Hi Jacksprat I have a few questions for you if you don't mind.
jacksprat wrote: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.
Can you explain how this is impossible? And by impossible I am assuming that you mean it can never happen.
jacksprat wrote: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.
Can you go into detail why this is a problem?
jacksprat wrote: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.
Why are you comparing a potato's chromosome count to that of a gorilla other than the number of chromosomes are there any other similarities? For example Ted and Jack are both tall, about 188cm they are related and their father is tall as well. The stop sign is 188cm too, so what?
jacksprat wrote:Integrated functions of chromosomes absolutely require that complete and original karyotypes be inherited.
Care to go into more detail?
jacksprat wrote:Failure of such inheritance results in the gross abnormalities associated with aberrant chromosomes numbers in humans and doubtless in other species too.
Every time? Are you sure that there is no posibility that it will not result in a defect?
In grasshoppers the male is a result of having only one sex chromosome. I guess all the males are defects?
And platypus' they have 5 duplicate pairs of chromosomes which determine their sex. Are you still doubtless?
jacksprat wrote: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).
So the similarities of genetic code should be ignored simply because most cases chromosomal defects lead to lethal genetic disorders or in the very least sterility?
jacksprat wrote: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?.
That's a fine statement, but you are only making statements.
For instance would it be possible to have a chromosomal defect which will in some cases cause a chromosome to break off? What if this became prevalent in a population?
Or what if the chromosome had a tendancy to fuse with another in some cases, what if this became prevalent in a small population? The individual would still have the same set of genes but some would have an unpaired chromosome, perfectly healthy perhaps?
Or is it not possible for some chromosomal defects to result in fertile individuals. Imagine the barrier it would pose once an individual with aneuploidy mated with another individual with the same defect. You would have an instantly separate species once the individuals with aneuploidy faded away.
Can you tell me with 100% assurance that this cannot occur?
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson