Human(s) Chromosome 2 resulted from the Fusion of two Ape Chromosomes: Easily seen.

[Stryder50]

That remains disputable.

Then dispute it. With evidence. All are welcome.

After you present, with evidence, the natural process by which the two chromosmes of ape ancestors was fused into the single chromosome we humans have.

That is presented in the OP. You opened the thread. Did you not read the OP?

Yes I read the OP and the link. Neither states HOW the fusion occurred, only that there's clear evidence this is what happened.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That remains disputable.

Then dispute it. With evidence. All are welcome.

After you present, with evidence, the natural process by which the two chromosmes of ape ancestors was fused into the single chromosome we humans have.

That is presented in the OP. You opened the thread. Did you not read the OP?

Yes I read the OP and the link. Neither states HOW the fusion occurred, only that there's clear evidence this is what happened.

Oh, sorry. Well you can fibd info on how chromosomes fuse. Google!

 

[abu afak]

Yes I read the OP and the link. Neither states HOW the fusion occurred, only that there's clear evidence this is what happened.

Yes, and people are convicted of Murder "beyond a reasonable doubt" on circumstantial Evidence.
Most murders don't have eyewitnesses.
Only kweationists demand videotape of million yr old events.
`

 

[Stryder50]

That remains disputable.

Then dispute it. With evidence. All are welcome.

After you present, with evidence, the natural process by which the two chromosmes of ape ancestors was fused into the single chromosome we humans have.

That is presented in the OP. You opened the thread. Did you not read the OP?

Yes I read the OP and the link. Neither states HOW the fusion occurred, only that there's clear evidence this is what happened.

Oh, sorry. Well you can fibd info on how chromosomes fuse. Google!

Then find and present.

 

[Stryder50]

Yes I read the OP and the link. Neither states HOW the fusion occurred, only that there's clear evidence this is what happened.

Yes, and people are convicted of Murder "beyond a reasonable doubt" on circumstantial Evidence.
Most murders don't have eyewitnesses.
Only kweationists demand videotape of million yr old events.
`

Actually, might only be a 200-300,000 year old event based on mtDNA research.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That remains disputable.

Then dispute it. With evidence. All are welcome.

After you present, with evidence, the natural process by which the two chromosmes of ape ancestors was fused into the single chromosome we humans have.

That is presented in the OP. You opened the thread. Did you not read the OP?

Yes I read the OP and the link. Neither states HOW the fusion occurred, only that there's clear evidence this is what happened.

Oh, sorry. Well you can fibd info on how chromosomes fuse. Google!

Then find and present.

You can look it up yourself, if you are interested.

And i doubt either of us would understand anyway, since we aren't molecular biologists.

 

[LittleNipper]

Did we evolve from a banana? How Genetically Related Are We to Bananas? | Breakthroughs

So, get this. Have you heard of the ? You know Coelecanth...the ancient marine species of fish that we thought went extinct 66 million years ago, but which turned up again recently?

Have you heard of lungfish, as well?

Did you know all of these coelecanth and lungfish species are more closely related to humans than they are to any fish you see at a pet store or in the ocean?

Cool, don't you think? I mean that honestly.

And, isn't it true that many Christians didn't believe it when some or many scientists promoted the belief that the Coelecanth existed 66 million years ago. Christians may have believed them to have gone extinct (since people hadn't seen any to speak of); however, they didn't believe the "accepted fact" that they existed 66 million years ago and had evolved into something else. So, you do note that there are discrepancies...

 

[LittleNipper]

Did we evolve from a banana?

You might have.

But your icon is the one dressed in YELLOW ---- is it not?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And, isn't it true that many Christians didn't believe it when some or many scientists promoted the belief that the Coelecanth existed 66 million years ago.

And they were wrong. It did exist 66 million years ago. And the only christians who didn't believe the scientists about thi were brainwashed YECers. So they still don't believe the scientists and are still wrong.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, you do note that there are discrepancies...

