davidylan:

Save your "answer" dude. Not so important. Pls give space for more responsible folks who know what they are talking about to respond.

D'aww are you sure? Because it pretty much shows you point for point why you were wrong.
Are you so scared of realizing your reason for rejecting science that you're willing to continue in ignorance? You shouldn't be.

Area_boy: on your first point. Put enough "micro" together and you will get "macro". . how many "micro" do you need to have a "macro"?
It is really important you check your claims before you make them. I didn't fabricate that picture I put up. it has been observed clearly as evidence of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion! that pretty much throws out your other claims.


Again, you might have discovered this yourself. If so, you might think of publishing it and make a fortune for yourself if you can prove any of your suggestions.

With that you still have the balls to call me too thick to think?? This is "your" field and I have taken my time to study it in my quest to find out the truth about a "god" if there is one!. In drilling engineering I can defend my field of expertise pretty sound.

I only ask you to go read because if you did we wouldnt be having this pointless argument/conversation now. We'll prolly be having a beer somewhere.


Look at the contrary : A "God" made all this.

and yet i'm "too thick" to think. pui!!

Huh? and this is your response? Dude go back to school.

Do you id[i]i[/i]ots really need to "go and read" to know that telomeres cant fuse? That is a simple thing you can test on a slide.
Do you need to "go and read" to know that two gametes with different chromosome number would produce only the 3 types of offspring i listed above? you actually need to "go and read" to know that this is the reason a man cannot produce an offspring through a goat?

These ignorant folks are dumber than a box of rocks.

davidylan:

You forgot you were only "ready to defend" on condition i answer your question as you just did here too and as has been your MO on most threads you're involved in? Save your answers dude.

If I'm going to defend my answers, it is only fair that you present your own points and be ready to defend them isn't it? Or do you really like playing your one sided games?
I was ready to defend them but you just started spamming links rather than having a serious conversation on how we both arrived at our conclusions. That is how science is done and that is how people learn.

Kay 17: @davidlyan

I have never heard of any scientific princple that science is done only in the Lab. Also evolution proponents don't claim the changes are instanteous especially in complex biology.

Lenski's experiments do show radical changes in micororganisms over a thousand generations. And do you explain resistant shown by disease causing microbes?!

Dont be stup[i]i[/i]d. Biological experiments can be confirmed in a lab.

Dude let me put it to you... assume for a second that the chromosome 2 fusion occurred in both parents at exactly the same time (a statistical impossibility)... are you also claiming that ALL organisms went through the mutation too at the same time?
If no (which is the likely case) then there were some organisms with 46 chromosomes and some with 48... why didnt natural selection weed out one of both? What was the evolutionary advantage for the mutation in the first place?

My friend go and sit down if you dont know what you are talking about.

davidylan:

Huh? and this is your response? Dude go back to school.

Do you id[i]i[/i]ots really need to "go and read" to know that telomeres cant fuse? That is a simple thing you can test on a slide.
Do you need to "go and read" to know that two gametes with different chromosome number would produce only the 3 types of offspring i listed above?

These ignorant folks are dumber than a box of rocks.

Here let me drop a few hints.
1. Telomeres actually can fuse and they do so quite regularly.
2. Sure but you're confusing the tree for the forest. Evolution is gradual and not single generational in animals which is what you're implying.

davidylan:

Dont be stup[i]i[/i]d. Biological experiments can be confirmed in a lab.

Dude let me put it to you... assume for a second that the chromosome 2 fusion occurred in both parents at exactly the same time (a statistical impossibility)... are you also claiming that ALL organisms went through the mutation too at the same time?
If no (which is the likely case) then there were some organisms with 46 chromosomes and some with 48... why didnt natural selection weed out one of both? What was the evolutionary advantage for the mutation in the first place?

My friend go and sit down if you dont know what you are talking about.

Once again, you're making another mistake in assuming that it occurred in a single generation.
You need to keep in mind that the population that became the ancestor of all humans, separated as a group from the common ancestor with chimpanzees and obviously there must have been some evolutionary advantage in that environment since we're here aren't we?

thehomer:

Here let me drop a few hints.
1. Telomeres actually can fuse and they do so quite regularly.
2. Sure but you're confusing the tree for the forest. Evolution is gradual and not single generational in animals which is what you're implying.

