I’ve been binge watching your videos quite a bit lately. What gets me about your takedowns of creationism, and creationists (some much more than others) is over time, through your studies, your knowledge is expanding while the YEC’s are stuck in intellectual quicksand. It’s such an unfair fight...
I mostly like it when she merely sprinkles in just a little of the dumb sh!t coming out of dishonest people, and spends the bulk of the minutes on stuff I can learn from.
The unfair fight is the legalized tax evasion and money laundering. Politicians and preachers federally protected panhandling frauds. Televangelists are why there is no truth in advertising past a certain point. the false prophets are also trying to get away before their congregations are required to execute all the lying pastors and churches that adjusted after 1700 years of being wrong, going to war, taking slaves, and rape in the name of Jesus, or one of the other Bible Gods. Church state Human trafficking isn't new.
Faith may well be productive of many positive outcomes, but it's not fitted for reasoning upon observable, measurable, repeatable data. Go figure... Another grand video. Thank you! 💚👍
@@daft987 So 3 full time jobs. Seems perfectly normal. I have zero jobs, so on average, Erika and I would then have 1.5 full time jobs, sounds perfectly reasonable :p
:) I mean to cover this reasonably completely in less than half an hour is impressive. Particularly since she explains pretty much everything at a high school level.
PLEASE NOTE: The following is meant as a joke. If you find it offensive, I apologize in advance, and will stick my nose in the corner for whatever period you consider appropriate. With that disclaimer, permit me to note that "bite-sized busts" might be taken as a self-own by those inclined to think of this phrase as a derogatory phrase for "small-breasted female". Allow me to suggest a few other potential phrases that might make it clearer that you're not sexualizing things, but trying to communicate clearly. For example, when making a short debunk of Creationist claims, you might title it, "A Swift Kick to Creationist Nutters". Or, for refuting Creationist claims you've debunked before, perhaps you'd choose, "A Groin With These Claims?" I think Creationist claims deserve a degree of PUNishment along with the scientific facts, so well communicated in your videos, that we so respect you for, Erika!
the bit where you had to go and find the source for the first prediction is what real research looks like , some thing young earth creationist and many others like them will never know
I was raised fundamentalist Baptist. I left religion on my journey to become a scientist. I'm a biologist, and often get in debates with my YEC friends and family. After I completely debunk their bullshit with facts and evidence, they always just deny it. They inevitably have to resort to apologetic special pleading and god magic that is incompatible with reality.
I gotta say, young people like you give me hope for humanity conducting rational research, doing something useful with your time and sharing your findings probably making the world a better place genetics aside, just the behavioral similarities or the anatomy should be reason enough to see that humans are talking apes that walk funny. I honestly have a harder time believing in flat earthers and young earth creanonists, people can't be that stupid right? they gotta be "meming" or whatever.
Sometimes I have to wonder if flat earthers and YECs don't take "nobody can be that stupid" as a challenge and go out of their way to prove they can be.
@@philleprechaun6240 The evidence they dismiss is just mind blowing. When they try and do an experiment they lack the education (most of them anyway) to do the experiment properly. So their findings are invalid. Then when they are smart enough they are intellectually dishonest.
I think YECs are just monumentally stubborn (or corporate charlatans). Trying to get stuff through to them is like trying to convince your parent or grandparent that an old wive’s-tale they heard all their life is wrong. They’ll just ignore you, because… tradition.🤷🏻♂️
@@Fairburne69 it's my opinion that the 'professional' YECs know the stuff they are preaching is wrong but they do it anyway for the audience and the donations they get. Their tactics are well honed They frame it like it's an atheist vs everyone else debate thereby triggering an "those godless atheists are just trying to destroy christianity" bias; and giving their followers the false impression that the majority view is on their side. Most 'creationists' don't realize that a large portion (I'd say most, if not all, but I don't care to dig for corroborating sources at this time) of non evanglical/fundamentalist christians (and muslims) actually accept that science is correct and they have demoted the bible stories to allegory. And that YECs are actually a minority view They know their 'believers' are already have a predisposition to believe YEC views. They know their 'believers' are generally illiterate and ignorant of the real sciences And they know that their 'believers are not likely to factcheck anything they say so it's safe for them to say about anything, including some rather outrageous claims. And they aren't trying to win over non YECs anyway. They're simply keeping their 'believers' mesmerized and emptying their wallets into the coffers.
I follow over a half dozen science educators on UA-cam and you answered my thoughts! I always wanted one of you guys to do a video on the human chromosome with creationism. Love it! Great video!
Your summary of the overall situation starting at 8:52 shows how much difference there is between scientific consensus, and the YEC belief system. The difference is easy to express, but far more difficult for them to bridge. Thank you for another very thorough explanation of this technical subject.
Now I’m going to look up Dr Miller’s The Human Instinct. I have a couple of his other books that helped me get out of YEC (Dawkins’ The Blind Watchmaker was another one). Great video. And it’s motivated me to brush up on my genetics because it’s been over 10-yrs since I last needed to use it (not including reading papers).
I am liking your discussion. I like the way you present your materials. Don't mistake my brevity for disinterest...getting back to your presentation...✊️
Challenging presentation for me; I may need to sit through a couple replays. But, as ever, fascinating. Perhaps a definitive study of YECists will reveal that Chromosome 2 has fissioned in that Sub-kind!? Thanks, GG.
It's amazing to me how hard people will fight to preserve things that the human race is trying to move beyond. As a person who grew up in religion, I got exposed to a lot of that sort of stuff, so I really appreciate videos like this. Sort of helps me keep filling in the holes in my education. ;D
When creationists talked about the "mysterious" or "elusive" Chromosome 2 extra centromere, I assumed they meant there wasn't enough evidence for the fusion of two prior chromosomes... turnes out there are even more centromeres in chromosome 2...
Thanks for discussing prediction vs. accommodation! That's a very clear and simple rule for distinguishing science from pseudoscience, and I don't know if I ever heard it put quite so succinctly. And I suspect the French author's name is pronounced something more like Groo-shee... but now I'm imagining a fuzzy green Muppet in a trash can writing about ape chromosomes!
I don't know if I agree. I would say just as much pseudoscience is based on appealing to that prediction element and just building on aspects of it. That is the strongest kind of pseudoscience in a sense. That which isn't completely off, but is truly pseudoscience
@@runenorderhaug7646 The main difference I'd say is that science keeps changing. If you're science is the same as it was even a few decades ago, it ain't science. Hell even something like frying pans that we've literally had almost unchanged for centuries still get improved these days in small ways.
