Monday, April 21, 2008

Answers In Genesis on the fused chromosomes

A little while back I read an AiG article entitled Tail of Two Chromosomes. It was answering Kenneth Miller's argument for human evolution from earlier primates (that the human chromosome number two was the result of the fusing of two chimpanzee chromosomes). It basically said that it is the result of two human chromosomes fusing. The claimed that in other species it is connected to illnesses. And that it does not lead to speciation. After asking Miller himself I realized that the author of the article was missing the point of the article, this is what he said in his reply;

Thanks very much for your note:

[my email to him]
Hi I'm a high school freshman from
Temecula, I have reviewed your analysis of creationism and it seems reasonable.
I have been looking for a response to a creationist response to your fused
chromosome argument found here,
they appear to do a good job in defending their case against common descent
(which being an evangelical I am rather pleased I'll admit) but I am still
skeptical, since I could not find a good rebuttal to it I have decided to ask
you personally to review it.

[his response]
I read the article, and was
absolutely amazed at how completely its author missed the point. The fact
that one of our chromosomes has a fusion site within it is not what makes us
different from other primates, and it is not what makes us human. Most of
the "rebuttal" is directed against those two points - which I have never
The real issue is simple. Do we or do we
not share common ancestry with the other great apes, all of which have 48
chromosomes. If we do share such ancestry, then evolution makes a
straightforward, testable prediction.... namely, that two primate chromosomes
must have fused together in the line leading to us, and that our genomes should
carry the evidence of that fusion. If we do not find that fusion point,
then evolution in terms of common ancestry for our species would be argued
The fact that the prediction is fulfilled is a powerful
confirmation of the evolutionary ancestry of our species. It does not
answer the question of how our genetic information differs from other primates,
nor was it meant to. It simply is a test of common ancestry, a test that
evolution passes.
Has any creationist ever made such a specific
prediction to put their hypotheses to such a scientific test? I believe
that the answer is no.
Best Wishes,

Now to explain what this means to those who don't have as much science up their sleeves; as you know we humans have 46 chromosomes, 23 from each parent. Now great apes (chimpanzees, gorrillas etc.) have 48 chromosomes. Now what would have to have happened between them nd us is that two of the chromosomes would have had to fuse together. And sure enough our chromosome number 2 is made of two fused chromosomes. How do we know this? Well on the ends of chromosomes are caps called telomeres (which dammage to them is linked to aging). Well on a fused chromosome there would be two talomeres end to end. And sure enough there are. This is evidence of common descent. This does not show very well on the creationist's part. I hate to be the bad guy to my creationist companions and family, but it appears this is good evidence of common descent. This is of course helped out by ERVs (nasty little buggers that invade our cells and can fuse their RNA into our genome) and the fact that we have found many transitional fossils, one such interesting fossil is tiktaalik, a fish which has the rudiments of legs and a neck. If anybody has n objection to the evidence I have put forth please do, I welcome debate and discussion.


Created Rationalist said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Created Rationalist you should check out books by Claude Vorilhon, he toatally shows how all earthly life was made by aliens 25,000 years ago. God and evolution are false

Nobody said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
In the beginning GOD said...

Just wondering...could you add a "in plain English" paragraph at the bottom of your posts so those of us who are not as scientific can figure out what you're talking about?

Created Rationalist said...


GodCreatedBrains said...

You stated that there are many examples of fossils. Do you have any more information or links that discuss these?

Created Rationalist said...

Here is one talking about the transitional forms that have been found.

Anonymous said...

