Human Chromosome 2

This New Survey Revealed Something DISTURBING
Answers in Genesis, 10.I.2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZSa7mQbSu4

4:12 I'd pick answer one.

Current form doesn't specify how much variation is allowed.

Neanderthals and Denisovans were men, but the population on the Ark, as we today, were typically Homo sapiens (as distinct from Neanderthals and Denisovans, I prefer to call it "Cro-Magnon race"), and since Noah was just tenth from Adam, that means that Adam was probably closer to our anatomy and genetic variants than to the Neanderthal / Denisovan one.

Dialogue:

Hans Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

4:59 I was very happy, as a Catholic with a devotion to Our Lady of Fatima to find 20~24 % of the Portuguese believed Adam was created directly by God or didn't believe Adam had evolutionary ancestry or that man has.

You see, the promise "in Portugal, the dogma of the faith will not be lost" ... given Trent Session V echoes Romans 5, it would have been lost if the Portuguese Catholics had been Evolutionists.

globalcoupledances

@globalcoupledances

Why don't you explain human chromosome #2?

luis h14

luish1498

what?

Hans Georg Lundahl

@luish1498 Yes, I just said that Portuguese Creationists are often enough Catholics.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@globalcoupledances I think CMI (Creation Ministries International) had a good article on that one.

I don't feel like reinventing the wheel.

globalcoupledances

@hglundahl - has ICR addressed Yunis and Prakash; Prakash, O (1982). "The origin of man: a chromosomal pictorial legacy". Science. 215 (4539): 1525–30, Avarello; et al. (1992). "Evidence for an ancestral alphoid domain on the long arm of human chromosome 2". Human Genetics. 89 (2): 247–9 and Ijdo, Jacob W.; et al. (1991). "Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 88 (20): 9051–5?

luis h14

@hglundahl já percebi

luis h14

@hglundahl «I think CMI (Creation Ministries International) had a good article on that one.»

tomkins is lying about C. #2

Hans Georg Lundahl

Is CMI's article by Tomkins, @luish1498 ?

globalcoupledances

@hglundahl - I found that only Ijdo, Jacob W.; et al. (1991) were addressed by citing Tomkin's own paper in a unreliable journal

Hans Georg Lundahl

"in an unreliable journal" @globalcoupledances ... your bias is no evidence, I'll go with Luis h14

Hans Georg Lundahl

@luish1498 Luis, I have opened both parts* of Tomkins / Bergman, where is the lie?

How would I know it is a lie

luis h14

@hglundahl C. #2 is a fusion between 2 chromossomes

Hans Georg Lundahl

@luish1498 I am totally aware that this is what some say.

What I disagree on is them being right.

* See here:

The chromosome 2 fusion model of human evolution—part 1: re-evaluating the evidence
by Jerry Bergman and Jeffrey Tomkins, This article is from
Journal of Creation 25(2):106–110, August 2011
https://creation.com/chromosome-2-fusion-1

The chromosome 2 fusion model of human evolution—part 2: re-analysis of the genomic data
by Jeffrey Tomkins and Jerry Bergman, This article is from
Journal of Creation 25(2):111–117, August 2011
https://creation.com/chromosome-2-fusion-2

It's when I write this 1 h 10 minutes after previous, and some, and Luis h14 has still not told me at what point the two part essay of Tomkins and Bergman is a lie ...

Next day, as I write this, he was precise about this meaning they came to the wrong conclusion.