@@thunderspark1536 I mean true in a sense but that same logic would also lead to the dismissal of times where it was simply a scientist trying to ensure their legitimate perspective was eventually recognized and that often does take some more time and pressure depending on the diesease so i get your point but i dont know if it is always true of pseudosciences. Plus sometimes pseudoscience constantly change to make up whatever is new to real science
@@runenorderhaug7646 The main difference there is that the time and effort to make sure a prediction and idea has enough data can often save many lives. Even with covid for example they rigorously tested their vaccine on animals, mice and chimps, before moving to humans. On the other hand pseudoscience (even the new stuff) is always based off older ideas. Quantum mystism for example still uses crystals and "wavelengths".
@@thunderspark1536 Yeah like I said, I agree with you. I guess mentally I am just being a bit pedantic and considering how that definition could be abused in pseudoscience favor but you are right
this single video has single handedly has affirmed my believe in the Evolutionary theory, was tending towards the creationism earlier. Though I am still a BELIEVER . Thanks mate
Hello, I do not understand very well how the gene extends over the fusion site. Does this mean that the gene sequence is located above or within the sequence of telomeres?
YECs have a different definition of "truth'. Reasoned argument based on careful observation and tested by experiment to build a coherent world-view isn't enough to trump socially reinforced cognitive dissonance. Your patience and persistence is admirable.
Love your work! However... When you say "the purpose of X is..." it reveals the teleological presuppositions of our language. I'd suggest an alternative phrasing, but I'm pretty drunk right now.
Hey Erica. I think there there may have been some kind of duplication event during the creation of your video. 18:30 - 18:46 and 18:53- 19:09 seem to be homologous.
Big fan, and an even bigger constructive criticizer. I am happy you expressed the morphological, or more specifically, the phylogenic event as "this later fusion is the more parsimonious hypothesis because it requires fewer steps." Language is important, and I would understand that yielding to YEC dullards, needing to speak at or to their level, is tempting. But, it is insufficient in that the degrees of freedom allowed these dimwits falls precipitously when confronted with well constructed statements and increases with the onset of pandering. And you have done that here, that is reduce the degrees of freedom (philosophically, as YEC's would confuse degrees of freedom with their oft cited term, "freedumb"). Great work!
Do you have the ISBN for that book? Curious if this is the same as Comparative karyology of primates editors, B. Chiarelli, Ann L. Koen, G. Ardito. ISBN-10 9027978506 ISBN-13 9789027978509. Published in 1979 but based on a Symposium and Workshop on Primate Karyology held at the C.S. Mott Center for Human Growth and Development, Wayne State University School of Medicine, on August 29-31, 1973.
A cryptic centromere is no longer in use, no longer have it's original function, so, there is nothing preventing it to acquire some coding DNA from a random mutation.
Really nice video and super easy to understand! Also is it possible to get the power points and the excel spreadsheet? I would really like to look those more deeply!
Because that requires saying they were wrong in their "biblical" interpretation of the original data. Since *any* admission of being wrong on any point destroys the entire setup and conclusion sequence, they have no choice but to double down.
@Gutsick Gibbon At 0:50 there is 9.8 m/s written in the top right corner, which is a velocity. If it tries to represent the gravitational acceleration, it shouls be 9.8 m/s²
I'd love to see you cover heterosis in the context of hominin evolution, and whether the hybrid vigor effect could be at play in our 'advancement' comparative to other species.
you must have a dorian grey video somewhere, you don’t seem to age, still so nerdily, brainishly delightful with your attention to detail. young earth creationists beware!
I showed my religious mom who disbelieves in evolution. I made it through by explaining what ervs are then showing the true evolutionary tree of life, explained how higher up the line the virus infects an animal then speciation occurs and they keep that viral genome by inserting in egg or sperm cells... I got to the point where I could say if not a single fossil existed this is still devastating proof that Evolution occurred. At that point she said I don't want to hear any of this anymore. I *know* it deeply affected aand reached her HEART. Thank you for inspiring a conversationn between us where I made so much progress with my mama. People will say why do you want to hurt her faith and my only reply is her entire life she's called her religion "the truth" quote-unquote Jehovah's Witnesses have 'the truth" and I was able to say "mom this is the truth" eye to eye
I happen to live on one of the oldest, precambrian, geological formations in North America. Formed during the great basin's peak years (being highly subjective) with some depressions transited from flat fields to ocean, and back again. Poor Megalodons. And I have had occasion to venture thousands of feet beneath the bed rock. With a large number of micro-faults, seepage into the warm layers forms a soft, malleable, rock structure derived from the local strata. It is a process wherein new composite rock or even minerals are formed. I can say with complete confidence, and without a radiological decay dating method, the formations and strata pushed and pressed together could not possibly mineralize into complex molecular extensions in different compound constructs in time scales YEC's believe. In other words, the turmaline, felspar, azurite, and others form whilst surrozunded and pressed by magmatic and iron strata is painfully slow. It is akin to saying I can make a diamond, using natural methods, in ten seconds. Time me, would ya? (being sarcastic) In fact, quartz based intrusions strewn throughout the ancient field defy any simple "instantly appearing" stratification. Just thought I'd share...
Great video. Thanks. Is there any idea where in the hominin line this chromosome 2 fusion occurred? Would it prevent hybridization with other hominins or chimps? For example, could it be responsible for the split between hominins and chimps?
Okay, so some human species interbred. How much interbreeding between other ape species happened and at what point did other apes diverge? Did we drift apart at all because of the fusion? From what I've seen about fairly closely related species with different numbers of chromosomes end up with sterile offspring (horse 64/donkey 62 gives you a sterile mule). Is it possible, timeline wise, that the fusion caused us to stop being able to interbreed, driving speciation?
PS. "Mules" aren't always infertile. There are numerous examples of fertile mules, with one even managing to give birth to healthy offspring SEVEN times (2x62 chromosome "donkeys", 2x63 chromosome "mules" and 3x64 chromosome "horses").
1) awesome content, I heard of the fusion stuff but didn't know the details. 2) you're a PhD student? I thought you were 13. Holy carp. 3) where did that username come from? (Do Hylobates get Crohns? Because that's what my brain is picturing.)
