/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5552041

>cromozone

ISHYDIGGIT

>>5552041
Well, considering we see examples of extra chromosomes show up in people 'often' don't see the problem.

>Chromozone

Lel

But seriously, chromosomal breaking and fusing happens and has been documented.

If your actually interested in finding an answer read this.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/21/basics-how-can-chromosome-numb/

Its important to remember that life started with 0 chromosomes. Once 1 emerged, its trivial past that point.

>chromozones

>Why the fuck haven't I found a single experiment which shows an animal mutating an additional pair of chromozone?

Perhaps you have never learned about wikipedia?
Try this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_abnormality

>>5552041
>animal mutating an additional pair of chromozone?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome

>>5552041
>>Skeptic of evolution

Too stupid for science? try religion!

>>5552041
Dude, all of our crops, maizes and rice have additional chromozomes compared to their wildtypes.
Also humans have exactly 1 chromozomal translocation compared to chimps (dont know which part of which chromozome was translocated though). Look it up, maybe I can provide you with original sources on www.ncbi.com (scientific plattform)

>>5552041

>>5552041
>It's a theory
Go back to Team Jesus, we don't want you.
>Red rover, red rover, don't send anon over

>>5552041
Here is a original scientific paper on the issue of "Mapping human genetic ancestry"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17660505

You are right to ask for real evidence. But maybe you underestimate term of a "scientific theory". Cause thats the highest order of scientific knowledge. An explanational idea without enough evidence is called "hypotheses". Only after gathering tons of strong evidence a hypotheses is called a "theory".

>>5552136
The not douche. Thanks

(1) It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory-if we look for
confirmations.
(2) Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say,
if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was
incompatible with the theory--an event which would have refuted the theory.
(3) Every 'good' scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The
more a theory forbids, the better it is.
(4) A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is nonscientific. Irrefutability is
not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
(5) Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is
falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more
exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.
(6) Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the
theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify
the theory. (I now speak in such cases of 'corroborating evidence'.)
(7) Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their
admirers--for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by re-interpreting the
theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but
it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its
scientific status.

>>5552125
That doesn't change anything about it being a theory.

>>5552183

I never said it does. Being a scientific theory is evidence FOR evolution, rather than against it. Only very thorough arguments supported by massive amounts of evidence, with no contradicting evidence, can be considered a scientific theory.

>Skeptic of evolution

are you also skeptical of antibiotic resistant bacteria?