Are you aware that the human body in all pureness has over 4,000 defects. Defects, that if a normal mammal were to give birth to, they would want to destroy it. If we descended from primates, where did our strength go? If we truly are primates and you do the math, we'd be 4-5 times stronger pound for pound. We are capped at 10% brain usage that doesn't seem to be caused by an act of nature. Also, if you look at the skeletal structures of these creatures, you'll find that we look NOTHING like them. So, that in mind I want to ask you about the fused chromosomes. Fusing chromosomes is an act of bio-engineering. My question to you is... If you are taking sciences side over creationism because of evidence, would you say that it is possible that we humans were bio-engineered? We all of a sudden "popped up" around 150-200,000 years ago. Every creature on this planet abides by natures rules, except us. We simply do not fit in with nature, we destroy, consume, overpopulate. In all actually we are ANTI-NATURE.

My email is

Anonymous said...

We live a lot longer, it is the trade off for our weak muscles. It is called "Neotony" by science. Living longer allows us to get more value from our large brains. Eg no point learning if you only drtop dead a couple years later.

BTW there is no evidence and no research ever done for the "only use 10% of our brain" thing. It is an urban myth.

Bryan said...

Just a quick comment. The claim is that a common ancestor had the ERV and so all descendants inherited it. It is claimed that ERVs are irrefutable proof of evolution. They aren't even close to that. They do sound rational and logical, but logic is NOT conclusive evidence. If you read the history of science, all kinds of supposedly logical things have turned out to be false. Einstein said that common sense (logic) is just the accumulation of prejudices we've gotten by age 18. There is logic on both sides. The logic of the teleological argument is far more irrefutable than the ERVs are. Logic is useful to help you know where to look for evidence and other things, but it is NOT proof. The teleological argument is not conclusive proof of God and the ERV argument isn't even remotely close to conclusive proof of evolution. There are a host of known and unknown possibilities for ERVs. But, 3 explanations for it are:
a) Viruses can and do attack similar locations in different species. I talked to a ph.d. in microbiology who I was teaching English to in order for him to do research at Penn State University. He (and others) confirmed that this DOES at times happen, and it's far from impossible. THIS is OBSERVABLE evidence that we have. Evidence does NOT tell us which way it happened. Neither does logic. I'll agree that common is one possible and logical way to interpret the evidence, but creation theory is an equally good way. This is true in most cases. The evidence doesn't tell us what happened for sure...and our interpretations are based a lot on what we've been taught and the theories we support. Thos who have integrity, MUST admit this. The evidence does not provide ANY conclusive support for evolution. In the same way, PtERVs are not conclusive for creation .BTW, I’m not even sure it’s correct to call ERVs viruses. We could in the future find some useful function for them and rename them as has happened many times in science history with many supposed “vestigial organs” that we now know are very important for optimum human functioning. In any case, ERVs do NOT prove evolutionary phylogeny. That's 100% assumption. It may be logical, but logic is not science. PtERVS by logic disprove evolutionary phylogeny, but that again is logic, not science.

b) Chimps and gorillas have PtERVs that humans don't have. If ERVS are a sign that human have a common ancestor, then PtERVS blow this theory out of the water. They cancel each other out.

c) If evolution is true, we should see a HOST of ERVS from our common ancestors going back millions of years..I mean it should be a MASSIVE proportion of our DNA, maybe 50% of our DNA or so. We don’t see this.

I would suggest you do a couple things:
1) God said in the Bible that he created the world (in Genesis of course...but yes, that was written by Moses. But, all through the Bible and through prophets and apostles that same claim is made. God himself spoke the 10 commandments and in #4 stated that The Sabbath was a memorial of Him creating world and everything in it. If God didn't do that, God is a liar and the Bible is a sham. There can not be any reconciliation between the Bible and evolution/abiogenesis.
B) Read Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". Every generation has an establishment that determines what they think is true. But, over time, MANY things are overturned and proven false by future generations.
C) Walter Veith is a former very virulent atheist/evolutionist with a ph.d. in zoology who loved to destroy the beliefs of creationists/Christians. But, he experienced 1st hand and incontrovertible proof of supernatural forces. This caused him to go back and check what the actual evidence was that supported evolution theory. He discovered massive amounts of fraud, logical fallacies and complete guesses, NONE of which should be considered a scientific for ANYTHING. Very interesting story and testimony. His story is 1st hand evidence of both the power of God and of Satan.

