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).

[marke]

Devout evolutionists explain the mismatched genetic structure between apes and humans with a single speculation.

Not speculation.

However, evolutionists have no explanations for the vast assortment of evolutionary changes they assume occurred according to Darwin's tree of life speculation.

This is word salad.

For example, how can humans and plants have a sigle common ancestor?

Claiming this is an example of anything is just a non sequitur. Do you have a specific question?

Do you subscribe to the belief that many evolutionists that plants and animals all descended from the same original common ancestor?
AI Overview
Learn more
Yes, according to the theory of evolution, both plants and animals are descended from the same common ancestor, which scientists refer to as the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA).

[The Barbarian]

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).

The number of chromosomes and amount of genetic information aren't the same thing. Depending on exact details, people with two chromosomes fused or split can successfully have kids as long as the chromosomes can match up and undergo crossover. It's weird and definitely uncommon, but not unheard of.

Human chromosome 2 is actually the result of the fusion of two chromosomes that are still separate in other great apes, apparently fixed in humans through genetic drift rather than fitness. Chimpanzees have 24 pairs of chromosomes and humans have 23 pairs. At some point during humanity's history, there were proto-humans with 46, 47, and 48 chromosomes in the same population. Since meiosis is already error-prone, anything that makes it more so is deleterious and the population will ultimately fix on 23 or 24 pairs, but as long as the unfused chromosomes can pair up with the fused ones, reproduction is still efficient enough prior to fixation. We fixed on 23, chimpanzees fixed on 24. We therefore have fewer chromosomes than chimpanzees, but not fewer genes across those chromosomes.

Devout evolutionists explain the mismatched genetic structure between apes and humans with a single speculation.

There's a great deal of evidence. For example, the structure of the chromosomes is very, very similar. It's just that the evidence shows that two chromosomes fused in human ancestors. And yes, the fact that one human chromosome matches up nicely with two chromosomes from other apes is compelling evidence, as is the presence of telomere remnants right at the spot where they would be in the case of a fusion.

However, evolutionists have no explanations for the vast assortment of evolutionary changes they assume occurred according to Darwin's tree of life speculation.

Actually, that was from Linnaeus, who preceded Darwin, and did not know about evolution. However, when the function of DNA became known, genetics showed the same "tree of life" as that produced by Linnaeus, using entirely different evidence.

For example, how can humans and plants have a sigle common ancestor?

For one thing, basic biochemistry and genes in animals and plants shows that they have many genes in common. If there was no common ancestor, this would be so improbable as to be effectively impossible. Would you like to learn about some of it?

[marke]

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).

The number of chromosomes and amount of genetic information aren't the same thing. Depending on exact details, people with two chromosomes fused or split can successfully have kids as long as the chromosomes can match up and undergo crossover. It's weird and definitely uncommon, but not unheard of.

Human chromosome 2 is actually the result of the fusion of two chromosomes that are still separate in other great apes, apparently fixed in humans through genetic drift rather than fitness. Chimpanzees have 24 pairs of chromosomes and humans have 23 pairs. At some point during humanity's history, there were proto-humans with 46, 47, and 48 chromosomes in the same population. Since meiosis is already error-prone, anything that makes it more so is deleterious and the population will ultimately fix on 23 or 24 pairs, but as long as the unfused chromosomes can pair up with the fused ones, reproduction is still efficient enough prior to fixation. We fixed on 23, chimpanzees fixed on 24. We therefore have fewer chromosomes than chimpanzees, but not fewer genes across those chromosomes.

Devout evolutionists explain the mismatched genetic structure between apes and humans with a single speculation.

There's a great deal of evidence. For example, the structure of the chromosomes is very, very similar. It's just that the evidence shows that two chromosomes fused in human ancestors. And yes, the fact that one human chromosome matches up nicely with two chromosomes from other apes is compelling evidence, as is the presence of telomere remnants right at the spot where they would be in the case of a fusion.

However, evolutionists have no explanations for the vast assortment of evolutionary changes they assume occurred according to Darwin's tree of life speculation.

Actually, that was from Linnaeus, who preceded Darwin, and did not know about evolution. However, when the function of DNA became known, genetics showed the same "tree of life" as that produced by Linnaeus, using entirely different evidence.

For example, how can humans and plants have a sigle common ancestor?

For one thing, basic biochemistry and genes in animals and plants shows that they have many genes in common. If there was no common ancestor, this would be so improbable as to be effectively impossible. Would you like to learn about some of it?

Evolutionists focus on the possibility that humans and apes share a common ancestor since their chromosome numbers are so close. This is only speculation, however, as scientists admit when offering varying explanations for how that might have happened. With that said, evolutionists show a total lack of interest or an unusual degree of ignorance in trying to explain how thousands of other creatures supposedly evolved from one species to another even though the numbers of chromosomes in the different species are not close at all.

AI Overview
Learn more
An animal can evolve into a different animal with a different number of chromosomes through a process called chromosomal rearrangement, where chromosomes can fuse together, split apart, or undergo other structural changes during cell division, often occurring due to random mutations, leading to a change in chromosome number within a population over generations, which can eventually contribute to the formation of a new species if it creates a reproductive barrier with the original population.
Key points about this process:
Mechanisms:
The most common way chromosome number can change is through "fusion" where two chromosomes join together to form one larger chromosome, or "fission" where one chromosome splits into two smaller ones.
Impact on reproduction:
If a population with a new chromosome number arises, it may not be able to reproduce successfully with the original population due to issues during meiosis (cell division that produces gametes), leading to reproductive isolation and speciation.
Evolutionary advantage:
Sometimes, changes in chromosome number can provide an evolutionary advantage, allowing for new genetic combinations and adaptations to emerge.
Example:
Humans and Chimpanzees: Humans have 46 chromosomes while chimpanzees have 48. This difference is thought to have occurred due to a chromosomal fusion event where two ancestral chromosomes joined together to form human chromosome 2.

[The Barbarian]

Evolutionists focus on the possibility that humans and apes share a common ancestor since their chromosome numbers are so close.

That's only one of many, many other sources of evidence. It's one of the more recent, in fact. As time goes on, we have found more and more evidence, and it all confirms the findings of biologists in Darwin's time. It's not just anatomy, fossil record, and genetics. Want to learn more about it?

Keep in mind, the likelihood that humans and other apes would have gotten chromosomes that line up precisely, right down to the remains of telomeres on what is observed to be a fused pair of chromosomes, is so unlikely as to be effectively impossible.

This is only speculation, however, as scientists admit when offering varying explanations for how that might have happened.

No. Evidence is not speculation, and in fact, no scientist pointing out this evidence has called it "speculation." You have that completely wrong.

With that said, evolutionists show a total lack of interest or an unusual degree of ignorance in trying to explain how thousands of other creatures supposedly evolved from one species to another even though the numbers of chromosomes in the different species are not close at all.

There are even humans who have different numbers of chromosomes. We have observed cases of linkage, breakage and polyploidy. Would you like to learn about some of it?

AI Overview

AI often gets it wrong. Would you like to learn about how it works in the real world?

[marke]

Evolutionists focus on the possibility that humans and apes share a common ancestor since their chromosome numbers are so close.

That's only one of many, many other sources of evidence. It's one of the more recent, in fact. As time goes on, we have found more and more evidence, and it all confirms the findings of biologists in Darwin's time. It's not just anatomy, fossil record, and genetics. Want to learn more about it?

Keep in mind, the likelihood that humans and other apes would have gotten chromosomes that line up precisely, right down to the remains of telomeres on what is observed to be a fused pair of chromosomes, is so unlikely as to be effectively impossible.

This is only speculation, however, as scientists admit when offering varying explanations for how that might have happened.

No. Evidence is not speculation, and in fact, no scientist pointing out this evidence has called it "speculation." You have that completely wrong.

With that said, evolutionists show a total lack of interest or an unusual degree of ignorance in trying to explain how thousands of other creatures supposedly evolved from one species to another even though the numbers of chromosomes in the different species are not close at all.

There are even humans who have different numbers of chromosomes. We have observed cases of linkage, breakage and polyploidy. Would you like to learn about some of it?

AI Overview

AI often gets it wrong. Would you like to learn about how it works in the real world?

DNA similarities can be interpreted to support evolution theories, but DNA similarities do not irrefutably promote or prove evolution.

[The Barbarian]

DNA similarities can be interpreted to support evolution theories, but DNA similarities do not irrefutably promote or prove evolution.

We can test that finding by looking at the DNA of organisms of known descent. And that confirms it.

Further confirmation are remains of retroviruses in DNA (which are the remains of old infections) which line up precisely as would happen in cases of common descent. There certainly would be no reason for God to create species with such remains. But it very clearly marks common descent in organisms with it.

Why not just accept it God's way?

[marke]

DNA similarities can be interpreted to support evolution theories, but DNA similarities do not irrefutably promote or prove evolution.

We can test that finding by looking at the DNA of organisms of known descent. And that confirms it.

Further confirmation are remains of retroviruses in DNA (which are the remains of old infections) which line up precisely as would happen in cases of common descent. There certainly would be no reason for God to create species with such remains. But it very clearly marks common descent in organisms with it.

Why not just accept it God's way?

Assuming common descent to interpret data as showing common descent does not prove common descent.

[The Barbarian]

DNA similarities can be interpreted to support evolution theories, but DNA similarities do not irrefutably promote or prove evolution.

We can test that finding by looking at the DNA of organisms of known descent. And that confirms it.

Further confirmation are remains of retroviruses in DNA (which are the remains of old infections) which line up precisely as would happen in cases of common descent. There certainly would be no reason for God to create species with such remains. But it very clearly marks common descent in organisms with it.

Why not just accept it God's way?

Assuming common descent to interpret data as showing common descent does not prove common descent.

You have it backwards. Much of the data was known long before common descent was realized. Linnaeus, for example showed anatomical data that indicated evolution long before anyone realized what it meant. Furthermore, scientists hypothesized that DNA would show phylogenies of common descent long before someone finally tested the hypothesis, which showed them to be correct.

Even Darwin started out with the assumption that species do not change, before the data showed him otherwise.

Why not just accept it God's way?

[marke]

DNA similarities can be interpreted to support evolution theories, but DNA similarities do not irrefutably promote or prove evolution.

We can test that finding by looking at the DNA of organisms of known descent. And that confirms it.

Further confirmation are remains of retroviruses in DNA (which are the remains of old infections) which line up precisely as would happen in cases of common descent. There certainly would be no reason for God to create species with such remains. But it very clearly marks common descent in organisms with it.

Why not just accept it God's way?

Assuming common descent to interpret data as showing common descent does not prove common descent.

You have it backwards. Much of the data was known long before common descent was realized. Linnaeus, for example showed anatomical data that indicated evolution long before anyone realized what it meant. Furthermore, scientists hypothesized that DNA would show phylogenies of common descent long before someone finally tested the hypothesis, which showed them to be correct.

Even Darwin started out with the assumption that species do not change, before the data showed him otherwise.

Why not just accept it God's way?

I do not believe evolutionists have proven that rats and elephants descended from a similar common ancestor and we have no fossil of a creature transitioning from one species to the other.

[The Barbarian]

I do not believe evolutionists have proven that rats and elephants descended from a similar common ancestor

Turns out, rats and elephants are about as distantly-related from each other as it's possible for placental mammals to be:

Rats would be in the Euarchontoglires.
So their last common ancestor would be something like this:

So far, the earliest known placental mammal (placentals are mammals that are neither monotremes like the playpus, nor marsupials like opossums).

Presently, the most closely-related animals to elephants are the sirenians, like the manatee and hyraxes, which look somewhat like rodents. This is based on anatomy and DNA analysis.

and we have no fossil of a creature transitioning from one species to the other.

Since we have directly observed speciation, it wouldn't matter, but in cases where there are a very large number of fossilized specimens, such as horses, ammonites and so on, we do indeed have such transitional forms. Would you like to learn more about that?