What I MEANT was that Science fits in some laws...when you speak ill of the laws or try to twist them..it is insulting! For instance if someone is telling you that the apple fell downwards even after I threw it up due to the attraction force of the earth known as gravity, if you go like, lets see, maybe it went down because there was no wind to push it up wards...or something more absurd, it is an insult to science! I know a bad analogy...


We never stopped evolving.If we were we would still be using stone tools to hunt animals.So your question idiotic.
Nope your thinking is minimal....When I asked when will we start evolving, I meant it in YOUR TERMS...species jumping...

From the very beginning I have made it clear I DO believe in micro evolution I as a geneticist rely on it...However I do not believe in species jumping because there are certain laws to science that stop one from accepting it! Like certain types of mutations do not get passed to offsprings, others get "fixed" by the DNA repair mechanisms, others do not yield a viable offspring, while some cause the embryo to die...others do not allow fertilization....and many other reasons....
Kindly read my comments in this whole thread before commenting...


You said evolution is an untestable Pseudoscience on this very post.So you do deny evolution.Evolution has stood every scrutiny
In the very beginning of this the thread it was always about human and apes....

Humans are primates.

Humans are apes,precisely African apes.Humans along with orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos are all descended from a common ancestor.And what kind of proof you want???

Oh , no Apes , one fine day DJ Adam came , did his thing and here we are :)

@Talon then y does the world believe in the ape theory??:what:

and right from the start I had clarified which part I am denying

Oh that evolution...Well, I do believe in microevolution but not jumping species ....
see right from the start I waited to know WHICH PART OF EVOLUTION you people believe as evolution...there is a small part which I believed and CLARIFIED from the start...

thats the thing genius, no one has been able to prove it


Well, that THE KIND of EVOLUTION...jumping of species level is not possible at Human level...or even evidence that such things can happen...or occurrence of such a thing....and if it were the case, why havent the rest of the apes evolved to something else?

BTW, if any of you have studied genetics at Masters level or done a BSc in genetics then please explain to these lot, I am tired of trying to help them understand genetics when they have no basics!


I know what Statistical genetics and what its importance is.Its,Mostly used in Population genetics.There is nothing wrong in a biologist to scrutinize his tools.It happens all the time.But that no excuse to this proves evolution and its studies wrong.That's just oxymoronic.
Staitistics are NOT only used in Population genetics, It is used in EVERY FIELD of molecular biology, even gene prediction, prediction of cancer, chances of so and so gene are responsible for something....gene characterization, gene functions, and many other stuff! When one criticizes statistical tools it shows that there are errors, a small error can lead to a huge difference esp if ALL the proof pooled had the same error....and so on...Hence the everyday cry of Biologist for better prediction tools..

I know about Arabidopsis thaliana??It has a very small genome and was the first plant to have its genome sequenced.And is a one of the popular too to understand the evolution of plants.But what I don't understand is what are trying to convey here by quoting that.
I am saying we use Arabidopsis as a basic to compare genes and functions...but MOST of the plants even having the same gene do not have the same function, so even if the genome has sections which are similar, they do not contain the same function ....and this is a complex field...


All discoveries hold weight.That's why they are called discoveries.
some are just false positive


No I didn't.Now you sound like a pseudoscientist.
whatever....
you are used to hurling personal attacks...

Still they couldn't debunk it.For nearly 150 years.That speaks a lot.
NEITHER could they prove it!

Yes,Shows how weak you are with fundamentals.In scientific world world Facts are observations whereas theories are the explanations to those observations.It can pertain to any objective and real phenomenon may it be the falling of the ball after being thrown upwards or other simple observable occurrences.So in short its more important to teach theories than just facts.By rigorous scrutiny many facts could be proven wrong.Heliocentricity for eg used to be such a fact.
We are not talking about physics...When one says pure water is composed of oxygen molecules and hydrogen molecules , there is no debunking it!

Kindly, bring forward some FACTS or proof before quoting me again...I do not have time for your cheap personal attacks...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
However, it so happens that Albert Einstein said Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind....Surprisingly he is more of a scientist then you...