If you move to Drake Bay, Osa Peninsula, I'll do your video editing for you. It's the most intensely bio-diverse place on earth. Even though youtubers can often live anywhere, I think that your channel would attract a SPECIAL response if it were coming from the most natural place on earth. FYI, if the Amazon were as intensely bio diverse as the Osa Peninsula, it would contain more than 10 planet earth's worth of species living within it. The surrounding ocean is equally impressive and it's the only ocean that actually touches never cut primary jungle. After 30 years of being Catholic, it took me one documentary to realize the error in my family's teachings. I guess I'm saying that you may find the perspective of a convert to be a helpful bonus. My personal thought is that the planet's most important lack of research is in the study of ecosystems. We've presently identified 13 ecosystems on this tiny 25x35 mile peninsula. As a form of protection from society, this beautiful paradise could use a mind like yours. God's definitely not going to help us. This seems like a rather long shot but I just thought I'd ask if maybe you're willing. See ya soon?
When I read the bible as a teenager it was immediately clear to me that its stories had no believable basis in any facts. By the way, I am 90 years young.
Hey Gutsick, I was just doing some more research on this and I'm pretty sure I found an earlier prediction from 1961/2. If interested let me know! Maybe you can do a little update.
Exactly; evolutionary science PREDICTED the fusion site, while creationists ACCOMMODATED it. This is a major difference between a theory in science, and pseudoscience with an agenda.
And that's the big one: even if YEC were 100% right their 'creationist science' would be absolutely useless, because they can't make any predictions of any kind. Why humans have 46 chromosomes and chimps have 48? The only answer they can give is that God made things that way, and, by some unfathomable reason, 48 is the perfect number for chimps but 46 is the perfect number for humans. What we would found if we compared both genomes? Creationists can't say a thing.
When it comes to the prediction and accommodation element, I think even actual scientists can struggle with this to some level because in a sense science doesn't always function as strictly as that when predictions are confirmed and yet also give a lot of information and confirmation themselves in relation to things that other scientists where working on. This can mean what a prediction is can at times get complicated by different aspects especially depending on the type of prediction that is likely to be made as some may be more easily confused for accommodation of data than others. This though is in some ways the nature of something that is actively studying different parts and thus also interesting with what we know and understand. Even out of the accommodations of data itself form both understanding and prediction themselves. Of course, in many ways creationist understanding of accommodation of data tends more to lean towards building a narrative if that. I do think there are ways that can be useful in some ways even for considering more divergent ideas which some people may at times struggle with, but in doing so it is important to understand how to show it is interconnected too(part of this is of course communication but another part is evidence)
@Ab Jo wow. I want you to read my comment again and then tell me your exact thought process of how you reached that conclusion. I’m serious. I want to hear back from you. Please reply.
Here's my first creationist objection, "I watched the video and in my opinion Gutsick is deceptive because Turleau did not "predict" a fusion rather she explained the phenomenon was the result of a fusion. In order to "predict" a phenomenon she would have had to have made the claim BEFORE the alleged fusion occurred. But Turleau made the "fusion" claim after the alleged fusion occurred, so it's not a prediction. Since it's not a "prediction" Gutsick is a deceptive liar. Another problem with Gutsick's argument is that she did NOT show that telomere fusion events have actually been observed. Rather, she seems to be arguing that telomere fusions occurred in the past -millions of years ago in the past - when nobody saw them. So how does she know that the human Chromosome 2 was a telomere fusion that occurred a million years ago? Essentially because you either have to believe God did it - or you believe it happened naturally. Then she insults the people who believe God did it and - viola - her case is closed." These people are intentionally obtuse
It is so frustrating dealing with these people, they don't understand the simplest things "Brian BallardNo Brian a prediction is not equivalent to a hypothetical explanation. Gutsick’s “prediction” argument is false in its own merits regardless of what creationists claim, because she failed to establish what constitutes a “prediction”. U seem to concur that the chromosome count disparity between chimp&human was established in the 1960s. Turleau’s “fusion” article was 1973 and its purpose was to EXPLAIN the disparity. Turleau’s explanation was a hypothetical fusion. Support for Turleau’s fusion hypothesis appeared later. But support for the fusion hypothesis does not render the 1973 hypothesis into a prediction. The alleged fusion is merely a hypothesis with support. And Gutsick is a liar, deceptively twisting words and jargon to promote her belief."
I'm kinda curious about the merging of chromosome 2. I will freely admit (and I expect it will be more than obvious) that I'm not a geneticist, but how would such a merge actually happen on a whole group of individuals? I can definitely see it happening in one individual, but then what? Can two individuals with differing chromosomes produce viable offspring, or would it have to happen in two people at the same time? If they can produce viable offspring, how many chromosomes would the offspring have? Random, or determined by one parent or the other? Would that mean that every human alive can trace their lineage back to the individual who had the merge event happen?
This is a somewhat complicated question. I answered it a couple of weeks ago on a different channel when a YEC was insisting that the kids of a chromosome would kill the embryo, AND it would take TWO nearly simultaneous identical fusion events, one in a male and one in a female - an event that is functionally impossible... _"Checkmate Evolutionists!"_ This is what I wrote: 👇 ~~~ ... We DON'T have to have matched pairs of chromosomes, and in fact, fusion of a pair into a single (leaving the person with 47 chromosomes) would make almost ZERO difference to to the individual's survival fitness - ALL of the genes are intact and they are in the correct quantities; ONLY the packaging arrangement has changed. The only appreciable change is in FERTILITY - it _may_ be reduced, due to the way that meiosis works. Continues in 2 (of 4)...
Cont (2 of 4)... Here's what happened: Specifically, the 12th and 13th chromosomes of the ancestors of modern humans (the same chromosomes in apes today except humans) fused to become the 2nd chromosome in modern humans. About a million years ago, an ancient human (let's say a male) was born with a fused 12th and 13th chromosome. Thus, he had 47 chromosomes, with three of them being 12, 13, and a 12+13 fusion. During meiosis, there are three equally likely ways to partition those three chromosomes into two groups: (A) {12} & {13, 12+13} (B) {13} & {12+13} (C) {12, 13} & {12+13} All of the sperm cells created in partitions A and B produce non-viable as they either are missing a chromosome or contain a duplicate chromosome. *Method C produces two healthy sperm cells:* One is a "normal" {12, 13} set, which would produce a "normal" ancient human with 48 chromosomes when combined with a "normal" egg. The second would produce a human with 47 chromosomes, like the father himself, when combined with a "normal" egg. Continues in 3 (of 4)...
