What if the Theory of Evolution is Right? (Part I)

Okay.

which brings us back to the same question again.

You have two different studies, arriving at two different results.

How do you decidewhich one has refuted the other? How do know which one is the accurate one, and which one is the wrong one?

How are you deciding which one has egg on their face, and which one not?

Or are you simply picking the one you like?

Your such a silly lad Elroch! The effect of gene duplications are minimal, as are unanchored chimpanzee sequencing contigs, DNA found in humans but not in chimps, non DNA letters, 'N' DNA which are all removed from the latest 6fold Chimpanzee assembly comparison studies by Dr Tomkin. Of course these would lower his conservative 70% overall genome similarity. Using 8 query files and optimal sequence slicing per Chromosome and BLASTN algorithms , his is the most authoritative study to date.

Unless someone out here can show a more complete, unbiased, authoritative study, unlike the one found in nature, and explain why it is more authoritative than DR. Tompkins than its time for one of your Looney tune cartoons Elroch!😀

No evolutionist has sequenced the supposed fusion site V1, not that I'm aware of, why is that? Afraid what they might find out? Until an evolutionist does that, they have no reason to doubt his results!

That's what it always comes back to. Opinion.

"Oh, I don't think 50 million years would be enough time. I can't explain why. I know the transitional fossils are all there. I just think it's not enough time. But that's me."

Why on earth are you even commenting on this? You do not know what you are talking about. You have no earthly idea whether it is opinion or not.

New rule: If you can't post the link, the study never happened!

interesting opinion......

Sounds like "Evolution gone wild" doesn't it?

As it happens, the kind authors and participants in the research allow me to direct you more than you are likely to want.

First the supplementary data for the paper. (Don't complain I've been stingy).

Secondly the full text of the paper (I have already posted a link to this three times, so don't blame me if you haven't looked at it).

MindWalk wrote:

From http://www.icr.org/article/new-research-debunks-human-chromosome/ , this is what I strongly suspect einstein99 is referring to (I do not yet know how to answer the specific claims, not knowing enough and not yet having searched super-hard for a refutation):

New Research Debunks Human Chromosome Fusion

by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. *

Evidence for Creation

Humans and great apes differ in chromosome numbers—humans have 46 while apes have 48. The difference is claimed to be due to the “end-to-end fusion” of two small, ape-like chromosomes in a human-ape ancestor that joined in the distant past and formed human chromosome 2. This idea was first proposed by researchers who noticed that humans and chimps share similar chromosomal staining patterns when observed under a microscope.1 However, humans and chimps also have regions of their chromosomes that do not share common staining patterns.

Supposed proof for the alleged fusion came in 1991, when researchers discovered a fusion-like DNA sequence about 800 bases in length on human chromosome 2.2 However, it was unexpectedly small in size and extremely degenerate. More importantly, this new fusion-like sequence wasn’t what the researchers were expecting to find since it contained a signature never seen before. All known fusions in living animals are associated with a sequence called satellite DNA (satDNA) that fuses in one of the two following scenarios: 1) satDNA-satDNA or 2) satDNA-telomereDNA. (Telomeres are the regions at the end of chromosomes that contain thousands of repeats of the DNA sequence “TTAGG.”)3,4 The alleged fusion sequence contained a different signature, a telomere-telomere fusion, and, if real, would be the first documented case ever seen in nature.

In 2002, 614,000 bases of DNA surrounding the fusion site were fully sequenced, revealing that the alleged fusion sequence was in the middle of a gene originally classified as a pseudogene because there was not yet any known function for it.5,6 The research also showed that the genes surrounding the fusion site in the 614,000-base window did not exist on chimp chromosomes 2A or 2B—the supposed ape origins location. In genetics terminology, we call this discordant gene location a lack of synteny.

I have now published new research on the alleged fusion site, revealing genetic data that fully debunk its evolutionary claims.7 My analysis confirms that the site is located inside a gene called DDX11L2 on human chromosome 2. Furthermore, the alleged fusion sequence contains a functional genetic feature called a “transcription factor binding site” that is located in the first intron (non-coding region) of the gene (see illustration). Transcription factors are proteins that bind to regulatory sites in and around genes to control their function, acting like switches. The DDX11L2 gene has three of these areas, one of which is encoded in the alleged fusion site.