Yes Einstein was more scientist that any of us could ever be.And he was always very clear about his religious beliefs.He said he believed in the "pantheistic" God of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god.He ridiculed Monotheistic religion and personal God as pretty childish superstitions.For a fanatic freethinker like him religion was much more subtle and cosmic in nature not the authoritarian religious beliefs we have today.Its really sad to see religious people often misrepresent his religious belief to fit their ideology.So next time you quote Einstein's religious beliefs better learn what you are talking about.

2ndly, people who say what you said, didnt read up Islam nor understood it...

Lady,I have a Muslim parent,I know enough about Islam.So no need to lecture me.

OK ...http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v55/n9/full/jhg201080a.html that was an interesting paper....But like it said, despite the



While the article supporting this claim ONLY saidhttp://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v55/n9/full/jhg201080a.html
However, I am surprised at how the article missed this bit of the fact:



Now if you do a little bit of reading which the nature article which was quoted by your magazine has Robertsonian translocation (ROB)
This just means if any other chromosomes fuse, there will be no fetus, hence no ape born...so it is basically not proof...If you can not Naturally fuse chromosome 2 and get an ape then it is not proof....How can an act that can not happen now happened millions of years ago?! My guess is if we split the chromosomes in apes we will not get a human baby...

The last sentence shows your lack of expertise in this field.

This phenomenon of chromosomal fusion happens all the time in creatures as varied as yeast, corn, butterflies, voles and even mice. And now it has been seen in people.In a recent article, a doctor in China has identified a man who has 44 chromosomes instead of the usual 46. Except for his different number of chromosomes, this man is perfectly normal in every measurable way.
http://biomedres.info/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/171-174-Bo_Wang.1584046.pdf

His chromosomes are arranged in a stable way that could be passed on if he met a nice girl who had 44 chromosomes too. And this would certainly be possible in the future given his family history.

But why doesn't he have any problems? A loss of one let alone two chromosomes is almost always fatal because so many essential genes are lost.

In this case, he has fewer chromosomes but is actually missing very few genes. Instead, he has two chromosomes stuck to two other chromosomes. More specifically, both his chromosome 14's are stuck to his chromosome 15's.

This is an important finding because it tells us about a key genetic event in human prehistory. All the evidence points to humans, like their relatives the chimpanzees, having 48 chromosomes a million or so years ago. Nowadays most humans have 46.

What happened to this 44 chromosome man shows one way that the first step in this sort of change might have happened in our past. Scientists could certainly predict something like this. But now there is proof that it can actually happen.

There is more information about this case here in case you are curious about it.Note that A Robertsonian translocation in balanced form results in no excess or deficit of genetic material and causes no health difficulties. In unbalanced forms,as you have mentioned here,Robertsonian translocations cause chromosomal deletions or addition and result in syndromes of multiple malformations, including trisomy 13 (Patau syndrome) and trisomy 21 (Down syndrome).

The 44 Chromosome Man | Understanding Genetics

However, kindly stop reading magazines like the 1 you quoted, it is slightly insulting how the author twisted the words of the very article it sited:

Since you were offended by the last article here is a better one.

Understanding Genetics

I didnt say blasphemy.....

What I MEANT was that Science fits in some laws...when you speak ill of the laws or try to twist them..it is insulting! For instance if someone is telling you that the apple fell downwards even after I threw it up due to the attraction force of the earth known as gravity, if you go like, lets see, maybe it went down because there was no wind to push it up wards...or something more absurd, it is an insult to science! I know a bad analogy...

It is indeed its a very bad analogy,a bit of an insult to common sense,If I may say.

Nope your thinking is minimal....When I asked when will we start evolving, I meant it in YOUR TERMS...species jumping...

Well I think it depends on whether we want another human species in this planet or not.I think a new human species are most likely to emerge in labs rather than in nature.

