"In order for this fusion event to demonstrate common ancestry with the chimpanzee, there would have to be some link between the fusion event and the great apes. But no such link exists. The fused-looking chromosome is specific to humans, so it does not directly connect with the great apes."
Is a direct lie.
The latest banks and financial services company and industry news with expert analysis from the BBVA, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria.
www.bbvaopenmind.com
"However, it was not until after the 1970s that molecular techniques allowing direct analysis of DNA on chromosomes arrived, before which in-depth characterization of the chromosome rearrangement that distinguishes us from the large apes was not possible. Thus, it was seen that more or less
in the center of our chromosome 2 there were telomeric and subtelomeric DNA sequences (normally present at only one end of chromosomes, but not in internal areas) (2). This made it clear that the fusion of the two chromosomes had been complete, that is, from one end to the other. Nowadays, the availability of human genome and the genome of large apes has revealed how
the genetic content of our chromosome 2 corresponds to the sum of the two chromosomes of our ape ancestors."
It does show ancestry because the genetic sequence MATCH with ape chromosomes. A match that makes no sense whatsoever in a creationist view. Particularly when you factor in the telomers that exist in the middle of the chromosome where they DO NOT BELONG. Since telomers mark the endpoints of chromosomes their existence in the middle shows it was a fusion and the match with a set of chromosomes that are in apes marks the ancestry.
Further, the genetic sequence is expected to only be in humans, I am not sure why your source would make any other claim unless they think that DNA must totally match for ancestry to be established. That is nonsensical as then we would not be talking about ancestry, we would be talking about the same species.
" However, the probability that this mutation would occur simultaneously in multiple individuals is so staggeringly low that we can assume its impossibility."
Which is why no one has ever made that claim. Ever.
So why does your source go into impossibilities that are irrelevant?
Because it wants to make this claim:
"This alignment is dependent on the near-identical structure and sequence of chromosomal pairs. If an individual carries a mutation such as a chromosomal fusion, then he or she will often be unable to produce gametes, because meiosis will fail to occur properly due to improper alignment of the now non-identical chromosome pairs."
Which, again, is dishonest. That CAN be the case but it is not necessarily the case as we well know:
en.wikipedia.org
Is just one example of a type of chromosomal matchup that many species has where they have different numbers of chromosomes within a single breeding population. Indeed, species that have differing number of chromosomes are not rare.
Then:
A third problem with the hypothesis of a chromosomal fusion in human ancestry lies in the complete absence of humans with 48 chromosomes. If it were true that a chromosomal split occurred in human evolution, then two distinct human groups would have been generated: one containing 48 chromosomes which were not altered by any genetic change, and a second containing 46 chromosomes including the fusion of chromosome 2 (Figure 2). The problem is, however, that no humans have 48 chromosomes. The only possible historical explanation is that an entire population of 48-chromosome humans became extinct and was replaced by a 46-chromosome human race. For this scenario to have occurred, a very strong positive selection must have favored the diploid number of 46 over that of 48 (Bowers, 2003)."
Hey, they said something true. Because we lack a 48 chromosome human it must mean there is a selection bias for the 46 chromosome pair. Then they go onto this falsehood:
"Unfortunately for evolutionists, the paradox is that the same selection would be expected for the other apes as well. Apes, however, maintained a chromosome number of 48"
Which is BS conjecture. For this statement to be true apes would have had to have the same mutation. This is EXTREMEMLY unlikely in evolution, 2 populations are unlikely to have the exact same mutations on a large scale like this AND it assumes the same selection pressures existed for early humans as existed for other ape populations. Another non-starter as the adaptations would be population specific.
Of course we are left with the FACT that none of this is shown to be evidence of creation. Just complaints about evolution that are based in a fundamental mischaracterization of chromosomal changes and trying to make them out as always detrimental though we know that to be false. They TRY and make this 'evidence' for creation by going right back to the old reliable:
"The only remaining explanation for the similarity of human chromosome 2 to chromosomes 2A and 2B in the chimpanzee is that God created mankind with 46 chromosomes including a second chromosome with the visible characteristics that we see today. "
God did it. I could equally state leprechauns did it. The argument is IDENTICAL and also has the exact same amount of evidence for it.
And the cherry on top:
"Atheists have asked why God would purposefully create a human chromosome that “looks” like the fusion of two chromosomes. At this stage of understanding, we do not know. Recall God’s words: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts”
Yup, the cherry on top is that God made it to look like evolution for no discernable reason.
