BGoodForGoodSake wrote: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...
BGoodForGoodSake wrote: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...
BGoodForGoodSake wrote: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.
BGoodForGoodSake wrote: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..
BGoodForGoodSake wrote: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...
Jacksprat wrote: 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).
BGoodForGoodSake wrote: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...
BGoodForGoodSake wrote: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
BGoodForGoodSake wrote: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...