Pseudogenes & Junk DNA

Pseudogenes have been defined as nonfunctional sequences of genomic DNA originally derived from functional genes. Pseudogenes have long been labeled by Darwinists as “junk” DNA, failed copies of genes that arise during the evolution of genomes.

But, pseudogenes that have been suitably investigated often exhibit functional roles, such as gene expression, gene regulation, generation of genetic (antibody, antigenic, and other) diversity. Pseudogenes are involved in gene conversion or recombination with functional genes.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/14616058

http://rnajournal.cs...658311.abstract

http://www.hindawi.c...jg/2012/424526/

http://www.scientifi...res-in-junk-dna

http://healthland.ti...less-after-all/

http://www.guardian....junk-dna-encode

http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0

http://science.nbcne...k-dna-myth?lite

Can the so-called "Vestigial Organs" Be A Proof Of Neo-Darwinism ?

A vestigial organ, by evolutionary definition, is an organ that was once useful during a previous stage of your evolution for a supposed ancestor, but in the course of time, that organ was no longer needed, but continued to remain in the body.

Analysis:

1- Devolution Not evolution !

If vestgial organs would prove anything, they prove devolution, NOT evolution !
Darwinists claim that some of our organs are falling into disuse. Yet, in contrast, they provide us with no one NEW, developing organ. The "vestigial organs" idea, if it could be true, would only prove the opposite: devolution!

2- Not for survival ! 

Not all organs are necessary for survival,this doesn't mean they are useless!
You have 2 lungs, you need one to survive. You have 2 kidneys, you need 1/10 for survival. No one claimed the other lung may be 'just for fun'.
you will survive if your eyes and arms are cut out, and they are not "vestigial," or useless organs.

3- Causing problems ?!

people have far more problems with their lungs, hearts and stomachs, than they have with 'vestigial' organs. Almost any organ in your body can kill you if is it sufficiently diseased. How many people die of heart attacks vs. appendicitis? The heart, the physical or the spiritual one, is far more troublesome. If your lungs become infected, you can die but no one suggests removing the lungs as a preventive measure during surgery for another reason.

4- Affirming the consequent !

[If we ignored the fact that they actually prove devolution] For this type of argument to be used, one has to assume evolution to be true in the first place! So, if vestigial organs are obviously left over from our evolutionary heritage, then evolution must be true. Here evolution is assumed to be true in order to make the argument. This is a logical fallacy.


5 - FOUNDED ON IGNORANCE:

How did such an idea become accepted in the first place? It happened in a time of great ignorance. The whole idea of "vestigial organs" was originally conceived back in the early 1800s, at a time when physicians were still blood-letting in order to cure people of infection. But since that time there has been an immense quantity of research in every imaginable field. There is now no doubt by competent biologists that every large and small part of the human body has a special function during the life of the individual.

It strongly appears that the true "vestigial organ" in earlier times, was an ignorant mind; a mind that did not know why organs were in the body, and was too impatient and lazy to do the laborious work needed to identify functions. But we should not want to call ignorance a proof of evolution.

Just because someone doesn’t know the function of something, that does not mean there is none, which means:If none of our organs nor genes were "known" to have function, this wouldn't prove it's vestigial, It's more appropriate to say: Human don't know Yet!
http://en.wikipedia....ert_Wiedersheim

Blechschmidt notes that

"no organ could exist that is functionless during its development," an axiom that also applies to the nervous system.(Blechschmidt, The Ontogenetic Basis of Human Anatomy, 91. )

6- HINDERS SCIENCE

Reputable scientists now recognize that the evolutionary teaching of "vestigial organs" actually retarded scientific knowledge for decades. Instead of finding out what the appendix was for, it was called "vestigial" and was cut out. Researchers were told it was a waste of time to study any possible use for it. For the same reason, lots of children have had their tonsils removed, when they really needed them!

"The existence of functionless 'vestigial organs' was presented by Darwin, and is often aced by current biology textbooks, as part of the evidence for evolution . . An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures . . leads to the conclusion that 'vestigial organs' pride no evidence for evolutionary theory." *S.R. Scudding, "Do 'Vestigial Organs' Provide Evidence for Evolution?" Evolutionary Theory, Vol. (May 1961), p. 394.

7- Lost primary functions !

Confronted with the fact that many previously thought to be "vestigial" organs, are now known to have functions , Darwinists made a funny conjecture that these organs "developed secondary functions", however, they didn't provide the scientific criteria to determine if a function is primary or secondary !!

8- Some known functions of some "alleged vestigial organs":
Appendix:

The appendix is a small blind-ended tubular structure attached to the large intestine close to where it joins the small intestine. It has no digestive function and is commonly assumed to a vestigial organ left behind from a plant-eating ancestor.
Evolutionists have postulated that in the past, man had a larger cecum, but as man progressed from a higher-fiber diet to a lower-fiber diet, the larger cecum became less necessary. Thus the appendix is said to have resulted from a loss of cecal size.

- The appendix is now known to be an important part of what is called the reticulo-enadothelial system of the body. Like the tonsils, the appendix fights infection.
There are collections of lymphocytes (body defence cells) in its lining.
The appendix is part of a system that determines which microbes are allowed to live in the intestines and which ones are not. The large intestine needs to have a healthy population of harmless bacteria living on its inner surface.
Babies are not born with these microbes. Babies develop in a germ-free environment in their mother’s womb so during infancy and childhood the immune system has to learn which microbes can live on the body surfaces and which cannot. Even the good microbes need to be kept in their place and your immune system helps keep them there throughout your life.

- When the large bowel becomes inflamed and its population of good bacteria is lost due to outpouring fluid that is part of the inflammatory response to injury and infection, the appendix acts as a “safe house” for good bacteria, which can then repopulate the large bowel when the inflammation is over. For more information on this function see article in Science Daily, 8 Oct 2007.

- One study done by Dr. Howard R. Bierman on hundreds of patients with leukemia, Hodgkin’s disease, cancer of the colon, and cancer of the ovaries showed that 84% of these patients had their appendix removed, while in a healthy control group only 25% had it removed. [Bergman and Howe, p. 45] This is a positive correlation, indicating a possible role of the appendix in preventing these diseases.

- Your Appendix Could Save Your Life

http://blogs.scienti...save-your-life/
http://www.scientifi...e-function-of-t
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/15228837
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/17936308
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/21370495
http://www.sciencedi...02251930700416X
http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3279496/
http://www.livescien...-promising.html 
Scientists Finally Discover The Function of the Human Appendix

“Maybe it's time to correct the textbooks,” said researcher William Parker, an immunologist at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, NC “Many biology texts today still refer to the appendix as a 'vestigial organ.”

