[_ Old Earth _] Chimps and humans: How similar are we really?

[brother Paul]

I also believe in evolution
I do not believe in evolution; I accept it because the evidence shows it to be true. I believe in God.

By you previously comparing what “creation-ists” believe with what “evolution-ists” believe, the distinction was between evolution and CREATION not a godless evolution versus God.

Creation is real and evolution is real. I accept both. But I do not accept ALL that some creationists say these things mean and I do not accept ALL that some evolutionists say these things mean. What SOME creationists and SOME evolutionists say the things mean are merely point of view, opinion, and a lot of hypothesis based interpretation.

For example, to call a genetic difference between two creatures a “mutation” in one of them, can only truly be a mutation if one has examples of those creatures in a prior state showing this section or gene to have previously been different.

In other words we would have to be able to SHOW (demonstrate, observe) that it once was one thing and is now another, otherwise it is being imagined to be so, nothing more…it is an opinion of what the evidence means…and you know what they say about opinions…

And by the way this discussion does not hinge on Kurt Wise (who I never heard of before you brought him up) OR what he thinks or says…nor does it hinge on the word “useless” which was only one of the things defining vestigial in the proper use of that term. Getting stuck on these things or simply repeating them is just a method of rationalization to maintain a position (or possibly to persuade others your belief/interpretation of these things is correct)…

Orrorin is a sparsely represented variety of ancient ape most akin to a chimpanzee which appears (that is if the fossils actually belong together as one creature) to be more bi-pedal (like other unsuccessful varieties of early ape) that actually shows no evidence that it later became of contributed to what is a human being (that part is all hypothesis based conjecture).

And as for Sahelanthropus…

The skulls alone SHOULD speak loudly enough but apparently not to those who have been systematically convinced though the educational/indoctrination process. Even some scientists who believe in the divergence are not sure these extinct varieties of early chimp should be considered homini-homini-homini…(the Gleason factor)…

Yes these two are “close in age and morphology to what would be expected” IF one accepts the hypothesis that it is true and then interprets their existence from this hypothetical possibility. But the truth is we really do not know and actually do not have anything we can really point to and say “See it IS true”….we impose the belief into the data.

 

[brother Paul]

Sorry! I imported an image of one actual skull but for some reason it did not take...rather than re-posting the image anyone following can just google it...possibly an unsuccessful ancient chimp relative, but not a relative of human beings...nothing really shows we are relatives (in any "lineage" sense of the term)

 

[Barbarian]

I also believe in evolution

Barbarian observes:
I do not believe in evolution; I accept it because the evidence shows it to be true. I believe in God.

By you previously comparing what “creation-ists” believe with what “evolution-ists” believe, the distinction was between evolution and CREATION not a godless evolution versus God.

For a Christian, evolution is creation.

For example, to call a genetic difference between two creatures a “mutation” in one of them, can only truly be a mutation if one has examples of those creatures in a prior state showing this section or gene to have previously been different.

I've never believed that you can't know the truth about anything if you weren't there to see it. Inference can demonstrate mutations as changing genes after the fact.

And by the way this discussion does not hinge on Kurt Wise (who I never heard of before you brought him up)

Just pointingt out that an honest YE creationist freely admits that the evidence cited here is strong evidence for human evolution.

Orrorin is a sparsely represented variety of ancient ape most akin to a chimpanzee

Like humans, who are also most akin to a chimpanzee. That's the point.

The skulls alone SHOULD speak loudly enough but apparently not to those who have been systematically convinced though the educational/indoctrination process.

It would take a pretty strong indoctrination to deny that these hominins are very close to the break where chimps and humans diverged from a common ancestor.

 

[Barbarian]

Sorry! I imported an image of one actual skull but for some reason it did not take...rather than re-posting the image anyone following can just google it...possibly an unsuccessful ancient chimp relative, but not a relative of human beings...

You'll need more than an assumption to make that credible. Explain what in the anatomy makes you think so.

 

[brother Paul]

You'll need more than an assumption to make that credible.

and more than what may be inferred (which in this case is Presumptive) as well.

