Evolution disproved

[Gman]

It happens all the time. Let me know if you want to discuss chromosomal duplication, breakage and realignment.

Yes, could you? Could you also explain the origin of karyotypes devoid of a mating partner with matching homologous novel chromosomes?

These are some very good references for a start.
Let me know if you are having trouble understanding a point.

Believe me, I'm not a geneticist.. The article (which I didn't write) seems to advocating many points... Could you refute why the author claims that karyotypes and meiosis were obviously designed in such a way as to outsmart evolution?

Now count the facts.

I'd like to know the results.
=)

BGood... You are asking me?

[BGoodForGoodSake]

It happens all the time. Let me know if you want to discuss chromosomal duplication, breakage and realignment.

Yes, could you? Could you also explain the origin of karyotypes devoid of a mating partner with matching homologous novel chromosomes?

Could you elaborate? I don't understand you're point. All Eukaryotic lifeforms possess chromosomes aranged in the same manor, even those which only reproduce simply by cell division.

These are some very good references for a start.
Let me know if you are having trouble understanding a point.

Believe me, I'm not a geneticist.. The article (which I didn't write) seems to advocating many points... Could you refute why the author claims that karyotypes and meiosis were obviously designed in such a way as to outsmart evolution?

Can you tell me the reasons he used to support his claims? I.E. what peices of evidence he used to reach those conclusions? We can then go through each item of supporting evidence.

Now count the facts.

I'd like to know the results.
=)

BGood... You are asking me?

OK I'll do one article.

[Gman]

Could you elaborate? I don't understand you're point. All Eukaryotic lifeforms possess chromosomes aranged in the same manor, even those which only reproduce simply by cell division.

What do you mean you don't understand my point bgood?? You already claimed to know the answer to my first question...

I asked: "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?"

Your reply was: "It happens all the time. Let me know if you want to discuss chromosomal duplication, breakage and realignment."

I then asked you: "Yes, could you? Could you also explain the origin of karyotypes devoid of a mating partner with matching homologous novel chromosomes?"

So what is your answer? Why are you sidestepping the issue? Also I would appreciate your honesty about your scientific background. Are you a geneticist? So far it doesn't appear that way. Explain to us how eukaryotic lifeforms possess chromosomes then via simple cell division.

Also please explain how eukaryotic lifeforms came into existence first.. You have to get one first before you can reproduce it first... Right? Is that good science?

Can you tell me the reasons he used to support his claims? I.E. what peices of evidence he used to reach those conclusions? We can then go through each item of supporting evidence.

No, I already told you that I didn't write the article... What more do you want?

OK I'll do one article.

Why? You don't like my title?

Also, what are defending bgood? Do you believe God and evolution can work together? Answer my questions first then I'll answer yours...

Thank you..

[Gman]

Actually (to be fair) part of the answer seems to be here:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006 ... _a_way.php

It seems to be talking about existing chromosomes however... Not new ones...

Per AIG: However, informed evolutionists generally realize that photocopying a page adds no new information; it just duplicates it.

Many evolutionists have argued that this 'extra' DNA from chromosome duplication can provide at least the raw material for mutations to work on. The 'extra copy' is supposedly liberated to produce new genetic information by accidental change, in addition to the standard information in the original.

[sandy_mcd]

[Looks like Gman posted most of this whilst I was googling.]

I had googled a line or two before and found no hits. I googled "origin of karotypes" and lead to this: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/uplo ... _rant.html The listed author ANJackson may be the same as the one referring to himself as "Alfred N Jackson, primary care physician, bulawayo zimbabwe"; see e.g. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters ... 1117#77201 or http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters ... 66-c#91314, which has lots of discussion on this topic.
Anyhow, there were a couple of other hits but the links did not look particularly informative to me.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Could you elaborate? I don't understand you're point. All Eukaryotic lifeforms possess chromosomes aranged in the same manor, even those which only reproduce simply by cell division.