The Coccyx:

Another organ declared useless by evolutionists is the coccygeal vertebrae (the coccyx). This is the bottom of your spine.The fact that the coccyx is made of several segments fused together is no indication that it used to be a mobile tail. 

The segmented structure allows it to grow during foetal development and childhood.   Scientists have found that important muscles attach to those bones. The pelvic floor muscles and ligaments help with maintaining upright stance and walking, and support the internal organs of pelvic cavity.

http://www.laserspin...natomy/tailbone
http://education.yah...ects/subject/24
http://education.yah...cts/subject/213
http://www.angelfire...s/tailbone.html

Plica semilunaris of conjunctiva

The plica semilunaris is a small fold of bulbar conjunctiva on the medial canthus of the eye.

It functions during movement of the eye, to help maintain tear drainage via the lacrimal lake, and to permit greater rotation of the globe, for without the plica the conjunctiva would attach directly to the eyeball, restricting movement.

"Four fornices are formed by the conjunctiva where it is reflected from the eyelids to the globe. The superior fornix is the largest in both size and volume. It is formed and maintained by fine smooth muscle slips that pass from the levator palpebral superioris muscle and insert into the conjunctiva. This attachment prevents the conjunctiva from folding downward over the cornea. It also prevents the fornix from developing sags as the globe moves upward, which might obstruct vision. The temporal fornix is attached by fine fibrous slips to the tendon of the lateral rectus muscle, again maintaining the relative position of the fornix during horizontal movements of the globe. The inferior fornix is attached to the tendon of the inferior rectus, which prevents its movement. The plica semilunaris performs the same function as a fornix medially, and is a reversed fornix with the fold of conjunctiva lying externally (Fig. 3). During a medial gaze, the fornix has a variable depth. This occurs because the fibrous slips that link the conjunctiva to the tendon of the medial rectus muscle insert onto the deep surface of the plica and caruncle. Contraction of the medial rectus tightens these slips, forming a cul-de-sac medially as the globe adducts. On maximal medial rotation, the plica partially unfolds to form a true fornix similar to that present in other areas. (Fig. 3). During a medial gaze, the fornix has a variable depth. This occurs because the fibrous slips that link the conjunctiva to the tendon of the medial rectus muscle insert onto the deep
surface of the plica and caruncle. Contraction of the medial rectus tightens these slips, forming a cul-de-sac medially as the globe adducts. On maximal medial rotation, the plica partially unfolds to form a true fornix similar to that present in other areas."(Dartt, Darlene A. (2006). "The Conjunctiva—Structure and Function". Duane's Foundations of Clinical Ophthalmology 2. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Chapter 2)

http://www.oculist.n.../v8/v8c002.html

The relationship between the plica semilunaris and caruncle and the bulbar conjunctiva, eyelids, and lacrimal puncta is important in several ways. Any change in these structures due to scarring or other fibrous changes could mechanically limit rotation of the globe. In addition, keratinization, hypertrophy, or retraction of the caruncle may interfere with mucus and foreign body excretion, resulting in dysfunction of the lacrimal drainage system.

N.B:
Darwinists say it's is the vestigial non-functional remnant of the the "third eyelid"(nictitating membrane) which is drawn across the eye for protection in some animals e.g:camels, sharks & birds.

Wisdom teeth:

First of all, a tooth, just like any other molar tooths has an obvious function, namely to grind food. We have 32 teeth, including these wisodm teeth. Of course we could still grind food without our 4 wisdom teeth. We could probably also be able to grind food with 26, 24 or with 20 teeth. Be that as it may, the wisdom teeth are obviously not vestigal. It has also been suggested, that earlier generations of humans which ate food that was allot rougher, and didn't have the same protection and care wore down their teeth a lot faster, therefor, a new set of teeth, at the age of 20 to 25 was very practical for them.
Opposition to Prophylactic Removal of Third Molars (Wisdom Teeth)
http://www.apha.org/...ult.htm?id=1371

The Vomeronasal (Jacobson’s) Organ

The adult human VNO displays species-specific, gender-dimorphic and highly stereospecific responses to ligands. The organ's local response, or electrovomerogram, is followed by gender-specific behavioral changes, modulation of autonomic nervous system function, or the release of gonadotropins from the pituitary gland. Functional brain imaging studies revealed consistent activation of the hypothalamus, amygdala and cingulate gyrus-related structures during adult human VNO stimulation. These findings present new information supportive of a functional vomeronasal system in adult humans.
http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/9929629

These data demonstrate the existence of a functional vomeronasal-pituitary pathway in adult humans. In addition to the effect on gonadotropin pulsatility, the vomeropherin also produces concurrent reflex autonomic effects after VNO stimulation. These included decreased respiratory frequency, increased cardiac frequency, and event-related changes of electrodermal activity and EEG pattern. Therefore, this investigation also provides evidence for functional connections between the VNO and a variety of hypothalamic areas in adult humans.
http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/8836161

Recent progress in the neurobiology of the vomeronasal organ.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/12203701

The researchers believe that the cells in the VNO send electrical impulses to the hypothalamus which stimulates the pituitary gland to release or stop releasing certain hormones (Lawton 1997).
http://www.macaleste...attraction.html

Erector pili:

Piloerection refers to a reaction of the sympathetic nervous system that causes hair follicles to protrude outwards from the skin. Commonly called goosebumps or gooseflesh, it is a physiological response to cold air and intense emotions, especially fear. It is most common to see goosebumps on the forearms, though they can also appear on the legs, buttocks, chest, and neck on some people.
Another medical term for piloerection is cutis anserina. Goosebumps appear when the sympathetic nervous system causes the arrectores pilorum muscles under the skin to contract.

Goosebumps may help to conserve heat when you're exposed to cold. They may do this in several ways:

• As with larger muscles, contraction of the muscles in the skin (called "arrectores pilorum") makes heat.
• The raised hair follicles cause skin pores to close.
• Hairs standing up trap a layer of air near the skin, holding onto body heat.

They also have an important role in keeping the skin’s oil glands unblocked.
http://books.google....ctor pili human

Quantitative pilomotor axon reflex test: a novel test:The quantitative pilomotor axon reflex test (QPART) may complement other measures of cutaneous autonomic nerve fiber function.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22868966

Relation to diseases:
Though rare, goosebumps can be a sign of a seizure disorder (called temporal lobe epilepsy), a disorder of the sympathetic nervous system, or a brain tumor. They are also common during heroin or other opiate withdrawal. In fact, the term "quitting cold turkey" refers to the presence of goose bumps (that mimic cold turkey flesh) during withdrawal from heroin. (The term could also have come from the expression, "talk turkey," meaning to speak bluntly or directly, without preparation.)
 http://www.intelihea...d=dmtHMSContent

Goose bumps may be a kind of "skin orgasm"
http://www.healthgui...oose-Bumps.html
N.B:
Cat's body, for example, initiates piloerection to make the hairs on the back and tail stand on end. This process makes the cat appear larger than it actually is.
Piloerection is also beneficial for animals when they are exposed to extremely cold weather. Goosebumps extend the hairs on a cold animal, creating a thicker coat that offers more protection. Erected hairs provide extra insulation as they trap heat more effectively than a fur coat in its normal state.
Because piloerction in man doesn't make predators think twice before attacking & its role in heat regulation is less that animals, Darwinists declared it a useless leftover from our imaginary animal ancestors.

-----------------------
Related: Why Mammal Body Hair Is an Evolutionary Enigma
http://faculty.washi...r/receptor.html
http://www.keratin.com/aa/aa031.shtml
http://jap.physiolog...6/2/256.extract
http://www.scientifi...ile-sl-11-12-13

Plantaris

In monkeys it is connected to the toes and is useful in swinging from branches.


(Image: Plantaris in cat's leg)

In human beings it is tiny and may be absent (7–20% of population)(Simpson SL, Hertzog MS, Barja RH. The plantaris tendon graft: an ultrasound study. J Hand Surg [Am] 1991;16:708–711)

In humans, Plantaris aids to:

• plantarflex the ankle joint
• flex the knee joint

It has been considered to be an organ of proprioceptive function for the larger, more powerful plantarflexors as it contains a high density of muscle spindles.(Moore KL, Dalley AF, editors. Clinically Oriented Anatomy. 5. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006. pp. 648–649)
Its motor function is minimal but its long tendon can readily be harvested for plastic reconstruction elsewhere with little functional deficit.

Palmaris Longus:

It's a flexor of the wrist and tenses the palmar aponeurosis & It's great candidate for plastic reconstruction.

"loss of this tendon results in no major abnormality of hand function. But Mc Grouther (1996) states that the main function of palmaris longus is to anchor the skin and fascia of hand and hence to prevent degloving of palmar skin from horizontal shearing forces. Therefore, variations in the innervation of such a clinically important muscle should be of interest both to the academicians and clinicians"

(http://medind.nic.in...aet03i2p171.pdf)

Basilosaurus

Basilosaurus

Basilosaurus is thought to be lived between 40 million years ago in Eocene.
The fossils were initially believed to be reptile, hence the suffix -"saurus", Greek for ‘king lizard,’, but later found to be a marine mammal.

 “Basilosaurus existed at a time when baleen-bearing mysticetes [modern baleen whales] are known to have existed, and echolocating odontocetes [toothed whales] are presumed to have existed,” whale evolution expert Dr. Lawrence Barnes of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles, quoted in Evolution: The Grand Experiment by Dr. Carl Werner, page 144. New Leaf Press, 2007

Size compared to a human.

There is unparalleled degree of elongation compared with modern whales. The Basilosaurus is 18 meters (60 feet) long (10 times as long as Ambulocetus) with 0.6 meter (2 ft) hind limbs. They were probably used to clasping during copulation.
Gingerich said,
‘It seems to me that they could only have been some kind of sexual and reproductive clasper.’ Gingerich, P. D., B. H. Smith, and E. L. Simons. 1990. Hind limbs of Eocene Basilosaurus isis: evidence of feet in whales. Science, 249: 154-157

Barbara Stahl, a vertebrate paleontologist and evolutionist, points out:

"The serpentine form of the body and the peculiar shape of the cheek teeth make it plain that these archaeocetes [like Basilosaurus] could not possibly have been the ancestor of modern whales."

The jawbone of an ancient whale found in Antarctica may be the oldest fully aquatic whale yet discovered.

10/11/2011
This jawbone, in contrast, belongs to the Basilosauridae group of fully aquatic whales, said Reguero, who leads research for the Argentine
Antarctic Institute.With this new fossil find, however, dating to 49 million years ago (bear in mind that Pakicetus lived around 53 million years ago), this means that the first fully aquatic whales now date to around the time when the alleged walking whales (Ambulocetus) first appear.

www.nbcnews.com/id/44867222/ns/technology_and_science-science/

Rodhocetus

Rodhocetus
 

A fossil of a creature called Rodhocetus, mammal that lived in the sea and now extinct, is portrayed as the first creature with legs changing into flippers and with the tail developing into a whale’s tail. Without it there is really no story, but recent disclosures undo the tale.
Two species were identified ( Rhodocetus kasrani in 1978 by paleontologist Gingerich. Rhodocetus balochensis by Philip Gingerich in 2001.
The date set for the Rhodocetus is about 49 - 39 million years ago, in the middle Eocene

Dr Gingerich, who found the fossil, promoted the idea that Rodhocetus had a whale’s tail.
Carl Werner noted that the part that would show the presence of the flukes (the rear wings) is missing. He asked about the missing tail bones and how they knew it had tail flukes. Dr Gingerich replied,

"I speculated that it might have had a fluke, I now doubt that Rodhocetus would have had a fluked tail."

Pelvis, hind limb, and the vertebrae Rodhocetus sp. on Field Museum of Natural History.

    Dr Werner noted on inspecting the fossil of Rodhocetus the absence of any flipper bones. When he asked Dr Gingerich how he knew that the animal had flippers, Dr Gingerich said,
    “Since then we have found the forelimbs, the hands, and the front arms of Rodhocetus, and we understand that it doesn’t have the kind of arms that can spread out like flippers on a whale.”

Ambulocetus natans

Ambulocetus natans

It lived about 50 million years ago, during the early Eocene.The specimen was found in eastern Pakistan by Thewissen et al,(Northeastern Ohio University College of Medicine), who popularized the idea that this creature was an early, amphibious ancestor of whales. It is actually a land creature that evolutionists have insisted on ‘turning into a whale.’


The name Ambulocetus natans comes from the Latin words ‘ambulare’ (to walk), ‘cetus’ (whale) and ‘natans’ (swimming), and means ‘a walking and swimming whale.’
It is obvious the animal used to walk because it had four legs, like all other mammals, and even wide claws on its feet and hooves on its hind legs.  Apart from evolutionists’ prejudice however, there is absolutely no basis for the claim that it swam in water, or that it lived on land and in water (like an amphibian).
In order to see the border between science and wishful imagination on this subject, let us have a look at National Geographic’s reconstruction of Ambulocetus.  This is how it is portrayed in the magazine:


Fake drawings:  Imaginary webs added to claws, and rear legs made to look like fins.
If you look at it carefully you can easily see the two little visual manipulations that have been employed to ‘turn the land-dwelling Ambulocetus into a whale:

• The animal’s rear legs are shown not with feet that would help it to walk, but as fins that would assist it to swim.  However, Carroll, who examines the animal’s leg bones, says that it possessed the ability to move powerfully on land.^[5]
  
• In order to present an impression of adaptation for water, webbing has been drawn on its front feet.  Yet it is impossible to draw any such conclusion from a study of Ambulocetus fossils.  In the fossil record it is next to impossible to find soft tissues such as these.  So reconstructions based on features beyond those of the
  skeleton are always speculative.  That offers evolutionists a wide-ranging empty space of speculation to use their propaganda tools.
  

With the same kind of evolutionists touching up that has been applied to the Ambulocetus drawing, it is possible to make any animal look like any other.  You could even take a monkey skeleton, draw fins on its back and webbing between its fingers and present it as the ‘primate ancestor of whales.’

In publishing the picture of the animal’s skeleton, National Geographic had to take a step back from the retouching it had carried out to the reconstruction picture which made it seem more like a whale.  As the skeleton clearly shows, the animal’s feet were designed to carry it on land.  There was no sign of the imaginary webs.




(A) Imaginary drawing of Ambulocetus, ‘at the end of the power stroke during swimming’, by Thewissen et al.

(B) The stippled bones were all that were found. And the bones coloured red were found 5 m above the rest. With the ‘additions’ removed there really isn’t much left of Ambulocetus!
The evolutionary biologist Annalisa Berta commented on the Ambulocetus fossil (in 1994):

'Since the pelvic girdle is not preserved, there is no direct evidence in Ambulocetus
for a connection between the hind limbs and the axial skeleton. This hinders interpretations
of locomotion in this animal, since many of the muscles that support and move the hindlimb originate on the pelvis'

Imaginary drawing-Ambulocetus size, compared to a human.

In 1996, More remains were found:

The shock:


Figure : All the material found of Ambulocetus natans (from: http://www.neomed.ed...gins/index.html)- The ONLY known fossil in the world - This animal is known solely from a single, partial skeleton, that of an individual about 3 meters (~10 feet) long!

EUGENE M. MCCARTHY, PHD commented:

The actual evidence for such a claim is actually rather meager. Here are the few points usually cited in support of this assertion:

 

• It is supposedly whalelike because it had a nose that allowed it to swallow underwater.

1. However, human beings and many other non-marine organisms can swallow underwater.
2. Moreover, as can be seen figure above , the snout of the single known specimen was not preserved.

• The periotic bone, which surrounds the inner ear in mammals, is
  supposedly whalelike, allowing ambulocetids to hear well in water.

1. But no one actually knows how well these creatures could hear, whether in water or out of it.
2. Moreover, little or nothing is usually said about the great dissimilarity between all of the other features of this animal and those of a whale.

• Its teeth are alleged to be like those of a whale.

1. But the jaws of the single individual known (again see the figure above) are highly fragmented, and the few teeth preserved appear to differentiated, unlike those of toothed whales.

• It is asserted that Ambulocetus's hindlimbs were ill-adapted to terrestrial locomotion. But the limbs — and the pelvis — are so poorly preserved (see high resolution image), that it seems there is no clear evidence bearing on this point.
• Known fossils are from the Eocene and are already quite whalelike. Ambulocetus
  (Thewissen and Aria 1994; Thewissen et al. 1996) cannot be counted as a transitional form because it is actually younger than the oldest rcognized cetacean Himalayacetus (Bajpa and Gingerich 1998). The evolution of whales from forms that are younger than the earliest known whales clearly isn't possible.

www.macroevolution.net/ambulocetus.html

The jawbone of an ancient whale found in Antarctica may be the oldest fully aquatic whale yet discovered.
10/11/2011
With this new fossil find, however, dating to 49 million years ago (bear in mind that Pakicetus lived around 53 million years ago), this means that the first fully aquatic whales now date to around the time when walking whales (Ambulocetus) first appear.
www.nbcnews.com/id/44867222/ns/technology_and_science-science/

N.B:

Wikipedia is unreliable source for any information related to evolution.

Related topics:

Basilosaurus

Rodhocetus

Pakicetus

Indohyus

Pakicetus

Pakicetus

A Quadrupedal Forced to be the ‘Ancestor of the Whale’

In 1983.  P. D. Gingerich and his assistants, who found the fossil, had no hesitation in immediately claiming that it was a ‘primitive whale,’ even though they actually only found a skull.
Its skeleton turned out to be similar to that of common wolves.  It was found in a region full of iron ore, and containing fossils of such terrestrial creatures as snails, tortoises or crocodiles.  In other words, it was part of a land stratum, not an aquatic one.
So, why was a quadrupedal land dweller announced to be a ‘primitive whale’? 

'Subtle clues in combination—the arrangement of cups on the molar teeth, a folding in a bone of the middle ear, and the positioning of the ear bones within the skull—are absent in other land mammals but a signature of later Eocene whales.'

In other words, based on some details in its teeth and ear bones, some persons felt able to describe this quadrupedal, wolf-like land dweller as a ‘walking whale.’  Just one look at the reconstruction of Pakicetus by the evolutionist illustrator will reveal the absurdity in terming it a ‘walking whale.’

Even Gingerich himself admitted:

'But we do know that its hearing mechanism was that of a land mammal and that it was found in fluvial sediments with other land animals'

Distortions in The Reconstructions :





(Paleontologists believe that Pakicetus was a quadrupedal mammal.  The skeletal structure on the left, published in the Nature magazine clearly demonstrates this.  Thus the drawing of Pakicetus by Carl Buell, which was based on that structure, is somewhat realistic.)

(Pakicetus reconstruction by National Geographic  

The animal has been portrayed in a ‘swimming’ position.  Its hind legs are shown stretching out backwards, and an impression of ‘fins’ has been given.)

Top left: Gingerich’s first reconstruction
Bottom left: what he had actually found
Top right: more complete skeleton (remaines claimed to be found later)
Bottom right: more reasonable reconstruction

'illustration shows the skulls of two pakicetids (Ichthyolestes and Pakicetus) are comparable to that of a modern coyote (Canis latrans). Saying that the evolution of whales started with this doglike animal is sheer nonsense' (EUGENE M. MCCARTHY, PHD on evolution of whales)

The features of the details are no compelling evidence on which to base a link between Pakicetus and the whale:

•  some of these features are actually found in other terrestrial animals as well.
• None of the features in question are any evidence of an evolutionary relationship.  Even evolutionists admit that most of the theoretical relationships built on the basis of anatomical similarities between animals are completely untrustworthy.
  
  Quote

  If the marsupial Tasmanian wolf and the common placental wolf had both been extinct for a long time, then it is no doubt that evolutionists would picture them in the same taxon and define them as very close relatives.  However, we know that these two different animals, although strikingly similar in their anatomy, are very far from each other in the supposed evolutionary  tree of life.  (In fact their similarity indicates common design—not common descent.)

  The mole has a bird-like sternum and wrist bones, but it would be absurd to conclude that birds evolved from moles! Many more examples can be found here: Similarities and Homology: No Evidence For Evolution!

Pakicetus, was a unique species harboring different features in its body.
In fact, Carroll, an authority on vertebrate paleontology, describes the Mesonychid family, of which Pakicetus should be a member, as “exhibiting an odd combination of characters.”^[3]
As paleontologist Robert L. Carroll (1997: 329) notes,

'It is not possible to identify a sequence of mesonychids leading directly to whales, although some teeth now recognized as belonging to primitive whales were originally described as from mesonychids. All adequately known mesonychids were terrestrial in most aspects of the skeleton, and some show specializations for cursorial [i.e., running] locomotion.'

Such prominent evolutionists as Gould accept that ‘mosaic creatures’ of this type cannot be considered as transitional forms.

 In his article ‘The Overselling of Whale Evolution,’ Ashby L. Camp wrote:

 “The reason evolutionists are confident that mesonychids gave rise to archaeocetes, despite the inability to identify any species in the actual lineage, is that known mesonychids and archaeocetes have some similarities.  These similarities, however, are not sufficient to make the case for ancestry, especially in light of the vast differences.  The subjective nature of such comparisons is evident from the fact so many groups of mammals and even reptiles have been suggested as ancestral to whales.”^[4]

G.A. Mchedlidze, a Russian expert on whales, has expressed serious doubts as to whether creatures like Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, and others—even if accepted as aquatic mammals—can properly be considered ancestors of modern whales. He sees them instead as 'a completely isolated group.'
‘All the postcranial bones indicate that pakicetids were land mammals, and … indicate that the animals were runners, with only their feet touching the ground.’ This is very different from Gingerich’s picture of an aquatic animal! But the evolutionary bias is still clear, describing Pakicetus as a ‘terrestrial cetacean’ and saying, ‘The first whales were fully terrestrial, and were even efficient runners.’ But the term ‘whale’ becomes meaningless if it can describe land mammals, and it provides no insight into how true marine whales supposedly evolved.
http://harunyahya.com/en/works/3378
5-whale evolution

Summary:
http://youtu.be/2nS-RifoPFA?t=9s

Indohyus

Indohyus
A report published December, 2007, outlined a description of a new fossil discovery claimed by Dr. J. Thewissen and his colleagues to represent the ancestor of the whale/cetaceans. This went viral.

(Imaginary drawings)

The reason why evolutionists cling to Indohyus as a missing link is that:
1- they depict a structure between the middle and inner ear (tympanic bullae, involucrum  extra "wall") as similar to that in marine mammals.
2- they claim that Indohyus' teeth have a similar structure to those of marine mammals
3- eyes being higher in the skull than is the case in other ungulates,and  this is a feature shared with whales. 

(Magnified, actual bones in the link below:
http://static.guim.c...-indohyus-1.jpg
However, the idea of the evolution of the whale, a fantastical and unscientific fairy tale, is incompatible with the emergence of Indohyus. Let us now examine these inconsistencies.

a) Indohyus is a finding that rocks the idea of whale evolution, and the idea that it supports it is a total deception.
According to the classic scenario of whale evolution, mammals dwelling on the land are considered to have moved into the water. The fact is, however, that an examination of Indohyus shows that it already lived in water (teeth ¹⁸O values and osteosclerotic bones- Virtually all aquatic vertebrates have it ), and its dental structure shows that it lived a herbivorous existence. This feature of Indohyus represents a major contradiction of those evolutionists who say, in their classical accounts, that terrestrial mammals moved into the sea in order to find prey.
The New Scientist article said this on the subject:

 The research also challenges the idea that cetaceans – the order that includes whales, dolphins, and porpoises – split from their land-dwelling forebears and returned to the water to hunt aquatic prey.

This suggests that Indohyus was a shallow water wader already, and had not returned to the water simply to hunt live prey.
Whenever they are confronted by findings that clash with their own fairy tales they attempt to save their theories by means of such trickery as saying “evolution happened in this way, rather than that,” when what they should say is; “our accounts are wrong, there is no foundation to what we have been describing as the true facts in school text books.”

b) The similarities constructed between Indohyus and whales are not restricted to these life forms alone.
The similarities they have come up with between the two can also be seen in other mammals which have no connection at all to whales in respect of the theory of evolution. Scientists make the following admission on the subject:

None of these features characterize all modern and extinct cetaceans [whales—KB].... In addition, all of these characters are found in some mammals unrelated to cetaceans”(Thewissen, et al., 2007)

As we have seen, Indohyus shares anatomical features not just with whales, but also with other mammals which are totally incompatible with whales in terms of the myth of evolution. For that reason, the depiction of Indohyus as “the missing link in whale evolution” in New Scientist magazine is devoid of any scientific justification.


'The 48-million-year-old actual skeleton of Indohyus spent much of its life in water.
The cell phone is for size comparison .'

Quote

What does Indohyus actually prove? It proves that the alleged closest relative of the whale can change from the hippopotamus to a small deer-like creature in the blink of an eye, based on certain similar structures that it has in common with other mammals besides whales.
The DNA of whales is most like the DNA of hippos. Therefore, the molecular biologists say whales must have evolved from an early hippopotamus.
Paleontologists don’t buy that argument because they think the oldest whale fossils are 50 million years old, and the oldest hippo fossils are just 15 million years old. If whales preceded hippos by 35 million years, they could not have evolved from them. But the fossil record has “not resolved the issue of cetacean relations” either. So, there are several different proposed whale ancestors.

c) The similarity constructed between Indohyus and whales on the basis of dental structure is also questionable

Those making these claims about Indohyus also suggest that it shares a common dental structure with whales. However, whales are carnivores. Indohyus, on the other hand, was a herbivore, with totally different feeding patterns.

http://www.scientifi...09B24DA94_1.jpg
They said

"All fossil and recent cetaceans differ from most other mammals in the reduction of crushing basins on their teeth: there are no trigonid and talonid basins in the lower molars, and the trigon basin of the upper molars is very small (for example in pakicetids and ambulocetids) or absent. Crushing basins are large in raoellids -indohyus- and other basal ungulates. This implies that a major change in dental function occurred at the origin of cetaceans, probably related to dietary change at the origin"(Thewissen, et al., Nature)

What they are basically saying is that Indohyus must have been a whale ancestor because its teeth are NOT whale-like, which is proof that the shape of whale teeth evolved!

Additionally, ScienceNOW, a daily news feature of the journal Science, notes that "cetaceans are so different from any other creature that researchers haven’t been able to agree which fossil relatives best represent their nearest ancestors."
Conclusion:

Since evolutionists adopt their theories as a dogma right from the outset, and since evolutionary development is a belief imposed by materialist ideology, they are quite capable of manufacturing huge flights of fancy based on the very smallest similarities. The way they regard Indohyus, an animal that lived in rivers and no larger than a racoon (compared to the small swimming mouse deer), as the ancestor of the whales, on the basis of superficial similarities, such as Indohyus' eye sockets being located a little higher, represents a striking and dazzling example of this dogmatic and fantastical mindset. 

Any normal, rational individual whose thought processes are unfettered by materialist preconceptions will know that this design can only be possible as the result of a mind having planned it. In the same way that the existence of a computer points to the existence of a computer engineer, or a building to that of an architect, so the sublime complexity and vast quantities of information in the biological systems in living things indicate the existence of the Creator who brought them into being. It is quite certain that this Creator is Almighty God, Who has no need of blueprints or designs in order to create, and Who brings all things into existence merely by commanding them to “Be!”
http://www.darwinism...akale_id=148106
http://www.ridgenet....sage/v12i4n.htm

A funny complaint about the recurrent laryngeal nerve !

The funniest complain I've ever heard by some Darwinists and atheists is that RLN is too long, It must be badly designed !!

Analysis:

1- Failure of Natural Selection ?!

[For the sake of argument] A totally nonsensical and relictual misdesign would be a severe contradiction in their own neo-Darwinian (or synthetic evolutionary) world view. Biologist and Nobel laureate Francois Jacob described this view on the genetic level as follows:

 "The genetic message, the programme of the present-day organism ... resembles a text without an author, that a proof-reader has been correcting for more than two billion years, continually improving, refining and completing it, gradually eliminating all imperfections."

The result in the Giraffe?

Jerry Coyne:

 "One of nature’s  worst designs is shown by the recurrent laryngeal nerve of mammals."

the question arises: why did natural selection not get rid of this "worst design" and improve it during the millions of generations and mutations from fish to the giraffe onwards?

2- Maldesign = No design ?

[For the sake of argument] why "imperfect design" should refute design. we complained before about the breakdowns and flaws I've had with computers, but obviously computers are designed. In fact, every piece of technology that has ever had a flaw shows that imperfect designs are still designed!

3- Homology (similarities) is NOT and evidence for common ancestry, Why ?

4- Prefer direct nerve to the larynx ?

Actually, Some innervations to the larynx go directly to the larynx, including the sensory internal laryngeal nerve and the motor external laryngeal nerve. Other nerves, the left and right superior laryngeal nerves, branch off close to the larynx to provide this structure with direct innervation.
 A hint is provided from the fact that the two nerves regulate different vocal responses. Paralysis of the superior laryngeal nerve (the non-circuitous nerve) causes difficulty in increasing voice loudness, producing a high pitch, vocal fatigue, and an inability to sing because the vocal cords lack their normal tone and cannot sufficiently lengthen. In contrast, paralysis of the recurrent nerve results in a weak voice that sounds like Mickey Mouse.

In one patient, a traumatic rupture of the aortic arch in a car accident required an aortic graft that left him with a severed left RLN. Although his voice was slightly feeble, his articulation was unaffected. He speaks perfectly well, but cannot project his voice because the laryngeal muscles have multiple innervations and the set as a unit controls its function.



5- Long course = Bad design ?

The optic nerves do not take the shortest route to the occipital lobe of the brain (the lobe near the back of the head), but rather cross over at the optic chiasm (where the two tracts cross over in the form of an "X") for reasons now known to be based on good design. The nerves from the right side of the brain go to the left side of the body (except for the right and left frontal branches of a facial nerve, which are supplied by both sides of the brain) also for good reasons.

 “Human-designed machines and structures are full of such things as circuitous wiring and plumbing, but that hardly means that they are not the products of intelligent design.

6- You were an embryo !

 Human-designed devices, such as radios and computers, do not need to function until their assembly is complete. By contrast, living organisms must function to a high degree in order to thrive during every developmental stage from a single-cell zygote to adult. The embryo as a whole must be a fully functioning system in its specific environment during every second of its entire development. For this reason, adult anatomy can be understood only in the light of development. The embryo develops from a single cell in a certain order. Embryo needs a functioning simple heart early on; this later descends to its position in the chest, dragging the nerve bundle with it.


The recurrent laryngeal nerve, move downward as development proceeds. The movement occurs because the neck's formation and the body's elongation during fetal development force the heart to descend from the cervical (neck) location down into the thoracic (chest) cavity.
As a result, various arteries and other structures must be elongated as organs are moved in a way that allows them to remain functional throughout this entire developmental phase. 

6-Importance for ductus arteriosus:

However, just to refer to one possible substantial function of the Nervus laryngeus recurrens sinister during embryogenesis: "The vagus nerve in the stage 16 embryo is very large in relation to the aortic arch system. The recurrent laryngeal nerve has a greater proportion of connective tissue than other nerves, making it more resistant to stretch. It has been suggested that tension applied by the left recurrent laryngeal nerve as it wraps around the ductus arteriosus could provide a means of support that would permit the ductus to develop as a muscular artery, rather than an elastic artery" - Gray's Anatomy, 39th edition 2005, p. 1053.




7-  This is the vagus !

"In mammals, this nerve avoids the direct route between brain and throat and instead descends into the chest, loops around the aorta near the heart, then returns to the larynx. That makes it seven times longer than it needs to be.(Prothero, D. 2008. Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters. New York: Columbia University Press, 37-38.)

Images and statements like those above are often used to make you imagine that RLN origin is from the brain, However, It actually originates from The vagus nerve below far away from the brain !!

The vagus nerve (the longest of the cranial nerves) travels from the neck down toward the heart, and then the recurrent laryngeal nerve branches off from the vagus just below the aorta (the largest artery in the body, originating from the left ventricle of the heart and extending down the abdomen). The RLN travels upward to serve several organs, some near where it branches off of the vagus nerve, and then travels back up to the larynx


8- Any other purpose ?

If we find some rational function or a reasonable purpose for a design, then the "imperfect" or "inferior" design objection falls apart.
The larynx  only its main destination. In reality, the nerve also has a role in supplying parts of the heart, windpipe muscles and mucous membranes, and the esophagus, which could explain its route.
The fact that the left RLN also gives off some fibers to the cardiac plexus is highly indicative of developmental constraints because the nerve must serve both the larynx (in the neck) and the heart (in the chest).The well-known textbook Gray’s Anatomy states:

    “As the recurrent nerve hooks around the subclavian artery or aorta, it gives off several cardiac filaments to the deep part of the cardiac plexus. As it ascends in the neck it gives off branches, more numerous on the left than on the right side, to the mucous membrane and muscular coat of the esophagus; branches to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea; and some pharyngeal filaments to the Constrictor pharyngis inferior.”
Other textbooks explain its importance:

Maintenant que nous connaissons les gros vaisseaux artériels issus de la base du coeur, nous allons pouvoir décrire les nerfs cardiaques.Disons auparavant que leur disposition est infiniment variable, très malaisée à suivre vu leurs fréquentes anastomoses, et que nous ne pouvons en indiquer ici que le type moyen

le plus connu chez l’animal est le « nerf dépresseur de Cyon », né par deux racines, l’une du nerf laryngé supérieur, l’autre du nerf vague. Chez l’homme, ce nerf a été rarement vu isolé ; mais ses fibres existent et doivent passer par les anastomoses que les nerfs cardiaques contractent avec le laryngé supérieur

Le nerf cardiaque cervical moyen naît du nerf laryngé récurrent

http://books.google.co.ma/books?id=7V5JAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr#v=onepage&q&f=false
Darwinian explanations (as is also true for many other so-called rudimentary routes and organs) are not only often in contradiction to their own premises but also tend to stop looking for (and thus hinder scientific research concerning) further important morphological and physiological functions yet to be discovered. 



9- Non-recurrent inferior laryngeal nerve (NIRLN) is a congenital anomaly !

The non-recurrent inferior laryngeal nerve (NIRLN) is a rare congenital anomaly (0.5–0.6% on the right side, extremely rare on the left side (0.004%)), which increases the risk of damage to the nerve during surgery. The right NRILN is associated with a right subclavian artery arising directly from the aortic arch. The left NRILN is associated with situs inversus.
http://casereports.bmj.com/content/2009/bcr.10.2008.1107.full

It  can have catastrophic consequences for the persons so affected: problems in deglutition (difficulties in swallowing) and respiratory difficulties (troubles in breathing) (see Rammerstorfer 2004; moreover“dysphagia  (if the  pharyngeal and oesophageal branches  of nonrecurrent or recurrent inferior laryngeal nerve are injured)” – Yang et al, 2009: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=5868576).

However, this should be taken in consideration:

Shifting of the Burden of Proof

Making a claim that needs justification (the recurrent nerve is maldesign) , then demanding that the opponent justifies the opposite of the claim (It's a purpose) is absurd. The burden of proof typically lies with the person making the claim.

Bergman, J. 2010. Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Is Not Evidence of Poor Design.
Sarfati , J. 2010.Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve
http://www.weloennig.de/LaryngealNerve.pdf
 http://www.eltwhed.com

Living things were created at the most "appropriate" time for them

The real fact that emerges from examination of the fossil record is that living things emerged in the periods most suitable for them. God has designed all creatures superbly, and has made them well-suited to meet their needs at the times when they emerged on the Earth.
Let us consider one example of this: the Earth at the time when the oldest bacteria fossils emerge, some 3.5 billion years ago. Atmospheric and temperature conditions at the time were not at all suited to support complex creatures or human beings. That also applies to the Cambrian Age, the finding of human fossils from which, according to the evolutionist Kence, would invalidate the theory of evolution. This period, which refers to some 530 million years ago, was definitely unsuitable for human life. (There were no land animals at all at that time.)
The situation is the same in the great majority of succeeding periods. Examination of the fossil record shows that conditions able to support human life have only existed for the last few million years. The same applies to all other living things. Each living group emerged when the appropriate conditions for it had been arrived at—in other words, "when the time was right."
Darwinists make an enormous contradiction in the face of that fact, trying to explain it as if these appropriate conditions themselves had created living things, whereas the coming about of "appropriate conditions" only meant that the right time had come. Living things can only emerge with a conscious intervention—in other words, a supernatural creation.

For this reason, the emergence of living things by stages is evidence not of evolution, but of the infinite knowledge and wisdom of God, Who created them. Every living group created established the appropriate conditions for the next group to emerge, and an ecological balance with all living things was set up for us over a long period of time.
On the other hand, we must be aware that this long period of time is only long to us. For God it is but a single "moment." Time is a concept that only applies to created things. As the creator of time itself, God is not bound by it.
A theory that maintains that invertebrates turned into fish, fish into reptiles, and reptiles into birds and mammals has to find the fossils to prove it.
As the evolutionist paleontologist Derek W. Ager has admitted, the fossil record shows "not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another."
In conclusion, natural history reveals that living things did not come about by chance, but that they were created, stage by stage, over long periods over time.
http://harunyahya.co...y/chapter/12401

chromosome 2 fusion model

To solve the problem of different number of chromosomes between apes and humans, Darwinists suggested the ‘chromosome 2 fusion model’. This scenario involves the claim that the fusion of two small chimpanzee-like chromosomes (2A and 2B) formed one chromosome in humans, leading to the difference in diploid chromosome numbers between humans and great apes. While the chromosome 2 fusion model is routinely touted as dogma, very little new genomic data, although readily available for analysis, has been presented as evidence.




Wikipedia mentioned that the model is "widely accepted":




But, What you need to know is:
1- A majority of the data for the fusion model is based on DNA hybridization and chromosomal staining experiments conducted prior to the sequencing of the human and chimpanzee genomes.

2- Synteny (shared ordering of genes between organisms) of the chromosomes is not a surprise. We already knew there was a vast amount of similarity between humans and primates both in terms of physical characteristics and genetic material and structure. It is a mistake to assume that observing similarities necessarily brings you to the conclusion of common descent. Taxonomy based on physical characteristics was already a very well established science when the idea of common descent came on the scene.

3- The telomere region involves a complex and dynamic framework of DNA motif repeats 5’ to 3’ (TTAGGG)n , structural loops, structural and a wide variety of proteins. and it confer stability and preventing fusion or shortening of the chromosomes. It's in perfect tandem of DNA from about 10 to 15 kb (10,000 to 15,000 bases) and contains 1,667 to 2,500 telomere repeats at each chromosome end.

4- In a head-to-head fusion of two chromosomes, we would expect at least 5,000 bases of (TTAGGG)n repeats in tandem, we would also expect the orientation of the plus-strand repeat to change to the reverse complement (CCCTAA)n, which should also occur in near-perfect tandem for approximately 5,000 or more bases. The area containing the suspected ‘fusion region’ is often called 2qfus or 2chr2fus and occupies the genomic area between 2q13 and 2q14.1.

5- Within the 10 to 30 kb window of DNA sequence surrounding the hypothetical fusion site,a glaring paucity of telomeric repeats exist that appear mostly as independent monomers, not tandem repeats. The TTAGGG repeat to the left of the fusion site, less than 35 motifs exist. For the CCCTAA reverse complement sequence, to the right of the fusion site, less than 150 telomere motifs can be found.

6- The only research group to seriously analyze the actual fusion site DNA sequence data in detail were confounded by the results which showed a lack of evidence for fusion—a genomic condition for this region which they termed ‘degenerate’.(Fan, Y. et al., Genomic structure and evolution of the ancestral chromosome fusion site in 2q13-2q14.1 and paralogous regions on other human chromosomes, Genome Research 12:1651–1662, 2002. )

7- Fairbanks said that 44 out of 158 repeats match (28%) and that the rest of the sequences are ‘close’. The problem is, to obtain even this low match level, the consensus reading frame is entirely ignored and ambiguous matches are contrived by assuming many insertion and deletion mutations of varying sizes.

8- There are genes throughout the alleged fusion region. In an analysis of a 614 kb area encompassing the postulated chromosome fusion site, Fan et al. found evidence of “at least 24 potentially functional genes and 16 pseudogenes”.(Fan, Y. et al., Gene content and function of the ancestral chromosome fusion site in human chromosome 2q13-2q14.1 and paralogous regions, Genome Research 12:1663–1672, 2002.). In the 30-kb region directly encompassing the fusion site, which should definitely be devoid of any genes, there exists two actively transcribed genes, each in a flanking position in regard to the fusion site (one on each side). There are also at least two other genes in the immediate vicinity of the fusion site thought to be inactive due to frame shift mutations. However, research related to the human ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) project has shown that many genes thought to be inactive (pseudogenes) are actually functional due to a variety of newly discovered regulatory mechanisms.(Identification and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the ENCODE pilot project, Nature 447:799–816, 2007)

9- If the telomere motifs that populate internal areas of chromosomes serve some important, yet unknown function, the chromosome fusion model actually impedes research aimed at determining possible function in these regions.

10- telomeres are designed to prevent fusion. Broken chromosomes at any location immediately invoke the cell’s double-stranded DNA repair machinery where the aberrant fusion of fragments actually triggers cell fault tolerance mechanisms.6 In the case of an aberrant fusion, a senescence response or programmed cell death (apoptosis) cascade is normally triggered, effectively eliminating the damaged cell from the system.

A cell with telomeres that have progressively shortened over time and reached a threshold length will also activate the double-stranded DNA repair machinery; inducing cell senescence and/or death. When in certain types of germline cells, telomerase adds telomere repeats to shortened telomeres, chromosomes are ‘healed’ and can again become stable. The telomeres cap the ends of linear chromosomes and effectively prevent fusion or trigger cell elimination if the telomere is shortened to a certain point, damaged, or aberrantly fused.6 According to the fusion model, this protective process was somehow bypassed in early humans.

11- Telomere sequence is not unique to the telomere. the existence of telomeric repeats in internal sites is not unusual or unexpected. We know that ITS (interstitial telomeric sequences) present in Chromosomes 1,4,5,9,12,16, and 17 (http://www.ncbi.nlm....4?dopt=Abstract)

12- The evidence for a second remnant centromere at any stage of sequence degeneracy is negligible.The supposed evidence includes the finding that “every human and great-ape chromosome centromere contains a highly variable DNA sequence that is repeated over and over, a 171 base-pair sequence called the Alphoid sequence.”3 Fairbanks adds that scientists have “searched for Alphoid sequences in human chromosomes and found them at every centromere, as expected. They also found Alphoid sequences at the site in human chromosome 2 where the remnants of this second centromere should be. These remnants are evidence of a now-defunct centromere.” problem is that, although research has been done on some primates, no systematic study of centromeres exists to determine how common alphoid DNA is in mammals.(Baldini, A. et al., An alphoid DNA sequence conserved in all human and great ape chromosomes: evidence for ancient centromeric sequences at human chromosomal regions 2q21 and 9q13, Human Genetics 90:577–583, 1993) Baldini et al. found that the “highest sequence similarity between human and great ape alphoid sequences is 91%, much lower than the expected similarity for selectively neutral sequences.”

13- Alpha-satellite DNA or alphoid DNA, although found in centromeric areas, is not unique to centromeres and is also highly variable. Because highly variable alphoid DNA is also commonly found in non-centromeric regions of human chromosomes, their presence does not indicate the remnants of a degenerate centromere. Based on the reasoning of Fairbanks and others promoting the human chromosome 2 fusion model, one could conclude that human chromosomes contain literally hundreds of degenerate centromeres.

14- The site is located inside a gene called DDX11L2 on human chromosome 2. Furthermore, the alleged fusion sequence contains a functional genetic feature called a “transcription factor binding site” that is located in the first intron (non-coding region) of the gene (see illustration). Transcription factors are proteins that bind to regulatory sites in and around genes to control their function, acting like switches. The DDX11L2 gene has three of these areas, one of which is encoded in the alleged fusion site.( source )

http://creation.com/...some-2-fusion-1