It has come to my attention recently that evolution is having a problem with the explanation for the origin of karyotypes. Karyotypes are the complete set of all chromosomes of a cell of any living organism. As per Wikipedia: "The chromosomes are arranged and displayed (often on a photo) in a standard format: in pairs, ordered by size and position of centromere for chromosomes of the same size which is known as an idiogram."
According to this article that I've been reading: Exquisitely orchestrated, intricately interlinked and inextricably integrated functions of chromosomes could obviously not have originated by incremental evolution, as demonstrated by the severe disruptions resulting from gain or loss of chromosomes. This marvellous phenomenon (of integrated functions of chromosomes) reveals the absurdity of evolution (without a creator). The serious multisystem disorders accompanying aberrations in chromosome number illustrate the fact that karyotypes are so constituted that they cannot tolerate gain or loss of chromosomes. This makes it most implausible to postulate that karyotypes evolved. Evolution cannot breed.
Evolution is therefore designed to fail.
'Mutations' cannot 'make' chromosomes, cannot 'make' karyotypes. Karyotypes and meiosis were obviously designed in such a way as to outsmart evolution.
Some of evolution's most obvious blunders:
1. Evolution would invariably have required changes in chromosome numbers of karyotypes- mechanisms of meiosis are poised to thwart/obstruct such changes.
2. Mutations cannot make or modify karyotypes.
3. Karyotypes obviously contradict evolution's irrational phylogenies,conclusively disprove them.
4. Meiosis fixes fertile karyotypes-meiosis ensures preservation of karyotypes and thereby thwarts evolution most effectively. Meiosis renders novel karyotypes infertile.
5. Karyotypes cannot tolerate gain or loss of chromosomes.
6. Inextricably integrated and inseparable functions of groups of chromosomes require preservation of whole and original karyotypes and confute and deride evolution's irrationalities.
7. Karyotypes and meiosis disrupt and invalidate and deride the conjectured evidence for evolution.
8. Evolution cannot incorporate karyotypes and meiosis (it is totally incompatible with these and with many others) and it is therefore an irrational conjecture.
9. No environment could, on the one hand, select only mutated specimens for survival whilst, on the other hand, sustaining evolution for billions(?) Of years. The concept is irrational.
10. “Natural selection" of "advantaged/mutated" specimens implies elimination of the strains which engendered them-a selfcontradictory and irrational concept.
11. Whilst evolution offers an irrational explanation for the origin of species, it offers no explanation at all for the origin of the crucially important environment which is supposed to drive the process.
Any thoughts?
Evolution disproved
-
Gman
- Old School
- Posts: 6081
- Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:36 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Day-Age
- Location: Northern California
Evolution disproved
The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false - Galileo
We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
-
Canuckster1127
- Old School
- Posts: 5310
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:31 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
- Location: Ottawa, ON Canada
Gman,
Do you have a link to that article on-line?
I'm not a positive proponent of evolutionary theory particularly in some of the pretty long stretches that can be made to explain situations that have no hard evidence from the past.
I'm always a little leary though of positive statements that something is proven in terms if it not being possible or explainable in the future with more evidence in hand. I think it is something of a risk to make such a statement definitively and then argue that that lack of evidence or understanding itself is sufficient to rule out any future refinement or explanation.
I'm still smarting over the recent aerodynamic engineering breakthrough that provides an explanation as to why bumble-bee's can fly that's been used ad naseum as a popular illustration for the need for God. So now what? If we make such a definitive claim, we open ourselves to the counterclaim if that gap in information, later becomes filled.
Far better, I think, to make positive arguments from what we do know and more importantly, what God has pro-actively revealed to us in His Word. That's a far more stable foundation to build upon. The other corallary is interesting and worth exploring and debating, but it will only ever be a corallary argumnet, never primary.
Anyway, probably not a good response to your question and I am interested in knowing more about it and I suspect others will be as well.
Thanks!
Bart
Do you have a link to that article on-line?
I'm not a positive proponent of evolutionary theory particularly in some of the pretty long stretches that can be made to explain situations that have no hard evidence from the past.
I'm always a little leary though of positive statements that something is proven in terms if it not being possible or explainable in the future with more evidence in hand. I think it is something of a risk to make such a statement definitively and then argue that that lack of evidence or understanding itself is sufficient to rule out any future refinement or explanation.
I'm still smarting over the recent aerodynamic engineering breakthrough that provides an explanation as to why bumble-bee's can fly that's been used ad naseum as a popular illustration for the need for God. So now what? If we make such a definitive claim, we open ourselves to the counterclaim if that gap in information, later becomes filled.
Far better, I think, to make positive arguments from what we do know and more importantly, what God has pro-actively revealed to us in His Word. That's a far more stable foundation to build upon. The other corallary is interesting and worth exploring and debating, but it will only ever be a corallary argumnet, never primary.
Anyway, probably not a good response to your question and I am interested in knowing more about it and I suspect others will be as well.
Thanks!
Bart
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
-
Gman
- Old School
- Posts: 6081
- Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:36 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Day-Age
- Location: Northern California
Got you Bart... Perhaps I could have posted it as "Evolution disproved?" I've only looked at this evidence recently so I'm not sure if it has been refuted yet or not which is kind of why I asked the question toward the end there. As to your other question, no, I don't have a website for it. It was an article that was emailed to me.
The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false - Galileo
We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
-
Gman
- Old School
- Posts: 6081
- Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:36 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Day-Age
- Location: Northern California
As the article states...
Karyotypes conclusively disprove evolution.
Evolution can be a strong delusion. Meiosis preserves original karyotypes by absolutely requiring synapsis of each chromosome with its homologous partner. Karyotypes can totally contradict evolutionary phylogenies. Integrated functions of chromosomes require entire original karyotypes. Karyotypes are so constituted that they could not have originated by means of incremental growth.
Meiosis aborts gametogenesis if any chromosomes do not synapse with homologous partners. Variant karyotypes would therefore be infertile and would be eliminated by natural selection. Karyotype evolution is therefore thwarted by natural selection since it would inevitably have been infertile. Infertility is inevitable if any karyotype changes since karyotypes could never change in such a way as to satisfy the requirements of meiosis. Meiosis therefore can rule out evolution.
Inextricably integrated functions of chromosomes cannot be produced by incremental growth of karyotypes since the synergistic functions of chromosomes require complete karyotype ab initio. Integrated functions of chromosomes rule out evolution. Evolution cannot link karyotypes with phylogenies-which makes evolution meaningless. Meiosis thwarts the generation of novel karyotypes that are reproducible since that would require the simultaneous appearance of novel chromosomes in matching homologous pairs in each of a breeding couple which is obviously impossible.
Meiosis preserves original karyotypes, which rules out the possibility of evolution of karyotypes. Evolution can be proven false by enormous disparities between karyotypes and evolutionary phylogenies. Karyotypes totally contradict evolutionary phylogenies.
Thus the evidence
1)Karyotypes totally contradict evolution's phylogenies;
2)There is no mechanism to generate novel karyotypes that are fertile (meiosis, homology, synapsis, centromeres etc.); meiosis thwarts evolution by aborting if any chromosomes fail to pair up with homologous partners. Sexually reproducible karyotypes are therefore fixed! Evolutionary progression of chromosome numbers is thwarted by the mechanisms of meiosis, and disproven by karyotypes-i.e.by their chromosome numbers and configurations. Therefore meiosis will not allow novel karyotypes to be reproduced! Origin of karyotypes will never be explained by evolution.
3)Karyotypes cannot tolerate addition or removal of novel or native chromosomes;constitutions of karyotypes thwart evolution.
4)Inextricably integrated, exquisitely orchestrated, intricately interlinked functions of chromosomes require inheritance of entire and original karyotypes-thus thwarting evolution;
5)Sheer sizes of chromosomes defy evolutionary conjecture.
6)Evolution cannot produce novel features or functions since in most instances phenotypic features and functions are respectively controlled or coded for by respective groups of genes situated at widely separated loci on different chromosomes (too many separate but simultaneous and synergistic mutations would be required-see below) meiosis renders evolution infertile. Meiosis will not reproduce unmatched chromosomes, thereby thwarting evolution. Karyotypes prove evolutionary phylogenies to be false, totally contradicting them. Karyotype functions are so arranged that specific features or functions are respectively executed or produced by synergistic actions of respective groups of genes situated at widely separated loci on different chromosomes. To propose the appearance of such arrangements as accidental simultaneous novel occurrences would be absurd. Furthermore, these arrangements absolutely require inheritance of complete and original karyotypes-a reality which further illustrates the absurdity of evolutionary conjectures.
Animal data cannot therefore be safely extrapolated to humans by proposing a theory fashioned after phenotype, explaining it by genotype, while it is contradicted by karyotype, evolution defeats itself. Karyotypes, of course, are the engines of inheritance. If a karyotype changes 'by chance' either the change will not be reproduced, or the karyotype will not be reproduced. Meiosis blocks reproduction of karyotypes with altered chromosome number. Meiosis disproves evolution most powerfully-meiosis outsmarts evolution since it thwarts reproduction of novel karyotypes!
Furthermore, meiosis obviously could not have evolved. Karyotypes with their various (fixed) chromosome numbers (and configurations), inextricably integrated, intricately interlinked and exquisitely orchestrated chromosome functions, meiotically dividing, are inexplicable by evolution, are but a few of the phenomena that reveal the absurdity of evolution. Karyotypes contradict evolution, meiosis thwarts it. Evolution of karyotype cannot be inherited!
Karyotypes conclusively disprove evolution.
Evolution can be a strong delusion. Meiosis preserves original karyotypes by absolutely requiring synapsis of each chromosome with its homologous partner. Karyotypes can totally contradict evolutionary phylogenies. Integrated functions of chromosomes require entire original karyotypes. Karyotypes are so constituted that they could not have originated by means of incremental growth.
Meiosis aborts gametogenesis if any chromosomes do not synapse with homologous partners. Variant karyotypes would therefore be infertile and would be eliminated by natural selection. Karyotype evolution is therefore thwarted by natural selection since it would inevitably have been infertile. Infertility is inevitable if any karyotype changes since karyotypes could never change in such a way as to satisfy the requirements of meiosis. Meiosis therefore can rule out evolution.