What do you mean you don't understand my point bgood?? You already claimed to know the answer to my first question...

I asked: "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?"

Your reply was: "It happens all the time. Let me know if you want to discuss chromosomal duplication, breakage and realignment."

I then asked you: "Yes, could you? Could you also explain the origin of karyotypes devoid of a mating partner with matching homologous novel chromosomes?"

So what is your answer? Why are you sidestepping the issue? Also I would appreciate your honesty about your scientific background. Are you a geneticist? So far it doesn't appear that way.

You're original question was about chromosomal duplication, there was no mention of the origins for the arrangement of genetic material in eukaryotic organisms.

Your followup question appeared to be an origins question, not a question of how new karyotypes can come into existence.

I don't have an explanation for why Eukaryotic lifeforms have chromosomes arranged the way they are, that is imaterial to the conversation. Chromosomal duplication does not require an explanation for origins. Only an explanation for how new chromosomal counts can come into existence. I am not sidestepping issues, you are introducing tangential questions and not focusing on the original issue, which is that the existence of karyotypes precludes the posibility of evolution.

Before we can begin to discuss things, we need to clarify the points. At this point we seem to be confusing several different issues together.

For example, chromosomal duplication is only the first step in one way of developing novel genes.

Also origin of chromosomes is not the issue here, the author stated that karyotypes preclude the formation of new karyotypes, I can only assume that he means that the numbers of chromosomes cannot change, due to incopmpatibilities which he outlined in the email. This assumes that chromosome arrangement is already in place and the mechanism of reproduction supposedly does not allow for modification to chromosome count and modification.

Additionally I am not certain of your understanding of karyotypes and of your understanding of how this might interfere with the process of evolution.

In other words is it your understanding that evolution requires the formation of new chromosomal counts? this is not the case.

Or do you understand it as I have that related organisms have different chromosomal counts. And a basic understanding of mitosis would have one conclude that chromosomal counts of offspring must be identical to those of the parents. If this is the case then why the tangential questions?

Explain to us how eukaryotic lifeforms possess chromosomes then via simple cell division.

They simply do, the issue here again is not the origins of chromosomes but whether or not the processes of mitosis precludes the modification of karyotypes.[/quote]

Also please explain how eukaryotic lifeforms came into existence first.

This is an entirely separate issue, you can get some information for this here (next to the last post), and we can continue in another thread if you wish.

You have to get one first before you can reproduce it first... Right? Is that good science?

For this particular discussion the existence of progenitor species is a given. The origin of such an organism is not within the scope of this subset of the theory.

Also, what are defending bgood? Do you believe God and evolution can work together? Answer my questions first then I'll answer yours...

Thank you..

I am not defending anything, I am only trying to point out the flaws presented in the email you posted.
=)

But before I can even begin to point out these flaws I need to understand what it is you took from this article or what it is the article is trying to say. If I just started pointing out examples to show where his surmising has taken a wrong turn it would lack the contexts, with which others reading, will need to understand.

To put it simply chromosomes existing is a given, the question is does the mechanisms by which organisms reproduce preclude the formation of new karyotypes?

In plainer english, once you have chromosomes can we get new chromosome counts in the organisms children?

[Gman]

I don't have an explanation for why Eukaryotic lifeforms have chromosomes arranged the way they are,

Thank you for your honesty, neither do I...

Chromosomal duplication does not require an explanation for origins. Only an explanation for how new chromosomal counts can come into existence. I am not sidestepping issues, you are introducing tangential questions and not focusing on the original issue, which is that the existence of karyotypes precludes the posibility of evolution.

Bgood, I asked you two questions... That is why I said "also". If that is too confusing for you then please don't claim to know the answer... That's all.. Let's start fresh then...

Before we can begin to discuss things, we need to clarify the points. At this point we seem to be confusing several different issues together.

For example, chromosomal duplication is only the first step in one way of developing novel genes.

Ok, no problem... Please continue then.