From the very beginning I have made it clear I DO believe in micro evolution I as a geneticist rely on it...However I do not believe in species jumping because there are certain laws to science that stop one from accepting it! Like certain types of mutations do not get passed to offsprings, others get "fixed" by the DNA repair mechanisms, others do not yield a viable offspring, while some cause the embryo to die...others do not allow fertilization....and many other reasons....
Kindly read my comments in this whole thread before commenting...

Again you are using that crude phrase species jumping.Why can't you much more appropriate terms like the macroevolution or speciation.I hope you understand that Macroevolution is the accumulated effects of microevolution over time.So if there are is a change in allele and/or genotype frequencies in a population over time its perfectly rational to argue this change could lead to the origin species.

In the very beginning of this the thread it was always about human and apes....

Indeed,The whole problem is with some pious individuals just don't want to accept they had an ancestor that looked like a chimpanzee.
 
.
and right from the start I had clarified which part I am denying

see right from the start I waited to know WHICH PART OF EVOLUTION you people believe as evolution...there is a small part which I believed and CLARIFIED from the start...

Yes you made that clear,You deny the process of speciation.Since you quite fervently deny it,How you explain the origin of new species.


Staitistics are NOT only used in Population genetics, It is used in EVERY FIELD of molecular biology, even gene prediction, prediction of cancer, chances of so and so gene are responsible for something....gene characterization, gene functions, and many other stuff! When one criticizes statistical tools it shows that there are errors, a small error can lead to a huge difference esp if ALL the proof pooled had the same error....and so on...Hence the everyday cry of Biologist for better prediction tools..

Other two areas where statistical genetics are generally applied are categorized in to genetic epidemiology and quantitative genetics.Yes quantitative genetics is a branch of the evolutionary synthesis,But both subjects are way beyond the scope of this debate.

I am saying we use Arabidopsis as a basic to compare genes and functions...but MOST of the plants even having the same gene do not have the same function, so even if the genome has sections which are similar, they do not contain the same function ....and this is a complex field...

I said all this things before.Tell me something new.


some are just false positive

Obviously,Then they are not discoveries at all.


whatever....
you are used to hurling personal attacks...

NEITHER could they prove it!

If they don't have the proof,It would been called the Evolutionary hypothesis not the Theory of evolution.Th fact is you just don't wanna acknowledge the proof since its suits you personal beliefs.

We are not talking about physics...When one says pure water is composed of oxygen molecules and hydrogen molecules , there is no debunking it!

But that mere statement of fact doesn't explain anything.Its needs atomic theory to explain it.Similar way a facts have no relevance unless there are scientific theories to explain it.

Kindly, bring forward some FACTS or proof before quoting me again...I do not have time for your cheap personal attacks...

I brought all the proof,Its not my fault you are not acknowledging it.
 
.
And I am still waiting for PROOF of some people's believe that we descendant from apes!

All talk and not 1 person could put fwd ANY form of proof....


We descended from a common ancestor which we share with the other great apes.
 
.
Rather than giving lecture against evolution why don't Pakistani bring up some counter theory for evolution through which there can be some contribution in science .
 
.
We descended from a common ancestor which we share with the other great apes.

Oh please...do not give me that ....the whole thread is that versus what I have said at molecular and genetic level....

By someone saying such things does not make it true....A theory eventually becomes a scientific fact after being proven so....for 150yrs, Evolution still remains a theory...Let me make 1 thing clear, I believe in micro evolution, changes, mutations at a smaller level but I do not believe in species jumping! It is kind of funny how people keep giving me the same descent from common ancestor theory instead of giving me proof of what they are saying!
 
.
Yes Einstein was more scientist that any of us could ever be.And he was always very clear about his religious beliefs.He said he believed in the "pantheistic" God of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god.He ridiculed Monotheistic religion and personal God as pretty childish superstitions.For a fanatic freethinker like him religion was much more subtle and cosmic in nature not the authoritarian religious beliefs we have today.Its really sad to see religious people often misrepresent his religious belief to fit their ideology.So next time you quote Einstein's religious beliefs better learn what you are talking about.
well then either Eistein had lost his mind or was joking with the world when he said
Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/techno...inese-archicebus-fossil-17.html#ixzz2WBHoACdZ
...