Cont (3 of 4)... Thus, two-thirds of the children produced by this 47-chromosome man would die even before birth, one-sixth are "normal" 48-chromosome humans, and one-sixth are healthy 47-chromosome humans with the same fertility issues as the father. Of course, under normal circumstances, natural selection eventually weeds these odd-chromosomed humans out of the population due to their reduced fertility. However, if a 47-chromosome man mates with a 47-chromosome woman (with the same two chromosomes fused), then 1/36 of their children could viably have 46 chromosomes. Furthermore, now that these children have an even number of chromosomes, the fertility issues no longer exist if these descendants continue to mate with others with 46 chromosomes. Continues in 4 (of 4)...
@@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2 The fourth post is invisible. Perhaps you can see it but no one else can. You can check your posts by looking at them while not logged in. I do that by opening a Private window using Firefox. Other browsers may call it Incognito.
Chromosome 2 is my favourite trump card to use on creationists. I ask them to explain how scientists were able to predict these very specific properties - based entirely on an assumption of common ancestry - if common ancestry is not a thing. Were they just ridiculously lucky? Creationists never have an answer to that.
Simple , how do you explain there is a functional gene that expands the claimed fusion sight, you don't get functional genes by smashing the ends of chromosomes together, and think more devastating is the fact we have apes with 24 genes , so can you tell me about their fusion sights since they would have had to go threw many more fusions.
@@IIrandhandleII if this is news to you it aint my fault , maybe go outside the echo chamber once and in a while actually see the arguments creationist actually say instead of people like kent hovind
@@bubblegumgun3292 so you're saying those fusion sites in those exact places are just randomly there because yahweh wanted to make it look like evolution was true? Yes I read discovery institute articles from time to time and find it pretty sad. They know they are lying and publish anyways most of them have failed careers in fields other not related to biology but pontificate on subjects of biology. You say that science forums are an echo chamber... do you think maybe young earth creation sites are an echo chamber?
Colleague of mine felt that the acrocentric fusion corresponded with changes to pelvic structure enabling efficient bipedalism. Such a major chromosome alteration must have had some significant morphological change.
What a burden the creationist God has created, we have to learn about the natural world, chock-full of evidence of common descent, then find ways of arguing against nature in order to prove god. I could no longer accept such a spectacular burden.
Chr2 is problematic for YEC, ID Intelligent Design, and many old earth creationists. But we should give a nod to proponents of theistic evolution, who have no difficulty with this at all.
I hate to ask this question in this venue because I'm an "evolutionist" but: I can understand a proto-human's chromosomes merging because of a mutation, but how would this creature procreate with a chromosome that couldn't match anybody else's? What kind of "micro" evolution gene change would be a gradual switch that would gradually change from two chromosomes to one over an entire population?
It's gradual in the sense that there's only two steps, that don't need to happen together: the fusion, and the deactivation of one centromere. Heterozygosity of the fusion does lead to lowered fertility because some gametes lose or double the unfused chromosomes, but some of the gametes will have proper ploidy and gene dosage because they carry either the unfused chromosomes in 1n ploidy, or the fusion alone. So they're not infertile, it could just take on average twice as long for succesful fertilization. If parental age of first offspring isn't that important, the fitness cost could be manageable. Though I would have to look up how the cryptic second centromere was deactivated, I don't know if it's a single large scale deletion or epigenetic silencing, or an accumulation of separate smaller mutations.
Erika is one of the best at debunking YEC, I don’t think anyone goes into the depth that she does. So entertaining too.
Dapper Dinosaur is also fantastic!
@@sentienttree6286 you beat me to it. I was gonna write this exact thing, if you hadn't! Love me some Dapper!
I would also recomend her friends Dapper Dinosaur and Creation Myths. I think their collective debunk of dismantled was highly in depth
well he really didn't debunk anything and certainly didn't build any case for evolution
@@raysalmon6566 Is your comment about Erika? If it is, you somehow got even her gender wrong.
I’ve been binge watching your videos quite a bit lately.
What gets me about your takedowns of creationism, and creationists (some much more than others) is over time, through your studies, your knowledge is expanding while the YEC’s are stuck in intellectual quicksand.
It’s such an unfair fight...
I mostly like it when she merely sprinkles in just a little of the dumb sh!t coming out of dishonest people, and spends the bulk of the minutes on stuff I can learn from.
The unfair fight is the legalized tax evasion and money laundering. Politicians and preachers federally protected panhandling frauds. Televangelists are why there is no truth in advertising past a certain point. the false prophets are also trying to get away before their congregations are required to execute all the lying pastors and churches that adjusted after 1700 years of being wrong, going to war, taking slaves, and rape in the name of Jesus, or one of the other Bible Gods. Church state Human trafficking isn't new.
Faith may well be productive of many positive outcomes, but it's not fitted for reasoning upon observable, measurable, repeatable data. Go figure...
Another grand video. Thank you!
💚👍
Well, nobody would expect creationists to evolve?
@@typograf62 Hmm... possibly Great Expectations: "What Arks. Pip?"
I love that "bite-sized" on this channel mean a 30-minute video.
You should really like be a full-time documentarian/science communicator, GG.
But the YEC complain about her voice.....yeah.....and Kent isn't irritating
Erika is doing a lot. Ph.D ing ... youtubing... much ambition. #winningsomuch #boredwithwinning
@@daft987 So 3 full time jobs. Seems perfectly normal. I have zero jobs, so on average, Erika and I would then have 1.5 full time jobs, sounds perfectly reasonable :p
Bustin' makes me feel good!
dun-na dun-na dun-na ... dunt dunt dunt
I ain't 'fraid of no god.
Another great video Erika! I like that "bite-sized" is still north of 28 minutes. 😂👍
To be fair, 28 mins IS relatively bite sized for Erika.
@@Fesquishety True! 😅
:) I mean to cover this reasonably completely in less than half an hour is impressive. Particularly since she explains pretty much everything at a high school level.
PLEASE NOTE: The following is meant as a joke. If you find it offensive, I apologize in advance, and will stick my nose in the corner for whatever period you consider appropriate.
With that disclaimer, permit me to note that "bite-sized busts" might be taken as a self-own by those inclined to think of this phrase as a derogatory phrase for "small-breasted female". Allow me to suggest a few other potential phrases that might make it clearer that you're not sexualizing things, but trying to communicate clearly. For example, when making a short debunk of Creationist claims, you might title it, "A Swift Kick to Creationist Nutters". Or, for refuting Creationist claims you've debunked before, perhaps you'd choose, "A Groin With These Claims?"
I think Creationist claims deserve a degree of PUNishment along with the scientific facts, so well communicated in your videos, that we so respect you for, Erika!
