Should at Least Make Evolutionists Consider

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Why, and how, does the muntjac deer have only seven pairs of chromosomes?

Please don't look this up, at least until you've considered for a moment how weird this is. Imagine you have 20 pairs of chromosomes, and you have a baby that has sixteen pairs. He shouldn't be able to breed with the rest of your species.

Is this at least weird? A regular deer has around 40-70 chromosomes. Is it at least strange that he can even be alive having lost that much genetic information? One more halving and he'll be a fruit fly (they have 4 pairs).

[Difflugia]

"...in bed!"

AI Overview

Some gorilla-chimp similarities pose challenges to standard evolutionary models. For instance, at a significant number of genetic markers, humans and gorillas exhibit closer genetic relationships than humans and chimps. This contradicts the prediction that humans and chimps share a more recent common ancestor. Additionally, the Y chromosome of each great ape species has unique DNA sequences, further complicating the evolutionary narrative.

Two things:

First, this has absolutely nothing to do with the statement of mine that you quoted, so it's already a non sequitur, even in the broader, rhetorical sense.

Second, all this means is that humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas are all so closely related that the exact pattern of divergence is difficult to resolve. If it were the problem for evolution that you think it is, then we should have the same problem between any set of species. If the evolutionary pattern is as meaningless as you're trying to imply, then we shouldn't be able to resolve any genetic relationships, because such patterns shouldn't exist.

Your implied argument is basically that since humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas are so closely related that the exact evolutionary pattern is difficult to resolve, then evolution itself is somehow called into question. Instead, if evolution weren't responsible for both the similarities and differences between our species, "too closely related" wouldn't even be a thing.

[marke]

"...in bed!"

AI Overview

Some gorilla-chimp similarities pose challenges to standard evolutionary models. For instance, at a significant number of genetic markers, humans and gorillas exhibit closer genetic relationships than humans and chimps. This contradicts the prediction that humans and chimps share a more recent common ancestor. Additionally, the Y chromosome of each great ape species has unique DNA sequences, further complicating the evolutionary narrative.

Two things:

First, this has absolutely nothing to do with the statement of mine that you quoted, so it's already a non sequitur, even in the broader, rhetorical sense.

Second, all this means is that humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas are all so closely related that the exact pattern of divergence is difficult to resolve. If it were the problem for evolution that you think it is, then we should have the same problem between any set of species. If the evolutionary pattern is as meaningless as you're trying to imply, then we shouldn't be able to resolve any genetic relationships, because such patterns shouldn't exist.

Your implied argument is basically that since humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas are so closely related that the exact evolutionary pattern is difficult to resolve, then evolution itself is somehow called into question. Instead, if evolution weren't responsible for both the similarities and differences between our species, "too closely related" wouldn't even be a thing.

Marke: I meant by my post to point out that assumptions about evolutionary connections between humans and various animals based on chromosome counts do not adequately refute other evidence that contradicts those types of evolutionist assumptions.

[Difflugia]

I meant by my post to point out that assumptions about evolutionary connections between humans and various animals based on chromosome counts

What assumptions do you think scientists make about chromosome counts?

do not adequately refute other evidence that contradicts those types of evolutionist assumptions.

What evidence? Assuming this isn't another non sequitur, what do you think the time of divergence between humans, gorillas, and chimpanzees has to do with the improbability of hybridization? That's what we were discussing, after all.

[marke]

I meant by my post to point out that assumptions about evolutionary connections between humans and various animals based on chromosome counts

What assumptions do you think scientists make about chromosome counts?

Marke: I have reason to think that evolutionists believe DNA and chromosome count similarities must be interpreted as evidence of evolution of life forms through the ignorant accidental process of random natural selection.

do not adequately refute other evidence that contradicts those types of evolutionist assumptions.

What evidence? Assuming this isn't another non sequitur, what do you think the time of divergence between humans, gorillas, and chimpanzees has to do with the improbability of hybridization? That's what we were discussing, after all.

Marke: I have never seen any evidence that time provides the necessary missing link for believing that humans and mice evolved from the same ancestoral species.

[Difflugia]

What assumptions do you think scientists make about chromosome counts?

I have reason to think that evolutionists believe DNA and chromosome count similarities must be interpreted as evidence of evolution of life forms through the ignorant accidental process of random natural selection.

What reason is that?

What evidence? Assuming this isn't another non sequitur, what do you think the time of divergence between humans, gorillas, and chimpanzees has to do with the improbability of hybridization? That's what we were discussing, after all.

I have never seen any evidence that time provides the necessary missing link for believing that humans and mice evolved from the same ancestoral species.

Whether that's true or not, that's neither what I asked nor what we're discussing. You asserted that there is "other evidence that contradicts those types of evolutionist assumptions," by which you presumably meant something to do with humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas. Maybe not, though; you're kind of all over the place.

In case you need it spelled out for you, you keep making claims, but offer no support or justification for them. Without evidence, your statements carry as much weight as, "You will have a personal success tomorrow," or "Lucky Numbers 19 24 7 44 3 17."

In bed!

[marke]

What assumptions do you think scientists make about chromosome counts?

I have reason to think that evolutionists believe DNA and chromosome count similarities must be interpreted as evidence of evolution of life forms through the ignorant accidental process of random natural selection.

What reason is that?

Marke: Do I believe evolutionists assume similar DNA between species prove common ancestry? Yes.
AI Overview
Learn more
Yes, evolutionary biologists and scientists generally view shared DNA similarities as strong evidence for common ancestry. The more DNA similarities two species share, the closer they are believed to be related on the evolutionary timescale. This shared DNA reflects the inheritance of genetic information from a common ancestor, and is a key piece of evidence supporting the theory of evolution.

I don't think the common ancestor assumptions are right for many reasons, including the close similarity between human and mice DNA.

What evidence? Assuming this isn't another non sequitur, what do you think the time of divergence between humans, gorillas, and chimpanzees has to do with the improbability of hybridization? That's what we were discussing, after all.

Marke: I don't understand why you think my concern about gorillas is not pertinent but I still think there are kinks in certain evolutionary assumptions or theories.
AI Overview
Learn more
Gorillas present a challenge to the assumptions about chimpanzee and human common ancestry because genomic studies reveal that humans are sometimes more closely related to gorillas than to chimpanzees in certain genetic regions. This "gorilla-human closeness" is difficult to reconcile with the conventional view of chimpanzees as being the closest living relatives to humans.


I have never seen any evidence that time provides the necessary missing link for believing that humans and mice evolved from the same ancestoral species.

Whether that's true or not, that's neither what I asked nor what we're discussing. You asserted that there is "other evidence that contradicts those types of evolutionist assumptions," by which you presumably meant something to do with humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas. Maybe not, though; you're kind of all over the place.

In case you need it spelled out for you, you keep making claims, but offer no support or justification for them. Without evidence, your statements carry as much weight as, "You will have a personal success tomorrow," or "Lucky Numbers 19 24 7 44 3 17."

In bed!

[Difflugia]

Do I believe evolutionists assume similar DNA between species prove common ancestry? Yes.

Leaving aside the implications of "assume," that's true. That's not what you said, though; you were talking specifically about chromosome number. Are you abandoning that claim and moving on to "similar DNA" rather than "chromosome number?"

I don't think the common ancestor assumptions are right for many reasons,

What reasons?

including the close similarity between human and mice DNA.

We're both mammals, so why do you think they wouldn't be similar? If you're asserting that they're too similar in a way that affects evolutionary theory, how would you quantify that?

I don't understand why you think my concern about gorillas is not pertinent

I don't understand why you think it is. Gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans are all closely related and share common ancestors. Phylogenetic studies have determined that we share a more recent ancestor with chimpanzees than we do with gorillas, but because of the way things like genetic drift work in populations, there are a number of sequences that we share more closely with gorillas than we do with chimpanzees. This isn't a problem with any part of evolutionary theory and is expected with species that are very closely related. What do you think the actual problem is?

but I still think there are kinks in certain evolutionary assumptions or theories.

So you keep saying, but haven't actually supported.

I have never seen any evidence that time provides the necessary missing link for believing that humans and mice evolved from the same ancestoral species.

I bet there are a lot of things you haven't seen. You not knowing something isn't evidence of anything else, though.

[Difflugia]

[marke]

Do I believe evolutionists assume similar DNA between species prove common ancestry? Yes.

Leaving aside the implications of "assume," that's true. That's not what you said, though; you were talking specifically about chromosome number. Are you abandoning that claim and moving on to "similar DNA" rather than "chromosome number?"

Marke: I believe evolutionists misunderstand and misapply data on DNA and chromosome numbers to erroneously support unproven evolutionist assumptions.

AI Overview
Learn more
While chromosome numbers can provide evidence supporting evolutionary theory, they cannot be used to prove evolutionary assumptions in a definitive, mathematical sense. They offer insights into evolutionary relationships and processes, but are not a standalone proof of evolution.

[marke]

Do I believe evolutionists assume similar DNA between species prove common ancestry? Yes.

I don't think the common ancestor assumptions are right for many reasons,

What reasons?

Marke: Just because humans and bananas have similar DNA does not mean both share a common ancestor. That evolutionist assumption is both illogical and unsound.

AI Overview
Learn more
Yes, the DNA similarity between humans and bananas, including the fact that they share some genes, indicates that they share a common ancestor. This common ancestor is a single-celled organism that lived billions of years ago, known as the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA). While the exact percentage of shared DNA varies depending on the method used, it's significant, demonstrating that all life on Earth evolved from a common origin.