And the Miller Told His Tale: Ken Miller's Cold (Chromosomal) Fusion (by Casey Luskin)

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1392

Casey Luskin begins

Dr. Kenneth Miller was the leadoff hitter for plaintiffs last week in the trial over ID in Dover. Amidst other things, Miller's testimony was aimed at making a case that the Neo-Darwinian hypothesis is as well-supported as gravitational theory. It was my understanding that this trial was about whether or not Dover had violated the First Amendment by mentioning to students that some book in the library advocated intelligent design. So I was a little confused as to why it was relevant for Miller to give us all a lesson in evolutionary biology. Nonetheless, this article will respond to Dr. Miller's arguments that evidence for fusion in human chromosome #2 demonstrates that humans share a common ancestor with living apes. 

"So I was a little confused as to why it was relevant for Miller to give us all a lesson in evolutionary biology" 

WTF??? Luskin is confused when his side is trying to teach evolutionary biology that is based on religion, and not on science, not on evolutionary biology.

According to Neo-Darwinism, humans and extant apes supposedly share a common ancestor. During Dr. Miller's testimony supporting the theory of evolution, he discussed how human chromosome #2 has two centromeres, which are the central - attachment points used for pulling a chromosome to one end of a cell during mitosis. Chromosomes normally only have one centromere, but human chromosome # 2 looks like two chromosomes were fused together within its interior because it has two centromeres (or at least, it has one normal centromere, and another region that looks a lot like a centromere elsewhere within the chromosome). Miller further noted that human chromosome #2 has a section where there are two telomeres, structures normally at the tips of chromosomes, which are found in the middle of chromosome #2. Essentially, these two telomeres are oriented in a way that it looks, genetically speaking, like the ends of two chromosomes were fused together.

"According to Neo-Darwinism" WAIT, STOP THERE!
According to Darwin's theory of evolution, Biochemistry, Comparative anatomy, Biogeography, Comparative embryology, Molecular biology, Paleontology... NOT JUST NEO-DARWINISM!!!

But here we have a great reference how theory of evolution, or to be precise, genetics predict that because of our common ancestry, the reason that we have less chromosomes than other primates, the most propable cause is the fusion of one pair.
Prediction of ID is "because god created us like that."

There is no denying it, that is what they said.

I am more than willing to acknowledge and affirm that Miller provided good direct empirical evidence for a chromosomal fusion event which created human chromosome #2. He claims this evidence strongly supports his view that humans and chimps share a common ancestor, because humans have two fewer chromosomes than chimp, and Darwinian evolution predicts this fusion evidence.

Exactly! case closed!! What? there is more?? WHY???

 But his argument raises two crucial questions:

(1) Is his chromosome fusion story good evidence for Neo-Darwinian common ancestry between humans and apes? 
(2) Does Dr. Miller's hypothesis perhaps pose problems for a Neo-Darwinian account of human genetic history? 

Whaat???
1) is his chromosome story good evidence of common ancestry...
Wait wait? stop right there..
It was a) an answer why humans have less chromosomes than other primates, you falcify the question to the answer DISHONESTY ALERT, and b) it is a prediction made by evolution theory, a fact that is proven by evidence, and something that ID does not predict.

first you stage a wrong question, then you ignore that it made a prediction and evidence, you basically ignore your previous chapter!

2) does it pose a problem?? lets see...

Evidence for Fusion in a Human Chromosome Tells you LITTLE TO NOTHING about whether Humans Share a Common Ancestor with Living Apes 

Okay, you agree with me  here. wait, you dont... IT'S THE SAME CHROMOSOMES THAT FUSED. HOW CAN YOU SAY IT SAYS NOTHING WHEN THE CHROMOSOMES ARE THE SAME!

Easy... JUST LIE!

Usually Darwinists argue for human-ape common ancestry based upon alleged "shared errors" in human DNA and ape DNA. But the chromosomal fusion evidence is not a “shared error” argument for human / ape common ancestry, because apes do not have a fused chromosome. The human chromosomal fusion argument focuses on a fusion event that is specific to the human line, and therefore provides a highly limited form of evidence for human / ape common ancestry. 

Okay, now we are just delirious. What you are trying to do here is Strawman strategy, you cling into a problem you invented. But I agree, it is highly limited form of evidence, BUT SUFFICIENT for this case.

All Miller has done is documented direct empirical evidence of a chromosomal fusion event in the human line. But evidence for a chromosomal fusion event is not evidence for when that event took place, nor is it evidence for the ancestry prior to that event.

