And I supported my claims about chromosomes, with a scientific source that said pretty much exactly what I had said. You said ‘wasn't peer reviewed’. I pointed out to your obtuseness that there were peer reviewed references backing up their claims. You pulled “putative” and paraded it around, displaying your own ignorance.
But go ahead and take the subject back to chromosomes, as you couldn't possibly embarrass yourself further with physics.
No one has claimed any of the things you claim above. You simply don't understand the models. Pure philosophy as Ellis noted.
"And I supported my claims about chromosomes, with a scientific source that said pretty much exactly what I had said. You said ‘wasn't peer reviewed’. I pointed out to your obtuseness that there were peer reviewed references backing up their claims. You pulled “putative” and paraded it around, displaying your own ignorance."
evolutionpages.com is not what I would call a 'scientific source' although you try to claim that it is. It is apologetics pure and simple. Your confusion could not be more profound.
Your peer-reviewed source stated: "...the precise nature of this putative fusion is unknown..."
"putative" definition -
1 : commonly accepted or supposed
2 : assumed to exist or to have existed
From the article: "...suggests that telomeres, the extreme ends of chromosomes, may have been involved in this [putatative] fusion."
"suggests" definition -
"to mention or imply as a possibility"
From the article:
"Normally, telomeres form a dynamic buffer against loss of internal sequence and prevent chromosomes from fusing."
"The telomere-telomere fusion at region 2q13 must have been accompanied or followed by inactivation or elimination of one of the ancestral centromeres, as well as by events that stabilize the fusion point."
Oops. Multiple assumed putative events required to support the initial assumed putative event. The inverted arrangement of the TTAGGG array and the adjacent sequences are 'similar to' sequences found at present-day human telomeres and are offered as evidence to a putative event that telomeres are designed to resist.
Then we read:
"These data, along with the observations of others (17, 22), suggest that the terminal regions of human chromosomes are dynamic structures, from which stretches of sequence are gained and lost at a relatively high frequency."
Therefore, more cherry-picking of data is needed to support the initial, putative assumption.
And you haven't even begun to support your claim that "the DNA shows the same genes lining up".
"But go ahead and take the subject back to chromosomes, as you couldn't possibly embarrass yourself further with physics."
We already see that you claim apologetics as a 'scientific source', that you accept a speculative paper as 'truth' because it is peer-reviewed, that you can't substantiate your claim that "the DNA shows the same genes lining up" and that you can't understand Einstein, Born, Hoyle and Ellis wrt the implications of GR for geocentrism vs geokineticism. By all means, continue to embarrass yourself for all to see.