Pantheism is the belief that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God, or that the universe (or nature) is identical with divinity. Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal or anthropomorphic (Anthropomorphism, or personification, is attribution of human form or other characteristics to anything other than a human being.) god.
Neither does Islam...we do not believe in a human god...But even he was not an atheist! Maybe can be equated to an agnostic but def not an atheist!

Lady,I have a Muslim parent,I know enough about Islam.So no need to lecture me.
No one is lecturing you...However, me saying I am a geneticist and yet you lecture me about simple biology and processes which even you have no idea what you are talking about....

The last sentence shows your lack of expertise in this field.
How so?!

This phenomenon of chromosomal fusion happens all the time in creatures as varied as yeast, corn, butterflies, voles and even mice.
This shows your lack of understanding....1stly we are not a unicellular organism like yeast (yes there are few multicellular , nor do we divide by budding...
Most yeasts reproduce asexually by mitosis, and many do so by an asymmetric division process called budding.
This sentence itself nullifies anything related with yeast to higher animals...

corn is a plant, it can even undergo polyploidy which mind you animals cant...butterflies are invertebrates under arthropoda ...dont even get me started on the life stages of insects and how their chromosomes align! Ahhh rodents, mind you they have a small reproductive cycle and theoretically are capable of evolving faster....but Even if 1 sepcies has 10x different from the other they remain as rodents, same brain size, same incapability to speak, same incapability to use tools and what not...

After the completion of the Human genome project, a common chimpanzee genome project was initiated. In December 2003, a preliminary analysis of 7600 genes shared between the two genomes confirmed that certain genes such as the forkhead-box P2 transcription factor, which is involved in speech development, are different in the human lineage. Several genes involved in hearing were also found to have changed during human evolution, suggesting selection involving human language-related behavior. Differences between individual humans and common chimpanzees are estimated to be about 10 times the typical difference between pairs of humans.
Now 10x.....when you see 2 humans, you see vast differences from eye colour, hair colour to skin colour, disease resistance and many more differences expand this to 10x and you are out of the species....
And now it has been seen in people.In a recent article, a doctor in China has identified a man who has 44 chromosomes instead of the usual 46. Except for his different number of chromosomes, this man is perfectly normal in every measurable way.
http://biomedres.info/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/171-174-Bo_Wang.1584046.pdf
1stly, it is nothing new Robertsonian translocation does happen.....however chromosome 2 which is the 1 that humans and ape differ in is not affected....

Mind you the article does say he has disadvantages, from physical fitness and has chances of loss of pregnancyfor females.
It is well-known that the fitness of rob translocation carries is reduced; in some rob translocations the risk of unbalanced offspring may exceed 20%. The homozygous state of such a rearrangment presumably leads to infertility
(Like I said before LOW VIABLE OFFSPRING...it is not a favourable mutation.... .......besides, does he look less of a human? Does he look like an ape? Nope!


And mind you there are other chromosomal abnormalities where you even get XXY, XXX...

His chromosomes are arranged in a stable way that could be passed on if he met a nice girl who had 44 chromosomes too. And this would certainly be possible in the future given his family history.
How did you conclude that?!
But why doesn't he have any problems? A loss of one let alone two chromosomes is almost always fatal because so many essential genes are lost.
Not necessarily if only an arm of the chromosome is lost or something or another can replace it...
In this case, he has fewer chromosomes but is actually missing very few genes. Instead, he has two chromosomes stuck to two other chromosomes. More specifically, both his chromosome 14's are stuck to his chromosome 15's.
I do not think you read the article
Although a Robertsonian translocation carrier has a full genetic complement, their fitness is reduced due to high probability of genetically imbalanced gametes.
...Though I think they need to do more research on this...

This is an important finding because it tells us about a key genetic event in human prehistory. All the evidence points to humans, like their relatives the chimpanzees, having 48 chromosomes a million or so years ago. Nowadays most humans have 46.
Healthy humans have 46...and I would like to see a chimp born with chromosome 2 fusion....Just curious...

