The Evolution Love Miracle - Chromosomal Fusion Soul Mates

Do you believe in soul mates? What are the odds of finding yours?

Although I have no answer to the above questions, there is a love miracle that was theorized to occur many times throughout the course of evolution. Chromosomes are the structures that hold the DNA coding for an organism. Chromosomal fusion, deletion, or addition is an alteration to the number of chromosomes present in an organism's cells. This is the theorized way that an organism changes their number of chromosomes along the course of evolution.

Our love story involves two mutant ape-like things finding each other against all odds.. Why so rare? Because chromosomal fusion, the theorized mechanism for how humans evolved from an ape-like predecessor, has never been observed in medical or scientific history. Ever.

Yet the faith in the evolution love story continues, despite the lack of evidence that it is even possible. Let's just say against all odds, a chromosomal fusion happened. What are the odds it would result in a viable organism? Very low. Mostly all known chromosomal aberrations (which does not include total chromosomal addition, deletion or fusion, because that has never been observed in a lab) result in some type of disease. This often includes the inability to reproduce. Despite this, let's assume that somehow we have a viable mutant ape-like creature that has a successful chromosomal fusion and against all odds is capable of having kids...

There's still one problem...

This theoretical impossibility still needs to find a mate with the same miraculous biological syndrome.

This is where the love story comes in.



Unfortunately for this love story, there are more historical accounts of immaculate conception than there are chromosomal fusion. One chromosomal fusion is unbelievable enough, but two? And also the likelihood of these two mutants finding each other? It would require multiple miracles.

So as if this wasn't hard enough, you have to apply this same dilemma to all sexually reproductive animals. How did they successfully alter chromosome numbers? The only known viable mechanism for altering chromosome number is exhibited in plants (due in part to their ability to self-pollinate). But not animals. So here we run into a huge dilemma, especially given the immense variability in chromosome count in animals:



So it is not just our mutant ape-like creature love story that requires many miracles, but also all other animals throughout history that must have somehow made this miraculous leap in chromosome number. All mutants having to find a mate with the same impossible mutation in order to successfully be able to have kids. To my knowledge, there has also been no recorded account of a totally new chromosome addition in sexually reproductive animals. Don't mistake, for example, trisomy 21 as a new chromosome addition, it is only duplicating a pre-existent chromosome and does not have a new chromosome in the mitotic (cell reproduction) cycle:



This is not a chromosome addition or deletion because it occupies, or leaves a vacancy, in the same chromosome location. A totally new or totally deleted chromosome has never been observed in medical history. And remember, even if science were defied, and a chromosome number alteration did occur, that organism would have to find a mate with the same impossible mutation. Also beware of "research" papers that discuss chromosomal fusion. They assume it must have happened, because they can't imagine a world where their religious belief in evolution is not true. Look at the details of the paper, and you will realize they did not actually observe any chromosomal fusion, they are simply assuming evolution must be true, and having faith that the required mechanisms must have happened. It's backwards science.

Finally, Consider the Brown Woolly Monkey and the Black Titi Monkey, both in the same family of "New World Monkeys", yet they have a difference of over 46 chromosomes. That's a lot of mutant love miracles required by their predecessors in a short amount of time.





In other words, evolution is impossible, and so is the mutant ape-like creature love story.

I do find the vast difference in chromosomes between very closely related animals, like the Woolly vs the Titi, to be very interesting.

I also have wondered many times about how a new species breeds when mate 1 and mate 2 actually give birth to a new species, do they have twins and the twins mate or something? I dunno. Seems on the edge of impossible to pull off, and then this happened for countless species?

Hmmm Rhesus monkey's have 42. Orangutan, Chimps, and Gorillas have 48. Capuchin monkeys 54.

The Giant Panda has 42 but how's that possible? That doesn't make sense they are very closely related to other bears.
Spectacled Bears have 52. But polar, brown, black and the rest have 74?

And goodness, did you see how many chromosomes the Ciliated protozoa has? It's nuts!

Really I'm super confused about the Panda vs regular bear differences. They are even in the same family Ursidae...

I don't know what happened to cause all the animals to be the way they are, but the current concept of "evolution" makes less and less sense every time I look into it. Looks like we need a whole new novel hypothesis...

a reply to: cooperton

I find your monkey human image slightly offensive. This type of depiction is often done to be a veiled racist commentary on the intelligence of black people. Or it means black people are animals. I get all the talk about political correctness is poo poo liberal BS. But I would never use an image you did. I mean no disrespect or believe you are not your own man. It's just that my grandmother taught me to be kind and considerate of other people's feelings. Just saying. I would not post such an image.

That said, there is a lot of evidence supporting genes are NOT the only mechanism going into how life is formulated. There's a lot of work on how membranes will change their form and function based on chemicals in the environment. Life occurs in a context. Genes just define all the proteins that need to be built. Molecular biology is really a failure after all the billions spent on it. None of the major promises have panned out. Here's a good video explaining why genes are just half the story:



And I really like this view on how biology of formation works:



There dozens experimental examples of animals regenerating or growing form without having genes present. There's more going on here than just genes.

a reply to: cooperton

You really do not get how evolution works do you? You clutch at these little things, assuming they are important. I really wish you read some science, rather than your creationsit clap trap sites, or the bible.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

You really do not get how evolution works do you? You clutch at these little things, assuming they are important. I really wish you read some science, rather than your creationsit clap trap sites, or the bible.

Well, there's no clear path from A to B in the science or we would not be having this conversation.

a reply to: cooperton

So how does 'creator' bring-about this "chromosomal fusion" ?
Miracles Incorporated?

a reply to: dfnj2015

That is the point about science however. You search for the clues, hypothesize and if you find evidence, you get a theory. The OP has not talked about DNA similarities, and is only looking at chromosomal numbers. If that is the thing to look at, compare apples with apples. Look at other hominins. We have more than human genomes to look at you know.

originally posted by: Nothin
a reply to: cooperton

So how does 'creator' bring-about this "chromosomal fusion" ?
Miracles Incorporated?

An advanced Creator would be able to manipulate their (genetic) code quite easily. A transcendent Creator making miracles is no surprise, because this Creator would not be confined to the physical laws that we are, since this Creator would have also made these laws to uphold the creation. Whereas with evolutionary theory, miracles are not allowed, because evolutionary theory relies on randomness within the confines of physical laws and wishes to prove that no intelligent transcendent creator was necessary.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

You really do not get how evolution works do you? You clutch at these little things, assuming they are important.

Little things?? You mean genetics?

I really wish you read some science

Me discussing chromosomal fusions, additions, deletions, aberrations, chromsomal count among 'families' of organisms, polyploidy, trisomy, monosomy, non-chromosomal alignment during metaphase and anaphase was not enough for you?

, rather than your creationsit clap trap sites, or the bible.

Look, if you have no substance to offer, or any sort of rebuttal, just don't post. I'm here to talk science.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: cooperton

I find your monkey human image slightly offensive. This type of depiction is often done to be a veiled racist commentary on the intelligence of black people. Or it means black people are animals.

Racism - whoever smelt it dealt it.

That never crossed my mind when making this post. Such notions of racism stem from evolutionary theory though, which I want no part of. I am here to eradicate such notions. We are all one.

But I would never use an image you did.

It was meant to display the absurdity of the theory.

Yes morphic resonance is on the right track in my opinion. I think each organism has their own unique blueprint in this manner, and cannot change outside of those bounds. If morphic resonance is responsible for morphology, then that means that research should lean towards electromagnetism as the fundamental empirical faculty of biology, more so than material-reductionism. "Body Electric" by MD Robert Becker is a good book on the topic.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Nothin
a reply to: cooperton

So how does 'creator' bring-about this "chromosomal fusion" ?
Miracles Incorporated?

An advanced Creator would be able to manipulate their (genetic) code quite easily. A transcendent Creator making miracles is no surprise, because this Creator would not be confined to the physical laws that we are, since this Creator would have also made these laws to uphold the creation. Whereas with evolutionary theory, miracles are not allowed, because evolutionary theory relies on randomness within the confines of physical laws and wishes to prove that no intelligent transcendent creator was necessary.
...

Just seems to me that you are rejecting one set of supposed miracles, for another.
Why are one set of beliefs acceptable, and another set rejected?

a reply to: cooperton

See you say you want to talk science. Then you put up Sheldrake.


This demonstrates your lack of actual honest intention here.

You need some miscnonceptions sorted.

Life probably s tarted with no chromosomes. Most living things today have a single circular loop of DNA (a single "Chromosome"), with perhaps a cloud of DNA fragments besides this. But if we are going to look at complex life, the diploid Eukaryotes, yes they have chromosomes.

You quote polyploidy, telling me you have not put your own thoughts here (as per usual) but you are posting from creationist dogma. Which in turn lets me know you don't know what you are talking about. This is yet again a copy paste exercise from you.

On with the show.

Numbers of chromosomes can change, and yes that often is not fun for the recipient. But unless you are some young earth type, you know you have a lot of time to play with with evolution.

One way is via a nondisjunction. Here the chromosomes failed to separate during meiosis. This can explain the difference in chromosomal counts between two closely related species.