Welll now... Ken miller did not give a thorough lecture on GENETICS now did he, because it might take years... but read a short summary here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionary_genetics
"the genetic difference between humansand chimps is less than 2%" says wikipedia.

Genetics confirm with empirical data that the difference is really small, genetics confirm that we have different chromosome pair number because of the fusion, it ALL FITS TOGETHER BECAUSE THE THEORY IS RIGHT!

WTF are you trying to prove???

To be more specific, the fusion-evidence implies that some of our ancestors likely had 48 chromosomes.

  well IT DOES DOESN'T IT! that part you finally got, finally! (facepalm)

But Miller has not provided any evidence that the individual with 48 chromosomes was historically related to modern apes.

But but... the genetic proof, comparative anatomy, ebryology, they all prove that the difference between us is 2%, and you claim he has not presented those evidence? I think you mean evidence you accept...

(I grant that our chromosome #2 has banding patterns similar to two ape chromosomes, but given that our chromosome structure is generally similar to that of apes anyways, it is not a stretch to assume that any 48 chromosome ancestor of modern humans might have also had a chromosomal scheme similar to that of apes, regardless of whether or not that individual was related to apes.

FACEPALM... you are saying that if you and I are genetically IDENTICAL, we might not be related in any way, it's just a coincidence... what the F? are we in a madhouse here???

Claiming that banding pattern similarities is evidence of common ancestry with apes simply invokes the “similarity = common ancestry” argument, and thus begs the question.)

Finally, you ask when you do not understand, the start of wisdom.

It is entirely possible that our genus Homo underwent a chromosomal fusion event within its own separate history.

It might, it might not, so?

Under Neo-Darwinism, the common ancestor of humans and apes is thought to have lived about six million years ago.

Thought... fossil records show that, it's a fact, not a thought.

But under Miller's account, it is entirely possible that this chromosomal fusion event happened in a human population only 10,000 years ago, in a population that has no relation to living apes.

Welll... you are right... but it still is an answer to creationist question that why we have less chromosomes. WHEN IT HAPPENED IS NOT RELEVANT! That was not the question, just try to mispresent things you dishonest Jon Snow!

In such a case, this chromosomal fusion event thus needs not have anything to do with making us human-like as opposed to ape-like. Clearly this chromosomal fusion event could be extremely far removed from any alleged ancestry with apes. 

I agree! Nobody said that this event made us man!
gosh!

In essence, we don't know that this chromosomal fusion event happened on a line which leads back to some alleged common ancestor of apes and humans. All we know is that this fusion event happened in the line that led to you and me. Whether that line has common ancestry with apes is a separate question which cannot be answered by this fusion evidence. 

EXACTLY! What are you having this monologue amongts yourselves. You catch a thing and claim it means something it does not!

All that evolutionists have claimed is that this fusion event occurred after the split that led to humans, so it occurs only in the human lineage. Evidence of a chromosomal fusion event is not evidence that our line leads all the way back to apes. 

Yes... so? Evidence can be found in the fossil records, genetic comparison etc... Strawman.

Given that we had a 48-chromosome ancestor, we don't know if our 48-chromosome ancestor was an ape or not.

I agree, you cannot because you seek answers from the bible. IT DOES NOT GIVE REAL ANSWERS.

For all we know, our 48-chromosome ancestor was a part of a separately designed species, as fully human as any person you might meet on the street today. There is no good reason to think that going from a 46-chromosome individual to a 48-chromosome individual would make our species more ape-like. 

I agree, but medicine knows about 48-chromosome syndrome, and it is a problem. no, they are not ape-like. Your assertion is childish. I think it is subtle strawman strategy.

Miller's "prediction" of Neo-Darwinian evolution is not a hard prediction of his theory: if common ancestry is true, Miller predicts that there must have been a fusion event. But the converse is not true. The presence of this fusion event in no way requires that common ancestry is true. 

a) it is a minimum prediction, without a fusion effect, you would have a real case, with fusion
THERE IS NO CASE.
b) the presence of fusion event, combined with genetic comparison, PROVES CLOSE RELATION.

let me ask you. A guy comes into your house with a gun, shoots your wife, and escapes scratching his arm.

Detectives come in and take a genetic sample from that blood and by using genetic comparison, PROVE that your neighbour did it.

DO YOU BELIEVE GENETICS THEN???

It only gets worse for Neo-Darwinism 
Under Neo-Darwinism, genetic mutation events (including chromosomal aberrations) are generally assumed to be random and unguided. Miller's Cold-Fusion tale becomes more suspicious when one starts to ask harder questions like "how could a fusion event get fixed into a population via random and unguided processes, or how could it result in viable offspring?" Miller's account must overcome two potential obstacle

You know nothing Jon Snow... Humanity has a time when they were close to extintion... Was it Noah's flood or something, humanity had very few individuals... if those individuals had this fusion, the net result is that in the end everyone had that. Independently from the time when the fusion happened. Safely we can say fusion happened before that event.
Genetic studies found that 1.2 million years ago there were as few as 55,000 members of genus Homo

Having sex and having babies is not something I call a "random and unguided process" it might be for you... (facepalm)

You do not realize how embarassing your text really is do you?

(1) In most of our experience, individuals with randomly-fused chromosomes or extra chromosomes can be normal, but it is very likely that their offspring will ultimately have a genetic disease. A classic example of such is a cause of Translocation Down's syndrome, where part of chromosome 21 become fused to another chromosome, resulting in extra material from chromosome 21 in an individual, causing Down's syndrome. 

Are you saying that most mutations are harmful? You do not mind to agree to the real scientists? great!

(2) One way around the problem in (1) is to find a mate that also had an identical chromosomal fusion event or chromosomal splitting event.

Or to make it simple, we can also assume that if the person with the fusion was a woman, she did propably give that fusion to her children because women are genetically dominant.

and we can assume that this feature just happened to be a dominant feature.

p.s. Genetic evidence shows that after humans and chimpanzees had split, there was 1,2 million years when humans and chimps STILL got kids together...

But this would require a rare mutant finding a mate with identical traits.

I do not believe that the word REQUIRE is correct here.

Valentine and Erwin explain that the odds of rare-mutants finding mates with identical traits are highly unlikely:"[T]he chance of two identical rare mutant individuals arising in sufficient propinquity to produce offspring seems too small to consider as a significant evolutionary event."

(Erwin, D..H., and Valentine, J.W. "'Hopeful monsters,' transposons, and the Metazoan radiation", Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci USA, 81:5482-5483, Sept 1984)

First you have to PROVE that it is a problem.

In other words, Miller has to explain why a random chromosomal fusion event which, in our experience ultimately results in offspring with genetic diseases, didn’t result in a genetic disease

No he does not, because now you are making fallacious assumptions.
1) you know that some mutations are beneficial??
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/2004/06/24/musclegene.php
2) you can assume that mutant was not so fertile, but obviously the carrier did have kids because we are here!!

and was thus advantageous enough to get fixed into the entire population of our ancestors.

It might be that fusion had no apparent effects AT ALL, nobody knew their kids had fewer chromosomes.
who knows? (not you apparently)

Given the lack of empirical evidence that random chromosomal fusion events are not disadvantageous,

What? Because beneficial mutations have been observed, we can conclude that beneficial fusions can occur.
I also want to see a study that explain the effects of that human fusion.

perhaps the presence of a chromosomal fusion event is not good evidence for a Neo-Darwinian history for humans. 

I agree, it is a very small evidence, do not claim something else please.

Miller may have found good empirical evidence for a chromosomal fusion event. But our experience with mammalian genetics tells us that such a chromosomal aberration could have created a non-viable mutant,

Miller may, your experience.. .wait, you have experience with genetics, then why are you so god damn IGNORANT  on the subject then??? And could have. What if the first human to get that fusion, our Eve, had 6 kids, and one survived? One is enough.

or a normal individual who could not produce viable offspring. Thus, Neo-Darwinism has a hard time explaining why such a random fusion event was somehow advantageous. 

BUT IT DOES NOT NEED TO PROVE IT IS ADVANTAGEOUS!!!

All what is needed that they show that it was not lethal, it did not make children infertile. By all accounts, that fusion could have and propably was disadvantageous. At least I am weaker than chimps, could the fusion have done that?

But if one kid survived and did not make infertile children, then the mutation spread. (espesially if the culture was not monogamous...)

If it were to turn out that the fusion of two chromosomes can only result in a viable individual if the fusion event takes place in a highly unlikely and highly specified manner, then we may actually be looking at a case for a non-Darwinian intelligent design event in the history of the human genus.

WHYYYY? If it is highly unlikely, it means that it can happen, and because we have evidence that it did happen, the question is no-longer if it can happen, it did, what are you arguing anymore?

What if the scientists prove that the fusion was disadvangageous, and they prove that it was made by intelligent designer? then it proves that the designer IS EVIL!!!

think about that luskin...