What happened to this 44 chromosome man shows one way that the first step in this sort of change might have happened in our past. Scientists could certainly predict something like this. But now there is proof that it can actually happen.
Not all chromosomes act the same....and I still think more tests need to be done because chromosomal studies are not easy

There is more information about this case here in case you are curious about it.Note that A Robertsonian translocation in balanced form results in no excess or deficit of genetic material and causes no health difficulties. In unbalanced forms,as you have mentioned here,Robertsonian translocations cause chromosomal deletions or addition and result in syndromes of multiple malformations, including trisomy 13 (Patau syndrome) and trisomy 21 (Down syndrome).
Kindly do not jump to conclusions!

Seriously, he isnt loosing any chromosomes....I mean chromosomes are not exactly separate entities as shown in diagrams....read up the structure of chromosomes...The mapping is done based on statistical analysis....so if 2 of his chromosomes just have little distances as compared to normal people, doesnt mean he LOST the chromosome...I know about genetical mapping, my work is basically on that...and the softwares we use, they are not really something that goes BAM that is the ONLY answer...From what you have written and jumping to conclusions, I see you have no clue about the background of genomics and the tools of genetical mapping, hence I do suggest you stop quoting me...It is time consuming to see insignificant stuff been blown out of proportion....
This is from the article you suggested:
So he has almost all the same genes as any other person. He just has them packaged a bit differently.

However, the articles this time round were an interesting read!


Since you were offended by the last article here is a better one.

Understanding Genetics
terrible article based on assumptions and again no proof just someone's thought of what could have happened...Scientists put that under hypothesis not under proof...Giving this kind of account
And as I said in my previous article, there is no evidence of any advantage in the fusion anyway.
shows the article was written by someone who is just shoving their point down people's throat....Why? Because he is talking as though we know the all the functions of the human genes and we know the human genome like the back of our hand! All we know is gene sequences....alphabets not the meaning of these alphabets! :blink: hate such lunatics! seriously, you have an idea, prove it not place your hypothesis and start getting people excited and leaving it hanging like that!

But human chromosome 2 has telomeres both in the middle and the ends. And it has two centromeres too. The easiest (and possibly only) explanation is that this happened because of the fusion of two chromosomes.
Here the author is talking as though this telomere is some formation...it is a sequence of nucleotides so is the centromere
Regarding mitotic chromosome structure, centromeres represent a constricted region of the chromosome (often referred to as the primary constriction) where two identical sister chromatids are most closely in contact.
! Seriously, it is not a blob that is stuck somewhere...My goodness who let this guy write anything on genetics! :blink: I prob need to email it to my cousins who are also geneticists in the states for a good laugh!

Were there a fusion even, there wont be 2 centromeres, were there 2 centromeres in chromosome 2, the spindles would have MISTAKENLY attached to them and split them coz that is what the MAJOR role of centromeres is!



It is indeed its a very bad analogy,a bit of an insult to common sense,If I may say.

Well I think it depends on whether we want another human species in this planet or not.I think a new human species are most likely to emerge in labs rather than in nature.
YET you believe we and apes had a common ancestor and the evolution and species jumping.....BUT you can not imagine it happening in nature?

Again you are using that crude phrase species jumping.
Simply because I have been quoted out of context even after explaining something, which shows me not everyone understands the terminologies!

Why can't you much more appropriate terms like the macroevolution or speciation.I hope you understand that Macroevolution is the accumulated effects of microevolution over time.
that is why I do not use the term macroevolution however, macroevolution has limits which is why I do not believe in the human ape or ape to human theory!

So if there are is a change in allele and/or genotype frequencies in a population over time its perfectly rational to argue this change could lead to the origin species.
However, like I have mentioned in the beginning there are laws by which NOT ALL MUTATIONS are favourable, not all mutations yield viable offspring and NOT ALL mutations cause huge changes in a genome!



Indeed,The whole problem is with some pious individuals just don't want to accept they had an ancestor that looked like a chimpanzee.
Dont taunt me ...I never taunted your believes so please either remain poised or leave if you need to drop to a lower level!
 