Here let me educate you as well...

Telomeres naturally dont fuse. If they "do so quite regularly" as you falsely claim then explain succinctly why all our chromosomes have failed to fuse since most have telomeric repeats?

Secondly, you should know that actual experiments in humans indicates clearly that telomere-telomere fusion, on the rare occassions they occur, is associated with loss of telomere function, chromosomal instability and significant shortening of telomeric repeats. All 3 would have been incompatible with a stable fused chromosome 2 in humans.

try again dumbo.

thehomer:

Once again, you're making another mistake in assuming that it occurred in a single generation.
You need to keep in mind that the population that became the ancestor of all humans, separated as a group from the common ancestor with chimpanzees and obviously there must have been some evolutionary advantage in that environment since we're here aren't we?

Wow, what utter .....................

thehomer, please take a break !!!

thehomer:

Once again, you're making another mistake in assuming that it occurred in a single generation.
You need to keep in mind that the population that became the ancestor of all humans, separated as a group from the common ancestor with chimpanzees and obviously there must have been some evolutionary advantage in that environment since we're here aren't we?

that is a typical tactic employed by you folks here. What was the point of a mutation that obviously had no selection advantage? Explain.

It seems you're really determined to hide your mystery theory. In that case, I'll have to assume that you're still of the mindset that you presented in the Higgs boson thread you posted a link to.
Anyway, what follows below is the answer I had prepared over an hour ago since I've already started answering the questions that bothered you.

davidylan: Nice nice nice! Finally one atheist who has an idea what he is talking about. And it just had to be an area boy.



Seriously... conditions that support human life are only feasibly present on earth and perhaps planet mars. If we havent found anything on mars yet, chances we will find anything on jupiter is close to nil. That we still rant about this "life on other planets" bull is mostly out of our desperation to prove the biblical claims wrong and less about genuine scientific discovery.

No they are not only "feasibly" present on earth. The commonest molecules in the universe are in this order. Hydrogen, helium, oxygen, carbon, neon, iron, nitrogen. As you know, living organisms are pretty much made up of and use the commonest elements that are reactive. The fact that we've not seen those planets is a function of the size of the universe and when the search began. Which itself is a function of when the technology for the search became available.

davidylan:
Dont worry... i took genetics in class, i dont have to be ordered around to read by the ignorant.

Hmm.

davidylan:
What you initially described is what is generally known as micro evolution (just call it what it is - mutation) which is very well established to occur either spontaneously or by biologically engineered processes. Nothing new here to see.

How does it differ from evolution as described in the theory of evolution?

davidylan:
Now the idea that somehow this tiny mutations... 99% of which are deleterious to the host... is responsible for the complex multicellular organisms we have today is just nonsense. If this were to be the case, why do we still have the exact same unicellular organisms like amoeba today?

Actually, 99% of mutations aren't deleterious to the host. We do not have the exact same unicellular organisms that were in the past. In fact, the organism with the largest genome is a unicellular organism - an amoeba.

davidylan:
that's probably because you are just too thick to think.

Now lets examine your theory here:

1. The idea here is that human chromosome 2 is actually a fusion of ape chromosomes 2A and 2B. Now on the surface, the presence of 2 centromeres and a middle telomere on human chromosome 2 might make this a very plausible idea and hence a reason why humans have only 23 and not 24 pairs of chromosomes...

No it is not a fusion of ape chromosomes 2A and 2B. In fact, if you're knowledgeable about genetics, you'll know that chromosomes aren't numbered with respect to human chromosomes.

davidylan:
2. BUT how did this fusion occur in the first place?

a. It is virtually impossible for chromosomes to fuse telomere to telomere (well if it were possible then we would just have one long chromosome no?) so we can rule this out pretty quick.

No it is not virtually impossible. In fact, telomere fusion is quite common due to the stickiness of those ends.

davidylan:
b. It is not possible that both chromosomes 2A and 2B split into sticky ends and then fused as that will NOT justify the presence of the telomere at the center of human chromosome 2.