Inextricably integrated functions of chromosomes cannot be produced by incremental growth of karyotypes since the synergistic functions of chromosomes require complete karyotype ab initio. Integrated functions of chromosomes rule out evolution. Evolution cannot link karyotypes with phylogenies-which makes evolution meaningless. Meiosis thwarts the generation of novel karyotypes that are reproducible since that would require the simultaneous appearance of novel chromosomes in matching homologous pairs in each of a breeding couple which is obviously impossible.
Meiosis preserves original karyotypes, which rules out the possibility of evolution of karyotypes. Evolution can be proven false by enormous disparities between karyotypes and evolutionary phylogenies. Karyotypes totally contradict evolutionary phylogenies.
Thus the evidence
1)Karyotypes totally contradict evolution's phylogenies;
2)There is no mechanism to generate novel karyotypes that are fertile (meiosis, homology, synapsis, centromeres etc.); meiosis thwarts evolution by aborting if any chromosomes fail to pair up with homologous partners. Sexually reproducible karyotypes are therefore fixed! Evolutionary progression of chromosome numbers is thwarted by the mechanisms of meiosis, and disproven by karyotypes-i.e.by their chromosome numbers and configurations. Therefore meiosis will not allow novel karyotypes to be reproduced! Origin of karyotypes will never be explained by evolution.
3)Karyotypes cannot tolerate addition or removal of novel or native chromosomes;constitutions of karyotypes thwart evolution.
4)Inextricably integrated, exquisitely orchestrated, intricately interlinked functions of chromosomes require inheritance of entire and original karyotypes-thus thwarting evolution;
5)Sheer sizes of chromosomes defy evolutionary conjecture.
6)Evolution cannot produce novel features or functions since in most instances phenotypic features and functions are respectively controlled or coded for by respective groups of genes situated at widely separated loci on different chromosomes (too many separate but simultaneous and synergistic mutations would be required-see below) meiosis renders evolution infertile. Meiosis will not reproduce unmatched chromosomes, thereby thwarting evolution. Karyotypes prove evolutionary phylogenies to be false, totally contradicting them. Karyotype functions are so arranged that specific features or functions are respectively executed or produced by synergistic actions of respective groups of genes situated at widely separated loci on different chromosomes. To propose the appearance of such arrangements as accidental simultaneous novel occurrences would be absurd. Furthermore, these arrangements absolutely require inheritance of complete and original karyotypes-a reality which further illustrates the absurdity of evolutionary conjectures.
Animal data cannot therefore be safely extrapolated to humans by proposing a theory fashioned after phenotype, explaining it by genotype, while it is contradicted by karyotype, evolution defeats itself. Karyotypes, of course, are the engines of inheritance. If a karyotype changes 'by chance' either the change will not be reproduced, or the karyotype will not be reproduced. Meiosis blocks reproduction of karyotypes with altered chromosome number. Meiosis disproves evolution most powerfully-meiosis outsmarts evolution since it thwarts reproduction of novel karyotypes!
Furthermore, meiosis obviously could not have evolved. Karyotypes with their various (fixed) chromosome numbers (and configurations), inextricably integrated, intricately interlinked and exquisitely orchestrated chromosome functions, meiotically dividing, are inexplicable by evolution, are but a few of the phenomena that reveal the absurdity of evolution. Karyotypes contradict evolution, meiosis thwarts it. Evolution of karyotype cannot be inherited!
The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false - Galileo
We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
-
thereal
- Established Member
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 9:40 am
- Christian: No
- Location: Carbondale, IL
I would also like a link to this article if possible. Although I don't consider myself an expert when it comes to genetics, the claim that chromosome number can't increase is blatantly false. There is rampant polyploidy in the plant kingdom wherein a new lineage (whether you want to call it species, subspecies, etc.) arises from a doubling, tripling, quadrupling, etc. of the number of chromosomes in an offspring relative to the parent, and these new indiviuals are capable of breeding. So unless I'm misunderstanding the claims being made, some of the information is false.
-
Gman
- Old School
- Posts: 6081
- Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:36 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Day-Age
- Location: Northern California
Thereal. I don't have the web site yet for this claim. So I'm going to forward pieces of it since it is very long. Since you asked about chromosome size, I thought I would forward you a piece of the article on that subject. Btw, I'm not a scientist either, although I've studied some biology in college.. Whether this stuff is true or not is up to debate as far as I'm concerned..
SIZE OF CHROMOSOMES
There is another enormous problem with the theory of evolution.The dimensions of this problem are of an order which should suffice to allow all but the unwilling to see that chromosomes could not possibly have evolved (and that life as we know it was obviously designed). The sizes of our chromosomes are inversely related to their likelihood of having evolved-even when considered apart from those problems outlined above. The rationale for this deduction is simple-
Imagine two balls,invisible in a bag, identical in size and shape and texture but different in colour (one red ball and one green ball)--the chance of picking up the red ball is one in two.If you add a black and a brown ball, the chance of picking the red one is smaller-one in four. So with base pairs in DNA. A specific nucleotide chain containing 30 specific base pairs arranged in a specific order is far less likely to have been produced by chance/by accident than a chain of 3base pairs. Therefore the longer the chromosome(i.e.longer in terms of numbers of base pairs),the less likely that it's specific arrangement of base-pairs occurred by accident.
There is a threshold value of some sorts beyond which it is possible to perceive intuitively that chromosomes (far less organisms) could not have evolved.
What sort of threshold number would one consider as a threshold for realising/concluding that such a number of specifically arranged nucleotides could not have come together by chance/accident.?
The difficulties of deducing such a number have been overcome by the sheer dimensions of our chromosomes.These dimensions allow me to sense intuitively that they are not the product of chance.
It is reported that our human chromosomes range in size(in terms of nucleotide pairs/base pairs) between approximately 45 MILLION and 245 MILLION base pairs EACH.
Need I say more about the unlikelihood of their having evolved?.
I am sure that I am correct when I sense intuitively that they could never ever have evolved,not in 250 billion/trillion years Last BUT NOT LEAST.
There appears to be another major flaw in the theory of evolution. Concerning "intermediate forms"of species. Or"missing links"-and many of them:-
If,indeed, life (as we know it) had evolved, and if,indeed, environmental "pressures" ("pressures"powerful enough to eliminate identical-offspring but not powerful enough to eliminate their mutated siblings) had been operative how would the parents have survived for long enough to breed mutated offspring?
Or,if considered in retrospect,if life(as we know it)is the result of countless generations of "evolutionary culling", then how could the myriad"intermediary forms"of species(which there must have been if,indeed,life had evolved) ever have survived for long enough to have spawned the "fitter and the fittest",since they were(on the evolutionary scale)less well adapted to their environment than their "fitter and fittest" offspring.It would appear that the concept of "survival of the fittest" is self contradictory in that it requires the "fittest"to have been produced by innumerable generations of "those less fit than the fittest"-which is an absurd proposition.Because evolution by culling(of the less-than-fittest) would have required the survival of "parents"whose identical offspring(in 'competition' with "mutated" members of the same stock) were subsequently unable to survive in the same environment as their parents.
Now if it were conjectured that the 'mutated offspring' were 'sufficiently advantaged'to have 'driven' their 'parent stock' 'out of their ecological niche' this could never have happened all at once nor could it have extended to the entire geographic distribution of that 'ecological niche' in any short space of time.And we find so many different varieties of creatures sharing the same 'ecological niches' in any case.
We could even frame this question in another way-if there had been a sufficient variety of life forms which were fit enough for long enough to have produced the great variety of life known to us today,then surely many(if not most)of the "intermediary forms"would still be alive today-and if not,then why not(if they had originally been capable of reproducing well enough for long enough to produce sufficient generations and numbers of "mutating"offspring to provide the awe-inspiring variety of life observed today)?? .
It appears far more likely that there are no intermediary life forms alive today because there never were any.
And that our collection of fossils(in their varied and variable layers of sediment in variable and often reversed order)bears testimony to the flood of Noah.
The theory of evolution has been revised on countless occasions in order to accomodate factual information- curiouser and curiouser?.
Can it accomodate chromosome numbers and the mechanisms of meiosis without being totally rewritten?????
Can it accomodate the numbers of base pairs in chromosomes?
Can it account for the survival(for long enough to breed)of the less-than-fittest parents of the "fittest mutants"in surroundings which disallowed(?) survival of offspring identical to the parents.?
Can evolutionism come to terms with reality?
These are some of my questions.
SIZE OF CHROMOSOMES
There is another enormous problem with the theory of evolution.The dimensions of this problem are of an order which should suffice to allow all but the unwilling to see that chromosomes could not possibly have evolved (and that life as we know it was obviously designed). The sizes of our chromosomes are inversely related to their likelihood of having evolved-even when considered apart from those problems outlined above. The rationale for this deduction is simple-
Imagine two balls,invisible in a bag, identical in size and shape and texture but different in colour (one red ball and one green ball)--the chance of picking up the red ball is one in two.If you add a black and a brown ball, the chance of picking the red one is smaller-one in four. So with base pairs in DNA. A specific nucleotide chain containing 30 specific base pairs arranged in a specific order is far less likely to have been produced by chance/by accident than a chain of 3base pairs. Therefore the longer the chromosome(i.e.longer in terms of numbers of base pairs),the less likely that it's specific arrangement of base-pairs occurred by accident.
There is a threshold value of some sorts beyond which it is possible to perceive intuitively that chromosomes (far less organisms) could not have evolved.
What sort of threshold number would one consider as a threshold for realising/concluding that such a number of specifically arranged nucleotides could not have come together by chance/accident.?
The difficulties of deducing such a number have been overcome by the sheer dimensions of our chromosomes.These dimensions allow me to sense intuitively that they are not the product of chance.
It is reported that our human chromosomes range in size(in terms of nucleotide pairs/base pairs) between approximately 45 MILLION and 245 MILLION base pairs EACH.
Need I say more about the unlikelihood of their having evolved?.
I am sure that I am correct when I sense intuitively that they could never ever have evolved,not in 250 billion/trillion years Last BUT NOT LEAST.
