HSA2 fusion 23 paired chrom. Homo, 24 in great apes
BMC Genomics volume 23, Article number: 616 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract
Background
The reduction of the chromosome number from 48 in the Great Apes to 46 in modern humans is thought to result from the end-to-end fusion of two ancestral non-human primate chromosomes forming the human chromosome 2 (HSA2). Genomic signatures of this event are the presence of inverted telomeric repeats at the HSA2 fusion site and a block of degenerate satellite sequences that mark the remnants of the ancestral centromere. It has been estimated that this fusion arose up to 4.5 million years ago (Mya).

Results
We have developed an enhanced algorithm for the detection and efficient counting of the locally over-represented weak-to-strong (AT to GC) substitutions. By analyzing the enrichment of these substitutions around the fusion site of HSA2 we estimated its formation time at 0.9 Mya with a 95% confidence interval of 0.4-1.5 Mya. Additionally, based on the statistics derived from our algorithm, we have reconstructed the evolutionary distances among the Great Apes (Hominoidea).

Conclusions
Our results shed light on the HSA2 fusion formation and provide a novel computational alternative for the estimation of the speciation chronology

https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-022-08828-7

On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 7:01:35 AM UTC-4, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> HSA2 fusion 23 paired chrom. Homo, 24 in great apes
> BMC Genomics volume 23, Article number: 616 (2022) Cite this article
>
> Abstract
> Background
> The reduction of the chromosome number from 48 in the Great Apes to 46 in modern humans is thought to result from the end-to-end fusion of two ancestral non-human primate chromosomes forming the human chromosome 2 (HSA2). Genomic signatures of this event are the presence of inverted telomeric repeats at the HSA2 fusion site and a block of degenerate satellite sequences that mark the remnants of the ancestral centromere. It has been estimated that this fusion arose up to 4.5 million years ago (Mya).
>
> Results
> We have developed an enhanced algorithm for the detection and efficient counting of the locally over-represented weak-to-strong (AT to GC) substitutions. By analyzing the enrichment of these substitutions around the fusion site of HSA2 we estimated its formation time at 0.9 Mya with a 95% confidence interval of 0.4-1.5 Mya. Additionally, based on the statistics derived from our algorithm, we have reconstructed the evolutionary distances among the Great Apes (Hominoidea).
>
> Conclusions
> Our results shed light on the HSA2 fusion formation and provide a novel computational alternative for the estimation of the speciation chronology
>
> https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-022-08828-7

Per this paper, pre-.9ma Homo erectus had 24 pair of chromosomes, like all great apes.

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

> Per this paper, pre-.9ma Homo erectus had 24 pair of chromosomes, like all great apes.

Well there's two problems here, one for me.

The first is that there's no such thing as a molecular clock. The dating isn't real.

Period.

The second, and the problem for me, is that it come up against the limits to my
interest and hence knowledge. Like, I'm certain that I have read that it was very
likely more than one event, this chromosome fusion. One of them, and I don't know
which one or even if it matters, could have happened and it may have made not
one wit of difference. It would not have impacted breeding. It was only when BOTH
were present that there was an "Interbreeding" issue.

AND what we know for a fact, it's clearly illustrated with Mungo Man and the
Chromosome 11 insert, is that a single event, a single fusion, could very well have
been common on the Pan side of the divide only for it to have been bred out.

Mu problem here is that DECADES ago I came up against "DNA Evidence" and
noticed a lot of bullshit. So I never cared about it. And although it's still primarily
bullshit there are gaps in my knowledge that I sometimes regret. Like the fact that
ONE chromosome fusion really made no difference. Could it be that ONE took
root in a population and the other took root in a different population? Parallel
evolution? I haven't kept up with this crap and I certainly haven't "Studied" it so
I find that there's actual questions, regarding the DNA, which would be pertinent
but I cant answer and I don't want to embark on such a steep learning curve at
this late stage...

So ONE fusion event happened. And it changed nothing. It didn't split humans
and Chimps, there was no barrier to reproduction. I can't say for certain that this
was true for both (either) event or not, I think it was but to be honest I can't
even bother to do the Google just now.

So ONE fusion event. Zero separation between the Homo & Pan line. The two
events might've even occurred in separate population, co existed for gazillions
of years -- we don't know. But once THE TWO fusions were present in the same
population they were a separate and distinct group.

So, even the ordinarily RIDICULOUS "accuracy" of molecular dating has a massive
opportunity for error, in that one or both events could have occurred MILLIONS of
years ago without them making a goddamn difference, without them appearing
together in one group...

Short & Sweet: Even if the fantasy of molecular dating were true, you would be
dating the ages of the fusions and not necessarily the point of time when both
appeared in the same individual.

They both could have appeared without them appearing together!

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/164752659498

On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 2:16:10 PM UTC-4, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
>
> > Per this paper, pre-.9ma Homo erectus had 24 pair of chromosomes, like all great apes.
> Well there's two problems here, one for me.
>
> The first is that there's no such thing as a molecular clock. The dating isn't real.
>
> Period.
>
> The second, and the problem for me, is that it come up against the limits to my
> interest and hence knowledge. Like, I'm certain that I have read that it was very
> likely more than one event, this chromosome fusion. One of them, and I don't know
> which one or even if it matters, could have happened and it may have made not
> one wit of difference. It would not have impacted breeding. It was only when BOTH
> were present that there was an "Interbreeding" issue.
>
> AND what we know for a fact, it's clearly illustrated with Mungo Man and the
> Chromosome 11 insert, is that a single event, a single fusion, could very well have
> been common on the Pan side of the divide only for it to have been bred out.
>
> Mu problem here is that DECADES ago I came up against "DNA Evidence" and
> noticed a lot of bullshit. So I never cared about it. And although it's still primarily
> bullshit there are gaps in my knowledge that I sometimes regret. Like the fact that
> ONE chromosome fusion really made no difference. Could it be that ONE took
> root in a population and the other took root in a different population? Parallel
> evolution? I haven't kept up with this crap and I certainly haven't "Studied" it so
> I find that there's actual questions, regarding the DNA, which would be pertinent
> but I cant answer and I don't want to embark on such a steep learning curve at
> this late stage...
>
> So ONE fusion event happened. And it changed nothing. It didn't split humans
> and Chimps, there was no barrier to reproduction. I can't say for certain that this
> was true for both (either) event or not, I think it was but to be honest I can't
> even bother to do the Google just now.
>
> So ONE fusion event. Zero separation between the Homo & Pan line. The two
> events might've even occurred in separate population, co existed for gazillions
> of years -- we don't know. But once THE TWO fusions were present in the same
> population they were a separate and distinct group.
>
> So, even the ordinarily RIDICULOUS "accuracy" of molecular dating has a massive
> opportunity for error, in that one or both events could have occurred MILLIONS of
> years ago without them making a goddamn difference, without them appearing
> together in one group...
>
> Short & Sweet: Even if the fantasy of molecular dating were true, you would be
> dating the ages of the fusions and not necessarily the point of time when both
> appeared in the same individual.
>
> They both could have appeared without them appearing together!
>
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/164752659498
Mungo maggot ...

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

[...]

You did not understand a frigging word, and how no way of working
out the significance even if someone helped you read them.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/698577848100896768