What? Didn't you look at the picture Area_boy drew? What do you think will be in the center then?

davidylan:
c. the only possibility is that one of chromosomes 2A or 2B split into sticky ends and then fused to the telomere of the other... makes sense from a theoretical point of view but then

- We would have to imagine the HIGHLY IMPROBABLE scenario that this exact same fusion was taking place in both the male and female at the exact same time! Why?

This too shows a very common misconception. Evolution is determined at the level of the population not just at the level of the individual.

davidylan:
- Because if this occurred in only the sperm cell... that would mean 46 chromosomes from the male gamete and 48 from the female - this would mean only 3 outcomes:

1. An unviable zygote
2. A severely diseased offspring that would not be evolutionarily sustainable and thus quickly weeded out by the law of natural selection
3. A perfectly normal offspring that is infertile.

Your three scenarios here simply make no sense because we already do have humans whose chromosomes bear the marks of their "lowly" origins.

davidylan:
We dont need to read, you can state your points here clearly. We dont ask you to go read when you come here bleating for proof no?

I think you still need to read because you're not demonstrating the knowledge of genetics that you're claiming to have.

davidylan:

Here let me educate you as well...

Telomeres naturally dont fuse. If they "do so quite regularly" as you falsely claim then explain succinctly why all our chromosomes have failed to fuse since most have telomeric repeats?

They naturally don't fuse?
The fact that they don't always fuse in you doesn't mean they don't fuse naturally or regularly. They're known to do that in certain cancers you know.

davidylan:
Secondly, you should know that actual experiments in humans indicates clearly that telomere-telomere fusion, on the rare occassions they occur, is associated with loss of telomere function, chromosomal instability and significant shortening of telomeric repeats. All 3 would have been incompatible with a stable fused chromosome 2 in humans.

try again dumbo.

Seriously how did you take that class in genetics again?
I already pointed out to you that what happened in the case of humans occurred gradually in an isolated population and the evidence is right there to demonstrate this. This is one of the reasons why I was wondering what your previous assumptions were and how they explain what has already been found.

frosbel:

Wow, what utter .....................

thehomer, please take a break !!!

Why don't you respond to what I've actually said there?

davidylan:

that is a typical tactic employed by you folks here. What was the point of a mutation that obviously had no selection advantage? Explain.

Who says it didn't have a selection advantage? Can you show it didn't have a selection advantage? Since we're here and there are studies showing that it may play an important role in human intelligence.

thehomer: No they are not only "feasibly" present on earth. The commonest molecules in the universe are in this order. Hydrogen, helium, oxygen, carbon, neon, iron, nitrogen. As you know, living organisms are pretty much made up of and use the commonest elements that are reactive. The fact that we've not seen those planets is a function of the size of the universe and when the search began. Which itself is a function of when the technology for the search became available.

you could make a doll composed of the above elements... so what?

thehomer:
How does it differ from evolution as described in the theory of evolution?

Read the distinction btw micro and macro evolution on wikipedia.

thehomer:
Actually, 99% of mutations aren't deleterious to the host. We do not have the exact same unicellular organisms that were in the past. In fact, the organism with the largest genome is a unicellular organism - an amoeba.

which begs the question... why has the amoeba not changed in billions of yrs?

thehomer:
No it is not a fusion of ape chromosomes 2A and 2B. In fact, if you're knowledgeable about genetics, you'll know that chromosomes aren't numbered with respect to human chromosomes.

First, the issue in question here is the fusion event NOT the numenclature. Talk about irrelevant red herrings.

Second, it is the fusion of chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B. Read this from wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genome_project

Absolutely dislike having to correct these arrogant blowhards.

thehomer:
No it is not virtually impossible. In fact, telomere fusion is quite common due to the stickiness of those ends.

If this is true then why have all our chromosomes with "sticky ends" not fused together?

secondly... the average first yr college biology student will tell you that sticky ends of chromosomes occur with the break-off of the telomeric caps or after telomere shortening. FACT.

thehomer:
What? Didn't you look at the picture Area_boy drew? What do you think will be in the center then?

your point is? If both telomeric caps came off to reveal sticky ends then one would not expect a telomeric sequence in the middle of human chromosome 2 no? But since we see a telomeric sequence it can only suggest at least one cap came off right?

thehomer:
This too shows a very common misconception. Evolution is determined at the level of the population not just at the level of the individual.