In what? Make your point. What discrepancies, specifically, and why are you pointing them out? Go on, argue a point, for once.

 

[abu afak]

And, isn't it true that many Christians didn't believe it when some or many scientists promoted the belief that the Coelecanth existed 66 million years ago. Christians may have believed them to have gone extinct (since people hadn't seen any to speak of); however, they didn't believe the "accepted fact" that they existed 66 million years ago and had evolved into something else. So, you do note that there are discrepancies...

And isn't it true many Christians don't believe in "66 million years" but only 6000?
And isn't it true we know about fish (and their/other creature classifications, fossils, and history) because of science?

And they wouldn't be of much interest to Christians, they would just be another Fish. 'Fish' being their classification of anything that swims, whales (a mammal) and all.
Creationists believe in "Kinds"/lookalikes, Not species.

`

 

[LittleNipper]

And, isn't it true that many Christians didn't believe it when some or many scientists promoted the belief that the Coelecanth existed 66 million years ago.

And they were wrong. It did exist 66 million years ago. And the only christians who didn't believe the scientists about thi were brainwashed YECers. So they still don't believe the scientists and are still wrong.

The FLOOD created fossils found of Coelecanth were presumed to be 66 million years old, due to incorrect dating of the rock the fossils were found in. It is also interesting to note that there were no appreciable differences between the ancient fossils and the "modern" Coelecanth. Evolutionists are not the only scientists that do research, no matter how "brainwashed" you are to the contrary.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The FLOOD created fossils found of Coelecanth were presumed to be 66 million years old, due to incorrect dating of the rock the fossils were found in.

How would the flood cause such a thing? It would have to have altered the rate of decay of isotopes. It would have to have altered the strata of every sinngle spot on Earth where we have checked. A flood could not do this. This claim is bunk.

 

[LittleNipper]

And, isn't it true that many Christians didn't believe it when some or many scientists promoted the belief that the Coelecanth existed 66 million years ago. Christians may have believed them to have gone extinct (since people hadn't seen any to speak of); however, they didn't believe the "accepted fact" that they existed 66 million years ago and had evolved into something else. So, you do note that there are discrepancies...

And isn't it true many Christians don't believe in "66 million years" but only 6000?
And isn't it true we know about fish (and their/other creature classifications, fossils, and history) because of science?

And they wouldn't be of much interest to Christians, they would just be another Fish. 'Fish' being their classification of anything that swims, whales (a mammal) and all.
Creationists believe in "Kinds"/lookalikes, Not species.

`

You forget that it were Christians who founded all the prestigious Colleges and Universities along with their science departments. And it was through the takeover of the science departments by agnostics and atheists that began to turn most of these institutions of higher learning into platforms for liberalism, along with atheistic interpretations and studies.

 

[LittleNipper]

The FLOOD created fossils found of Coelecanth were presumed to be 66 million years old, due to incorrect dating of the rock the fossils were found in.

How would the flood cause such a thing? It would have to have altered the rate of decay of isotopes. It would have to have altered the strata of every sinngle spot on Earth where we have checked. A flood could not do this. This claim is bunk.

Such a FLOOD involving all the meteor/asteroid strikes, volcanism, and churning up the pre-existing layers of the original earth's geography (GOD's created original design) would distort the strata as it was being deposited by the FLOOD of epic proportions. This burying the drowning/dead animals would produce invalid ages of the fossils discovered, if one wishes to presume that GOD didn't/couldn't originally create minerals and rocks in a day (PRE-FLOOD CREATION), as HE found necessary for Adam's benefit --- and HIS own glory.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Such a FLOOD involving all the meteor/asteroid strikes, volcanism, and churning up the pre-existing layers of the original earth's geography (GOD's created original design) would distort the strata as it was being deposited by the FLOOD of epic proportions

By what mechanism? We travel 2-3 miles down in the ocean and find the strata to be in order. That's much more water than was over ground in the flood myth. So this claim is also bunk.