There appears to be another major flaw in the theory of evolution. Concerning "intermediate forms"of species. Or"missing links"-and many of them:-
If,indeed, life (as we know it) had evolved, and if,indeed, environmental "pressures" ("pressures"powerful enough to eliminate identical-offspring but not powerful enough to eliminate their mutated siblings) had been operative how would the parents have survived for long enough to breed mutated offspring?
Or,if considered in retrospect,if life(as we know it)is the result of countless generations of "evolutionary culling", then how could the myriad"intermediary forms"of species(which there must have been if,indeed,life had evolved) ever have survived for long enough to have spawned the "fitter and the fittest",since they were(on the evolutionary scale)less well adapted to their environment than their "fitter and fittest" offspring.It would appear that the concept of "survival of the fittest" is self contradictory in that it requires the "fittest"to have been produced by innumerable generations of "those less fit than the fittest"-which is an absurd proposition.Because evolution by culling(of the less-than-fittest) would have required the survival of "parents"whose identical offspring(in 'competition' with "mutated" members of the same stock) were subsequently unable to survive in the same environment as their parents.
Now if it were conjectured that the 'mutated offspring' were 'sufficiently advantaged'to have 'driven' their 'parent stock' 'out of their ecological niche' this could never have happened all at once nor could it have extended to the entire geographic distribution of that 'ecological niche' in any short space of time.And we find so many different varieties of creatures sharing the same 'ecological niches' in any case.
We could even frame this question in another way-if there had been a sufficient variety of life forms which were fit enough for long enough to have produced the great variety of life known to us today,then surely many(if not most)of the "intermediary forms"would still be alive today-and if not,then why not(if they had originally been capable of reproducing well enough for long enough to produce sufficient generations and numbers of "mutating"offspring to provide the awe-inspiring variety of life observed today)?? .
It appears far more likely that there are no intermediary life forms alive today because there never were any.
And that our collection of fossils(in their varied and variable layers of sediment in variable and often reversed order)bears testimony to the flood of Noah.
The theory of evolution has been revised on countless occasions in order to accomodate factual information- curiouser and curiouser?.
Can it accomodate chromosome numbers and the mechanisms of meiosis without being totally rewritten?????
Can it accomodate the numbers of base pairs in chromosomes?
Can it account for the survival(for long enough to breed)of the less-than-fittest parents of the "fittest mutants"in surroundings which disallowed(?) survival of offspring identical to the parents.?
Can evolutionism come to terms with reality?
These are some of my questions.
The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false - Galileo
We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
-
Gman
- Old School
- Posts: 6081
- Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:36 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Day-Age
- Location: Northern California
Evolutionism appears to have overlooked the fact that survival of the fittest requires the origin of the fittest.
The discovery of the double helix of DNA was seized upon as providing a mechanism for mutations and evolution.It was thought that mistakes in transcription of the code(written into the order of arrangement of nucleotide bases)provided an effective means for the generation of mutations,the 'driving force'of evolution.However,the requirements of meiosis,which fix the fertile karyotypes of species and the actual chromosome numbers,which discredit evolutionary phylogenies, are not at all conducive to evolutionary conjecture,and reveal the futility of this much-vaunted machine of evolution(DNAdouble-helix is not a useful tool for evolution). Evolution is irrational.
Evolution is an irrational theory which was published seven years before the discovery of Mendelian inheritance.Evolution has subsequently failed to catch up with scientific facts.
This short synopsis was inspired by the realisation that the biological principles discussed above equate to a confounding contradiction of evolutionary conjecture,an unavoidable negation of the credibility of evolutionism. Evolution is irrational.
The implications can be likened to an error at the beginning of an algebraic equation which renders the entirety of subsequent calculations erroneous/irrational.
This short synopsis also lists several other crucially important biological phenomena which demonstrate the irrationality of evolution.No doubt there are a great number of similar facts not here represented.
Evolutionism is a belief system originally founded on uninformed irrational conjecture and subsequently not reconciled with all related facts,and irreconcilable with a great numbers of facts,and entirely unworkable and irrational.
During the course of compiling these facts I was particularly impressed by the degrees of difficulty I encountered while trying to find chromosome numbers of species.
I had always wondered about chromosome numbers of species since my first encounters with the theory of evolution,because I reckoned that such numbers should confirm the theory of evolution,if it was true, or else these numbers would discredit evolutionary conjectures.
When I did find some(chromosome numbers),I was immediately compelled to conclude that karyotypes decisively discredit evolutionary phylogenies.These numbers may be viewed in the attachment.
I can't help wondering at the scarcity/unavailability of chromosome numbers in evolutionary literature since, I thought, these chromosome numbers/karyotypes should have been the prime focus of attention of evolutionism- since any and every gene(mutated or not)is inherited via the total-and-invariable number of reproducible chromosomes of the karyotype of the germ cell precursors of the reproducing male/female couple .Those chromosome numbers/karyotypes(in evolutionary literature)which appear to conform to evolutionary conjectures are outnumbered by those(not readily included in evolutionary writings) which decisively discredit such conjectures.
My impressions(of the irrationality of evolution) were greatly reinforced by the realisation that the mechanisms of meiosis/gametogenesis, particularly the requirement for synapsis(and homology)of chromosome pairs during meiosis/gametogenesis ,absolutely fix the reproducible karyotypes of species.It is most intriguing to note that whilst some species appear to have variable chromosome numbers these variations are apparently not associated with great phenotypic variations.Are these variations a sort of polyploidy-a duplication of some chromosomes or of groups of chromosomes?(It is worthy of note that all human chromosome pairs are distinctly identifiable and there are no apparent duplications).
Please note that my emphasis on chromosome number/karyotype is due to the fact that chromosome number/karyotype is the most obvious feature of the segregation of genes into specific(and fixed)numbers of uniquely identifiable chomosome pairs(karyotypes=the whole number of chromosomes))whose number(and structure)are ingeniously preserved by the mechanisms of meiosis,and the fact that this marvel of meiosis constitutes the most definitive and powerful impediment to conjectured evolution.This is plain for all but the unwilling to see.
This fact is amply demonstrated by the infertility of mules.
The actual chromosome numbers(karyotypes) of species constitute the most eloquent evidence to discredit irrational evolutionary conjectures.
Whilst it is true that many different species share identical chromosome numbers(but obviously not identical karyotypes),it is equally true that evolution would have required progression/-s in chromosome number since evolution proposes the origin of all species from prokaryote/-s.Without such progression/-s,and without plausible hypotheses for the mechanism/-s of progression of reproducible chromosome numbers of fertile karyotypes,other evolutionary conjectures(the entire theory of evolution) are(is) without substance and irrational.(Please note that polyploidy=muliples of FIXED haploid chromosome number).
"The cell" is equipped with mechanisms which are tailored to prevent disorderly synapsis(between non-homologous chromosomes)in meiosis(please see attachments,and see many similar articles on the web)."The cell"is thereby enabled to prohibit the sexual reproduction of aberrations of chromosome number-in other words these mechanisms FIX the reproducible chromosome numbers/fertile karyotypes of cells,and prevent the sexual reproduction of novel chromosomes.These mechanisms therefore prohibit evolutionary progression in the sexually reproducible chromosome numbers/fertile karyotypes of species.In other words,novel karyotypes would be infertile/would not reproduce THEMSELVES. "Speciation"is a peculiar term peculiar to irrational evolutionary conjecture.The concept of "speciation"is of no consequence,is totally irrelevant in the face of these mechanisms of meiosis which so efficiently preserve sexually reproducible/fertile karyotypes.
THE INFERTILITY OF MULES AMPLY DEMONSTRATES THAT CHROMOSOMES WILL NOT SYNAPSE IN PROPHASE-I OF MEIOSIS IF THEY ARE NOT HOMOLOGOUS,AND,THEREFORE,DEMONSTRATES THAT MEIOSIS/GAMETOGENESIS FIXES KARYOTYPES .THE MULE IS LIVING PROOF OF THE IRRATIONALITY OF EVOLUTION.
Interspecies similarities in gene sequences seen in the light of dissimilarities of respective karyotypes suggest that genomes were designed and karyotypes and meiosis were constructed for the express purpose of preventing evolution.
The cellular mechanisms(mechanisms operative in the nucleus)-mechanisms which ensure that only homologous chromosomes synapse in meiosis,are currently being elucidated and enumerated by gifted(and energetic) scientists.
This fixity of reproducible chromosome numbers/fertile karyotypes places an insurmountable obstacle in the path of evolutionary conjectures.These few facts serve to discredit irrational evolutionary conjectures most decisively.
Apart from the astonishing implications/consequences of these facts,and the astonishing simplicity of the deduction that these facts refute the theory of evolution so entirely and so effectively,it is almost as astonishing to note that these facts are so assiduously ignored by those unwilling to abandon the irrational myth of evolution.
In essence the theory of evolution cries out for chromosomal explanations,cries out for chromosomal genealogies. hese cries fall on deaf(unwilling)ears.
Such genealogies,if any have been constructed, might have been expected to have been the first priority of evolutionism,but they appear to be the last.
It is patently obvious that the mechanisms of meiosis and of inheritance specifically function to preserve genomes/fertile karyotypes and to prevent evolution,and that evolutionism steadfastly ignores this reality.
An elementary review of salient principles is set out below.
I would be grateful if you could inform me of factual errors in this precis.At the same time I would implore you to assess wether any such errors actually detract from the essence of what I am trying to convey to you.
I am a medical practitioner,and have long pondered on the origin of species.As I approach this subject,I recall that:-
SURVIVAL of ANY TYPE OF ORGANISM(FIT OR UNFIT) DEPENDS UPON IT'S ABILITY TO REPRODUCE.
(I would like to CONFINE THIS LETTER to the subject of SEXUAL REPRODUCTION,which ABSOLUTELY REQUIRES GAMETOGENESIS which absolutely necessitatesMEIOTIC cell division which ABSOLUTELY REQUIRES SYNAPSIS OF ALL CHROMOSOME PAIRS in the MEIOTICally dividing cell.)