But the mutation would start with an individual right? Or is your claim that a large population was going through the exact same mutation at the exact same time?

thehomer:
Your three scenarios here simply make no sense because we already do have humans whose chromosomes bear the marks of their "lowly" origins.

Actually they make perfect sense because all 3 scenarios are readily testable in the present day. Which is why mules are infertile dumbo.

thehomer:
I think you still need to read because you're not demonstrating the knowledge of genetics that you're claiming to have.

Really? and this is what we waited over an hr to read? An empty, substance-free and error-ridden load of crap?

thehomer:

Here let me drop a few hints.
1. Telomeres actually can fuse and they do so quite regularly.
2. Sure but you're confusing the tree for the forest. Evolution is gradual and not single generational in animals which is what you're implying.

please ignore davidylan.. atleast now we know who is the ignorant uneducated one!

Note: i never used any of those words to you. all i said is go and read, which you confirmed that you actually need to. it is a shame i can come to your "field" and make u look silly. then u jump to rate me under ignorant.

Fcking childish! i'm out.

thehomer:

They naturally don't fuse?
The fact that they don't always fuse in you doesn't mean they don't fuse naturally or regularly. They're known to do that in certain cancers you know.

the dont fuse "regularly" dumbo... if they did all our chromosomes would be one messy clump by now. I'm sometimes forced to wonder if you can think at all.
Shortened telomere lengths, non-functional telomeres and chromosomal instability are hallmarks of telomere fusion events... there are papers showing this clearly... read one here - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17908935

Ode.

thehomer:
Seriously how did you take that class in genetics again?
I already pointed out to you that what happened in the case of humans occurred gradually in an isolated population and the evidence is right there to demonstrate this. This is one of the reasons why I was wondering what your previous assumptions were and how they explain what has already been found.

laughable.

Area_boy:

please ignore davidylan.. atleast now we know who is the ignorant uneducated one!

Note: i never used any of those words to you. all i said is go and read, which you confirmed that you actually need to. it is a shame i can come to your "field" and make u look silly. then u jump to rate me under ignorant.

Fcking childish! i'm out.

this guy must be arguing about something from another thread. Surely it cant be the BS he posted here right?

aha the last resort of the ignorant blowhard. Yeah ignore david when you can no longer come here with empty bravado claiming to know what you are largely ignorant about.

thehomer:

Who says it didn't have a selection advantage? Can you show it didn't have a selection advantage? Since we're here and there are studies showing that it may play an important role in human intelligence.

How does this even make sense to you? There is a large similarity in genes on chromosome 2 and chimp chromosome 2a and 2b... so your claim is that fusion was the event that crowned humans with the intelligence we have now? bro you do need to go and read.

So wait or perhaps you want to claim that the fusion event added some extra genes that endowed man with better intelligence?

Or are we to take from this nonsense that somehow chimps who are known to be able to use tools and show emotions similar to those in humans are unintelligent?

I bow in awe to the foolishness of these noisy emptyheads.

davidylan:

you could make a doll composed of the above elements... so what?

So it counters you thought that the earth's composition was some how rare.

davidylan:
Read the distinction btw micro and macro evolution on wikipedia.

There is no distinction when it comes to the theory of evolution. Or rather, the "distinction" is in the time involved and even that depends on the species involved so, if you accept one, you're logically expected to accept the other.

davidylan:
which begs the question... why has the amoeba not changed in billions of yrs?

Again, who says it hasn't?

davidylan:
First, the issue in question here is the fusion event NOT the numenclature. Talk about irrelevant red herrings.

Second, it is the fusion of chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B. Read this from wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genome_project

Absolutely dislike having to correct these arrogant blowhards.

Seriously, are you saying this as someone who has studied genetics? That was to illustrate the similarities between the genomes not that it is used that way when one is working on chimpanzee genomes. There are standard ways of referring to genomes.

davidylan:
If this is true then why have all our chromosomes with "sticky ends" not fused together?