Also origin of chromosomes is not the issue here, the author stated that karyotypes preclude the formation of new karyotypes, I can only assume that he means that the numbers of chromosomes cannot change, due to incopmpatibilities which he outlined in the email. This assumes that chromosome arrangement is already in place and the mechanism of reproduction supposedly does not allow for modification to chromosome count and modification.

No... At the end of the first paragraph he clearly stated...

"Evolution has no explanation for the origin of karyotypes."

"Exquisitely orchestrated, intricately interlinked and inextricably integrated functions of chromosomes could obviously not have originated by incremental evolution."

"Then ask yourself if you are still able to conclude that life evolved."

He then goes off trying to disprove evolution as being an irrational explanation for the origin of species. As he states in various places: "it offers no explanation at all for the origin of the crucially important environment which is supposed to drive the process."

I really don't think this guy is an evolutionist.. Do you believe he is? I don't think you do either.. He is attacking evolution and thus the origin of species, chromosomes, DNA, etc...

But possibly yes as well to that other question of yours, "assuming that chromosome arrangement is already in place and the mechanism of reproduction supposedly does not allow for modification to chromosome count and modification." I think he is making both points.. And then made others..

Additionally I am not certain of your understanding of karyotypes and of your understanding of how this might interfere with the process of evolution.

In other words is it your understanding that evolution requires the formation of new chromosomal counts? this is not the case.

Or do you understand it as I have that related organisms have different chromosomal counts. And a basic understanding of mitosis would have one conclude that chromosomal counts of offspring must be identical to those of the parents. If this is the case then why the tangential questions?

Maybe it was because I was responding to your tangential question then.. I think he was advocating many things but yes to your last question.. The chromosomal counts of offspring should possibly be identical to those of the parents.. Per Jacksprat...

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).

This is an entirely separate issue, you can get some information for this here (next to the last post), and we can continue in another thread if you wish.

Ok, then we will address it later...

I am not defending anything, I am only trying to point out the flaws presented in the email you posted.
=)

I'm sorry Bgood.. I don't buy that... Obviously you have a belief about something. If not, why are you posting on a Christian forum? EDIT out

But before I can even begin to point out these flaws I need to understand what it is you took from this article or what it is the article is trying to say. If I just started pointing out examples to show where his surmising has taken a wrong turn it would lack the contexts, with which others reading, will need to understand.

To put it simply chromosomes existing is a given, the question is does the mechanisms by which organisms reproduce preclude the formation of new karyotypes?

In plainer english, once you have chromosomes can we get new chromosome counts in the organisms children?

Yes, but you have to get a chromosome first in order to reproduce it...

My take from the article is that evolution without God is bunk.. EDIT out

Take care...

[jacksprat]

Thankyou very much for this opportunity to clarify some points.
Firstly,polyploidy is not of any use in providing novel karyotypes because it simply would not make the necessary karyotypes from an arithmetic point of view,and the breeding partner would have to match-clearly impossible.Novel chromosomes would,in order to be sexually reproducible,
have to appear in matching homologous pairs in each of a breeding couple-clearly impossible.
Evolution was dreamed up before Gregor Mendel even published his findings on the priciples of inheritance-7years at least.
So it is no surprise to find that evolution is totally incompatible with science.What is very surprising is that evolutionism has been so slow to realise that karyotypes totally refute evolutionary phylogenies,and that meiosis totally obstructs the generation of novel and inheritable karyotypes(polyploidy doesn't help at all)

[Gman]

Greetings Jacksprat... Welcome to the forum!

We had some confusion here earlier about your message. Is it specifically addressing the origin of chromosomes or that karyotypes preclude the formation of new karyotypes? I believe you are addressing both factors and more..

Thank you..

[jacksprat]

Thanks.
Specifically addressing the fact that meiosis precludes sexual reproduction of novel karyotypes and therefore precludes the possibility of evolutionary origin of karyotypes.
Chromosomes are obviously too enormous and too complex to have arisen by means of evolution,it's just that much easier to demonstrate that meiosis precludes the possibility of the generation of novel karyotypes which are sexually reproducible.
The complex integration of functions of chromosomes requires inheritance of complete and original karyotypes-makes evolution impossible.
Chromosome numbers of karyotypes demonstrate so obviously that they did not arise by evolution since they totally contradict evolutionary phylogenies.These facts are simple,but are mysteriously ignored or misunderstood.Thank you again and please tell me about anything else which is not clear

[David Blacklock]

>>please tell me about anything else which is not clear<<

I'm afraid none of this is clear. It is word salad. Let me just give one example - and correct me if I'm wrong. The word karyotype means a photograph of the chromosomes during a specific phase of mitosis (or meiosis) when they show up most clearly. The karyotype is simply a photo of the chromosomes while they're wearing their Sunday best and posing for the camera.

BTW, us humans have 46 chromosomes. Chimps have 48. Chimps and man have extremely similar karyotypes - comparing those 39 chromosomes that didn't have a chromosomal mutational event, you can't tell the difference when looking at the karyotype. We vary from them by 6 inversions and a couple of broken chromosomes. Human genetic material is 98.4 % the same as the genetic material of chimps and gorillas. Chimps and gorillas likewise differ from each other by close to the same number.

Chromosomal mutations can have powerful effects - AND they appear in only one generation. As mentioned by you, a new individual with a chromosomal translocation or inversion is unlikely to find a like partner - unless the social system involves a single dominant male with a harem full of females. Lots of offspring would result and many of them would find each other. The chromosomal mutant could quickly become fixed.

[jacksprat]

There are at least two species of Muntjac/Muntiacus(a little deer)-one has 8or9chromosomes(male/female)(muntiacus criniformis;2n=8in females2n=9in males;)(the other-muntiacus reevesi- has46 chromosomes)I wonder if they would have been assigned the same genus name if their chromosome numbers had been known.A fruit fly has 8chromosomes,a housefly has 12.A king crab has 208 chromosomes.A potato has 48 chromosomes.Chromosome numbers of species tell me that evolution is garbage.Meiosis obstructs sexual reproduction of novel karyotypes unless their novel chromosomes appear in matching homologous pairs in each of a breeding couple.I do not have to be a rocket scientist to see that this is impossible.
Chromosome numbers of species are completely and utterly contradictory to evolutionary phylogenies.The similarity between chimp and human chromosome numbers is not surprising but it is contradicted by more examples of great disparity of chromosome numbers of very similar species.So the similarity in chromosome numbers of humans and chimps is cold comfort to evolutionism.The gorilla has 48 chromosomes-as many as a potato.And a sweet potato has 90.Rhesus monkey also has 48as does tobacco.Earthworm has 36 chromosomes,silkworm has54.Dogs and doves both have 78 chromosomes.
Integrated functions of chromosomes absolutely require that complete and original karyotypes be inherited.Failure of such inheritance results in the gross abnormalities associated with aberrant chromosomes numbers in humans and doubtless in other species too.
Evolutionists are wasting an uncredible amount of tims and mental energy trying to reconcile the nonsensical theory of evolution with facts(whish is an impossible task)
Did you know that evolution was propagated almost a decade before the discovery of Mendelian inheritance-i.e.evolution was conceived in utter ignorance,and it still requires ignorance of facts in order to survive?.

[Canuckster1127]

There are at least two species of Muntjac/Muntiacus(a little deer)-one has 8or9chromosomes(male/female)(muntiacus criniformis;2n=8in females2n=9in males;)(the other-muntiacus reevesi- has46 chromosomes)I wonder if they would have been assigned the same genus name if their chromosome numbers had been known.A fruit fly has 8chromosomes,a housefly has 12.A king crab has 208 chromosomes.A potato has 48 chromosomes.Chromosome numbers of species tell me that evolution is garbage.Meiosis obstructs sexual reproduction of novel karyotypes unless their novel chromosomes appear in matching homologous pairs in each of a breeding couple.I do not have to be a rocket scientist to see that this is impossible.
Chromosome numbers of species are completely and utterly contradictory to evolutionary phylogenies.The similarity between chimp and human chromosome numbers is not surprising but it is contradicted by more examples of great disparity of chromosome numbers of very similar species.So the similarity in chromosome numbers of humans and chimps is cold comfort to evolutionism.The gorilla has 48 chromosomes-as many as a potato.And a sweet potato has 90.Rhesus monkey also has 48as does tobacco.Earthworm has 36 chromosomes,silkworm has54.Dogs and doves both have 78 chromosomes.
Integrated functions of chromosomes absolutely require that complete and original karyotypes be inherited.Failure of such inheritance results in the gross abnormalities associated with aberrant chromosomes numbers in humans and doubtless in other species too.
Evolutionists are wasting an uncredible amount of tims and mental energy trying to reconcile the nonsensical theory of evolution with facts(whish is an impossible task)
Did you know that evolution was propagated almost a decade before the discovery of Mendelian inheritance-i.e.evolution was conceived in utter ignorance,and it still requires ignorance of facts in order to survive?.

jacksprat,


First, welcome to the forum.

A few things that I think might help to make a conversation here more fruitful, if you'll allow me.

First, would you be so kind as to give us a brief introduction telling us about yourself? Your profile indicates you are from Africa and that you have some background in medicine.

So you know, this is a Christian apologetic board and many of us here are Christians, though not all. Our primary thrust in terms of origins is Old Earth Creation though we have some here who are evolutionists, theistic evolutionists and young earth creationists.

I believe most of us here believe that there is a scientific evolution that has been shown to exist scientifically at least within species themselves. There is less agreement as this is expanded and used at a higher level, and it is clear to me that you do not agree with this, which is fine.

I think it would help for any conversation here to move forward if you would introduce yourself, and give us some idea of your background and beliefs.

If you have any questions of us, please post them as well.

Welcome again,

Bart

[jacksprat]

These are the problems of the dominant male and his harem:-
Firstly,evolution would have required progression in chromosome numbers otherwise it must admit failure.Let us concentrate on this vital problem of required progression in chromosome number.I mention this lest we become distracted by the separate issue of change/mutation in EXISTING chromosomes.Splitting of existng chromosomes would not increase chromosome number because whatever part of whatever chromosome is detached from the centromere will be lost to posterity.
Therefore evolution would have required production of novel gametes with novel chromosome=centromere numbers at the very least,in order to produce novel zygotes/organisms.But such novel organisms would have had to be fertile otherwise they would contribute nothing more to posterity than to buckle the spade of a paleontologist.
In order for any karyotype to be fertile (lets forget asexual reproduction for a brief moment)all its chromosomes must have matching homologous partners.
Therefore,any novel and fertile karyotype with a novel number of chromosomes would have had to inherit one of each novel and homologous pairs of chromosomes from each parent-so each parent would have had to produce a novel gamete with a novel chromosome to match each novel chromosome in the gamete from the other parent .
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that this is impossible.
So the dominant male and his harem would have produced an infertile brood.Because the dominant male's novelly bequeathed chromosomes would not have found matching homologous partners in his harem to pass on to his brood.So his brood would all have karyotypes containing unmatched chromosomes,and would all be infertile.
I explained this problem at length in the original document posted by GN,
and I would be happy to send it to you if I knew how.

[jacksprat]

Thankyou Bart,
I am a medical practitioner.I was privileged to have believing Christian parents whose faith in God's Word obviously required us to reconcile science and God's Word.I originally considered evolution irreconcilable with God's Word,which was very fortunate,because that impelled me to investigate the controversy.Now I know that evolution is entirely irreconcilable with science as well.I summarised my findings in the original document which was quoted in this forum.It would save an enormous amount of time if I could post or attach it in some way to make the entire document accessible to you.The problem with critics is that they often want to nit-pick at something which is explained elsehwere in a diocument.
Keep well