Synapsis of chromosomes( ALL PAIRS ARE REQUIRED TO SYNAPSE in order for meiosis to proceed)ABSOLUTELY REQUIRES A DEGREE OF HOMOLOGY between the respective members of EVERY RESPECTIVE PAIR of synapsing chromosomes i.e.EVERY PAIR in the nucleus.Dedicated and ingenious scientists are in the process of discovering and describing the several mechanisms operating in the nuclei of meiotically dividing cells which ensure that only homologous chromosomes synapse during Prophase I of meiosis.
The "X"and"Y"chromosomes appear to have a special arrangement which keeps them together.
The homologous autosome pairs are absolutely required to match at every single meiotic division.If this were not the case it is quite obvious that karyotypes would never ever have been preserved.
There are obviously very powerful mechanisms in operation in the nuclei of germ cells(precursors of spermatozoa and ova)which have served to preserve our reproducible/fertile karyotypes very faithfully.These same mechanisms have served and continue to serve to prohibit "evolutionary"(or any other)changes in sexually reproducible/fertile karyotype.These are the mechanisms which allow only homologous chromosomes to synapse in prophase I of meiosis.And which decisively discredit evolutionary conjectures.
If it were not for the operation of such mechanisms our karyotypes could never have been preserved as faithfully as they are. These very same mechanisms(which are being elucidated and enumerated at this time)are at the same time preventing sexually reproducible/fertile"progression"of chromosome numbers of species,and thereby prevent evolution of species.
Surprisingly,these mechanisms have hardly been accorded much attention by evolutionists(and biologists in general?)whilst the human(and other?)genomes have been decoded with almost frantic urgency.
These are the mechanisms which have prevented the evolution of species,by preventing the progression (or change)of chromosome numbers/fertile karyotypes of species.
Whilst much study has been devoted to the operation and composition of genes,little has been said about the sexual reproduction of the vehicles(chromosomes)which bear them.Evolutionism has grossly neglected the description of karyotypes,and the mechanisms of inheritance of karyotypes..
The mechanisms of meiosis therefore serve to FIX THE REPRODUCIBLE CHROMOSOME NUMBERS/FERTILE KARYOTYPES OF SPECIES.
*****The phenomenon of polyploidy is not relevant to this problem,since polyploidy represents mere duplication of fixed numbers of chromosomes/duplications of karyotypes(or of portions?of karyotypes).Polyploidy pertains only to reduplications of fixed numbers of chromosomes.And there appear to be variations in number of certain chromosomes or groups of chromosomes in some species without any notable variation in the actual composition of the respective chromosomes(?)and without corresponding phenotypic variations.
And evolution would have required the appearance of novel chromosomes and novel REPRODUCIBLE/FERTILE karyotypes,in order to account for the observed chromosome numbers/karyotypes of species.
ODD CHROMOSOMES withNO SYNAPSING PARTNERS PREVENT the process of meiosis(ANEUPLOIDY PREVENTS MEIOSIS)(please see attachment or any standard textbook of biology).
And any chromosome which is,for any reason,unable to synapse with its homologue,prevents the progression of the meiotic process,and disallows the conclusion of such cell division-thereby causing sterility=inability to pass on such chromosome/-s to subsequent generations.
For reasons which are difficult to comprehend,it is extremely and extraordinarily difficult to find chromosome numbers of more than a few species.Karyotypes appear to be assiduously ignored by evolutionists,and to have been hidden by an unknown hand.
However, CHROMOSOME NUMBERS of several species can be viewed in the attachment.
IF,INDEED,life had evolved from a prokaryotic organism/s, then the evolutionist is obliged to postulate a chronology/genealogy of progression of REPRODUCIBLE/FERTILE chromosome numbers/karyotypes such as to have produced,say,a black mulberry with 308 chromosomes (see website).
The following section consists of a (failed) exercise in evolutionary conjecture(which is unique,in that it appears to be the only such exercise which has included those relevant facts concerning mechanisms of meiosis which impede change in sexually reproducible chromosome numbers of species)-this exercise is intended to demonstrate the utter unfeasibility of evolution.
In order for the CHROMOSOME NUMBER/KARYOTYPE of any organism to have PROGRESSED to a HIGHER/DIFFERENT AND REPRODUCIBLE NUMBER/FERTILE KARYOTYPE IF,say,this were AT ALL POSSIBLE,or EVER OCCURRED,its NOVEL offspring would have had to have inherited any additional chromosomes via NOVEL GAMETES with NOVEL chromosome NUMBERS.Any novel gamete would have had to have been able to combine/fuse succesfully with a gamete from the parent's reproducing partner in order to have produced a NOVEL ZYGOTE.The novel chromosome/s would have had to have been compatible with life and health and fitness,in order for the novel zygote to have reached the age of reproduction.Then,in the gonads of the NOVEL REPRODUCING ZYGOTE the NOVEL CHROMOSOME/S would have been required to find homologous synapsing partners (in order to be sexually reproduced) in the process of gametogenesis if ,at all,such novel chromosomes were to have survived by being passed on to succeeding generations.
The big question,at this point,is how could such novel and reproducible homologous chromosome pairs have appeared in novel(and fertile)zygotes unless each respective novel chromosome of the novel pair had originated independently in the gonads of two parents-i.e.two matching/homologous chromosomes would have had to have originated(how?) from separate scources.It is difficult to estimate the unlikelihood or the degrees of improbability/impossibility of such an event/-s,nor do there appear to be any factors which might in any way be/have been conducive to such an occurence/-s.Each parental gamete could contribute only one member of any such novel pair of chromosomes,and for such a pair to be homologous(having originated in a novel fashion/s in two different organisms)is an utterly unfeasible proposition .
Another factor which further compounds the impossibility of such an event/-s is the numbers of spermatozoa(100million/ml).The chances of a spermatozoon with a novel chromosome winning the race to reach the ovum are something of the order of 1in300million.
The discovery of the double helix of DNA was seized upon as providing a mechanism for mutations and evolution.It was thought that mistakes in transcription of the code(written into the order of arrangement of nucleotide bases)provided an effective means for the generation of mutations,the 'driving force'of evolution.However,the requirements of meiosis,which fix the fertile karyotypes of species and the actual chromosome numbers,which discredit evolutionary phylogenies, are not at all conducive to evolutionary conjecture,and reveal the futility of this much-vaunted machine of evolution(DNAdouble-helix is not a useful tool for evolution). Evolution is irrational.
Evolution is an irrational theory which was published seven years before the discovery of Mendelian inheritance.Evolution has subsequently failed to catch up with scientific facts.
This short synopsis was inspired by the realisation that the biological principles discussed above equate to a confounding contradiction of evolutionary conjecture,an unavoidable negation of the credibility of evolutionism. Evolution is irrational.
The implications can be likened to an error at the beginning of an algebraic equation which renders the entirety of subsequent calculations erroneous/irrational.
This short synopsis also lists several other crucially important biological phenomena which demonstrate the irrationality of evolution.No doubt there are a great number of similar facts not here represented.
Evolutionism is a belief system originally founded on uninformed irrational conjecture and subsequently not reconciled with all related facts,and irreconcilable with a great numbers of facts,and entirely unworkable and irrational.
During the course of compiling these facts I was particularly impressed by the degrees of difficulty I encountered while trying to find chromosome numbers of species.
I had always wondered about chromosome numbers of species since my first encounters with the theory of evolution,because I reckoned that such numbers should confirm the theory of evolution,if it was true, or else these numbers would discredit evolutionary conjectures.
When I did find some(chromosome numbers),I was immediately compelled to conclude that karyotypes decisively discredit evolutionary phylogenies.These numbers may be viewed in the attachment.
I can't help wondering at the scarcity/unavailability of chromosome numbers in evolutionary literature since, I thought, these chromosome numbers/karyotypes should have been the prime focus of attention of evolutionism- since any and every gene(mutated or not)is inherited via the total-and-invariable number of reproducible chromosomes of the karyotype of the germ cell precursors of the reproducing male/female couple .Those chromosome numbers/karyotypes(in evolutionary literature)which appear to conform to evolutionary conjectures are outnumbered by those(not readily included in evolutionary writings) which decisively discredit such conjectures.
My impressions(of the irrationality of evolution) were greatly reinforced by the realisation that the mechanisms of meiosis/gametogenesis, particularly the requirement for synapsis(and homology)of chromosome pairs during meiosis/gametogenesis ,absolutely fix the reproducible karyotypes of species.It is most intriguing to note that whilst some species appear to have variable chromosome numbers these variations are apparently not associated with great phenotypic variations.Are these variations a sort of polyploidy-a duplication of some chromosomes or of groups of chromosomes?(It is worthy of note that all human chromosome pairs are distinctly identifiable and there are no apparent duplications).
Please note that my emphasis on chromosome number/karyotype is due to the fact that chromosome number/karyotype is the most obvious feature of the segregation of genes into specific(and fixed)numbers of uniquely identifiable chomosome pairs(karyotypes=the whole number of chromosomes))whose number(and structure)are ingeniously preserved by the mechanisms of meiosis,and the fact that this marvel of meiosis constitutes the most definitive and powerful impediment to conjectured evolution.This is plain for all but the unwilling to see.
This fact is amply demonstrated by the infertility of mules.
The actual chromosome numbers(karyotypes) of species constitute the most eloquent evidence to discredit irrational evolutionary conjectures.
Whilst it is true that many different species share identical chromosome numbers(but obviously not identical karyotypes),it is equally true that evolution would have required progression/-s in chromosome number since evolution proposes the origin of all species from prokaryote/-s.Without such progression/-s,and without plausible hypotheses for the mechanism/-s of progression of reproducible chromosome numbers of fertile karyotypes,other evolutionary conjectures(the entire theory of evolution) are(is) without substance and irrational.(Please note that polyploidy=muliples of FIXED haploid chromosome number).
"The cell" is equipped with mechanisms which are tailored to prevent disorderly synapsis(between non-homologous chromosomes)in meiosis(please see attachments,and see many similar articles on the web)."The cell"is thereby enabled to prohibit the sexual reproduction of aberrations of chromosome number-in other words these mechanisms FIX the reproducible chromosome numbers/fertile karyotypes of cells,and prevent the sexual reproduction of novel chromosomes.These mechanisms therefore prohibit evolutionary progression in the sexually reproducible chromosome numbers/fertile karyotypes of species.In other words,novel karyotypes would be infertile/would not reproduce THEMSELVES. "Speciation"is a peculiar term peculiar to irrational evolutionary conjecture.The concept of "speciation"is of no consequence,is totally irrelevant in the face of these mechanisms of meiosis which so efficiently preserve sexually reproducible/fertile karyotypes.