Got anything else?

 

[Hollie]

And, isn't it true that many Christians didn't believe it when some or many scientists promoted the belief that the Coelecanth existed 66 million years ago. Christians may have believed them to have gone extinct (since people hadn't seen any to speak of); however, they didn't believe the "accepted fact" that they existed 66 million years ago and had evolved into something else. So, you do note that there are discrepancies...

And isn't it true many Christians don't believe in "66 million years" but only 6000?
And isn't it true we know about fish (and their/other creature classifications, fossils, and history) because of science?

And they wouldn't be of much interest to Christians, they would just be another Fish. 'Fish' being their classification of anything that swims, whales (a mammal) and all.
Creationists believe in "Kinds"/lookalikes, Not species.

`

You forget that it were Christians who founded all the prestigious Colleges and Universities along with their science departments. And it was through the takeover of the science departments by agnostics and atheists that began to turn most of these institutions of higher learning into platforms for liberalism, along with atheistic interpretations and studies.

We can take a few examples of universities with Christian roots: Princeton, Yale, Dartmouth if you wish. I found no course syllabus for their ID creationism program, no undergraduate or post graduate degree programs in supernatural creation studies and no indication of any research programs studying the occult or supernaturalism.

Have the gods played a cruel joke on christians?

Dartmouth, for one example, has reputable doctoral graduate programs in biological and evolutionary biology studies.

Graduate Programs in Biological Sciences

biology.dartmouth.edu

 

[abu afak]

Actually, might only be a 200-300,000 year old event based on mtDNA research.

The time period was just anm example.
You got Refuted on the main point.. that there was even fusion that made One species into Another, and there was nothing that really needed a god. It was a mutation.

 

[Stryder50]

Actually, might only be a 200-300,000 year old event based on mtDNA research.

The time period was just anm example.
You got Refuted on the main point.. that there was even fusion that made One species into Another, and there was nothing that really needed a god. It was a mutation.

The time period is based from mitochondrial DNA; mtDNA/mDNA and research into human origins;
EXCERPT:
...
The study's lead author, Rebecca Cann, called her colleagues' and her choice to use Eve as the name "a playful misnomer," and pointed out that the study wasn't implying that the Mitochondrial Eve wasn't the first -- or only -- woman on Earth during the time she lived [source: Cann]. Instead, this woman is simply the most recent person to whom all people can trace their genealogy. In other words, there were many women who came before her and many women who came after, but her life is the point from which all modern branches on humanity's family tree grew.

When the researchers in the 1987 study looked at samples taken from 147 different people and fetuses, they found 133 distinct sequences of mtDNA. A few of the people sampled, it turned out, were recently related. After comparing the number of differences among the mtDNA samples within races, they found that Africans have the most diversity (that is, the most number of differences) of any single racial group. This would suggest that the mtDNA found in Africans is the oldest: Since it has had the most mutations, a process which takes time, it must be the oldest of lineages around today.

The two distinct branches they discovered contained the mtDNA found in the five main populations on the planet: African, Asian, European, Australian and New Guinean. Researchers found that in the branch that was not exclusively African, racial populations often had more than one lineage. For example, one New Guinean lineage finds its closest relative in a lineage present in Asia, not New Guinea. All of the lineages and both of the two branches, however, can all be traced back to one theorized point: Mitochondrial Eve.
...

Eve Gene: Do We All Descend From a Common Female Ancestor?

According to DNA research, we may all have a common ancestor, an African woman who lived thousands of years ago. How did scientists reach this conclusion? Is it even possible?

science.howstuffworks.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think you've confused something, either in translation or comprehension, regards my being refuted; as I'm not denying the fusion in human chromosome happened, only questioning the method by which it would have occurred, and/or why. Also "when" along the chain of proto-humans did such happen. So far the links provided show what and where this fusion occurs, but don't describe what the natural process would have been to make it happen.

That it is a mutation is clear, and I don't dispute it. I'm neither a Creationist, nor a Darwinian/Evolutionist on this matter about humans branching of from the simian tree, might be closer to a supporter of Intervention Theory (though might pick a couple of nits with Pye);

Intervention Theory – Lloyd Pye

www.lloydpye.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Going further on the subject of mutations, consider the case of one such caused by human 'intervention', that of the mule;
EXCERPT:
...
A mule is the offspring of a male donkey (jack) and a female horse (mare).[1][2] Horses and donkeys are different species, with different numbers of chromosomes. Of the two first-generation hybrids between these two species, a mule is easier to obtain than a hinny, which is the offspring of a female donkey (jenny) and a male horse (stallion).

The size of a mule and work to which it is put depend largely on the breeding of the mule's mother (dam). Mules can be lightweight, medium weight or when produced from draft horse mares, of moderately heavy weight.[3]:85–87 Mules are reputed to be more patient, hardy and long-lived than horses and are described as less obstinate and more intelligent than donkeys.[4]:5
...
Mules and hinnies have 63 chromosomes, a mixture of the horse's 64 and the donkey's 62. The different structure and number usually prevents the chromosomes from pairing up properly and creating successful embryos, rendering most mules infertile.

A few mare mules have produced offspring when mated with a purebred horse or donkey.[18][19] Herodotus gives an account of such an event as an ill omen of Xerxes' invasion of Greece in 480 BC: "There happened also a portent of another kind while he was still at Sardis—a mule brought forth young and gave birth to a mule" (Herodotus The Histories 7:57), and a mule's giving birth was a frequently recorded portent in antiquity, although scientific writers also doubted whether the thing was really possible (see e.g. Aristotle, Historia animalium, 6.24; Varro, De re rustica, 2.1.28).

As of October 2002, there had been only 60 documented cases of mules birthing foals since 1527.[19] In China in 2001, a mare mule produced a filly.[20] In Morocco in early 2002 and Colorado in 2007, mare mules produced colts.[19][21][22] Blood and hair samples from the Colorado birth verified that the mother was indeed a mule and the foal was indeed her offspring.[22]

A 1939 article in the Journal of Heredity describes two offspring of a fertile mare mule named "Old Bec", which was owned at the time by Texas A&M University in the late 1920s. One of the foals was a female, sired by a jack. Unlike her mother, she was sterile. The other, sired by a five-gaited Saddlebred stallion, exhibited no characteristics of any donkey. That horse, a stallion, was bred to several mares, which gave birth to live foals that showed no characteristics of the donkey.[23]
...

Mule - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[abu afak]

Actually, might only be a 200-300,000 year old event based on mtDNA research.

The time period was just anm example.
You got Refuted on the main point.. that there was even fusion that made One species into Another, and there was nothing that really needed a god. It was a mutation.

The time period is based from mitochondrial DNA; mtDNA/mDNA and research into human origins;
EXCERPT:
...
The study's lead author, Rebecca Cann, called her colleagues' and her choice to use Eve as the name "a playful misnomer," and pointed out that the study wasn't implying that the Mitochondrial Eve wasn't the first -- or only -- woman on Earth during the time she lived [source: Cann]. Instead, this woman is simply the most recent person to whom all people can trace their genealogy. In other words, there were many women who came before her and many women who came after, but her life is the point from which all modern branches on humanity's family tree grew.

When the researchers in the 1987 study looked at samples taken from 147 different people and fetuses, they found 133 distinct sequences of mtDNA. A few of the people sampled, it turned out, were recently related. After comparing the number of differences among the mtDNA samples within races, they found that Africans have the most diversity (that is, the most number of differences) of any single racial group. This would suggest that the mtDNA found in Africans is the oldest: Since it has had the most mutations, a process which takes time, it must be the oldest of lineages around today.

The two distinct branches they discovered contained the mtDNA found in the five main populations on the planet: African, Asian, European, Australian and New Guinean. Researchers found that in the branch that was not exclusively African, racial populations often had more than one lineage. For example, one New Guinean lineage finds its closest relative in a lineage present in Asia, not New Guinea. All of the lineages and both of the two branches, however, can all be traced back to one theorized point: Mitochondrial Eve.
...

Eve Gene: Do We All Descend From a Common Female Ancestor?

According to DNA research, we may all have a common ancestor, an African woman who lived thousands of years ago. How did scientists reach this conclusion? Is it even possible?

science.howstuffworks.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think you've confused something, either in translation or comprehension, regards my being refuted; as I'm not denying the fusion in human chromosome happened, only questioning the method by which it would have occurred, and/or why. Also "when" along the chain of proto-humans did such happen. So far the links provided show what and where this fusion occurs, but don't describe what the natural process would have been to make it happen.

That it is a mutation is clear, and I don't dispute it. I'm neither a Creationist, nor a Darwinian/Evolutionist on this matter about humans branching of from the simian tree, might be closer to a supporter of Intervention Theory (though might pick a couple of nits with Pye);

Intervention Theory – Lloyd Pye

www.lloydpye.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Going further on the subject of mutations, consider the case of one such caused by human 'intervention', that of the mule;
EXCERPT:
...
A mule is the offspring of a male donkey (jack) and a female horse (mare).[1][2] Horses and donkeys are different species, with different numbers of chromosomes. Of the two first-generation hybrids between these two species, a mule is easier to obtain than a hinny, which is the offspring of a female donkey (jenny) and a male horse (stallion).

The size of a mule and work to which it is put depend largely on the breeding of the mule's mother (dam). Mules can be lightweight, medium weight or when produced from draft horse mares, of moderately heavy weight.[3]:85–87 Mules are reputed to be more patient, hardy and long-lived than horses and are described as less obstinate and more intelligent than donkeys.[4]:5
...
Mules and hinnies have 63 chromosomes, a mixture of the horse's 64 and the donkey's 62. The different structure and number usually prevents the chromosomes from pairing up properly and creating successful embryos, rendering most mules infertile.

A few mare mules have produced offspring when mated with a purebred horse or donkey.[18][19] Herodotus gives an account of such an event as an ill omen of Xerxes' invasion of Greece in 480 BC: "There happened also a portent of another kind while he was still at Sardis—a mule brought forth young and gave birth to a mule" (Herodotus The Histories 7:57), and a mule's giving birth was a frequently recorded portent in antiquity, although scientific writers also doubted whether the thing was really possible (see e.g. Aristotle, Historia animalium, 6.24; Varro, De re rustica, 2.1.28).

As of October 2002, there had been only 60 documented cases of mules birthing foals since 1527.[19] In China in 2001, a mare mule produced a filly.[20] In Morocco in early 2002 and Colorado in 2007, mare mules produced colts.[19][21][22] Blood and hair samples from the Colorado birth verified that the mother was indeed a mule and the foal was indeed her offspring.[22]

A 1939 article in the Journal of Heredity describes two offspring of a fertile mare mule named "Old Bec", which was owned at the time by Texas A&M University in the late 1920s. One of the foals was a female, sired by a jack. Unlike her mother, she was sterile. The other, sired by a five-gaited Saddlebred stallion, exhibited no characteristics of any donkey. That horse, a stallion, was bred to several mares, which gave birth to live foals that showed no characteristics of the donkey.[23]
...

Mule - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Trying to bury your loss in BS?
It depends on what stage of human/hominim evo is being talked about.
AGAIN, it was a 'for instance.'
Do we need an idiot essay for that because you want to make a 'for instance'/longish period into an absolute claim?
No.
You lost the meat, so persist with exploding the crumb. Making it a huge smoke-and-mirrors post of the non-issue/precise period.

`