I've answered this already.

davidylan:
secondly... the average first yr college biology student will tell you that sticky ends of chromosomes occur with the break-off of the telomeric caps or after telomere shortening. FACT.

So? Are you still saying they don't fuse naturally?

davidylan:
your point is? If both telomeric caps came off to reveal sticky ends then one would not expect a telomeric sequence in the middle of human chromosome 2 no? But since we see a telomeric sequence it can only suggest at least one cap came off right?

What on earth are you mumbling here? The presence of the telomeric sequence is already demonstrated. Why won't you see a telomeric sequence in the middle if both were fused?

davidylan:
But the mutation would start with an individual right? Or is your claim that a large population was going through the exact same mutation at the exact same time?

It is possible.

davidylan:
Actually they make perfect sense because all 3 scenarios are readily testable in the present day. Which is why mules are infertile dumbo.

Seriously, you're an embarrassment. I've told you before that evolution is a slow process yet you keep forgetting. What is wrong with you?

davidylan:
Really? and this is what we waited over an hr to read? An empty, substance-free and error-ridden load of crap?

Actually, it pretty much demonstrates your deep ignorance on what you claim to have studied. What are the errors you think you've found and how does your creation story address them?

Area_boy:

please ignore davidylan.. atleast now we know who is the ignorant uneducated one!

Note: i never used any of those words to you. all i said is go and read, which you confirmed that you actually need to. it is a shame i can come to your "field" and make u look silly. then u jump to rate me under ignorant.

Fcking childish! i'm out.

Yeah but one must try for the sake of others who may one day read this thread.

Area_Boy let me ask you succinctly... Almost all our chromosomes have telomeric caps... if according to thehomer's brand of pseudoscience all telomeres fuse regularly then why are our chromosomes not fused mess? and this is the guy who says he came to make me look silly.

Just brainless sheep bleating meh to the nonsensical noise-making of their fellow atheists without bothering to think on their own.

davidylan:

the dont fuse "regularly" dumbo... if they did all our chromosomes would be one messy clump by now. I'm sometimes forced to wonder if you can think at all.
Shortened telomere lengths, non-functional telomeres and chromosomal instability are hallmarks of telomere fusion events... there are papers showing this clearly... read one here - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17908935

Ode.



laughable.

My goodness just how slow are you? That link shows you why you cannot say what you said before which is that it is quite rare and that it doesn't do so naturally. I hope google has helped you.
I also told you that the fact that all your chromosomes haven't fused doesn't mean that chromosomes don't fuse regularly. Is English another problem for you?

davidylan:

How does this even make sense to you? There is a large similarity in genes on chromosome 2 and chimp chromosome 2a and 2b... so your claim is that fusion was the event that crowned humans with the intelligence we have now? bro you do need to go and read.

Wow. Is that what I said? Are you really unable to read? Go back and read what I actually said.

davidylan:
So wait or perhaps you want to claim that the fusion event added some extra genes that endowed man with better intelligence?

No I didn't say that.

davidylan:
Or are we to take from this nonsense that somehow chimps who are known to be able to use tools and show emotions similar to those in humans are unintelligent?

I bow in awe to the foolishness of these noisy emptyheads.

Wow. Just wow. Once again, your childish nature reveals itself with poor reading comprehension skills.

thehomer:
So it counters you thought that the earth's composition was some how rare.

that's daft and dishonest because that is not what i said... i said conditions conducive for life as we know it can only be found mostly here on earth and perhaps on mars to an extent. Do you find the same oxygen on jupiter?

thehomer:
There is no distinction when it comes to the theory of evolution. Or rather, the "distinction" is in the time involved and even that depends on the species involved so, if you accept one, you're logically expected to accept the other.

there actually is a clear distinction and that fact is established on wikipedia not by me. Read it and stop running around in circles.

thehomer:
Again, who says it hasn't?

No it hasnt... go and read.

thehomer:
Seriously, are you saying this as someone who has studied genetics? That was to illustrate the similarities between the genomes not that it is used that way when one is working on chimpanzee genomes. There are standard ways of referring to genomes.

i know perfectly well that there is a standard numenclature for genes and genomes. However for simplicity's sake that is how it is referred to and i gave you a reference... there are more references using the EXACT SAME naming system as area boy and myself have employed here on Pubmed (the NIH repository for biological journals) so i would suggest you get off your high horse and abandon the pandering to red herrings.

thehomer:
I've answered this already.

No you didnt idiot. If telomeres are the sticky ends of chromosomes (which is absolutely untrue!) then why are our chromosomes not one sticky bunch of goo?

thehomer:
So? Are you still saying they don't fuse naturally?

I am still saying so... and i presented a well researched paper backing me up. READ IT.

thehomer:
What on earth are you mumbling here? The presence of the telomeric sequence is already demonstrated. Why won't you see a telomeric sequence in the middle if both were fused?

Again id[i]i[/i]ot, let me school you again. If the telomeric caps broke off before the fusion of the sticky ends to take place then you would not find a telomeric sequence in the middle of the fused chromosome.

thehomer:
It is possible.

Statistically not possible. Only possible because that is the only way your theory does not fall apart.

thehomer:
Seriously, you're an embarrassment. I've told you before that evolution is a slow process yet you keep forgetting. What is wrong with you?

Senseless... i asked the question for this on a separate post.

thehomer:
Actually, it pretty much demonstrates your deep ignorance on what you claim to have studied. What are the errors you think you've found and how does your creation story address them?

Again a long bunch of vague non-answers. where is the meat? Where is the substance? Just bull crap.

thehomer:

Wow. Is that what I said? Are you really unable to read? Go back and read what I actually said.



No I didn't say that.



Wow. Just wow. Once again, your childish nature reveals itself with poor reading comprehension skills.

Once again musical chairs when they are caught in their own folly.

thehomer:

My goodness just how slow are you? That link shows you why you cannot say what you said before which is that it is quite rare and that it doesn't do so naturally. I hope google has helped you.
I also told you that the fact that all your chromosomes haven't fused doesn't mean that chromosomes don't fuse regularly. Is English another problem for you?

Daft again.

If you read that link (rather than rushing to post after scanning the headline)... you note what conclusion they reached -

The loss of telomere function can result in telomeric fusion events that lead to the types of genomic rearrangements, such as nonreciprocal translocations, that typify early-stage carcinogenesis. By using single-molecule approaches to characterize fusion events, we provide a functional definition of fusogenic telomeres in human cells. We show that approximately half of the fusion events contained no canonical telomere repeats at the fusion point; of those that did, the longest was 12.8 repeats. Furthermore, in addition to end-replication losses, human telomeres are subjected to large-scale deletion events that occur in the presence or absence of telomerase. Here we show that these telomeres are fusogenic, and thus despite the majority of telomeres being maintained at a stable length in normal human cells, a subset of stochastically shortened telomeres can potentially cause chromosomal instability. [size=18pt]Telomere fusion was accompanied by the deletion of one or both telomeres extending several kilobases into the telomere-adjacent DNA, and microhomology was observed at the fusion points[/size]. This contrasted with telomere fusion that was observed following the experimental disruption of TRF2. The distinct error-prone mutational profile of [size=18pt]fusion between critically shortened telomeres[/size] in human cells was reminiscent of Ku-independent microhomology-mediated end-joining.

the paper is VERY CLEAR - telomeric fusion is associated with loss of telomere function, critical telomere shortening and chromosomal instability. Now if telomere fusion occurred regularly then not only do we assume that our chromosomes would be critically unstable but our chromosomes would all be one large gooey mess since most all our chromosomes have telomeric caps.

Another reason your claim is plain stup[i]i[/i]d is this... telomere length is a very important part of regulating the aging process in cells. The shorter the telomeres at the end of chromosomes, the quicker the onset of replicative senescence in cells (i.e. cells are unable to divide). This regulation of telomere length is very controlled in cells and is the reason certain primary cells do not replicate in vitro after they have been in culture for a while.

to assume that these telomeres just fuse willy nilly is bogus and a clear indication that you are another empty barrel just shouting to win a senseless argument.