Chromosomes are double-stranded DNA molecules and contain genes on both strands that are encoded in opposite directions. Because the DDX11L2 gene is encoded on the reverse-oriented strand, it is read in the reverse direction (see Exon 1 arrow). Thus, the alleged fusion sequence is not read in the forward orientation typically used in literature as evidence for a fusion—rather, it is read in the reverse direction and encodes a key regulatory switch.

The supposed fusion site is actually a key part of the DDX11L2 gene. The gene itself is part of a complex group of RNA helicase DDX11L genes that produce regulatory long non-coding RNAs. These DDX11L2 RNA transcripts are produced in at least 255 different cell types and tissues in humans, highlighting the genes’ ubiquitous biological function.

Functional genes like DDX11L2 do not arise by the mythical fusing of telomeres. The alleged fusion site is not a degenerate fusion sequence but is and, since creation, has been a functional feature in an important gene.7

References

Yunis, J. J. and O. Prakash. 1982. The origin of man: A chromosomal pictorial legacy. Science. 215 (4539): 1525-1530.

Ijdo, J. W. et al. 1991. Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 88 (20): 9051-9055.

Tsipouri, V. et al 2008. Comparative sequence analyses reveal sites of ancestral chromosomal fusions in the Indian muntjac genome. Genome Biology. 9 (10): R155.

Adega, F., H. Guedes-Pinto and R. Chaves. 2009. Satellite DNA in the karyotype evolution of domestic animals—clinical considerations. Cytogenetics and Genome Research. 126 (1-2): 12-20.

Fan, Y. et al. 2002. Gene Content and Function of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in Human Chromosome 2q13-2q14.1 and Paralogous Regions. Genome Research. 12 (11): 1663-1672.

Fan, Y. et al. 2002. Genomic Structure and Evolution of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in 2q13-2q14.1 and Paralogous Regions on Other Human Chromosomes. Genome Research. 12 (11): 1651-1662.

Tomkins, J. 2013. Alleged Human Chromosome 2 “Fusion Site” Encodes an Active DNA Binding Domain Inside a Complex and Highly Expressed Gene—Negating Fusion. Answers Research Journal. 6: 367-375.

* Dr. Tomkins is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research and received his Ph.D. in genetics from Clemson University.

Cite this article: Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. 2013. New Research Debunks Human Chromosome Fusion. Acts & Facts. 42 (12).

Evidence for Creation

______________________________________________________

Post 403 has the pictures of the transcribable gene in the middle of the fusion site. My phone won't even coppy the picture, how lame.

Now THAT was funny. There was a movie called Birdemic about the explosion of birds, but it happened over just a couple of weeks and was caused by global warming.

I remember the initial goofy discussions about how we must be related to bonobos because they lay around all day, enjoy gay sex, and do drugs.

No, they don't do drugs. Mayber they do. But because bonobos have gay sex it was assumed by the researchers that we must be genetically related.

Whether or not it's true, you gotta admit it's pretty funny.

I have no idea what to make of this particular study, which means it must be true down to the finest detail.

Einstein, do you have any particular comments about the linked paper?

Sorry if you've already discussed it. Just point me to prior posts if you have.

hapless_fool, that paper you asked for and its associated data is in my previous post in case you missed them, unless you feel playing the fool is the only strategy left to you at this point (as appears to be the case).

If you want the raw data for the genomes, that is available too. Obviously, it's quite large.

Also, it appears you have given up trying to find any fault with The Selfish Gene. Wise move. Read it and learn something from a very smart biologist.

Tompkins is a religious crackpot. Nature is one of the world's leading scientific journals. I can understand why you find it natural to side with Tompkins, as I find it natural to side with Nature.

...

Hi Everybody !

(Hilite to see above text....it's in white........)

Evolution of the whale skull

Interesting and informative post, varelse1. It's rather beautiful to see tens of millions of years of evolution like that.