Re: Chromosmoe fusion (was: Refuting Aristotle et al (was Re: [asa] Dawkins on the fossil record))

From: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat Dec 19 2009 - 07:20:43 EST

Excepting the issue of whether chromosome fusion defines humanity or not, I am more concerned with how this trait became ubiquitous throughout all current human populations at the expense of all the non-fused. What is the theory for that?  Was it a gradual stepwise process as well or within a single generation? Suppose the lucky first fusion recipient was a member of a population of 10,000, then that trait had a lot of catching up to do. What explains the fact that today all humans have the fusion and none do not? Is there a fusion advantage? How and why did the other 99.99% die out if Imago Dei was not linked to it in some sense? Why don't we see some non-fused remnant in the human population? Thanks John ________________________________ From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com> Cc: "asa@calvin.edu" <asa@calvin.edu> Sent: Thu, December 17, 2009 11:19:43 AM Subject: RE: Chromosmoe fusion (was: Refuting Aristotle et al (was Re: [asa] Dawkins on the fossil record)) “Wouldn't the chromosome fusion event have to happen in a single individual and therefore be a marker for a "first"?“   The first ‘person’ to get the fusion would still be interbreeding with those who don’t have it.  If one thinks the fusion makes a human, then you have a human breeding with animals.    …Bernie   ________________________________ From:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of John Walley Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 1:42 PM To: dfsiemensjr; schwarzwald@gmail.com Cc: asa@calvin.edu Subject: Re: Refuting Aristotle et al (was Re: [asa] Dawkins on the fossil record)   We discussed this before but I recall a conclusive agreement.   Wouldn't the chromosome fusion event have to happen in a single individual and therefore be a marker for a "first"?   John   ________________________________ From:dfsiemensjr <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> To: schwarzwald@gmail.com Cc: asa@calvin.edu Sent: Wed, December 16, 2009 3:50:12 PM Subject: Re: Refuting Aristotle et al (was Re: [asa] Dawkins on the fossil record) If someone claims that an individual is the first to prove a mathematician's conjecture, we are involved in a terminus ad quem. There were presumably others earlier who tried the proof. But the first o a class is understood as a terminus a quo, the first of a continuous sequence of successors. But even here there is a problem with evolution within a population. For one who holds that Adam was the first man, the term is obvious. For one who recognized that Homo erectus slowly transformed into H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens, and eventually one branch gave rise to H. s. sapiens, it is not clear that there was a first member of any of the species or subspecies. Dave (ASA)

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Dec 19 07:21:12 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Dec 19 2009 - 07:21:12 EST