Another paper talking about telomere fusion - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20026586

Telomere fusion is an important mutational event that has the potential to lead to large-scale genomic rearrangements of the types frequently observed in cancer. We have developed single-molecule approaches to detect, isolate and characterize the DNA sequence of telomere fusion events in human cells. Using these assays, we have detected complex fusion events that include fusion with interstitial loci adjacent to fragile sites, intra-molecular rearrangements, and fusion events involving the telomeres of both arms of the same chromosome consistent with ring chromosome formation. All fusion events were characterized by the deletion of at least one of the telomeres extending into the sub-telomeric DNA up to 5.6 kb; close to the limit of our assays. The deletion profile indicates that deletion may extend further into the chromosome. Short patches of DNA sequence homology with a G:C bias were observed at the fusion point in 60% of events. The distinct profile that accompanies telomere fusion may be a characteristic of the end-joining processes involved in the fusion event.

Where do these argumentative blowhards get their arrogance from? they tell you to "go and read" while they themselves are largely devoid of any information. Imagine thehomer telling us telomeres fuse regularly... i'm shocked.

When he called telomeres the sticky ends of chromosomes i was 100% sure this guy was blind and as ignorant as a bat. Even a 15 yr old biology student knows better.

davidylan:

that's daft and dishonest because that is not what i said... i said conditions conducive for life as we know it can only be found mostly here on earth and perhaps on mars to an extent. Do you find the same oxygen on jupiter?

Are you really this dumb? Do you think the planets of the solar system are the only planets in the universe? Sheesh.

davidylan:
there actually is a clear distinction and that fact is established on wikipedia not by me. Read it and stop running around in circles.

Here, you've decided to start lying.

davidylan:
No it hasnt... go and read.

Do you have evidence that it hasn't changed?

davidylan:
i know perfectly well that there is a standard numenclature for genes and genomes. However for simplicity's sake that is how it is referred to and i gave you a reference... there are more references using the EXACT SAME naming system as area boy and myself have employed here on Pubmed (the NIH repository for biological journals) so i would suggest you get off your high horse and abandon the pandering to red herrings.

I already told you why the article you posted presented the data that way. Seriously, you need to go back to the books you think you read for your genetics course.

davidylan:
No you didnt idiot. If telomeres are the sticky ends of chromosomes (which is absolutely untrue!) then why are our chromosomes not one sticky bunch of goo?

My goodness, you're either simply ignorant or lying. Simply read this part of this article. Again, what makes you think that the fact that certain parts of a chromosome are considered sticky means that all your chromosomes must be a "sticky bunch of goo"? Seriously, this is just embarrassing.

davidylan:
I am still saying so... and i presented a well researched paper backing me up. READ IT.

The paper doesn't back you up. If they don't fuse naturally, then how do they fuse? Supernaturally? Sheesh.

davidylan:
Again id[i]i[/i]ot, let me school you again. If the telomeric caps broke off before the fusion of the sticky ends to take place then you would not find a telomeric sequence in the middle of the fused chromosome.

Do you think that for fusion to occur, the entire telomeric portion of the chromosome must be lost? Seriously, you're just confused.

davidylan:
Statistically not possible. Only possible because that is the only way your theory does not fall apart.

How can you say it is statistically not possible when it is what happened? And the evidence shows this? And that these fusions are known to occur?

davidylan:
Senseless... i asked the question for this on a separate post.

Do you now agree that evolution is a slow process or do I have to repeat myself?

davidylan:
Again a long bunch of vague non-answers. where is the meat? Where is the substance? Just bull crap.

I presented you with serious answers, you just demonstrated more of your confusion though, it seems you've acquired a little background knowledge since our last discussion on this topic but it is obviously not enough for you to make sense of what the evidence shows you.

By the way, tell me once again how your creation ideas answer the questions you think are valid that you're asking.

davidylan:

Once again musical chairs when they are caught in their own folly.

What musical chairs? Now can you actually show me where I said the chromosomes lead to what you were ascribing to me?

thehomer:

Are you really this dumb? Do you think the planets of the solar system are the only planets in the universe? Sheesh.



Here, you've decided to start lying.



Do you have evidence that it hasn't changed?



I already told you why the article you posted presented the data that way. Seriously, you need to go back to the books you think you read for your genetics course.