.
Yes you made that clear,You deny the process of speciation.Since you quite fervently deny it,How you explain the origin of new species.
I do not need to....When humans and chimps are soo different, from the formation of brain, to our physical form....I dont think we should be termed under the same genus it causes complication...I believe we have similar genes with everything due a number of reasons,
only 4 nucleotides...how many different arrangements cane be possible? even then some arrangements account for the same protein, the redundancy aids in the difference and yet shows similarity at a different level!
we have things called post translation, RNA splicing, Epigenetics and what not to account for differences even if our genome is similar!
and many other issues which do not make me agree to apes = humans...How come you do not counter these? Explain these terms?

I gave the example of arabidopsis when I saw you didnt understand it, I knew there is no point furthering!


Other two areas where statistical genetics are generally applied are categorized in to genetic epidemiology and quantitative genetics.Yes quantitative genetics is a branch of the evolutionary synthesis,But both subjects are way beyond the scope of this debate.
Nope they are not...Understand genomes and genetics then you will know how stats fits in every angle!


I said all this things before.Tell me something new.
I do not remember you saying it but if you said it then why is this even being dragged? Same genes can even account for different proteins why? due to RNA splicing, methylation and whatnot! POST TRANSLATION!

Obviously,Then they are not discoveries at all.
and false positives also make scientists jump up and down with joy! and they end up publishing papers, writing in magazines and what makes me angry is they forget to mention, more research is necessary...only recently, I have seen scientists being modest enough to end that way...otherwise before it was I SAID SO...I FOUND IT...I THOUGHT IT THIS WAY SO IT MUST BE POSSIBLE!


If they don't have the proof,It would been called the Evolutionary hypothesis not the Theory of evolution.Th fact is you just don't wanna acknowledge the proof since its suits you personal beliefs.
you can not judge a person ....I have given my reasons, not my fault you failed to acknowledge their importance!

But that mere statement of fact doesn't explain anything.Its needs atomic theory to explain it.Similar way a facts have no relevance unless there are scientific theories to explain it.
a proven theory becomes a fact...otherwise it stays as a theory as it is never proven!

I brought all the proof,Its not my fault you are not acknowledging it.
I refuted them as well! and brought my proof which you never acknowledged!

Rather than giving lecture against evolution why don't Pakistani bring up some counter theory for evolution through which there can be some contribution in science .

Nothing to do with my nationality mr. troll....

I have brought fwd why such a theory will remain as such...since you lack understandings of genetics and genomes, I can not help you Kindly, stick to what you know ....
 
.
well then either Eistein had lost his mind or was joking with the world when he said ...

Irrelevant and taken out of context.He was very clear about his attitude towards religion.

Einstein writes of 'childish superstition' | Science | The Guardian

Neither does Islam...we do not believe in a human god...But even he was not an atheist! Maybe can be equated to an agnostic but def not an atheist! [/QUOTE]

Islam believes in personal God.At least Sunni Muslims does.And yes He was an agnostic

No one is lecturing you...However, me saying I am a geneticist and yet you lecture me about simple biology and processes which even you have no idea what you are talking about....

Oh pls,Drama Queen.I know what I am talking about.


Read your previous quote.You don't even know what you are talking about.

This just means if any other chromosomes fuse, there will be no fetus, hence no ape born...so it is basically not proof...If you can not Naturally fuse chromosome 2 and get an ape then it is not proof....How can an act that can not happen now happened millions of years ago?! My guess is if we split the chromosomes in apes we will not get a human baby...
[/QUOTE]


This shows your lack of understanding....1stly we are not a unicellular organism like yeast (yes there are few multicellular , nor do we divide by budding... This sentence itself nullifies anything related with yeast to higher animals...

corn is a plant, it can even undergo polyploidy which mind you animals cant...butterflies are invertebrates under arthropoda ...dont even get me started on the life stages of insects and how their chromosomes align! Ahhh rodents, mind you they have a small reproductive cycle and theoretically are capable of evolving faster....but Even if 1 sepcies has 10x different from the other they remain as rodents, same brain size, same incapability to speak, same incapability to use tools and what not...

Now 10x.....when you see 2 humans, you see vast differences from eye colour, hair colour to skin colour, disease resistance and many more differences expand this to 10x and you are out of the species....
1stly, it is nothing new Robertsonian translocation does happen.....however chromosome 2 which is the 1 that humans and ape differ in is not affected....

Blah Blah.Again you are straying away from the point..Chromosomal fusion did happen in our ancestors, and evidence of it proves evolution.


besides, does he look less of a human? Does he look like an ape? Nope!

Utter ignorance,What are you even talking about.I am talking about chromosomal fusion that happened in an ancestor species that lived millions of years ago.The evidence of that fusion is still seem today in our chromosomes.Hence the evolution.We have also observed similar fusions in modern day humans.You argued if chromosomes fused there will be no fetus again you've proven wrong.This is the evidence of evolution.And you are blabbering all about things that have nothing to do with the discussion,What happened to this 44 chromosome man shows one way that the first step in this sort of change might have happened in our past.





Mind you the article does say he has disadvantages, from physical fitness and has chances of loss of pregnancy for females. (Like I said before LOW VIABLE OFFSPRING...it is not a favourable mutation.... .......

Obviously this is not a favorable mutation under any circumstances,Such translocations are incredibly rare.Except when the parents are related.Its been an established Inbreeding Common in Early Humans especially when they were undergoing population bottlenecks.



And mind you there are other chromosomal abnormalities where you even get XXY, XXX...
Not related to these chromosmes.

How did you conclude that?!


Not necessarily if only an arm of the chromosome is lost or something or another can replace it...
I do not think you read the article ...Though I think they need to do more research on this...
Read the article again.

The article says "both his chromosome 14s are stuck to his chromosome 15s" - meaning both his mom and his dad (46,XX,rob(14,15) and 46,XY,rob(14,15) had a Robertsonian Translocation which doesn't really result in the loss of any genetic material. The very small chance occurred which one sperm carrying the translocation chromosome fused with an oocyte carrying the other translocation chromosome.

So the genotype of the dude is 44,XY,rob(14,15)(14,15), meaning he's normal because he technically has all the genomic information of a normal human.

Healthy humans have 46...and I would like to see a chimp born with chromosome 2 fusion....Just curious...

Long term isolation of a group of chimps who are homozygous for a particular Robertsonian translocation chromosome could
theoretically lead to the establishment of a new subspecies having a full genetic complement in 46 chromosomes.But I don't think chimps will live long enough see that happens.

Not all chromosomes act the same....and I still think more tests need to be done because chromosomal studies are not easy

Kindly do not jump to conclusions!

He is normal like any other human being except for may be reduced physical fitness.He may have health difficulties because of the history of consanguinity in his family history.But a homozygous Robertsonian translocation in itself may not any health issues.

he isnt loosing any chromosomes....I mean chromosomes are not exactly separate entities as shown in diagrams....read up the structure of chromosomes...The mapping is done based on statistical analysis....so if 2 of his chromosomes just have little distances as compared to normal people, doesnt mean he LOST the chromosome...I know about genetical mapping, my work is basically on that...and the softwares we use, they are not really something that goes BAM that is the ONLY answer...From what you have written and jumping to conclusions, I see you have no clue about the background of genomics and the tools of genetical mapping, hence I do suggest you stop quoting me...It is time consuming to see insignificant stuff been blown out of proportion....
This is from the article you suggested:

Read the article again.He hasn't lost any genetic material,His chromosomes 14 and 15 from both parents fused During a Robertsonian translocation.It called homozygous Robertsonian translocation.he's normal because he technically has all the genomic information of a normal human.





terrible article based on assumptions and again no proof just someone's thought of what could have happened...Scientists put that under hypothesis not under proof...Giving this kind of account shows the article was written by someone who is just shoving their point down people's throat....Why? Because he is talking as though we know the all the functions of the human genes and we know the human genome like the back of our hand! All we know is gene sequences....alphabets not the meaning of these alphabets! :blink: hate such lunatics! seriously, you have an idea, prove it not place your hypothesis and start getting people excited and leaving it hanging like that!

Blah Blah,Nothing worth responding.


Here the author is talking as though this telomere is some formation...it is a sequence of nucleotides so is the centromere ! Seriously, it is not a blob that is stuck somewhere...My goodness who let this guy write anything on genetics! :blink: I prob need to email it to my cousins who are also geneticists in the states for a good laugh!

You have a problem with semantics now or is the fact that you don't have anything else to write.

Were there a fusion even, there wont be 2 centromeres, were there 2 centromeres in chromosome 2, the spindles would have MISTAKENLY attached to them and split them coz that is what the MAJOR role of centromeres is!

Read the article agian.There are two centromeres in Chromosome 2 .But one is inactive.

Biologists also find a second centromere in chromosome 2. This centromere is in the exact location we would expect. It is also no longer functional--it has been inactivated over time.

YET you believe we and apes had a common ancestor and the evolution and species jumping.....BUT you can not imagine it happening in nature?

I don't have a crystal predicting future.I just imagine the one I prefer most.

Simply because I have been quoted out of context even after explaining something, which shows me not everyone understands the terminologies!

That's because you are not using a familiar terminology.

that is why I do not use the term macroevolution however, macroevolution has limits which is why I do not believe in the human ape or ape to human theory!

That's why I called you a creationist and you got upset over that too.According Modern evolutionary synthesis The distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale.Macro evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species...it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution.How ever you creationist often misrepresent both these terms in order to make it look like they entirely different things.

However, like I have mentioned in the beginning there are laws by which NOT ALL MUTATIONS are favourable, not all mutations yield viable offspring and NOT ALL mutations cause huge changes in a genome!

We all know that.

Dont taunt me ...I never taunted your believes so please either remain poised or leave if you need to drop to a lower level!

Why get upset??Even you know that is a fact.
 
.
Oh please...do not give me that ....the whole thread is that versus what I have said at molecular and genetic level....

By someone saying such things does not make it true....A theory eventually becomes a scientific fact after being proven so....for 150yrs, Evolution still remains a theory...Let me make 1 thing clear, I believe in micro evolution, changes, mutations at a smaller level but I do not believe in species jumping! It is kind of funny how people keep giving me the same descent from common ancestor theory instead of giving me proof of what they are saying!

Can you give one example of a scientific theory becoming scientific fact? I mean, one example where something was called "Theory of YYYYYYY" and somebody gave some proof and then people started calling "Scientific Fact of YYYYYY"??
 
.
Can you give one example of a scientific theory becoming scientific fact? I mean, one example where something was called "Theory of YYYYYYY" and somebody gave some proof and then people started calling "Scientific Fact of YYYYYY"??

Good work goes on.

here is a nice discussion.

DNA clues to our inner neanderthal by Svante Pääbo

----- Svante Pääbo: DNA clues to our inner neanderthal | Video on TED.com


Svante Pääbo: DNA clues to our inner neanderthal | Video on TED.com
 
.
........
Oh pls,Drama Queen.I know what I am talking about.



Read your previous quote.You don't even know what you are talking about.

This just means if any other chromosomes fuse, there will be no fetus, hence no ape born...so it is basically not proof...If you can not Naturally fuse chromosome 2 and get an ape then it is not proof....How can an act that can not happen now happened millions of years ago?! My guess is if we split the chromosomes in apes we will not get a human baby...


.....[/QUOTE]

My dear dear Azazel,

How about we change the style in this thread.


I see that @Talon has some sort of religious-like belief system against the typical evolution model.


And I do not think you can changer her to change that belief system.


So from now on, let's just post What we know, from sources.


Same way Talon can post from her sources to quash evolution theory.


thus the discussion will be source against source, and not this personal jootam pezari (we should all fear from high heel attack missile).

Say you what?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom