Evolution disproved

[Canuckster1127]

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

Jacksprat,

Please feel free to send me the document at binary7383@mypacks.net and I'll upload it to the board for myself and others.

Thanks,

Bart

[jacksprat]

I use the word "karyotype"to mean "the chromosomal constitution of the nucleus of a cell"(of a species)";by extension the photomicrograph of chromosomes arranged according to the Denver classification"
Because I found it easier to type "Karyotype" than to type "the characteristic chromosome number and constitution of a species which is preserved by meiosis and which provides a means whereby a species may be identified or distinguished from other similar organisms"

[Gman]

Yes to my understanding as well is that humans have 46 chromosomes, chimps have 48 chromosomes, chickens have 78 chromosomes, carps have 100 chromosomes, and ferns have 480 chromosomes.

Could this mean that possibly one day in the future we could all evolve into ancient ferns?

[David Blacklock]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I have read most of your originally posted thoughts. I saw what I believe to be frequent errors. Unfortunately, I'm not a professional in nolecular genetics, and I think that's what it would take to correctly answer your very specific presentation.

Perhaps you could answer this one. How is it that a Down's syndrome (trisomy 21) can reproduce, with a Down's partner or with a person with a normal complement of chromosomes. They are less fertile than normal, but they are usually fertile.

I might also suggest that approaching evolution with the preconceived bias that it can't be true is perfectly appropriate personally, but a scientific evaluation by such a person would be suspect.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Hi Jacksprat I have a few questions for you if you don't mind.

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.

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?

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?

Integrated functions of chromosomes absolutely require that complete and original karyotypes be inherited.

Care to go into more detail?

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?

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?

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?

[jacksprat]

If we had evolved karyotypes would have reflected our "evolutionary genealogy"but they do not.
Instead karyotypes reveal that there is an enormous gap between evolutionary conjecture and fact.
Someone asked if we were evolving into ferns? because of their large number of chromosomes(?).Why would evolution of karyotypes only go in one direction?.If karyotypes had evolved chromosome numbers would have had to decrease as well as increase.But it is so easy to see that evolution is nonsensical.The evidence of karyotypes and the requirements of meiosis prove beyond any doubt that we did not originate by evolution.The theory of evolution has nothing to commend it.The only reason why evolution is being propagated is because of a hidden agenda somewhere and the fact that some people are so prejudiced against the possibility of GOD that they will believe any dumb alternative.
The next point-i.e.the similarities between genes of some species(similarities which exist within the context of very DISSIMILAR karyotypes)proves the work of a common designer.If these genes had been preserved through evolution why not the karyotypes?how would evolution conserve genes and not karyotypes.It does not make sense-especially since karyotypes are the vehicles whereby the genes are inherited. Someone was going to post my original document somewhere-that would save an enormous amount of typing.

[jacksprat]

Preservation of karyotypes=by this I mean preservation of chromosomal constitution of the species.Down's are not all infertile,but they reproduce with normal karyotype mating partners as well as with other Trisomy 21's.
We do not have a different "Down's"karyotype which always reproduces itself.
In most cases aneuploidy leads to sterility because of the failure of the unmatched chromosome to synapse-this is such a smart design because it prevents evolution so successfully.
Evolution is unique in that it is the only theory which is still not compatible with the facts after more than a century of modification.is this the STRONG DELUSION mentioned in 2Thessalonians2:11?.Any other theory which was as unsatisfactory as evolutionism would have been out the window by now.

[jacksprat]

evolution has mutated-it is no longer a science,it is now a religion-a very dumb religion

[BGoodForGoodSake]

If we had evolved karyotypes would have reflected our "evolutionary genealogy"but they do not.

On what basis?

Instead karyotypes reveal that there is an enormous gap between evolutionary conjecture and fact.

This is just a statement, please go into more detail.

Someone asked if we were evolving into ferns? because of their large number of chromosomes(?).Why would evolution of karyotypes only go in one direction?.If karyotypes had evolved chromosome numbers would have had to decrease as well as increase.

No disagreement here.

But it is so easy to see that evolution is nonsensical.The evidence of karyotypes and the requirements of meiosis prove beyond any doubt that we did not originate by evolution.

More statements.
lol
Please explain the reasoning behind these statements. Please.

The theory of evolution has nothing to commend it.The only reason why evolution is being propagated is because of a hidden agenda somewhere and the fact that some people are so prejudiced against the possibility of GOD that they will believe any dumb alternative.

Sound like propoganda to me.

The next point-i.e.the similarities between genes of some species(similarities which exist within the context of very DISSIMILAR karyotypes)proves the work of a common designer.

Perhaps, but it has been shown that genes can break off and attach to other chromosomes. What of this fact?

If these genes had been preserved through evolution why not the karyotypes?

Certain genes are essential, imagine a one story building, over time we add two more floors, the first floor is now essential for the building to remain standing. However we can change the package the directions for building this particular design come in from lets say single sided printouts to large drafting pages. The building can still be built even if the packaging for the directions have changed. Changing karyotypes is analagous to changing the format of the blueprints.

But lets say we remove a gene. No matter what the packaging is if we remove reference to an essential ingredient in the concrete, the whole building will fail.

how would evolution conserve genes and not karyotypes.It does not make sense-especially since karyotypes are the vehicles whereby the genes are inherited.

You may want to stew on it a bit more then...

Someone was going to post my original document somewhere-that would save an enormous amount of typing.

Sorry I don't want a rehash, I want clear consise answers to these questions. Simply stating that something has flaws, doesn't cut it. You need to provide reasoning. And if your head is on straight you should be able to provide such reasoning without resorting to "It's contained in my long-winded email which contains very little facts but if you read it enough times you'll think you saw it...".
heheh
Just giving you a hard time.
=D

[jacksprat]

Thankyou for your continued interest.
If life had evolved from a fancifully produced solution of organic chemicals ,evolution suggests that the first life form was very simple.Of course it would have to be otherwise any sensible person would immediately dismiss evolution.The theory of evolution then embarks upon a log-winded explanation of how phenotypes evolved while saying very little if anything about the evolution of karyotypes.Simply stated-if karyotypes did not evolve from prokaryotes and if karyotypes did not originate by means of increase in chromosome numbers from nil to 308 in the case of the black mulberry then life did not originate by means of evolution.These numbers are attached to the original document posted to Gman.
Because my faith led me to question evolution,I searched for karyotypes to disprove evolution or to confirm it.It was not easy to find chromosome numbers of other species,because evolution will repeat the similarity of
human and chimp chromosomes one trillion times over before telling you that muntiacus reevesi has 46 chromosomes while muntiacus criniformis has 9chromosomes(female0and 8 chromosomes(male).
Because evolutionism cannot afford to let you know that chromosome numbers of karyotypes display no resemblance whatsoever to the affinities suggested by evolution.Karyotypes are the engines of inheritance.If life had evolved,they would have reflected the routes of evolution.But they do NOT.
Meiosis/gametogenesis/sexual reproduction absolutely requires synapsis of all chromosomes(in the relevant cell )in homologous pairs.If this does not happen then sexual reproduction does not happen.This absolute requirement does not permit evolution of karyotype.Because the production of gametes with abberrant chromosome numbers produces zygotes with aneuploidy and therefore sterility.The only exception to this rule that i am aware of are the rare cases of human chromosomal aberrations which have NOT produced different subspecies of Homo sapiens.
If genes break off and attach to other chromosomes they would produce a degree of variation between the two chromosomes of a homologous pair.If this variation were significant enough(deletions, inversions, insertions,reciprocal translocations)to lead to difficulties in synapsis,they would not be sexually reproduced.I find it remarkable that the human genome has been mapped-which proves that gene positions have been preserved with an incredible degree of accuracy,which proves that they did not arise by evolution.
If an evolutionist were brave enough to divulge to you thatour human chromosomes range in size from 45MILLION to 245MILLION base pairs EACH,you would sense intuitively that such chromosomes did not not arise by evolution.
Changing karyotypes differs from building blueprints in the following respect.Karyotypes(of sexually reproducing organisms)CAN ONLY SURVIVE IF THEY ARE SEXUALLY REPRODUCED,AND THEY CAN ONLY BE SEXUALLY REPRODUCED if they synapse with homologous partners.Which means that in order for any karyotype change to be sexually reproduced it would have to mate with a matching karyotype.So evolution has to produce matching karyotype changes in breeding couples for each and every karyotype change(308 in the case of the black mulberry).
I sense intuitively that this is impossible.Now if anything I have said sounds like propaganda I think it is more useful propaganda than all the evolutionary propaganda we are exposed to.

[jacksprat]

Thankyou for your response.
You obviously have some info on karyotypes/chromosome numbers which I do not have.But I doubt whether you have karyotypes which confirm evolutionary phylogenies.
But the fact that you have found something which appears to contradict the general rule that meiosis preserves karyotypes and chromosome numbers does not prove evolution.How many billions of people alive today?All of them who have normal karyotypes(2n=46)prove that meiosis preserves karyotypes.All of those who have abnormal chromosome numbers and who have produced children with the same abnormality as themselves prove that novel inherirtable karyotypes can be produced.All of those with novel inheritable karyotypes who do not produce any offspring with normal karyotypes will represent a new subspecies.And if they cannot produce offspring when they mate with normal karyotypes they will represent a new species.Do you know of any?
If such a phenomenon were to be repeated 308 times over(Black mulberry)then one might consider that evolution might be plausible.And one should remember that identical mates(or their equivalent in plants)would be required every time,otherwise offspring would be infertile,because of aneuploidy.Don't get excited about exceptions-remeber the muntjac(Muntiacus criniformis2n=8in males 2n=9in females)which is classed in the same genus as muntiacus reevesi2n=46).
When i look at my list of chromosome numbers of species I want to burst out laughing everytime I remember that they are thought to have originated by evolution.