@@johndemeritt3460 the nutters one is decent, but the "a groin" for "agreeing" just doesn't work for me.
the bit where you had to go and find the source for the first prediction is what real research looks like , some thing young earth creationist and many others like them will never know
To most Conservatives, researching is synonymous with Googling.
@@classicsciencefictionhorro1665 More like asking a question on their Telegram bible circle group.
I was raised fundamentalist Baptist. I left religion on my journey to become a scientist. I'm a biologist, and often get in debates with my YEC friends and family. After I completely debunk their bullshit with facts and evidence, they always just deny it. They inevitably have to resort to apologetic special pleading and god magic that is incompatible with reality.
And even then, you can flip their arguments around in favor of Odin or Shiva
@@mal2ksc
Hinduism is much harder to deny as a religion, and Hindu radicals do exist. It is the perfect non Muslim foil
I gotta say, young people like you give me hope for humanity
conducting rational research, doing something useful with your time and sharing your findings probably making the world a better place
genetics aside, just the behavioral similarities or the anatomy should be reason enough to see that humans are talking apes that walk funny.
I honestly have a harder time believing in flat earthers and young earth creanonists, people can't be that stupid right? they gotta be "meming" or whatever.
Sometimes I have to wonder if flat earthers and YECs don't take "nobody can be that stupid" as a challenge and go out of their way to prove they can be.
@@philleprechaun6240 The evidence they dismiss is just mind blowing.
When they try and do an experiment they lack the education (most of them anyway) to do the experiment properly. So their findings are invalid.
Then when they are smart enough they are intellectually dishonest.
I think YECs are just monumentally stubborn (or corporate charlatans). Trying to get stuff through to them is like trying to convince your parent or grandparent that an old wive’s-tale they heard all their life is wrong. They’ll just ignore you, because… tradition.🤷🏻♂️
@@Fairburne69 it's my opinion that the 'professional' YECs know the stuff they are preaching is wrong but they do it anyway for the audience and the donations they get. Their tactics are well honed
They frame it like it's an atheist vs everyone else debate thereby triggering an "those godless atheists are just trying to destroy christianity" bias; and giving their followers the false impression that the majority view is on their side. Most 'creationists' don't realize that a large portion (I'd say most, if not all, but I don't care to dig for corroborating sources at this time) of non evanglical/fundamentalist christians (and muslims) actually accept that science is correct and they have demoted the bible stories to allegory. And that YECs are actually a minority view
They know their 'believers' are already have a predisposition to believe YEC views.
They know their 'believers' are generally illiterate and ignorant of the real sciences
And they know that their 'believers are not likely to factcheck anything they say so it's safe for them to say about anything, including some rather outrageous claims.
And they aren't trying to win over non YECs anyway. They're simply keeping their 'believers' mesmerized and emptying their wallets into the coffers.
@@philleprechaun6240 I agree. Forrest was on a couple of call in shows this weekend and someone said to his face that evolution is science fiction.
I follow over a half dozen science educators on UA-cam and you answered my thoughts! I always wanted one of you guys to do a video on the human chromosome with creationism. Love it! Great video!
EXCELLENT music choice for the intro.
Also loved the animations. Funny and well made.
Your summary of the overall situation starting at 8:52 shows how much difference there is between scientific consensus, and the YEC belief system. The difference is easy to express, but far more difficult for them to bridge.
Thank you for another very thorough explanation of this technical subject.
Really well done! Love the historical backstory
My wife pointed me at your channel, and I love it. You show such joy in the science that it's wonderful to watch.
AAAAAHHHH I LOVE YOUR ART SO MUCH ESPECIALLY BECAUSE OF WHAT YOUR CHANNEL IS ABOUT
Now I’m going to look up Dr Miller’s The Human Instinct. I have a couple of his other books that helped me get out of YEC (Dawkins’ The Blind Watchmaker was another one).
Great video. And it’s motivated me to brush up on my genetics because it’s been over 10-yrs since I last needed to use it (not including reading papers).
Love it when I see a new video of hers.
I'm not too interested in YEC. But I learn so much from watching your debunk them.
I am liking your discussion. I like the way you present your materials. Don't mistake my brevity for disinterest...getting back to your presentation...✊️
"Humans are special! We didn't come from apes, we came from dirt!"
And, what a long strange trip is been.
Great detective work GG to locate those papers predicting chromosome fusion. Oh, and BTW your work is magnificent.
You are a brilliant UA-camr, scientist and role model for boys and girls that enjoy science. The world needs more Erikas.
I like that I can understand sentences like, "It's just like the DDX11L2!"
Another bite-sized bust! These are my favorite.
Just over 28 minutes of chewing. Thanks, Erika! Never stop!
Been watching for a while. Love the savage take downs, and now you're wearing a Gorillaz t-shirt. RESPECT.
My feelings got hurt with “All the way back to 1972”. All the way back? Really?
I feel ancient.
Yeah, I’m with you. That’s my birth year and now it is considered ancient times. Oh well.
I was sweet 16 in 1972 back then so how do you think I feel.
Almost older than dirt. /s
Well 1972 was half a century ago …
You guys are complaining! I graduated high school that year!
@@dancingnature At the start of 1972 I was in the Winter semester of my first year at University.
Thanks for breaking it down so well Erika! Genetics is something I've had very little exposure to but you totally make it accessible.
I want to thank you for your videos because I learn so much from them
Challenging presentation for me; I may need to sit
through a couple replays. But, as ever, fascinating.
Perhaps a definitive study of YECists will reveal that
Chromosome 2 has fissioned in that Sub-kind!?
Thanks, GG.
Same. I don't know much on such things so it is a bit more challenging for me. Hope your day is a nice one.
It's amazing to me how hard people will fight to preserve things that the human race is trying to move beyond. As a person who grew up in religion, I got exposed to a lot of that sort of stuff, so I really appreciate videos like this. Sort of helps me keep filling in the holes in my education. ;D
This is one of your most fascinating vids yet! So much detail backed by such potent reasoning! Thank you!
When creationists talked about the "mysterious" or "elusive" Chromosome 2 extra centromere, I assumed they meant there wasn't enough evidence for the fusion of two prior chromosomes... turnes out there are even more centromeres in chromosome 2...
Deeply satisfying to listen to. Moments where YECs accidentally point at science that disproves them are so satisfying.
Thanks for discussing prediction vs. accommodation! That's a very clear and simple rule for distinguishing science from pseudoscience, and I don't know if I ever heard it put quite so succinctly.
And I suspect the French author's name is pronounced something more like Groo-shee... but now I'm imagining a fuzzy green Muppet in a trash can writing about ape chromosomes!
I don't know if I agree. I would say just as much pseudoscience is based on appealing to that prediction element and just building on aspects of it. That is the strongest kind of pseudoscience in a sense. That which isn't completely off, but is truly pseudoscience
@@runenorderhaug7646 The main difference I'd say is that science keeps changing. If you're science is the same as it was even a few decades ago, it ain't science. Hell even something like frying pans that we've literally had almost unchanged for centuries still get improved these days in small ways.
@@thunderspark1536 I mean true in a sense but that same logic would also lead to the dismissal of times where it was simply a scientist trying to ensure their legitimate perspective was eventually recognized and that often does take some more time and pressure depending on the diesease so i get your point but i dont know if it is always true of pseudosciences. Plus sometimes pseudoscience constantly change to make up whatever is new to real science
@@runenorderhaug7646 The main difference there is that the time and effort to make sure a prediction and idea has enough data can often save many lives. Even with covid for example they rigorously tested their vaccine on animals, mice and chimps, before moving to humans.
On the other hand pseudoscience (even the new stuff) is always based off older ideas. Quantum mystism for example still uses crystals and "wavelengths".
@@thunderspark1536 Yeah like I said, I agree with you. I guess mentally I am just being a bit pedantic and considering how that definition could be abused in pseudoscience favor but you are right
What a glorious intro. Bucking frilliant!
this single video has single handedly has affirmed my believe in the Evolutionary theory, was tending towards the creationism earlier. Though I am still a BELIEVER . Thanks mate
Hello, I do not understand very well how the gene extends over the fusion site. Does this mean that the gene sequence is located above or within the sequence of telomeres?
Loved the animation intro
Thank you again, GG. Keep up the good work, please.
This was a great video! I like the format a lot!
So glad I found this channel...
I love how by your standards a nearly-half-hour video is 'Bite-Sized'! 🙂🙂
Another great one, like the intro to this one, greater credibility .
Love this one and ERVs. Hard to fight against.
YECs have a different definition of "truth'. Reasoned argument based on careful observation and tested by experiment to build a coherent world-view isn't enough to trump socially reinforced cognitive dissonance. Your patience and persistence is admirable.
Love your work! However...
When you say "the purpose of X is..." it reveals the teleological presuppositions of our language. I'd suggest an alternative phrasing, but I'm pretty drunk right now.
You're a great teacher. I enjoy geeking out & appreciate all the work you do to debunk the creationist rubbish
I just like learning about evolutionary genomics with some tasty roasts of YECs along the way. Gj!
Hey Erica. I think there there may have been some kind of duplication event during the creation of your video. 18:30 - 18:46 and 18:53- 19:09 seem to be homologous.
Big fan, and an even bigger constructive criticizer. I am happy you expressed the morphological, or more specifically, the phylogenic event as "this later fusion is the more parsimonious hypothesis because it requires fewer steps." Language is important, and I would understand that yielding to YEC dullards, needing to speak at or to their level, is tempting. But, it is insufficient in that the degrees of freedom allowed these dimwits falls precipitously when confronted with well constructed statements and increases with the onset of pandering. And you have done that here, that is reduce the degrees of freedom (philosophically, as YEC's would confuse degrees of freedom with their oft cited term, "freedumb"). Great work!
Perhaps Erika owes the YEC a debt of gratitude for playing right into her hands to demolish their arguments, making for these interesting videos.
Do you have the ISBN for that book? Curious if this is the same as Comparative karyology of primates editors, B. Chiarelli, Ann L. Koen, G. Ardito. ISBN-10 9027978506 ISBN-13 9789027978509. Published in 1979 but based on a Symposium and Workshop on Primate Karyology held at the C.S. Mott Center for Human Growth and Development, Wayne State University School of Medicine, on August 29-31, 1973.
A cryptic centromere is no longer in use, no longer have it's original function, so, there is nothing preventing it to acquire some coding DNA from a random mutation.
I love both intros...but this intro is just so hilarious
Really nice video and super easy to understand! Also is it possible to get the power points and the excel spreadsheet? I would really like to look those more deeply!
I don’t understand why they don’t just say that the fusion occurred because of the fall: that is, eating of the tree of good and evil made it hsppen…
Because that requires saying they were wrong in their "biblical" interpretation of the original data. Since *any* admission of being wrong on any point destroys the entire setup and conclusion sequence, they have no choice but to double down.
YEC’s are special indeed.
@Gutsick Gibbon
At 0:50 there is 9.8 m/s written in the top right corner, which is a velocity. If it tries to represent the gravitational acceleration, it shouls be 9.8 m/s²
I'd love to see you cover heterosis in the context of hominin evolution, and whether the hybrid vigor effect could be at play in our 'advancement' comparative to other species.
Erica and the Botez sisters chess prodigies. That would be my ideal dinner conversation. Bjork too for musical savantism.
you must have a dorian grey video somewhere, you don’t seem to age, still so nerdily, brainishly delightful with your attention to detail. young earth creationists beware!
I showed my religious mom who disbelieves in evolution. I made it through by explaining what ervs are then showing the true evolutionary tree of life, explained how higher up the line the virus infects an animal then speciation occurs and they keep that viral genome by inserting in egg or sperm cells... I got to the point where I could say if not a single fossil existed this is still devastating proof that Evolution occurred. At that point she said I don't want to hear any of this anymore. I *know* it deeply affected aand reached her HEART. Thank you for inspiring a conversationn between us where I made so much progress with my mama. People will say why do you want to hurt her faith and my only reply is her entire life she's called her religion "the truth" quote-unquote Jehovah's Witnesses have 'the truth" and I was able to say "mom this is the truth" eye to eye
Loved the intro
I happen to live on one of the oldest, precambrian, geological formations in North America. Formed during the great basin's peak years (being highly subjective) with some depressions transited from flat fields to ocean, and back again. Poor Megalodons. And I have had occasion to venture thousands of feet beneath the bed rock. With a large number of micro-faults, seepage into the warm layers forms a soft, malleable, rock structure derived from the local strata. It is a process wherein new composite rock or even minerals are formed. I can say with complete confidence, and without a radiological decay dating method, the formations and strata pushed and pressed together could not possibly mineralize into complex molecular extensions in different compound constructs in time scales YEC's believe. In other words, the turmaline, felspar, azurite, and others form whilst surrozunded and pressed by magmatic and iron strata is painfully slow. It is akin to saying I can make a diamond, using natural methods, in ten seconds. Time me, would ya? (being sarcastic) In fact, quartz based intrusions strewn throughout the ancient field defy any simple "instantly appearing" stratification. Just thought I'd share...
Well, they make diamonds in the lab and that doesn’t take millions of years
@@mauricedicke9527 the lab has access to one thing that natural gemstones don’t, an end goal.
Great video. Thanks. Is there any idea where in the hominin line this chromosome 2 fusion occurred? Would it prevent hybridization with other hominins or chimps? For example, could it be responsible for the split between hominins and chimps?
Algorithm comment. I likes them precisions and accuracies. Best Wishes, DOC
Always love to see you slumming it with the creationists. It's too funny, dude.
Id rather have a question that can't be answered than an answer that can't be questioned
Okay, so some human species interbred. How much interbreeding between other ape species happened and at what point did other apes diverge? Did we drift apart at all because of the fusion? From what I've seen about fairly closely related species with different numbers of chromosomes end up with sterile offspring (horse 64/donkey 62 gives you a sterile mule). Is it possible, timeline wise, that the fusion caused us to stop being able to interbreed, driving speciation?
It seems like a reasonable conclusion
See my reply to Christer Toll's OP, posted a few days after this. Or explained the when and how of the fusion.
PS. "Mules" aren't always infertile. There are numerous examples of fertile mules, with one even managing to give birth to healthy offspring SEVEN times (2x62 chromosome "donkeys", 2x63 chromosome "mules" and 3x64 chromosome "horses").
1) awesome content, I heard of the fusion stuff but didn't know the details.
2) you're a PhD student? I thought you were 13. Holy carp.
3) where did that username come from? (Do Hylobates get Crohns? Because that's what my brain is picturing.)
You’re a genius Gutsick! They will sing songs about your deeds someday.
as always great work...please keep it up!
Great intro
Awesome video as always!
Not a creationist. One thing I don't understand with 2 is how it happened. Yes, two "other" ape chromosomes fused. Can you help me understand how?
loving the intro!
If you move to Drake Bay, Osa Peninsula, I'll do your video editing for you. It's the most intensely bio-diverse place on earth. Even though youtubers can often live anywhere, I think that your channel would attract a SPECIAL response if it were coming from the most natural place on earth.
FYI, if the Amazon were as intensely bio diverse as the Osa Peninsula, it would contain more than 10 planet earth's worth of species living within it. The surrounding ocean is equally impressive and it's the only ocean that actually touches never cut primary jungle.
After 30 years of being Catholic, it took me one documentary to realize the error in my family's teachings. I guess I'm saying that you may find the perspective of a convert to be a helpful bonus.
My personal thought is that the planet's most important lack of research is in the study of ecosystems. We've presently identified 13 ecosystems on this tiny 25x35 mile peninsula. As a form of protection from society, this beautiful paradise could use a mind like yours. God's definitely not going to help us.
This seems like a rather long shot but I just thought I'd ask if maybe you're willing.
See ya soon?
Nice intro Erica
When I read the bible as a teenager it was immediately clear to me that its stories had no believable basis in any facts.
By the way, I am 90 years young.
As a physicist I can confirm, we do bust hard
Very clear explanation. Thank you.
Hey Gutsick, I was just doing some more research on this and I'm pretty sure I found an earlier prediction from 1961/2. If interested let me know! Maybe you can do a little update.
Another brilliant video. Thank you!
I loved this video. As I was a Jehovah's Witness, who are old earth creationists, this video is so relevant to debunk their belief too. Thanks a lot!
Exactly; evolutionary science PREDICTED the fusion site, while creationists ACCOMMODATED it. This is a major difference between a theory in science, and pseudoscience with an agenda.
And that's the big one: even if YEC were 100% right their 'creationist science' would be absolutely useless, because they can't make any predictions of any kind. Why humans have 46 chromosomes and chimps have 48? The only answer they can give is that God made things that way, and, by some unfathomable reason, 48 is the perfect number for chimps but 46 is the perfect number for humans. What we would found if we compared both genomes? Creationists can't say a thing.
Aah, science! 😂 Great video as always, Erika.
When it comes to the prediction and accommodation element, I think even actual scientists can struggle with this to some level because in a sense science doesn't always function as strictly as that when predictions are confirmed and yet also give a lot of information and confirmation themselves in relation to things that other scientists where working on. This can mean what a prediction is can at times get complicated by different aspects especially depending on the type of prediction that is likely to be made as some may be more easily confused for accommodation of data than others. This though is in some ways the nature of something that is actively studying different parts and thus also interesting with what we know and understand. Even out of the accommodations of data itself form both understanding and prediction themselves.
Of course, in many ways creationist understanding of accommodation of data tends more to lean towards building a narrative if that. I do think there are ways that can be useful in some ways even for considering more divergent ideas which some people may at times struggle with, but in doing so it is important to understand how to show it is interconnected too(part of this is of course communication but another part is evidence)
If this is bite sized love to see a share sized video
Love the series!
Thanks again for the detail on chromosome 2.
I’m going to praise your comedy. You’re funny.
@Ab Jo wow. I want you to read my comment again and then tell me your exact thought process of how you reached that conclusion. I’m serious. I want to hear back from you. Please reply.
Funny and sciencey. It's a great combo.
Here's my first creationist objection,
"I watched the video and in my opinion Gutsick is deceptive because Turleau did not "predict" a fusion rather she explained the phenomenon was the result of a fusion. In order to "predict" a phenomenon she would have had to have made the claim BEFORE the alleged fusion occurred. But Turleau made the "fusion" claim after the alleged fusion occurred, so it's not a prediction. Since it's not a "prediction" Gutsick is a deceptive liar. Another problem with Gutsick's argument is that she did NOT show that telomere fusion events have actually been observed. Rather, she seems to be arguing that telomere fusions occurred in the past -millions of years ago in the past - when nobody saw them. So how does she know that the human Chromosome 2 was a telomere fusion that occurred a million years ago? Essentially because you either have to believe God did it - or you believe it happened naturally. Then she insults the people who believe God did it and - viola - her case is closed."
These people are intentionally obtuse
It is so frustrating dealing with these people, they don't understand the simplest things
"Brian BallardNo Brian a prediction is not equivalent to a hypothetical explanation.
