Bijish Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 Hey I have already done an extensive research online regarding the subject topic and sadly it could not get any comprehensive answer. We all know that Homo sapiens have 46 Chromosomes, but what about the Neanderthal and other Homo Genus species??? This is a considerably significant question basically because it has serious relationship with proving the evolution of human against the creation theory. We all know that creation theory is a absurd concept, but some unanswered questions like the above sometimes makes the science's side weaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 (edited) neanderthals had 48, 24 pairs, Other apes also have 24 pairs. Yes evolution can explain this, google fused chromosomes, humans and apes... Why do you think this is an unanswered question? I would say this makes science stronger not weaker... Edited January 12, 2013 by Moontanman 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bijish Posted January 13, 2013 Author Share Posted January 13, 2013 Thank you...But do you have any references to prove the same....??? And again, if the ancestor with the fused chromosomes went on to found the human race, If the rest of the Homo Genus have 46 Chromosomes like we do, then how they can be considered as Humans? So, How can Chromosome fusion alone can prove that we had a common ancestor? I think Common ancestry is based on Structure, Similarities, Share of Genome and DNA? not based on Chromosome Fusion.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Thank you... But do you have any references to prove the same....??? And again, if the ancestor with the fused chromosomes went on to found the human race, If the rest of the Homo Genus have 46 Chromosomes like we do, then how they can be considered as Humans? So, How can Chromosome fusion alone can prove that we had a common ancestor? I think Common ancestry is based on Structure, Similarities, Share of Genome and DNA? not based on Chromosome Fusion.... I didn't say that common ancestry was based on chromosome fusion. I said it can be explained and that it supports evolution... Please watch this video, then we can talk... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bijish Posted January 14, 2013 Author Share Posted January 14, 2013 Thank you.... I am pretty satisfied with the video link information... But there are still some missing links...Will come back to later with other doubts...Thanks again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Thank you.... I am pretty satisfied with the video link information... But there are still some missing links... Will come back to later with other doubts... Thanks again... Missing links? let me know if you want to discuss missing links... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewmon Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I have already done an extensive research online regarding the subject topic and sadly it could not get any comprehensive answer. We all know that Homo sapiens have 46 Chromosomes, but what about the Neanderthal and other Homo Genus species? I also cannot find the number of chromosomes that comprise the Neanderthal DNA apparently because what we find is so old that it has decomposed. However, because we think they crossbred with humans, it seems they would have the same number of chromosomes as us, or the offspring would suffer infertility as do mules. A horse's 64 chromosomes cross with a donkey's 62 chromosomes to produce a mule's 63 chromosomes, but mules are almost always infertile. I'm guessing that the same would occur for Human × Neanderthal offspring. As for the video, it's the same (but somewhat different) situation when nonbelievers try to read the whole Bible literally as when believers try to. They get it wrong. To begin with, according to Genesis 2:7, God did not form Adam from "clay". Almost all English translations translate it as "dust of the ground" (and even Biblical scholars wonder what the heck that is supposed to mean!). Basically, it involves the ground/earth/dirt. Also consider that Adam's creation is mentioned previously in Genesis 1:27 where "God created man in his own image". Hmm, that sounds like we're supernatural. But, of course, we're not. And, obviously, neither was Adam merely clay/ground/earth/dirt. So, why revisit Adam's creation? To correct a misunderstanding. Yes, made in God's image, but no, not of supernatural ingredients — merely the dust of the ground. Same things with Eve created from one of Adam's ribs. Women certainly look and behave a lot differently from men (!!!), but no, they're mostly the same as men. Science has shown that only 5% is different. Viva la difference! Anyway, if you look at the elemental composition of the human body, you'll see that, maybe except for some of the oxygen in the watery part of us, the rest of our 60 elements must come from the ground (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus, potassium, ... tungsten, beryllium, and radium). So, scientifically speaking, we are made from the dust of the ground, and if you take it back even further, we're all stardust, which is pretty awesome. Lastly, the word adam also means reddish earth and ruddy skin color. We know from scientific analysis that the redness of earth and the ruddiness of our flesh are both caused by the element iron — as iron oxide in the ground and as hemoglobin (a metalloprotein) in our blood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arete Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I also cannot find the number of chromosomes that comprise the Neanderthal DNA apparently because what we find is so old that it has decomposed. However, because we think they crossbred with humans, it seems they would have the same number of chromosomes as us, or the offspring would suffer infertility as do mules. A horse's 64 chromosomes cross with a donkey's 62 chromosomes to produce a mule's 63 chromosomes, but mules are almost always infertile. I'm guessing that the same would occur for Human × Neanderthal offspring. Not all chromosomal rearrangements lead to the disruption of meiosis - and in many cases where a metacentric fusion does lead to meiotic disruption, reproductive potential of the offspring is reduced but not eliminated. For example, Robersonian fusions result in different nummbers of chromosomes, but not necessarily reproductive isolation. Approximately 1 in 1000 humans have a Robertsonian fusion (thus only 45 chromosomes) most without any detrimental effects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robertsonian_translocation As such, the particular karyotypic rearrangement needs to be determined before you can infer an isolating barrier, and many closely related organsims with different numbers of chromosomes can sucessfully interbreed to produce viable offspring - Mus musculus being a textbook example, with over 40 described chromosomal types across the species, ranging from 22 to 40 pairs of chromosomes. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/2410154 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overtone Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 (edited) I also cannot find the number of chromosomes that comprise the Neanderthal DNA apparently because what we find is so old that it has decomposed. However, because we think they crossbred with humans, it seems they would have the same number of chromosomes as us, or the offspring would suffer infertility as do mules. There is some indication of sex-linked infertility (the presence of nuclear code but absence of mitochondrial code in the current human inheritence) in the hypothesized Eurasian/Neandertal cross, which would support a chromosomal number mismatch. Anyway, if you look at the elemental composition of the human body, you'll see that, maybe except for some of the oxygen in the watery part of us, the rest of our 60 elements must come from the ground (carbon, hydrogen, - - - The carbon (and some of the hydrogen) comes from the air - that's where the photosynthetic beings get it, and we get it from them ultimately. As far as getting it "wrong", the literal readers of any version of the Bible (believers or not) are not the ones getting the words wrong. There they are. Edited January 16, 2013 by overtone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewmon Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Thanks for all your comments and the terminology. About 1 in 1,000 with Robertsonian fusion is much more common than I would have thought. What is it about a fusion would have detrimental effects? I'm taking this to an extreme, but could there be a "normal" human walking around with, say, one pair of huge chromosomes (that is, the number of chromosomes generally does not have an effect)? Do you know the chance of an inheritance going in the opposite direction (maybe 47 or 48 chromosomes), and what is it called? So, is the absence of mitochondrial code the main cause of sex-linked infertility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now