THE INFERTILITY OF MULES AMPLY DEMONSTRATES THAT CHROMOSOMES WILL NOT SYNAPSE IN PROPHASE-I OF MEIOSIS IF THEY ARE NOT HOMOLOGOUS,AND,THEREFORE,DEMONSTRATES THAT MEIOSIS/GAMETOGENESIS FIXES KARYOTYPES .THE MULE IS LIVING PROOF OF THE IRRATIONALITY OF EVOLUTION.
Interspecies similarities in gene sequences seen in the light of dissimilarities of respective karyotypes suggest that genomes were designed and karyotypes and meiosis were constructed for the express purpose of preventing evolution.
The cellular mechanisms(mechanisms operative in the nucleus)-mechanisms which ensure that only homologous chromosomes synapse in meiosis,are currently being elucidated and enumerated by gifted(and energetic) scientists.
This fixity of reproducible chromosome numbers/fertile karyotypes places an insurmountable obstacle in the path of evolutionary conjectures.These few facts serve to discredit irrational evolutionary conjectures most decisively.
Apart from the astonishing implications/consequences of these facts,and the astonishing simplicity of the deduction that these facts refute the theory of evolution so entirely and so effectively,it is almost as astonishing to note that these facts are so assiduously ignored by those unwilling to abandon the irrational myth of evolution.
In essence the theory of evolution cries out for chromosomal explanations,cries out for chromosomal genealogies. hese cries fall on deaf(unwilling)ears.
Such genealogies,if any have been constructed, might have been expected to have been the first priority of evolutionism,but they appear to be the last.
It is patently obvious that the mechanisms of meiosis and of inheritance specifically function to preserve genomes/fertile karyotypes and to prevent evolution,and that evolutionism steadfastly ignores this reality.
An elementary review of salient principles is set out below.
I would be grateful if you could inform me of factual errors in this precis.At the same time I would implore you to assess wether any such errors actually detract from the essence of what I am trying to convey to you.
I am a medical practitioner,and have long pondered on the origin of species.As I approach this subject,I recall that:-
SURVIVAL of ANY TYPE OF ORGANISM(FIT OR UNFIT) DEPENDS UPON IT'S ABILITY TO REPRODUCE.
(I would like to CONFINE THIS LETTER to the subject of SEXUAL REPRODUCTION,which ABSOLUTELY REQUIRES GAMETOGENESIS which absolutely necessitatesMEIOTIC cell division which ABSOLUTELY REQUIRES SYNAPSIS OF ALL CHROMOSOME PAIRS in the MEIOTICally dividing cell.)
Synapsis of chromosomes( ALL PAIRS ARE REQUIRED TO SYNAPSE in order for meiosis to proceed)ABSOLUTELY REQUIRES A DEGREE OF HOMOLOGY between the respective members of EVERY RESPECTIVE PAIR of synapsing chromosomes i.e.EVERY PAIR in the nucleus.Dedicated and ingenious scientists are in the process of discovering and describing the several mechanisms operating in the nuclei of meiotically dividing cells which ensure that only homologous chromosomes synapse during Prophase I of meiosis.
The "X"and"Y"chromosomes appear to have a special arrangement which keeps them together.
The homologous autosome pairs are absolutely required to match at every single meiotic division.If this were not the case it is quite obvious that karyotypes would never ever have been preserved.
There are obviously very powerful mechanisms in operation in the nuclei of germ cells(precursors of spermatozoa and ova)which have served to preserve our reproducible/fertile karyotypes very faithfully.These same mechanisms have served and continue to serve to prohibit "evolutionary"(or any other)changes in sexually reproducible/fertile karyotype.These are the mechanisms which allow only homologous chromosomes to synapse in prophase I of meiosis.And which decisively discredit evolutionary conjectures.
If it were not for the operation of such mechanisms our karyotypes could never have been preserved as faithfully as they are. These very same mechanisms(which are being elucidated and enumerated at this time)are at the same time preventing sexually reproducible/fertile"progression"of chromosome numbers of species,and thereby prevent evolution of species.
Surprisingly,these mechanisms have hardly been accorded much attention by evolutionists(and biologists in general?)whilst the human(and other?)genomes have been decoded with almost frantic urgency.
These are the mechanisms which have prevented the evolution of species,by preventing the progression (or change)of chromosome numbers/fertile karyotypes of species.
Whilst much study has been devoted to the operation and composition of genes,little has been said about the sexual reproduction of the vehicles(chromosomes)which bear them.Evolutionism has grossly neglected the description of karyotypes,and the mechanisms of inheritance of karyotypes..
The mechanisms of meiosis therefore serve to FIX THE REPRODUCIBLE CHROMOSOME NUMBERS/FERTILE KARYOTYPES OF SPECIES.
*****The phenomenon of polyploidy is not relevant to this problem,since polyploidy represents mere duplication of fixed numbers of chromosomes/duplications of karyotypes(or of portions?of karyotypes).Polyploidy pertains only to reduplications of fixed numbers of chromosomes.And there appear to be variations in number of certain chromosomes or groups of chromosomes in some species without any notable variation in the actual composition of the respective chromosomes(?)and without corresponding phenotypic variations.
And evolution would have required the appearance of novel chromosomes and novel REPRODUCIBLE/FERTILE karyotypes,in order to account for the observed chromosome numbers/karyotypes of species.
ODD CHROMOSOMES withNO SYNAPSING PARTNERS PREVENT the process of meiosis(ANEUPLOIDY PREVENTS MEIOSIS)(please see attachment or any standard textbook of biology).
And any chromosome which is,for any reason,unable to synapse with its homologue,prevents the progression of the meiotic process,and disallows the conclusion of such cell division-thereby causing sterility=inability to pass on such chromosome/-s to subsequent generations.
For reasons which are difficult to comprehend,it is extremely and extraordinarily difficult to find chromosome numbers of more than a few species.Karyotypes appear to be assiduously ignored by evolutionists,and to have been hidden by an unknown hand.
However, CHROMOSOME NUMBERS of several species can be viewed in the attachment.
IF,INDEED,life had evolved from a prokaryotic organism/s, then the evolutionist is obliged to postulate a chronology/genealogy of progression of REPRODUCIBLE/FERTILE chromosome numbers/karyotypes such as to have produced,say,a black mulberry with 308 chromosomes (see website).
The following section consists of a (failed) exercise in evolutionary conjecture(which is unique,in that it appears to be the only such exercise which has included those relevant facts concerning mechanisms of meiosis which impede change in sexually reproducible chromosome numbers of species)-this exercise is intended to demonstrate the utter unfeasibility of evolution.
In order for the CHROMOSOME NUMBER/KARYOTYPE of any organism to have PROGRESSED to a HIGHER/DIFFERENT AND REPRODUCIBLE NUMBER/FERTILE KARYOTYPE IF,say,this were AT ALL POSSIBLE,or EVER OCCURRED,its NOVEL offspring would have had to have inherited any additional chromosomes via NOVEL GAMETES with NOVEL chromosome NUMBERS.Any novel gamete would have had to have been able to combine/fuse succesfully with a gamete from the parent's reproducing partner in order to have produced a NOVEL ZYGOTE.The novel chromosome/s would have had to have been compatible with life and health and fitness,in order for the novel zygote to have reached the age of reproduction.Then,in the gonads of the NOVEL REPRODUCING ZYGOTE the NOVEL CHROMOSOME/S would have been required to find homologous synapsing partners (in order to be sexually reproduced) in the process of gametogenesis if ,at all,such novel chromosomes were to have survived by being passed on to succeeding generations.
The big question,at this point,is how could such novel and reproducible homologous chromosome pairs have appeared in novel(and fertile)zygotes unless each respective novel chromosome of the novel pair had originated independently in the gonads of two parents-i.e.two matching/homologous chromosomes would have had to have originated(how?) from separate scources.It is difficult to estimate the unlikelihood or the degrees of improbability/impossibility of such an event/-s,nor do there appear to be any factors which might in any way be/have been conducive to such an occurence/-s.Each parental gamete could contribute only one member of any such novel pair of chromosomes,and for such a pair to be homologous(having originated in a novel fashion/s in two different organisms)is an utterly unfeasible proposition .
Another factor which further compounds the impossibility of such an event/-s is the numbers of spermatozoa(100million/ml).The chances of a spermatozoon with a novel chromosome winning the race to reach the ovum are something of the order of 1in300million.
The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false - Galileo
We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
-
Gman
- Old School
- Posts: 6081
- Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:36 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Day-Age
- Location: Northern California
BUT WHAT THEN,WHAT NEXT?
In order for the NOVEL (AND FERTILE) zygote with a novel pair/s of homologous chromosomes to reproduce in such a way as to PRODUCE FERTILE OFFSPRING it would have had to FIND A MATING PARTNER WITH MATCHING HOMOLOGOUS NOVEL CHROMOSOMES AND ANY SUCH NOVEL CHROMOSOMES WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN DOUBLY HOMOLOGOUSinORDER TO BE REPRODUCIBLE-i.e THERE WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN HOMOLOGY BETWEEN THE TWO CHROMOSOMES OF THE NOVEL CHROMSOME PAIR AS WELL AS homology BETWEEN THE TWO RESPECTIVE PAIRS of novel chromosomes IN THE REPRODUCING PARTNERS in order, EACH TIME,FOR EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE novel chromosome pairs WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED, to have beenREPRODUCIBLE by being able to synapse in the gonads of their grown up/adult and fertile NOVEL OFFSPRING ).
ThusFOR EVERY NOVEL and REPRODUCIBLE PAIRof homologous chromosomes to have been BEQUEATHED to SUCCESSIVE GENERATIONS,they would have had to have respectively originated by chance in the gametes of EACH OF A REPRODUCING COUPLE,and they would then(from the bowels of the reproducing zygote)HAVE HAD TO HAVE FOUND MATCHING REPRODUCING PARTNER-GAMETES IN A REPRODUCING PARTNER i.e. this WHOLE IMPLAUSIBLE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE HAPPENED FOUR TIMES OVER(ONCE FOR EVERY NOVEL GAMETE PRODUCED BY THE FOUR RESPECTIVE PARENTS OF THE NOVEL REPRODUCING COUPLE)-at the very leastFOUR TIMES OVER in order for EACH and EVERY novel pair of REPRODUCIBLE chromosomes to have been bequeathed to posterity
WE WOULD HAVE REQUIRED EACH AND EVERY NOVELTY IN QUADRUPLICATE AND IN SYNCHRONY IN THE SAME VICINITY-ONE IN EACH MEMBER OF TWO MATING COUPLES OR TWICE OVER IN THE SAME COUPLE AND WE WOULD HAVE REQUIRED THE APPEARANCE OF A NOVEL MALE AND A NOVEL FEMALE EACH AND EVERY TIME,IN ORDER FOR THE CHROMOSOMAL NOVELTY TO HAVE BEEN SEXUALLY REPRODUCIBLE .
Granted,there could have been the same parents,which would have required the identical novel gamete to have been produced twice over(i.e.on at least two separate occasions)by each parent and to have produced a novel male and a novel female each time.
(Don't be distracted by the phenomenon of polyploidy,now.Polyploidy may perhaps be more relevant in plants than animals but is unlikely to be of much assistance to the evolutionist in the attempted explanation of the surmised progression of chromosome numbers-see above.)
And for the Adder's tongue fern(n=240)HOW MANY TIMES OVER WOULD THIS LUDICROUS SUGGESTION HAVE HAD TO BE PROPOSED ?
AND FOR THE FOLLOWING:-?
(black mulberry n=308;king crab n=208;shrimp n=254) .
Furthermore it has been found that
a) different(often multiple) chromosome pairs operate synergistically(exquisitely orchestrated) in order to produce combined(and vital)- effects(effects that are essential for life) such as the synthesis of haemoglobin-to name but one of countless examples-examples which are not necessarily specifically known to me but which are present in the repertoire of every living cell;and that.
b) individual chromosomes each respectively control numerous different functions.
There is therefore a vast repertoire of highly orchestrated and interdependent and synergistic functions conducted by the chromosomes of each organism,and the reproducible chromosome numbers of organisms are FIXED by the requirements of meiosis.Let me give you one example(of many):-
The cell membranes of human cardiac sarcomeres contain channels to allow/facilitate the transit of ions.Several different channels exist for the passage of different ions by different means.All these channels are essential for cardiac function/life.The genes which code for these channels are therefore all essential to life,as are,therefore,the chromosome pairs which bear them. These genes,obviously,require to have been inherited together ab initio,therefore the chromosome pairs which bear them must all have been inherited together ab initio,in order to have sustained the lives of the bearers.Now the genes coding for the sarcomere-membrane-ion-channels are situated on at least five different chromosome pairs.Such an arrangement completely negates any concept of "progression"of chromosome number/karyotype(and if life had evolved chromosome numbers would have had to have"progressed").Other examples of similarly complex synergistic functions of different chromosome pairs include thyroid function(various aspects of)and the production of thyrotrophin/thyroxin receptors,other cardiac features(as in cardiomyopathy)and it does not require much effort to realise that there are undoubtedly myriads of cellular functions/organ functions which operate in the same fashion.It is therefore quite easy to see that evolutionary conjectures will forever fail to explain these,for the reasons mentioned above.
One would expect the appearance of novel chromosome to have been almost invariably associated with serious disruption of cellular function of growth or physiology,as is the case in most conditions caused by aberrant chromosome numbers in humans.Spontaneous abortions are frequently the result of aberration in chromosome number.
Chromosome numbers of different organisms(see website)do NOT display patterns suggestive of evolutionary origin.
Similarities in chromosome numbers are offset by enormous dissimilarities.E.g the black muntjac(a little deer) has as many chromosomes as a fruit-fly(8),and fewer chromosomes than a housefly(12).Several fish species have hundreds of chromosomes apiece.You and I have fewer chromosomes than the duck,the goat,the potato and many others.
In the light of these facts,the theory of evolution is entirely implausible.When I was taught evolution (at school and at medical faculty from whence I graduated)I was not taught that chromosome numbers/karyotypes of species were FIXED by the mechanisms of meiosis.I was taught that apes had similar chromosome numbers to humans. But I was not taught that a potato has 48 chromosomes,a goat 60 and a duck 80and that a little deer(black muntjac)has a karyotype with 8 chromosomes(fewer than a housefly,as many as a fruitfly).
Neither was I taught that the mechanisms of meiosis FIX the REPRODUCIBLE chromosome numbers/fertile karyotypes of apes and the REPRODUCIBLE chromosome numbers/fertile karyotypes of humans in such a way as to prohibit sexual reproduction of aberrations in their karyotypes/chromosome numbers.Such aberrations cause infertility.
I think it would only have been reasonable to have presented us with all these(and there must be many more) facts,rather than to have promoted a theory which is entirely discredited by the totality of facts.And it seems almost obscene to teach evolution in schools without even allowing any alternative suggestions.
If,for the sake of this debate,we circumvent the insurmountable obstacles to evolution discussed above, many other obstacles remain,obstacles which present a similar magnitude of impossibility.
Let the evolutionist concede,at this juncture,that the passage of time would not have facilitated evolution,but would,in contrast,have minimIsed the chances of evolution,since changes in chromosome number would have had to have been transmitted to the next generation during that fraction of the concurrent lifespans of the mutated-and-fertile-and-mating individuals which coincided(each time), in order for any novel AND REPRODUCIBLE/fertile chromosome number/karyotype to be preserved.Therefore in the extremely unlikely event of any novel mammal being born with a novel chromosome number and in the extremely unlikely event that its novel chromosomes were homologous(assuming they were inherited in pair/s) ,the novel chromosomes would ONLY BEREPRODUCIBLE IF they found matching partner-chromosomes in a similar novel reproductive partner DURING THE COINCIDING SPAN OF THEIR LIVES WHICH FOLLOWED THE SYNCHRONOUS APPEARANCE OF THE NOVEL CHROMOSOMES.AND THIS TEMPORAL CONDITION WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED FOR EACH AND EVERY CHROMOSOME PAIR OF EACH AND EVERY GENOME.
TIME IS NOT THE ALLY OF EVOLUTIONISM,MUCH AS IT HAS BEEN INVOKED BY EVOLUTIONISTS.
.Adding millions or billions or trillions of years to evolutionary history is quite futile and irrelevant.
This is because changes in chromosome number would be destined for the grave in all circumstances apart from the impossible scenarios postulated above.
POINT MUTATIONS in the 'GENES'might CARRY OVER from generation to generation,but NOT NECESSARILY SO WITH CHANGES IN CHROMOSOME NUMBER/karyotype.
And evolution would have REQUIRED CHANGES IN CHROMOSOME NUMBER/karyotype WITH OR WITHOUT POINT MUTATIONS IN GENES AND WOULD HAVE REQUIRED SUCH CHANGES MANY MANY TIMES OVER.We could speculate,for arguments' sake,that the novel chromosomes(and evolution could not have happened without novel chromosomes) contained sufficient novel genes to diminish(substantially)the need for point mutations on genes.But this speculation belongs in the the realms of fantasy(for the reasons here mentioned).
And evolution would have required a number of different and synchronous point mutations at different loci on groups of different chromosome pairs in order(each time) to produce each of those synchronising and synergistic genes which are required to produce each of those synchronistic/synergistic cellular effects/functions which are executed by genes which are located on different chromosome pairs and which act in concert.This is quite clearly and utterly implausible,as all(but the unwilling)can see.
Let us now examine the imaginary scenario of a novel mammal -let us limit this problem to mammals(every class of plant or
animal would have corresponding and unique problems)-a novel mammal with a novel pair of homologousAND THUS REPRODUCIBLEchromosomes(and there would have had to have been many such,if life had evolved),a novel mammal conceived in the womb of it's mother-to-be.
This novel mammal could be expected to be phenotypically sufficiently different from it's mother to have novel gestational requirements.Let us ignore this potential problem ,for convenience's sake ,and move on to the next problem.
We know the history of the Caesarian section,obstetrical forceps etc.and we know of many a veterinary surgeon who has had to exctract the macerated remains of a dead calf from the womb of a cow lest she also perish And let us remember that evolution(if it ever occurred) would have required to the appearance of novel mammals with novel chromosome numbers(novel pairs of homologous chromosomes) and therefore with substantially novel phenotypes with novel dimensions and novel proportions.One could never take it for granted that any such novel mammal would be born alive.
But if it were,how could we assume that it's mother would not reject it,especially in view of its substantially-and-necessarily-different phenotype(the evolutionist might as well forget about all the little mutations,for the sake of time and space).I use the term"substantially different"because we're considering phenotypic differences of a magnitude correlating with novel chromosome numbers i.e differences between the parents and the newborn novel offspring.
If for convenience sake mother accepted the substantially different offspring,how could we assume that she could meet it's (substantially different)nutritional requirements?
But for convenience sake she did How could we be sure her substantially different offspring would find her mammary glands?and be able to suckle?and be inclined to continue to suckle?
Let us assume that the offspring reached reproductive age and met a reproductive partner with a compatible set of novel homologous chromosomes and a substantially different phenotype from its parents.The mating partner would have to be reproductively compatible with its partner with respect to all anatomical,physiological,behavioral and chromosomal requirements of reproduction.
Now go to the attachment and try to calculate how many times this sequence would have had to have been repeated if life had evolved.
Then ask yourself if you are still able to conclude that life evolved.
Numbers of species are far in excess of chromosome counts-i.e.there are many species with identical chromosome numbers but vastly different genomes/karyotypes.And each species has a powerful mechanism to maintain the identity of it's karyotype.This is most probably accomplished by the need for homology between synapsing chromosomes in meiosis/gametogenesis.But other mechanisms might also be operative,each of which would constitute an additional barrier to evolution.Since some species which appear very similar have widely divergent chromosome numbers,it would appear impossible to propose chromosomal genealogies which fit imagined/conjectured evolutionary genealogies,and the phenomenon of polyploidy is highly unlikely to overcome this problem,even if only from an arithmetic point of view.