Gutsick’s “prediction” argument is false in its own merits regardless of what creationists claim, because she failed to establish what constitutes a “prediction”.
U seem to concur that the chromosome count disparity between chimp&human was established in the 1960s. Turleau’s “fusion” article was 1973 and its purpose was to EXPLAIN the disparity.
Turleau’s explanation was a hypothetical fusion.
Support for Turleau’s fusion hypothesis appeared later.
But support for the fusion hypothesis does not render the 1973 hypothesis into a prediction.
The alleged fusion is merely a hypothesis with support.
And Gutsick is a liar, deceptively twisting words and jargon to promote her belief."
I'm kinda curious about the merging of chromosome 2. I will freely admit (and I expect it will be more than obvious) that I'm not a geneticist, but how would such a merge actually happen on a whole group of individuals? I can definitely see it happening in one individual, but then what? Can two individuals with differing chromosomes produce viable offspring, or would it have to happen in two people at the same time? If they can produce viable offspring, how many chromosomes would the offspring have? Random, or determined by one parent or the other? Would that mean that every human alive can trace their lineage back to the individual who had the merge event happen?
This is a somewhat complicated question. I answered it a couple of weeks ago on a different channel when a YEC was insisting that the kids of a chromosome would kill the embryo, AND it would take TWO nearly simultaneous identical fusion events, one in a male and one in a female - an event that is functionally impossible... _"Checkmate Evolutionists!"_ This is what I wrote: 👇
~~~
... We DON'T have to have matched pairs of chromosomes, and in fact, fusion of a pair into a single (leaving the person with 47 chromosomes) would make almost ZERO difference to to the individual's survival fitness - ALL of the genes are intact and they are in the correct quantities; ONLY the packaging arrangement has changed.
The only appreciable change is in FERTILITY - it _may_ be reduced, due to the way that meiosis works.
Continues in 2 (of 4)...
Cont (2 of 4)...
Here's what happened: Specifically, the 12th and 13th chromosomes of the ancestors of modern humans (the same chromosomes in apes today except humans) fused to become the 2nd chromosome in modern humans. About a million years ago, an ancient human (let's say a male) was born with a fused 12th and 13th chromosome. Thus, he had 47 chromosomes, with three of them being 12, 13, and a 12+13 fusion. During meiosis, there are three equally likely ways to partition those three chromosomes into two groups:
(A) {12} & {13, 12+13}
(B) {13} & {12+13}
(C) {12, 13} & {12+13}
All of the sperm cells created in partitions A and B produce non-viable as they either are missing a chromosome or contain a duplicate chromosome. *Method C produces two healthy sperm cells:* One is a "normal" {12, 13} set, which would produce a "normal" ancient human with 48 chromosomes when combined with a "normal" egg. The second would produce a human with 47 chromosomes, like the father himself, when combined with a "normal" egg.
Continues in 3 (of 4)...
Cont (3 of 4)...
Thus, two-thirds of the children produced by this 47-chromosome man would die even before birth, one-sixth are "normal" 48-chromosome humans, and one-sixth are healthy 47-chromosome humans with the same fertility issues as the father.
Of course, under normal circumstances, natural selection eventually weeds these odd-chromosomed humans out of the population due to their reduced fertility. However, if a 47-chromosome man mates with a 47-chromosome woman (with the same two chromosomes fused), then 1/36 of their children could viably have 46 chromosomes. Furthermore, now that these children have an even number of chromosomes, the fertility issues no longer exist if these descendants continue to mate with others with 46 chromosomes.
Continues in 4 (of 4)...
@@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2
The fourth post is invisible. Perhaps you can see it but no one else can. You can check your posts by looking at them while not logged in. I do that by opening a Private window using Firefox. Other browsers may call it Incognito.
@@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2Nice, any papers written on these points? 👍
Chromosome 2 is my favourite trump card to use on creationists.
I ask them to explain how scientists were able to predict these very specific properties - based entirely on an assumption of common ancestry - if common ancestry is not a thing. Were they just ridiculously lucky?
Creationists never have an answer to that.
Simple , how do you explain there is a functional gene that expands the claimed fusion sight, you don't get functional genes by smashing the ends of chromosomes together, and think more devastating is the fact we have apes with 24 genes , so can you tell me about their fusion sights since they would have had to go threw many more fusions.
@@bubblegumgun3292 huh?
@@IIrandhandleII if this is news to you it aint my fault , maybe go outside the echo chamber once and in a while actually see the arguments creationist actually say instead of people like kent hovind
@@bubblegumgun3292 Which apes have 24 genes?
@@bubblegumgun3292 so you're saying those fusion sites in those exact places are just randomly there because yahweh wanted to make it look like evolution was true?
Yes I read discovery institute articles from time to time and find it pretty sad. They know they are lying and publish anyways most of them have failed careers in fields other not related to biology but pontificate on subjects of biology. You say that science forums are an echo chamber... do you think maybe young earth creation sites are an echo chamber?
Colleague of mine felt that the acrocentric fusion corresponded with changes to pelvic structure enabling efficient bipedalism. Such a major chromosome alteration must have had some significant morphological change.
What a burden the creationist God has created, we have to learn about the natural world, chock-full of evidence of common descent, then find ways of arguing against nature in order to prove god. I could no longer accept such a spectacular burden.
I like the thumbnails in these debunking YEC videos. It looks like the blue gibbon is saying "Check this shit out".
Chr2 is problematic for YEC, ID Intelligent Design, and many old earth creationists. But we should give a nod to proponents of theistic evolution, who have no difficulty with this at all.
I hate to ask this question in this venue because I'm an "evolutionist" but:
I can understand a proto-human's chromosomes merging because of a mutation, but how would this creature procreate with a chromosome that couldn't match anybody else's? What kind of "micro" evolution gene change would be a gradual switch that would gradually change from two chromosomes to one over an entire population?
It's gradual in the sense that there's only two steps, that don't need to happen together: the fusion, and the deactivation of one centromere.
Heterozygosity of the fusion does lead to lowered fertility because some gametes lose or double the unfused chromosomes, but some of the gametes will have proper ploidy and gene dosage because they carry either the unfused chromosomes in 1n ploidy, or the fusion alone. So they're not infertile, it could just take on average twice as long for succesful fertilization. If parental age of first offspring isn't that important, the fitness cost could be manageable.
Though I would have to look up how the cryptic second centromere was deactivated, I don't know if it's a single large scale deletion or epigenetic silencing, or an accumulation of separate smaller mutations.
GREAT WORK... again.