Watch the video by Walter Veith at:
(this is a summary of his change from virulent atheist to Christian creationist. Not very deep in the science, but very interesting and solid proof of the supernatural).

B) GENESIS CONFLICT SERIES: (7 videos that go pretty deep scientifically on many scientific topics in the evolution-creation issue. 1st one is on dating. 2nd is on the fossil record and very brilliant. Many others are very good too.

cliff said...

read for yourselves his admission:
"The fact
that one of our chromosomes has a fusion site within it is not what makes us
different from other primates, and it is not what makes us human. Most of
the "rebuttal" is directed against those two points - which I have never
"It does not
answer the question of how our genetic information differs from other primates,
nor was it meant to."
his entire point DID just that
this guy stood on stage and wrote books stating exactly what he denied doing!
allow me to explain what Miller apparently cannot explain.
The fused genes are not EXTRA GENES! that is pure speculation.
The number 2 gene was created to give humans a long life span and to utilize our BRAINS something miller has trouble doing.
God designed it this way so man can be man FROM THE BEGINNING!
Please understand. MEN ARE MEN AND APES ARE APES!
We have apes today. We have men today! Why aren't they EVOLVING?
Why aren't the ape's #2 gene fusing today?
let me explain it to those uneducated in science.
Intelligent design means just that. God was intelligent as He designed creation.
He made man from mud. Therefore, the same elements that are in man are necessarily in apes!
They are similar but no the same.
A corvette has the same parts as a yugo. They are similar but NOT THE SAME!
All fused genes tells us is that man has two fused genes and apes do not. SO WHAT?
let me state this with no equivocation: THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF OF EVOLUTION! NONE!
If evolution were true science it would still be going on today!
In 5 thousand years there has never been found a half man half ape! NEVER!
There has never been found a half fish half bird, NEVER!
You see soft tissue is a completely different chemical makeup than bone!
Bone is calcified, soft tissues are not.
if evolution were real, then the soft tissues must also evolve at the same rate. otherwise there would be a lot of blind fishes.
There has never been found a fossil WITHOUT EYES! NEVER!
There has never been found a fossil with eyes of a man on the skull of an ape! NEVER!

Anonymous said...

there is a theory that man was created intentionally by an alien race. in this theory these creatures would have fused the chromosomes...
zacharia sitchin's popular books allege that sumerian translations he has done are clear about a race of alien gods that lived among them and created man sometime in the past. to start you off, you should look up the history of the western symbol for medicine. ,.., coiled serpents perfectly analagous to dna. there is a lot more.

Carmine Fragione said...

many alien life forms may begin in the same environment and then by means of retro viruses, become
crossbred genetically, without ever
originally being truncated out of one evolutionary tree of origins.
So life begins from above or from below the earth, meet in the
same environment, catch each other's diseases, and when viruses
mutate from one creature to the other, they begin to appear as if
they were ancestrally connected in
one common origin. But instead of
a tree, there should be predicted
a cluster of vines , such as in the
Garden of Eden. And because they
shared the same environment, they
were subject to viral infections
that can carry genetic information
between species, as if they had been bred by means of sexual contact.

Anonymous said...

It has been completely proven that we were scientifically created
and "What" God is

The Humane Genome Project's Discovery Proves Mankind was
Scientifically Created. And there is no way it could naturally happen.

The Adam and Eve Method of Genetic Engineering, We were Created, by Robert Kress
Read how 2 chimpanzee chromosomes were fused by a 150,000 base pair sequence
to make our human chromosome two. Evolutionists will not be able to explain
this one.

Genesis One, God Created our Solar System

Allan Jensen said...

This is nonsense. Just because we might have genetic similarities with monkies doesn't automatically mean that we have a common ancestor. Your entire point here is logically flawed! But if you want to believe you come from a monkey be my guest :)