 

[brother Paul]

We have 23 pairs of chromosomes which fuse at certain places while all apes have 24 and they do not fuse. YET the Darwinian spin when imposed would interpret this by saying that two ape chromosomes “fused” into a single chromosome resulting in humans having only 23 pairs of chromosome. Wow! What a presumption to explain away the data just because it throws a monkey wrench into their ape-man hypothesis. PEOPLE WAKE UP….we have absolutely NO EVIDENCE that that happened….it is an imposed presumption… a hypothesis based “interpretation” and nothing more.

In truth we have not found one example of "chromosomal fusion" in mammals. To know this even happened we would have to have examples of their unfused presence as being common then see that they became fused.

When some Darwinians try to make the claim that we have seen babies with a "fused chromosome" they are misrepresenting something else to make the “explanation” appear rational (which it is not). Others have pointed out that what this group is referring to (and re-interpreting of course) is what are called “Robertsonian Translocations”, which are a translocation of a chromosome, not a fused chromosome! In effect they are telling a lie that they know is a lie in order to persuade.

But even if this example were to be accepted, these NEVER result in a change in the chromosome number (which is the implication they need you to buy into). Besides that, other scientifically obtained data refutes that chromosomal fusion occurs in either apes or humans.

In 2010, Nature published a paper entitled "Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content", reveals that, in addition, the Y chromosomes of these two creatures are different in their genetic arrangement as well. So though many of the same genes are there, many are placed in different areas (thus not a sequential match), and many are arranged differently where they exist in the same place, and now thanks to ENCODE we know that when expressed they can affect different sets of other genes thus producing radically different effects. Now this is “effectively” a significant difference, but many will strive to explain it away or ignore its significance I am sure (as they must if the illusion of their hypothesis is to continue to be accepted as “established fact”).

Sets of unique genes necessarily work together during embryonic development to form our unique bodies (each creature’s unique variations being dependent on this). The chimp Y chromosome has only half the genes that a human has (a 37:78 ratio). Their set contributes to making them physically a chimp, our set contributes to making us physically a human, and never the twain has ever met as far as the actual data can reveal. Aside from the difficulty of coordinating new genes into this apparently consistent process, mixing then into the set of existing genes would alter the structure and function of the creature (making them NOT what they are…the chimp would cease to be a chimp and the human would cease to be a human…or else they would be a sick or distorted version and nothing more).

And so I ask "Why insist it IS when there is no factual reason to believe it?" In the end it turns out to be Sci Fi....might be....could be...But an "established fact"? No! That it clearly is not....

 

[Barbarian]

We have 23 pairs of chromosomes which fuse at certain places while all apes have 24

And based on the genetic, fossil, and anatomical data, it was hypothesized that there must have been a chromosome fusion in the line that led to us. Not surprisingly, the hypothesis was validated when people checked.

and they do not fuse.

Actually, fusions are somewhat common. It's just that this particular one led to reproductive isolation. And eventually, us.

For example the 5th chromosome of the domestic horse is the result of a fusion of 2 chromosomes, now 23 and 24 found in Pzrewalski's horse.

YET the Darwinian spin when imposed would interpret this by saying that two ape chromosomes “fused” into a single chromosome resulting in humans having only 23 pairs of chromosome. Wow! What a presumption to explain away the data just because it throws a monkey wrench into their ape-man hypothesis. PEOPLE WAKE UP….we have absolutely NO EVIDENCE that that happened…

You've been misled about that.

Scientists have observed both humans and mammals with fused chromosomes. Chromosomes typically have distinctive stretches of DNA in their center and at their ends. From time to time, scientists will find an individual that’s short a chromosome, but one of the chromosomes it retains now has an odd structure, with chromosome endings near the middle and other peculiar features.


This might seem like a fantastic mutation–something like a human and a horse being joined into a centaur. Remarkably, however, fused chromosomes are real, and there are surprising number of normal, healthy people carrying them.


If humans and apes did indeed share a common ancestor, then it would make sense that two chromosomes fused in our ancestors. The rise of genome sequencing allowed them to test that hypothesis. They found that human chromosome two bears the hallmarks of an ancient chromosome fusion, with remnants of chromosome ends nestled at its core. In 2005, it became possible to test the hypothesis again, when a team of scientists sequenced the chimpanzee genome and could compare it to the human genome. The chimp genome team were able to match human chromosome two to two unfused chromosomes in the chimpanzee genome.
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-evidence-of-chromosome-fusion-in-any-other-species

The cool thing is, the remains of the telomers (end caps of chromosomes) were found in the human chromosome, precisely where the hypothesis predicted them. The same genes in the two ape chromosomes like up precisely as the single human chromosome does. Except that those telomere remnants are right at the junction of the fusion site, as predicted.

it is an imposed presumption… a hypothesis based “interpretation” and nothing more.

Perhaps you can include those facts in an "interpretation" other than a fusion? Tell us about it.

In truth we have not found one example of "chromosomal fusion" in mammals.

You've been misled about that, too...
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/chrom.surviv.html

In 2010, Nature published a paper entitled "Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content", reveals that, in addition, the Y chromosomes of these two creatures are different in their genetic arrangement as well. So though many of the same genes are there, many are placed in different areas (thus not a sequential match)

Learn about transposons...
http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic...e/Lost-Y-Chromosome-Genes-Found-on-Autosomes/

Barbara McClintock got her Noble for explaining them. (sometimes called "jumping genes") It would be very odd if there were no transposons at all on the Y chromosome. As you now see, the evidence you weren't shown convincingly demonstrates that humans have this particular fusion.

 

[brother Paul]

The evidence you provided did not show that at all. Did you think I would not read them? There is a difference between a genuine fusion (like the kind it would take to reduce an ape set of chromosomes to make a now human set) and Robertsonian Translocations. Also some of those mentioned may be genuine fusions (though I was not convinced) which would mean some mammals do display this but notice the horses remained horses and the mice remained mice....the horse did not become a mule or donkey and the mice did not become a rat or a shrew.. so your attempt to mislead the conversation (which were based on the work of other scientists) is not to be disregarded by such an attempt. I already admitted to Robertsonian Translocations but they are not the same thing.

ROBs are chromosomal "rearrangements" and in humans do occur in around 5 places (but they do not fuse two which were not previously fused). In any other places the chromosomes will not produce a viable fetus.

 

[Barbarian]

The evidence you provided did not show that at all. Did you think I would not read them? There is a difference between a genuine fusion (like the kind it would take to reduce an ape set of chromosomes to make a now human set) and Robertsonian Translocations.

The transposons explain why closely-related organisms have slightly different arrangement of genes on the chromosome. You've confused that with chromosome fusion, which explains why one human chromsome is essentially two ape chromosome, right down to telomer and centromer remnants. This is powerful evidence for it.

Also some of those mentioned may be genuine fusions (though I was not convinced) which would mean some mammals do display this but notice the horses remained horses and the mice remained mice....

And hominins remain hominins. There is more genetic variation between mice than between humans and chimps. True of horses, also.

the horse did not become a mule or donkey and the mice did not become a rat or a shrew..

But one species of horse did become another, much as one species of hominin became another. Mice and rats (house mice and Norway rats) are somewhat more distant than humans and chimps, but of course rodents and insectivores like shrews are very distantly related among mammals.

http://www.koanicsoul.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/chromosomes.jpg

All members of Hominidae except humans, Neanderthals, and Denisovans have 24 pairs of chromosomes.[4] Humans have only 23 pairs of chromosomes. Human chromosome 2 is a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.[5][6]


The evidence for this includes:

• The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the chimpanzee, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan.
• The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 there are remnants of a second centromere.
• The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 there are additional telomere sequences in the middle.

Chromosome 2 is consistent with the common ancestry of humans and other apes. According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

I suggested you show us a more likely explanation for the facts than the obvious one. Do you think you can do that, now?

 

[brother Paul]

Barbarian claimed “The transposons explain why closely-related organisms have slightly different arrangement of genes on the chromosome. You've confused that with chromosome fusion, which explains why one human chromsome is essentially two ape chromosome, right down to telomer and centromer remnants. This is powerful evidence for it.”


Paul responds: No, you have confused these with “fusion”. We were not speaking of “transposons” and they do not explain why, or which, human chromosomes were previously the same as the ape’s two (no such identification has ever been made). PLUS, we were speaking of Robertsonian Translocations.

Perhaps you should go back and re-study what transposons are and do. Barbara McClintock’s incredible work has nothing to do with this part of the EBs possible science fiction…and does not even remotely discuss a human chromosome that was preciously two ape chromosomes fused (who are you trying to convince? Milk Drops?). You must know that if anybody bothers to read her work they will see the shinnanigan you are claiming for her work.


The one common human fusion at 2 is the fusion of two human chromosomes and in no way necessitates the fusion of two ape chromosomes at the same location. It’s a great story, just made up to support the hypothesis!

There is nothing from the boneyard so show us from here?

I pointed out…

notice the horses remained horses and the mice remained mice....

And Barbarian said “And hominins remain hominins. There is more genetic variation between mice than between humans and chimps. True of horses, also.”

a) Inserting a confusion (or thinking this will throw some off) knowing all along that what I said means humans would remain humans and chimps would remain chimps

b) Not clarifying we are not talking about the man made classification into ”familes”, barb tries to persuade a valid relative point is being made. All mice are of one family with rats but at no time did one become the other by either true chromosomal fusion OR by Robertsonian Translocations

c) No one cared about OR was discussing the “variance” issue (that in itself is deceptive based on selective sampling and the use of computer generated contigs) that was an attempt to divert from the point.

Observable demonstrable Fact:

In almost every case of Robertsonian Translocation in human embryos, disorder ensues (mongolism, cancer, infertility, etc.). Absolutely nothing in ROBs implies this area of evolution taking place where a previous Ape has now become what we call a human being.

To say “But one species of horse did become another, much as one species of hominin became another

The early three varieties of human became the multiple variations of modern human…(slightly different shapes and sizes, with slightly different forensic characteristics anatomically, some resistant to certain illnesses others prone to some, and so on)…the use of the man-made term “hominin” was a confusion to divert that I will waste no more attention on. Mice remained mice and chimps remained chimps and horses remained horses and humans remained humans….the early as yet not specified varieties of chimpanzee remained the two modern variations (albeit slightly different shapes and sizes, with slightly different forensic characteristics anatomically, some resistant to certain illnesses others prone to some, and so on)

Just because there are similar sequencing in the human one (#2) and ape two segments (at this location) does not equal that the two similar chimp segments fused at some point and became this one human segment (if it did this would mean we evolved from chimps, which even EBs do not claim)….there are two other possibilities here…one is that it happened that over great ages they separated and the other is that they were forever distinct phenomena….also if one cannot demonstrate the state of the previous centromere or telomere that can actually be identified with the change you allege then the explanation remains to be a story told in order to appear to fit the hypothesis.

Finally to show or evidence of vestigiality of these items one would have to have an observable example of when they were commonly something different that now has become what they are now….because they are different from that seen in chimps does not mean they once were the same ones that have now became less…

 

[Barbarian]

The transposons explain why closely-related organisms have slightly different arrangement of genes on the chromosome. You've confused that with chromosome fusion, which explains why one human chromsome is essentially two ape chromosome, right down to telomer and centromer remnants. This is powerful evidence for it.”

Paul responds: No,

Yes. You brought up a different issue,regarding placement of genes on the chromosomes. As you learned, that is not unusual; that's what transposons do.

That has nothing to do with the fusion. The evidence for that, as you also just learned, is that the remains of the telomeres and one cryptic centormere, are precisely where they were predicted to be as the result of that fusion. I asked you to come up with a plausible alternative explanation, but you've failed to show one.

The one common human fusion at 2 is the fusion of two human chromosomes

As you see, your assumption is not supported by the data. All we can say is that a population of hominins with the same chromosomes as chimpanzees, had a fusion which reduced chromosome count by one (and almost certainly resulted in reproductive isolation) and that population led to us.

(attempted bunny trail)

notice the horses remained horses and the mice remained mice....

Barbarian observes:
And hominins remain hominins. There is more genetic variation between mice than between humans and chimps. True of horses, also.”

a) Inserting a confusion

Sorry, no bunny trails.

Just because there are similar sequencing in the human one (#2) and ape two segments (at this location)

And the remains of the telomeres and one centromere, just where they were predicted to be, if two chimpanzee chromosomes fused. Such verified predictions are compelling evidence.

does not equal that the two similar chimp segments fused at some point and became this one human segment

No, it means that after our particular population had this fusion, we became reproductively isolated from the common ancestor of humans and chimps (and also from chimps). Since the genetic evidence suggests a period of hybridization after that divergence, it explains a great deal.

….there are two other possibilities here…one is that it happened that over great ages they separated

Could have been relatively quickly. No reason that it couldn't.

and the other is that they were forever distinct phenomena….

That would require that we explain how we have those telomere and centromere remnants, precisely where they would be if we formerly had the same arrangement as chimps, but then underwent a fusion. The likelihood of it just happening to be the same is astronomical.

also if one cannot demonstrate the state of the previous centromere or telomere that can actually be identified with the change

We know what telomere and centromere remnants are. So that's not at issue.

Finally to show or evidence of vestigiality of these items one would have to have an observable example of when they were commonly something different that now has become what they are now

Lots of examples of this. Would you like to see some of them?

 

[brother Paul]

The transposons explain why closely-related organisms have slightly different arrangement of genes on the chromosome. You've confused that with chromosome fusion

There is that misrepresentation again! I pointed out they were not the same when you tried to use these to "muddy the waters".

Yes. You brought up a different issue, regarding placement of genes on the chromosomes. As you learned, that is not unusual; that's what transposons do.

No, I made the point that Robertsonian Translocations are not genuine fusions but mostly misplaced errors (oddly but predictably, the program of EBs will always bring these up as examples until challenged,,,which by the way you immediately did) and that in the actual ape/human chromosomes (not computer generated contigs)

a) many genes are located at different places,
b) humans have genes chimps do not have,
c) chimps have genes humans do not have, and
d) in each creature the same genes can and in some cases do affect differently and produce different effects
e) apparently many have entirely different biochemical functions in each creature as well

Thus there are marked (and quite recognized) "differences" between chimps and humans even at this level (add these to the already long list)....and YES at this level there are also many similarities (which do not necessitate lineage as the only explanation)....no need to explain all these or explain them away in light of the one side or the other side...just accept the truth that these vast amount of differences actually exist despite the rhetoric.

 

[brother Paul]

and the other is that they were forever distinct phenomena….
That would require that we explain how we have those telomere and centromere remnants, precisely where they would be if we formerly had the same arrangement as chimps, but then underwent a fusion. The likelihood of it just happening to be the same is astronomical.

Why? Again if we MUST explain it in this light it would imply we evolved FROM chimps. Is this what you are saying must have happened? That would set you apart from the status quo hypothesis group (which I would be proud to think was true)....

All we can say is that a population of hominins with the same chromosomes as chimpanzees, had a fusion which reduced chromosome count by one

That is all YOU can say...its called a hypothesis based interpretation...what is that "population of hominins with the same chromosomes as chimpanzees" that were not chimpanzees...have we ever shown that such an unlikely group ACTUALLY existed (since same chromosomes equal same creature) ? No!

Here I will use a technique you guys usually rely on:

a) many genes are located at different places,
b) humans have genes chimps do not have,
c) chimps have genes humans do not have, and
d) in each creature the same genes can and in some cases do affect differently and produce different effects
e) apparently many have entirely different biochemical functions in each creature as well

Thus there are marked (and quite recognized) "differences" between chimps and humans even at this level

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The transposons explain why closely-related organisms have slightly different arrangement of genes on the chromosome. You've confused that with chromosome fusion

There is that misrepresentation again!

Perhaps you didn't know that was why genes sometimes move on a chromosome. As I showed you, that has nothing to do with the demonstrated fusion. You're still confusing it, I think:

a) many genes are located at different places,

Yes, transposons do that. It's not surprising to any geneticist.

b) humans have genes chimps do not have,

Which also happens after speciation. It's a documented phenomenon. The big deal is that we have fewer differences with chimps (and they with us) than either has with any other organism. This, as you know, indicates that they share a common ancestor not shared by other organisms.

c) chimps have genes humans do not have,

Yes. The Institute for creation research mad a huge deal of that. They actually thought that humans might have mutations, but chimps wouldn't. I have no idea why they thought so.

d) in each creature the same genes can and in some cases do affect differently and produce different effects

Yes. That is what mutations do. We see the same thing between many human populations. Would you like to learn about that.

e) apparently many have entirely different biochemical functions in each creature as well

Not quite so many of those. Most of the mutations merely change alleles. But I'll see if I can find some data on biochemical differences and show you that they too, sort out according to phylogeny.

None of this erases the facts. Humans have a chromosome that was hypothesized to be the result of two fused chromsomes found in other apes. And on investigation, researchers found the necessary telomere and centromere remnants, confirming the fact.

 

[brother Paul]

That is all YOU can say...its called a hypothesis based interpretation...what is that "population of hominins with the same chromosomes as chimpanzees" that were not chimpanzees...have we ever shown that such an unlikely group ACTUALLY existed (since same chromosomes equal same creature) ? No!

In 2004, the famed evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr recognizing the actual abrupt appearance of humans (Ernst Mayr, What Makes Biology Unique?, p. 198 (Cambridge University Press, 2004) said:

“The earliest fossils of Homo… are separated from Australopithecus by a large, unbridged gap. How can we explain this seeming saltation? Not having any fossils that can serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative.”

Ah yes the time honored method of constructing a story to make the hypothesis appear to be true to the gullible...and then call it "science" or "established" or "obvious" fact....(Liars!!!!). Then get enough people having the appearance of "knowing", who the gullible will trust as authorities (covering the appeal to authority and the consensus fallacy), and viola'...people trained in the mantra will defend it to the death of their own ability to think objectively....Thanks for being honest Ernie...at least YOU admit it is the construction of a historical narrative (thus fiction...)...a story created to EXPLAIN from a preconceived conclusion, nothing more...

The goal should be to get more and more people into the intellectually honest camp THEN and only then can a truly valuable dialogue take place (though I do think we attempt it here)

But alas when honesty in reasoning rears its ugly head (and we can take this lesson from religious fundamentalism) it is met with vehement resistance...Having eyes to see they are blind and ears to hear they are deaf and thinking they are wise they become fools...(Psalm 1:1)

 

[brother Paul]

Perhaps you didn't know that was why genes sometimes move on a chromosome. As I showed you, that has nothing to do with the demonstrated fusion. You're still confusing it, I think

Because you misrepresented me as holding a position diametrically opposed to what I stated YOU are trying to confuse it, but I am not budging so you keep repeating this assumption....(the revealed James principle of the role of repetition in convincing the masses which became the Geobbels technique in applied propaganda...it works on most I will say that)....

a) many genes are located at different places,
Yes, transposons do that. It's not surprising to any geneticist.

Indeed it makes us DIFFERENT creatures

The big deal is that we have fewer differences with chimps (and they with us) than either has with any other organism.

This is true (a fact)...BUT

This, as you know, indicates that they share a common ancestor not shared by other organisms.

then comes the constructed historical narrative...the hypothesis based, PREsumption based, conclusion (the abductive generated sci fi)

 

[brother Paul]

Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24. EBs fully believe that one of the human chromosomes has been formed through the fusion of two small chromosomes in the chimp instead of an intrinsic difference resulting from a separate appearance of two distinct primate creatures (Gagneux, P. and Varki, A. 2001. ‘Genetic differences between humans and great apes.’ Mol Phylogenet Evol 18:2-13)

At the end of each chromosome is a string of repeating DNA sequences called a telomere. Chimpanzees and other apes have about 23 kilobases (a kilobase is 1,000 base pairs of DNA) of repeats. Humans have much shorter telomeres being only 10 kilobases long. (Kakuo, S., Asaoka, K. and Ide, T. 1999. ‘Human is a unique species among primates in terms of telomere length.’ Biochem Biophys Res Commun 263:308-314)…is this proof of devolution? No but the assumption could be made…

The Y chromosome in particular is of a different size and has many markers that do not line up between the human and chimpanzee (Archidiacono, N., Storlazzi, C.T., Spalluto, C., Ricco, A.S., Marzella, R., Rocchi, M. 1998. ‘Evolution of chromosome Y in primates.’ Chromosoma 107:241-246)

This last one mentioned is very significant because Y Chromosomes speak to lineage directly and they indicate chimps and humans have two distinct sources not one....

It has also been reported elsewhere that humans have three dozen unique protein coding genes that no apes contain, and now we find that of the 244 newly discovered (last year) microRNA genes, 10% are totally unique to humans (not found in any other organism). Chimps also have their own unique microRNA genes not found in any humans. Apparently, this former "junk" makes each separate creature what it is (see Nature, Vol. 38, number 12).

Scientists have prepared a human-chimpanzee comparative clone map of chromosome 21 in particular. They observed “large, non-random regions of difference between the two genomes.” They found a number of regions that “might correspond to insertions that are specific to the human lineage” (Fujiyama, A., Watanabe, H., Toyoda, A., Taylor, T.D., Itoh, T., Tsai, S.F., Park, H.S., Yaspo, M.L., Lehrach, H., Chen, Z., Fu, G., Saitou, N., Osoegawa, K., de Jong, P.J., Suto, Y., Hattori, M., and Sakaki, Y. 2002. ‘Construction and analysis of a Human-Chimpanzee Comparative Clone Map.’ Science 295:131-134), might not equaling does means they may NOT BE insertions at all but again ever present distinctions.

Be careful of the imposed presumption based narrative in terms like “lineage” and note the differences…more and more scientific studies are reflecting more and more differences. This is an important clarification to the status quo presumption approach to interpretation.

 

[Barbarian]

Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24. EBs fully believe that one of the human chromosomes has been formed through the fusion of two small chromosomes in the chimp instead of an intrinsic difference resulting from a separate appearance of two distinct primate creatures (Gagneux, P. and Varki, A. 2001. ‘Genetic differences between humans and great apes.’ Mol Phylogenet Evol 18:2-13)

Did you read that paper? It doesn't say what you seem to think it does:
Humans (Homo sapiens) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) last shared a common ancestor ∼5-7 million years ago (Mya) (Chen and Li 2001; Brunet et al. 2002). What makes humans different from their closest evolutionary relatives, and how, why, and when did these changes occur? These are fascinating questions, and a major challenge is to explain how genomic differences contributed to this process

At the end of each chromosome is a string of repeating DNA sequences called a telomere. Chimpanzees and other apes have about 23 kilobases (a kilobase is 1,000 base pairs of DNA) of repeats. Humans have much shorter telomeres being only 10 kilobases long. (Kakuo, S., Asaoka, K. and Ide, T. 1999. ‘Human is a unique species among primates in terms of telomere length.’ Biochem Biophys Res Commun 263:308-314)

…is this proof of devolution?

No. "Evolution" means "change." "Devolution" would mean "no change." "Devo" was a short-lived pop band. It has no relationship to science.

...the assumption could be made…

But of course assumptions...

Y chromosomes in mammals are typically highly variable, because of the losses from a formerly autosomal chromosome (with X). We know this is so, because the ends of the two are still autosomal. However...

What's remarkable is that comparisons of the human and chimpanzee Y chromosomes indicate that the human Y chromosome has not lost any genes since chimps and humans diverged:

Comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes: Searching for needles in a haystack
Ajit Varki and Tasha K. Altheide
Genome Res. December 2005 15: 1746-1758; doi:10.1101/gr.3737405

It has also been reported elsewhere that humans have three dozen unique protein coding genes that no apes contain,

That means that we'd have a new mutation every, um... 2 million years or so, that actually did something. Given that humans have dozens of mutations every year, a population in the thousands would have millions of them per century, so even if such an event was very unlikely for any particular individual, so few cases are very likely for a population over that time.

None of this, of course, in any way affects the evidence for the fusion of two chromosomes that seems to have made our ancestors reproductively isolated from the common ancestor of chimps and humans. As you see, there's really no other way to explain the evidence.

 

[brother Paul]

Associate professor of anthropology at the University of Wisconsin, John Hawks gets it. He says “the difference in MSY (male specific region) gene content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human…”!


Then concludes “So much for 98 percent…More than thirty percent of the chimpanzee Y chromosome has no homolog in humans…”

Now I realize that the status quo mantra says that chimps and humans started out with exactly the same chromosomes. Then, about 5 million years ago, the two started to drift apart in evolution. And that EITHER the two in chimps could have fused, or been one and then split, but we do not have actual evidence of any drifting just the constructed narrative. How do we prove this to be the case? We simply cannot demonstrate it at this time regardless of how many repeat the narrative.


Since what we can know shows that the Y chromosome I inherited from my father is the same as his, and his was the same as his father’s, then logic demands this had carried on as far back as we go. The same is true for the chimpanzees. Since this is true, IMO it is more likely that the two were as separate then as they are now. There is no evidence to show they once were the same although you mentioned a pre-chimp that allegedly may have had the same chromosomal genome as modern chimps but I see no evidence of this either and see no reason to ASSUME it.


If the chromosomal genome was identical between pre-chimp and modern chimp I can only surmise they were the same exact creature, and therefore obviously different from humans.

 

[brother Paul]

I do not know why these images are not importing when in the past I have never had any issue, so I can only apologize and try a different approach later after consulting my favorite tech head....