Then there is genome duplication. Where your entire genome, not just half ends up in sex cells.

How about a fusion or breakage of a chromosome? Its suspected that chromosome 2in Homo sapiens formed from two ancestral primate chromosomes fusing.

There are three ways the number of chromosomes could change.

Like I said, you don't know very much of what you are talking about here.

So, cooperton, why would a creator have all this chromosomal madness? Does it not look more like chance than designed?

The problem with these posts of yours is that if you just applied the same accusational logic you apply to evolutionary threads to your own they would fall apart before your eyes. Always double standards. Always lies.

Are you serious bout this Clark?

I'm thinkin.....brb

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Numbers of chromosomes can change

Empirical evidence to prove that? Any lab example, or example from medical records that show that totally new chromosomes can manifest?

There isn't. That would be breaking news in biology if it did happen. Instead, you have to rely on faith for your theory.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
So, cooperton, why would a creator have all this chromosomal madness?

Would you tell a computer designer how to do their job?

Does it not look more like chance than designed?

The human genome has over 3,100,000,000 base pairs (DNA units)... That sort of code cannot come to be by random chance. Can a monkey write a Shakespearean epic? No... no matter how long they are given it would not happen. It would always be gibberish. Romeo and Juliet is 24,545 words, that's 0.0007% of the size of the human genetic code... Imagine that coming to be by random chance... now imagine something over 100,000x longer coming to be by random chance... Impossible

The problem with these posts of yours is that if you just applied the same accusational logic you apply to evolutionary threads to your own they would fall apart before your eyes.

So you're defending your faith in evolution by scrutinizing my faith? You have apparently run out of logical arguments. The philosophers and theologians of history have attributed the word "Logos" to God, meaning 'reason', 'word', and also the derivation of 'logic'. This is the Force that spoke the creation into being according to predictable reason and logic. The mathematical predictability of physical laws demonstrates that this world was contrived by an Intelligent Creator.

a reply to: cooperton

See there you go falling back on your old standard argument.

You don't understand what empirical means.

In science Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. In the case of study of DNA, it is quantitative.

But being you, you seem to want to ignore that. You insist we need to see a species change to another one to observe evolution. Oh and when evidence of this is supplied, you say "thats micro" not "macro" evolution. Not knowing thats the argument of someone who is a Jon Snow in Science.


If you don't understand that, then this is going to be another of your refusal to read the evidence sessions. I quoted evidence.
nondisjunction
Genome duplication
Chromosomal fusion or breakage.

But lets look again at Chromosome 2.

Apes have 48 chromosomes
The known examples of Homo with sequenciable DNA (Homo sapiens, Homo neanderthalensis, and the Denisovians) all have/had 46.

If you understand how DNA sequencing works (which you don't), you would understand we can tell that a chromosomal fusion occurred. You could (if you knew where to get the genomes, what to program in R, and how to read the results) analyse this yourself. You will not. So its a purely theoretical idea you would.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

You really do not get how evolution works do you? You clutch at these little things, assuming they are important. I really wish you read some science, rather than your creationsit clap trap sites, or the bible.

Please explain the Cambridge explosion of new life forms using your scientific clap trap.

a reply to: PhilbertDezineck

So you are saying you don't understand how evolution works then?

You seem to not understand that the fossil record does not present a complete picture of the world these fossils are from.

originally posted by: Noinden

You don't understand what empirical means.

First you accuse me of not knowing what empirical evidence means. and then you say:

You insist we need to see a species change to another one to observe evolution.

Which is exactly the definition of empirical evidence. You contradict yourself immediately.



Why don't you suppose we need to observe evolution, that is, have empirical evidence that it is possible? Why does evolution get a pass, and not have to stand up to empirical scrutiny?

a reply to: Noinden

No I am asking how new life forms suddenly appear with no transition no gut to a gut creature?

a reply to: cooperton

The question I always ask to creationists, is who or what created god?

The answer I typically receive is god always existed, so I hope your answer is a bit more creative, because if that's your answer, I have several followup questions you won't be able to answer.

a reply to: cooperton

Yes, I would tell the computer designer to do a neater job if they produced messy work. It makes much more logical sense to have similar designs for similar species, but this is not observed due to evolution, separation of species which leads to tandem but different evolution and many other environmental and demographic factors for the organism concerned. You can’t explain it so you use the old Christian go-to response of “God works in mysterious ways” or in this case not telling him how to do his job.

I note that you never say you don’t know something, you always have some sort of answer or deflection, even if it is a crass religious one. Saying “I don’t know” is not a failure or fallibility, it’s a normal human response. Perhaps some humility is required?