My goodness, you're either simply ignorant or lying. Simply read this part of this article. Again, what makes you think that the fact that certain parts of a chromosome are considered sticky means that all your chromosomes must be a "sticky bunch of goo"? Seriously, this is just embarrassing.



The paper doesn't back you up. If they don't fuse naturally, then how do they fuse? Supernaturally? Sheesh.



Do you think that for fusion to occur, the entire telomeric portion of the chromosome must be lost? Seriously, you're just confused.



How can you say it is statistically not possible when it is what happened? And the evidence shows this? And that these fusions are known to occur?



Do you now agree that evolution is a slow process or do I have to repeat myself?



I presented you with serious answers, you just demonstrated more of your confusion though, it seems you've acquired a little background knowledge since our last discussion on this topic but it is obviously not enough for you to make sense of what the evidence shows you.

By the way, tell me once again how your creation ideas answer the questions you think are valid that you're asking.

dignifying you with a response to your verbose, but largely substance-free nonsense is the reason you are bold enough to state such nonsense.

davidylan:

Daft again.

If you read that link (rather than rushing to post after scanning the headline)... you note what conclusion they reached -

The loss of telomere function can result in telomeric fusion events that lead to the types of genomic rearrangements, such as nonreciprocal translocations, that typify early-stage carcinogenesis. By using single-molecule approaches to characterize fusion events, we provide a functional definition of fusogenic telomeres in human cells. We show that approximately half of the fusion events contained no canonical telomere repeats at the fusion point; of those that did, the longest was 12.8 repeats. Furthermore, in addition to end-replication losses, human telomeres are subjected to large-scale deletion events that occur in the presence or absence of telomerase. Here we show that these telomeres are fusogenic, and thus despite the majority of telomeres being maintained at a stable length in normal human cells, a subset of stochastically shortened telomeres can potentially cause chromosomal instability. [size=18pt]Telomere fusion was accompanied by the deletion of one or both telomeres extending several kilobases into the telomere-adjacent DNA, and microhomology was observed at the fusion points[/size]. This contrasted with telomere fusion that was observed following the experimental disruption of TRF2. The distinct error-prone mutational profile of [size=18pt]fusion between critically shortened telomeres[/size] in human cells was reminiscent of Ku-independent microhomology-mediated end-joining.

the paper is VERY CLEAR - telomeric fusion is associated with loss of telomere function, critical telomere shortening and chromosomal instability. Now if telomere fusion occurred regularly then not only do we assume that our chromosomes would be critically unstable but our chromosomes would all be one large gooey mess since most all our chromosomes have telomeric caps.

Another reason your claim is plain stup[i]i[/i]d is this... telomere length is a very important part of regulating the aging process in cells. The shorter the telomeres at the end of chromosomes, the quicker the onset of replicative senescence in cells (i.e. cells are unable to divide). This regulation of telomere length is very controlled in cells and is the reason certain primary cells do not replicate in vitro after they have been in culture for a while.

to assume that these telomeres just fuse willy nilly is bogus and a clear indication that you are another empty barrel just shouting to win a senseless argument.

Once again, you've started quoting articles that don't counter what I've said and which don't help you.

1. Based on that article, can you say that these fusions don't occur naturally?
2. You do realize that it occurs regularly [/b]in certain types of cancers. I never said they fuse randomly, I simply said they fuse [b]regularly.
3. How does this help you? Since we already see the traces of telomeres and centromeres in chromosome 2?

davidylan:

Dont be stup[i]i[/i]d. Biological experiments "CAN" be confirmed in a lab.

Dude let me put it to you... assume for a second that the chromosome 2 fusion occurred in both parents at exactly the same time (a statistical impossibility)... are you also claiming that ALL organisms went through the mutation too at the same time?
If no (which is the likely case) then there were some organisms with 46 chromosomes and some with 48... why didnt natural selection weed out one of both? What was the evolutionary advantage for the mutation in the first place?

My friend go and sit down if you dont know what you are talking about.

Your response to:

Kay 17: @davidlyan

I have never heard of any scientific princple that science is done "ONLY" in the Lab. Also evolution proponents don't claim the changes are instanteous especially in complex biology.

Lenski's experiments do show radical changes in micororganisms over a thousand generations. And do you explain resistant shown by disease causing microbes?!