In order for the NOVEL (AND FERTILE) zygote with a novel pair/s of homologous chromosomes to reproduce in such a way as to PRODUCE FERTILE OFFSPRING it would have had to FIND A MATING PARTNER WITH MATCHING HOMOLOGOUS NOVEL CHROMOSOMES AND ANY SUCH NOVEL CHROMOSOMES WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN DOUBLY HOMOLOGOUSinORDER TO BE REPRODUCIBLE-i.e THERE WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN HOMOLOGY BETWEEN THE TWO CHROMOSOMES OF THE NOVEL CHROMSOME PAIR AS WELL AS homology BETWEEN THE TWO RESPECTIVE PAIRS of novel chromosomes IN THE REPRODUCING PARTNERS in order, EACH TIME,FOR EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE novel chromosome pairs WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED, to have beenREPRODUCIBLE by being able to synapse in the gonads of their grown up/adult and fertile NOVEL OFFSPRING ).
ThusFOR EVERY NOVEL and REPRODUCIBLE PAIRof homologous chromosomes to have been BEQUEATHED to SUCCESSIVE GENERATIONS,they would have had to have respectively originated by chance in the gametes of EACH OF A REPRODUCING COUPLE,and they would then(from the bowels of the reproducing zygote)HAVE HAD TO HAVE FOUND MATCHING REPRODUCING PARTNER-GAMETES IN A REPRODUCING PARTNER i.e. this WHOLE IMPLAUSIBLE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE HAPPENED FOUR TIMES OVER(ONCE FOR EVERY NOVEL GAMETE PRODUCED BY THE FOUR RESPECTIVE PARENTS OF THE NOVEL REPRODUCING COUPLE)-at the very leastFOUR TIMES OVER in order for EACH and EVERY novel pair of REPRODUCIBLE chromosomes to have been bequeathed to posterity
WE WOULD HAVE REQUIRED EACH AND EVERY NOVELTY IN QUADRUPLICATE AND IN SYNCHRONY IN THE SAME VICINITY-ONE IN EACH MEMBER OF TWO MATING COUPLES OR TWICE OVER IN THE SAME COUPLE AND WE WOULD HAVE REQUIRED THE APPEARANCE OF A NOVEL MALE AND A NOVEL FEMALE EACH AND EVERY TIME,IN ORDER FOR THE CHROMOSOMAL NOVELTY TO HAVE BEEN SEXUALLY REPRODUCIBLE .
Granted,there could have been the same parents,which would have required the identical novel gamete to have been produced twice over(i.e.on at least two separate occasions)by each parent and to have produced a novel male and a novel female each time.
(Don't be distracted by the phenomenon of polyploidy,now.Polyploidy may perhaps be more relevant in plants than animals but is unlikely to be of much assistance to the evolutionist in the attempted explanation of the surmised progression of chromosome numbers-see above.)
And for the Adder's tongue fern(n=240)HOW MANY TIMES OVER WOULD THIS LUDICROUS SUGGESTION HAVE HAD TO BE PROPOSED ?
AND FOR THE FOLLOWING:-?
(black mulberry n=308;king crab n=208;shrimp n=254) .
Furthermore it has been found that
a) different(often multiple) chromosome pairs operate synergistically(exquisitely orchestrated) in order to produce combined(and vital)- effects(effects that are essential for life) such as the synthesis of haemoglobin-to name but one of countless examples-examples which are not necessarily specifically known to me but which are present in the repertoire of every living cell;and that.
b) individual chromosomes each respectively control numerous different functions.
There is therefore a vast repertoire of highly orchestrated and interdependent and synergistic functions conducted by the chromosomes of each organism,and the reproducible chromosome numbers of organisms are FIXED by the requirements of meiosis.Let me give you one example(of many):-
The cell membranes of human cardiac sarcomeres contain channels to allow/facilitate the transit of ions.Several different channels exist for the passage of different ions by different means.All these channels are essential for cardiac function/life.The genes which code for these channels are therefore all essential to life,as are,therefore,the chromosome pairs which bear them. These genes,obviously,require to have been inherited together ab initio,therefore the chromosome pairs which bear them must all have been inherited together ab initio,in order to have sustained the lives of the bearers.Now the genes coding for the sarcomere-membrane-ion-channels are situated on at least five different chromosome pairs.Such an arrangement completely negates any concept of "progression"of chromosome number/karyotype(and if life had evolved chromosome numbers would have had to have"progressed").Other examples of similarly complex synergistic functions of different chromosome pairs include thyroid function(various aspects of)and the production of thyrotrophin/thyroxin receptors,other cardiac features(as in cardiomyopathy)and it does not require much effort to realise that there are undoubtedly myriads of cellular functions/organ functions which operate in the same fashion.It is therefore quite easy to see that evolutionary conjectures will forever fail to explain these,for the reasons mentioned above.
One would expect the appearance of novel chromosome to have been almost invariably associated with serious disruption of cellular function of growth or physiology,as is the case in most conditions caused by aberrant chromosome numbers in humans.Spontaneous abortions are frequently the result of aberration in chromosome number.
Chromosome numbers of different organisms(see website)do NOT display patterns suggestive of evolutionary origin.
Similarities in chromosome numbers are offset by enormous dissimilarities.E.g the black muntjac(a little deer) has as many chromosomes as a fruit-fly(8),and fewer chromosomes than a housefly(12).Several fish species have hundreds of chromosomes apiece.You and I have fewer chromosomes than the duck,the goat,the potato and many others.
In the light of these facts,the theory of evolution is entirely implausible.When I was taught evolution (at school and at medical faculty from whence I graduated)I was not taught that chromosome numbers/karyotypes of species were FIXED by the mechanisms of meiosis.I was taught that apes had similar chromosome numbers to humans. But I was not taught that a potato has 48 chromosomes,a goat 60 and a duck 80and that a little deer(black muntjac)has a karyotype with 8 chromosomes(fewer than a housefly,as many as a fruitfly).
Neither was I taught that the mechanisms of meiosis FIX the REPRODUCIBLE chromosome numbers/fertile karyotypes of apes and the REPRODUCIBLE chromosome numbers/fertile karyotypes of humans in such a way as to prohibit sexual reproduction of aberrations in their karyotypes/chromosome numbers.Such aberrations cause infertility.
I think it would only have been reasonable to have presented us with all these(and there must be many more) facts,rather than to have promoted a theory which is entirely discredited by the totality of facts.And it seems almost obscene to teach evolution in schools without even allowing any alternative suggestions.
If,for the sake of this debate,we circumvent the insurmountable obstacles to evolution discussed above, many other obstacles remain,obstacles which present a similar magnitude of impossibility.
Let the evolutionist concede,at this juncture,that the passage of time would not have facilitated evolution,but would,in contrast,have minimIsed the chances of evolution,since changes in chromosome number would have had to have been transmitted to the next generation during that fraction of the concurrent lifespans of the mutated-and-fertile-and-mating individuals which coincided(each time), in order for any novel AND REPRODUCIBLE/fertile chromosome number/karyotype to be preserved.Therefore in the extremely unlikely event of any novel mammal being born with a novel chromosome number and in the extremely unlikely event that its novel chromosomes were homologous(assuming they were inherited in pair/s) ,the novel chromosomes would ONLY BEREPRODUCIBLE IF they found matching partner-chromosomes in a similar novel reproductive partner DURING THE COINCIDING SPAN OF THEIR LIVES WHICH FOLLOWED THE SYNCHRONOUS APPEARANCE OF THE NOVEL CHROMOSOMES.AND THIS TEMPORAL CONDITION WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED FOR EACH AND EVERY CHROMOSOME PAIR OF EACH AND EVERY GENOME.
TIME IS NOT THE ALLY OF EVOLUTIONISM,MUCH AS IT HAS BEEN INVOKED BY EVOLUTIONISTS.
.Adding millions or billions or trillions of years to evolutionary history is quite futile and irrelevant.
This is because changes in chromosome number would be destined for the grave in all circumstances apart from the impossible scenarios postulated above.
POINT MUTATIONS in the 'GENES'might CARRY OVER from generation to generation,but NOT NECESSARILY SO WITH CHANGES IN CHROMOSOME NUMBER/karyotype.
And evolution would have REQUIRED CHANGES IN CHROMOSOME NUMBER/karyotype WITH OR WITHOUT POINT MUTATIONS IN GENES AND WOULD HAVE REQUIRED SUCH CHANGES MANY MANY TIMES OVER.We could speculate,for arguments' sake,that the novel chromosomes(and evolution could not have happened without novel chromosomes) contained sufficient novel genes to diminish(substantially)the need for point mutations on genes.But this speculation belongs in the the realms of fantasy(for the reasons here mentioned).
And evolution would have required a number of different and synchronous point mutations at different loci on groups of different chromosome pairs in order(each time) to produce each of those synchronising and synergistic genes which are required to produce each of those synchronistic/synergistic cellular effects/functions which are executed by genes which are located on different chromosome pairs and which act in concert.This is quite clearly and utterly implausible,as all(but the unwilling)can see.
Let us now examine the imaginary scenario of a novel mammal -let us limit this problem to mammals(every class of plant or
animal would have corresponding and unique problems)-a novel mammal with a novel pair of homologousAND THUS REPRODUCIBLEchromosomes(and there would have had to have been many such,if life had evolved),a novel mammal conceived in the womb of it's mother-to-be.
This novel mammal could be expected to be phenotypically sufficiently different from it's mother to have novel gestational requirements.Let us ignore this potential problem ,for convenience's sake ,and move on to the next problem.
We know the history of the Caesarian section,obstetrical forceps etc.and we know of many a veterinary surgeon who has had to exctract the macerated remains of a dead calf from the womb of a cow lest she also perish And let us remember that evolution(if it ever occurred) would have required to the appearance of novel mammals with novel chromosome numbers(novel pairs of homologous chromosomes) and therefore with substantially novel phenotypes with novel dimensions and novel proportions.One could never take it for granted that any such novel mammal would be born alive.
But if it were,how could we assume that it's mother would not reject it,especially in view of its substantially-and-necessarily-different phenotype(the evolutionist might as well forget about all the little mutations,for the sake of time and space).I use the term"substantially different"because we're considering phenotypic differences of a magnitude correlating with novel chromosome numbers i.e differences between the parents and the newborn novel offspring.
If for convenience sake mother accepted the substantially different offspring,how could we assume that she could meet it's (substantially different)nutritional requirements?
But for convenience sake she did How could we be sure her substantially different offspring would find her mammary glands?and be able to suckle?and be inclined to continue to suckle?
Let us assume that the offspring reached reproductive age and met a reproductive partner with a compatible set of novel homologous chromosomes and a substantially different phenotype from its parents.The mating partner would have to be reproductively compatible with its partner with respect to all anatomical,physiological,behavioral and chromosomal requirements of reproduction.
Now go to the attachment and try to calculate how many times this sequence would have had to have been repeated if life had evolved.
Then ask yourself if you are still able to conclude that life evolved.
Numbers of species are far in excess of chromosome counts-i.e.there are many species with identical chromosome numbers but vastly different genomes/karyotypes.And each species has a powerful mechanism to maintain the identity of it's karyotype.This is most probably accomplished by the need for homology between synapsing chromosomes in meiosis/gametogenesis.But other mechanisms might also be operative,each of which would constitute an additional barrier to evolution.Since some species which appear very similar have widely divergent chromosome numbers,it would appear impossible to propose chromosomal genealogies which fit imagined/conjectured evolutionary genealogies,and the phenomenon of polyploidy is highly unlikely to overcome this problem,even if only from an arithmetic point of view.
The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false - Galileo
We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
-
Gman
- Old School
- Posts: 6081
- Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:36 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Day-Age
- Location: Northern California
KARYOTYPES,OF COURSE,ARE THE ENGINES OF INHERITANCE.
-evolution's unbelievable phylogenies are so obviously incompatible with karyotypes(perhaps because Darwin knew nothing about inheritance-he published his fantasies 7 years before Gregor Mendel's original publication,decades before Mendel's findings were widely known).Evolution's fantasies have never caught up with and can never catch up with or accomodate the facts of biology(read on,please);karyotypes conclusively disprove evolution's implausible phylogenies.
-meiosis absolutely/obviously thwarts evolution(by thwarting the generation of novel-and-fertile karyotypes)
-evolution cannot account for karyotypes,nor,therefore,for the origin of species.
-karyotypes and their modes of function prove that they could not have originated by incremental growth.
Evolution's fantasies rest on false premiss,evade contradictory evidence,are incompatible with karyotypes,meiosis,the environment,and more.
Evolution rests on the absurd assumption that errors in nucleic acid replication could produce novel karyotypes-obviously entirely irrational.
Evolution cannot incorporate karyotypes nor the mechanisms of meiosis since they are entirely incompatible with it.Meiosis thwarts reproducible modification of chromosome number.
Ironically,and for exactly the same reasons as above evolution provides no explanation for any fossil ever found!!!And conversely,fossils are no evidence of evolution!!!
Evolution has no modus operandi,since gene mutations cannot produce novel chromosomes or karyotypes.And novel karyotypes cannot breed.Has evolution not seen these most obvious errors?
Dear Reader,I suspect that the few facts discussed here represent merely the starting point of an exciting journey of discovering the grossness of the errors of evolution. Evolution is a very elaborate fallacy which is very simply disproven.EVOLUTION IS ENTIRELY IMPRACTICABLE AND UNFEASIBLE-ABSURD.Many many facts trash evolution.The discussion below centres on sexual reproduction.Evolution could never ever have produced a cell,let alone progress beyond asexual reproduction. Polyploidy could never have produced karyotypes as we know them,for two reasons at least.Firstly,polyploidy never produces novel chromosomes. Secondly,simple arithmetic tells us that polyploidy could never have produced karyotypes as we know them.And besides,polyploidy is only relevant to plants.Karyotypes ridicule evolution and laugh it to scorn. Evolution cannot breed.
Each chromosome has one centromere.a split chromosome will lose that part which is no longer attached to the centromere- the detached part will not be included in next cell division.the part still attached to the centromere will probably not be able to synapse so as to enable the next meiotic division.
If a centromere splits transversely all the genes of one of the segments of the chromosome will be lost.splitting chromosomes cannot beget evolution. Centromeres outsmart evolution.
-evolution's unbelievable phylogenies are so obviously incompatible with karyotypes(perhaps because Darwin knew nothing about inheritance-he published his fantasies 7 years before Gregor Mendel's original publication,decades before Mendel's findings were widely known).Evolution's fantasies have never caught up with and can never catch up with or accomodate the facts of biology(read on,please);karyotypes conclusively disprove evolution's implausible phylogenies.
-meiosis absolutely/obviously thwarts evolution(by thwarting the generation of novel-and-fertile karyotypes)
-evolution cannot account for karyotypes,nor,therefore,for the origin of species.
-karyotypes and their modes of function prove that they could not have originated by incremental growth.
Evolution's fantasies rest on false premiss,evade contradictory evidence,are incompatible with karyotypes,meiosis,the environment,and more.
Evolution rests on the absurd assumption that errors in nucleic acid replication could produce novel karyotypes-obviously entirely irrational.
Evolution cannot incorporate karyotypes nor the mechanisms of meiosis since they are entirely incompatible with it.Meiosis thwarts reproducible modification of chromosome number.
Ironically,and for exactly the same reasons as above evolution provides no explanation for any fossil ever found!!!And conversely,fossils are no evidence of evolution!!!
Evolution has no modus operandi,since gene mutations cannot produce novel chromosomes or karyotypes.And novel karyotypes cannot breed.Has evolution not seen these most obvious errors?
Dear Reader,I suspect that the few facts discussed here represent merely the starting point of an exciting journey of discovering the grossness of the errors of evolution. Evolution is a very elaborate fallacy which is very simply disproven.EVOLUTION IS ENTIRELY IMPRACTICABLE AND UNFEASIBLE-ABSURD.Many many facts trash evolution.The discussion below centres on sexual reproduction.Evolution could never ever have produced a cell,let alone progress beyond asexual reproduction. Polyploidy could never have produced karyotypes as we know them,for two reasons at least.Firstly,polyploidy never produces novel chromosomes. Secondly,simple arithmetic tells us that polyploidy could never have produced karyotypes as we know them.And besides,polyploidy is only relevant to plants.Karyotypes ridicule evolution and laugh it to scorn. Evolution cannot breed.
Each chromosome has one centromere.a split chromosome will lose that part which is no longer attached to the centromere- the detached part will not be included in next cell division.the part still attached to the centromere will probably not be able to synapse so as to enable the next meiotic division.
If a centromere splits transversely all the genes of one of the segments of the chromosome will be lost.splitting chromosomes cannot beget evolution. Centromeres outsmart evolution.
The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false - Galileo
We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
-
Gman
- Old School
- Posts: 6081
- Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:36 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Day-Age
- Location: Northern California
I feel like I coughed up an encyclopedia here.. You guys want more? 
The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false - Galileo
We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
-
BGoodForGoodSake
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 2127
- Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
- Christian: No
- Location: Washington D.C.
Lets start with one thing at a time I'll work my up to the top.
=)
Is the claim that new species can only arise from novel karyotypes?
Splitting chromosomes will probably be lost however what about the posibility of duplicated chromosomes?
=)
Is the claim that new species can only arise from novel karyotypes?
Splitting chromosomes will probably be lost however what about the posibility of duplicated chromosomes?
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
-
godslanguage
- Senior Member
- Posts: 558
- Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:16 pm
I also found a link to the similar article, I don't know if its "exactly" the same, but here it is anyways.
http://skewbiedoo.blogspot.com/2006/05/ ... -ever.html
http://skewbiedoo.blogspot.com/2006/05/ ... -ever.html
-
Gman
- Old School
- Posts: 6081
- Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:36 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Day-Age
- Location: Northern California
Not sure... I wonder though, if chromosomes could be duplicated, how could it be done without damaging the structure? Also could this duplication process be performed in a lab with natural causes? Would it require breeding?BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Lets start with one thing at a time I'll work my up to the top.
=)
Is the claim that new species can only arise from novel karyotypes?
Splitting chromosomes will probably be lost however what about the posibility of duplicated chromosomes?
There was a pdf chart also included in the email. Here it is:
//www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucbhdjm/courses/b242/Chr ... hromPP.pdf
or more specifically..
//www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucbhdjm/courses/b242/Chr ... mEvol.html
Evolutionary effect of rearrangements
General rule: Heterozygous rearrangements often lead to the production, in meiosis, of UNBALANCED GAMETES; often, HETEROZYGOTE DISADVANTAGE
e.g. Paracentric inversions
The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false - Galileo
We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
-
BGoodForGoodSake
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 2127
- Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
- Christian: No
- Location: Washington D.C.
It happens all the time. Let me know if you want to discuss chromosomal duplication, breakage and realignment.Gman wrote:Not sure... I wonder though, if chromosomes could be duplicated, how could it be done without damaging the structure? Also could this duplication process be performed in a lab with natural causes? Would it require breeding?BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Lets start with one thing at a time I'll work my up to the top.
=)
Is the claim that new species can only arise from novel karyotypes?
Splitting chromosomes will probably be lost however what about the posibility of duplicated chromosomes?
These are some very good references for a start.Gman wrote:There was a pdf chart also included in the email. Here it is:
//www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucbhdjm/courses/b242/Chr ... hromPP.pdf
or more specifically..
//www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucbhdjm/courses/b242/Chr ... mEvol.html
Let me know if you are having trouble understanding a point.
This is true but not always.Gman wrote:Evolutionary effect of rearrangements
General rule: Heterozygous rearrangements often lead to the production, in meiosis, of UNBALANCED GAMETES; often, HETEROZYGOTE DISADVANTAGE
Take a look at the original email and count the assertions.Gman wrote: e.g. Paracentric inversions
Now count the facts.
I'd like to know the results.
=)
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson