Creation vs. Evolution: Karyogrammata

Chromosome numbers, first published on Communities dot com · · · Undisputed facts · Hypothesis I · Hypothesis II · Hypothesis III · Hypothesis IV · Overall criticism

Update on Chromosome numbers · · · Talkorigins explains on human-chimp situation · my footnotes on this post · a little excursus on French language history

Speciation observed - but not in mammals · · · a wannna-read

Non-replies · · · comments part on non-replies, mostly links about chromosomal polymorphism

Chromosome numbers - the summing up · · · Kent Hovind's list of chromosome numbers of different species, plus one other linkComments part

Chromosome numbers, first published on Communities dot com:

series---see comment for full index

Undisputed facts:

mammal a, say man, has 46 chromosomes
mammal b, say chimp, has 48 chromosomes
mammal c, say a lemur, has over 80 chromosomes.

They are all mammals, all chromosomes go diploid they are all supposed to have a common ancestor - *the first primate (none identified, but that is another problem)

---
Hypothesis I 46>48 or: 23*2>24*2

Stage one: 46>47
- by trisomy from one parent the new individual has the usual haploid set from another the haploid set has an extra chromosome, because both from one pair came along but this does not mean the new individual has 23 pairs and an extra foreign to pairs: it means that one of the 23 ordinarily pairs is trisomatic;

stage two: 47=47 or>46(=original 46)

if the individual formed in stage one couples itself with individuals that still have 46, the offspring will from that individual have either the ordinary haploid set or the set with two chromosomes for one pair-to-be, giving either individuals of 46 chromosomes or those that have the same trisomy as trisomic parent;

stage three: 47>48 or=47 or>46(=original 46)

Mendel's laws would indicate 25% 48 chromosomes, 50% 47 chromosomes, 25% 46 chromosomes But even so, the original pairs will not have changed. The two extra chromosomes will still be at one with two normal ones - one pair that should have been will be a tetrasomy;

stage four: 48=48?
How does this stabilise at 48, at a tetrasomy?

stage five: 48=22*2+1*4>24*2?
How does a tetrasomy become two pairs?

---
Hypothesis II 48>46 or: 24*2>23*2

stage one: 48>47 from one parent the offspring has ordinary set (1, 2, 3 ... 24), from other one with fusion (1/2, 3 ... 24) How does this hang together? 1 and 2 from the one parent should each have a centromere, while 1/2 from the other has only one. That is unworkable. End of hypothesis II, I think. The stage three 47>46 is not likely to happen at all.**

Including mammal c - and that must be in order to account for all mammals - means accounting for this difficulty not only once, but several times.

---
update, March 21/April 3:

Hypothesis III 46>48 or: 23*2>24*2, but by fission, not trisomy.

Stage one, 46>47?:
from one parent a chromosome has been inherited divided into two. Problem: it had only one centromere part, and each chromosome needs one in mammals (poultry have microchromosomes without centromeres, mammals have not).

Adjusting hypothesis:
the half that did not get one from whre it should got a centromere by chromosome crossing. Problem: that means it has gained a bit, but also lost a bit, whether from the chromosome's partner or from quite another chromosome

Correlate: that means there is chromosomal unbalance in this individual. Chromosome N meets either chromosome Na or chromosome Nb. It cannot meet both. Say it meets chromosome Na, that means chromosome Nb is superfluous and potentially damaging. And single. There is no guarantee whatsoever it will get along where chromosome Na goes in terms of ovula or spermatozoa. Supposing the mammal that has this superfluous chromosome outside the pairs will live to develop such and hand them on.

Stage two, 47=47 (or >46): same problem as for hypothesis I. Plus the fact that it may be Nb that joins with the N from non-mutated parent.

Stage three, 47>48 (or=47, or>46):
Here is where possibly Na meets Na and Nb meets Nb. Though it is extremely unlikely. And Where functions of Na and Nb diversify rather than having the functions of N plus a non-useful N+function.

Stage four, 48=48:
In order for this to happen, the individual from Stage three must meet another individual that also has the new chromosome couples Na+ Na and Nb+Nb. Which is even less likely in that first crucial generation. But where this to happen, stage five were no problem.

---
Hypothesis IV, 48>96 or 2*24>4*24>2*48:
Polyploidy is not observed in mammals. Poultry and lizards, as well as fish have been observed to give rise to triploid individuals, either infertile or parthenogenetical females. Batrachians have tetraploid and octoploid varieties (notably of a kind of salamander). But mammals are strictly diploid. Probably the placental implantation gets disturbed when the chromosome number is too diverse between mother and offspring. Poultry, lizards and batrachians have no placentas.

Stage one, 2*24>4*24 (or rather 3*24, if the production of gamete was correct from other parent) will therefore not happen.

Stage two, if stage one had happened, would be one gamete from tetraploid parent, 2*24 meeting one from ordinary parent not mutating, i e 1*24 would end the line, because the result would be, again, 3*24, i e an individual outside all future sexual reproduction. Or the extremely unlikely chance of meeting another 2*24 straight away, preserving overall 4*24 and making it synonymous to stages two, three and four.

Stage five, 4*24>2*48:
Here we are talking near impossible. Or forget about "near". Here it is a question of not one, but 24 tetrasomies diversifying to each two pairs.

---
Overall criticism: we do not find mammal populations (as far as the present author knows) with stable tetrasomies. Still less with half the genome in tetrasomies and the other half diploid. We do not find mammal species diversifying even like 46>48 or 48>46 within known observation. **

Dog races (breeds, therefore populations) have been diversified as much as any mammal within the historic observation man has had over dogs, for however long it is both species have existed. A dog has the same chromosome number as a dog.

The only suspicions would be man 46 alongside apes (chimps, gorillas, orang utangs) 48 and horse 48° alongside Przewalski's horse 46°. But these have not diversified within known historic observation like dog breeds. Their diversification is only presumed by evolutionists. What Darwin observed on ring species in terms of dove species in Europe and possibly finches on Galapagos Islands would therefore seem to be limited to species indirectly but fertilely interbreedable by sharing same chromosome numbers. Furthermore, Wikipedia which gives a lot of species constants for animal species does not include chromosome numbers, which is a species constant. Why? Because drawing attention to chromosome numbers might raise doubts about evolution, I suspect.

°Once I read, though it may have been a misprint, that these were the chromosome numbers for horse and Przewalski's horse. On internet sources I find nothing on Przewalski's horse, but I find horse as 64. Which is which, now?

*but see update on okapis
**diversifying within human observation means diversifying in the timespan observed by us
update: here's an article where is claimed evolution could have been disproven but hasn't

Update on Chromosome numbers:

Talkorigins January 99 was the last look I had on Chromosome numbers, my earlier post depends on that info. Talkorigins July 05 adds information, if you scroll down a bit.

Yes, it seems that uneven chromosome numbers from different parents do occur in okapis, and that one chromosome from one may mate with two chromosomes from other: individuals with 22, 23 or 22.5 chromosome pairs (44, 46 or 45 chromosomes). No other mammals than okapis have been sighted so far*. The variations in number would still seem to come about by fusion or - though not in this case - polyploidy. And apart frogs, it would seem that rodents too can be polyploid.**

I take the freedom to quote the last talkorigins, after he has answered on chromosome numbers:

Here's your budding tree.
common ancestor       Chimp ancestor (single individual)
_____________________/
                   \
                    Human ancestor (single individual)
No, surely the branching involved entire breeding populations -- one band, or a few bands, of apes moving into a new territory far from the lands where other members of their species lived. As noted, at the branch point, both populations would have been apes of the same species; they wouldn't become different species until after the branch point, after geographical separation left them free to evolve in two different directions. Remember that, just as there was no "first French speaker" struggling to make himself understood in a nation of classical Latin speakers, so there was no "first human" or "first chimpanzee," but only a gradual change over many generations from the same ancestral species.***
Can you take it from there? What's the pathway? At this point, can the chimp ancestor still interbreed with either the common ancestor or with the human ancestor? It has to interbreed with something in order to produce more offspring after its own kind, so where does the partner come from?
Most evolutionists hold that most speciation events are "allopatric," meaning that they occur after the ancestral population has split into two groups that could interbreed if they met, but which no longer meet up. Afterwards, mutation, genetic drift, and selection to different environments gradually change the populations into different species. No particular mutation (unless you count polyploidy) is likely to produce a new species. A better (though still oversimplified) approach would be to think of a whole series of mutations, some beneficial, most neutral (but they still made us different from chimps), that each made the bearer a tiny bit more "human" (or, in the other lineage, a tiny bit more "chimp"). No single gene would have made its bearer much different from other members of his species, or unable to interbreed with them.

The scientist seems to have missed the point that "Zoe" had probably read my argument (with God knows how many intermediates) as implied in post 3 about Chromosome numbers: the whole point of her discussion was that there had to be a first individual with a different point of chromosome numbers from its parents and otherwise possible mating partners.

Though the okapi example and that of Przewalski's horse vs domestic horse interbreeding make the impossibility less heavy, it is at least a question of very rare occurrence and in mammals other than rodents polyploidy seems to have no rôle in augmenting chromosome numbers, and the fusions seem to have to have occurred very often if they are to account for all lessenings of chromosome numbers.

Of course I totally agree that single gene mutations do not as a rule interfere with interbreedability. There are lots of single genes where pa and ma were different, same applies to apples (anyone read the book Botany of Desire? It seems apples and men are species where you can count on sexually produced offspring being sensibly different from their origin and indeed unpredictable because of all chromosome differences and recombination possibilities): even in my late guinea pigs, a wavy haired white male, angora guinea pig, I think, a straight haired female golden aguti, a "curly" haired female called "Bianca Croce" with a white cross on darker colours (hence the name) produced varied and fertile offspring. But I am pretty sure they had the same chromosome numbers.

Hans Lundahl

Aix en Provence
Monday of Holy Week
8/21 April 2008

PS: Tried to notify the source of the second statement (the one here quoted), but his e-mail was outdated.

*and mice, sorry, another update will be due, here it is, along with evening primroses.

**Here is that quote:

polyploidy is duplication of the entire genome; plants speciate this way all the time, but it's rarer for animals (though there are strongly supported examples for frogs, rodents, and other vertebrates; presumably, they can't form a new species unless they can either reproduce parthenogenically, or unless polyploidy happens often enough that eventually it produces two members of the same species at the same time and place)

it is left unclear whether polyploid rodents would include only individuals or parthenogenic lines or any new species - note also that in polyploidy it is a question of all chromosomes, terefore same chromosomes doubled, whereas in doubling or halving of chromosomes other than doubling of all, the chance of two independently getting same modification is close to nil.

***But there was a first speaker for every change that differentiates Latin from French! There was a first speaker to drop the final nasalisation in "servum" (-um like -om in Portuguese bom) coming up with roughly servu (as in Sardinian/Corsican) or servo (as in Italian/Spanish), there was a first speaker to drop the vowel altogether (as in French/Occitan), and each first speaker had to make himself understood: and there was a first writer to decide not to write "ser(f)s, serf" as "servus, servum" but as "ser(f)s, serf", and he did it because he wanted it read and pronounced by people who did not have Francogallic Romance as a mother tongue when speaking on a certain occasion to people who did: the Occasion was the Oaths of Strasburg. The other side of the oath was written in passable phonetic approximation of Old High German, like Ripuarian Frankish or something. And passably phonetic approximations were again possible because Alcuin had come from York to teach the French to pronounce written "servus, servum" as, precisely "servus, servum" when speaking in Church. Other difference: we know people who spoke more or less Classic Latin gave rise to speakers of French, Occitan, Catalan, Castillian, Italian, Sardinian, Corsican: because we have the terminus a quo as well as the terminus ad quem (like the Gentle and magnanimous Frenchies that surround me here) under close observation by mainly themselves, including as writers, a capacity in which they sometimes survive their death. We know there was an Ausonius of Bourdeaux, to whom Classic Latin was essentially good grammar, and we know there was a Dante Alighieri of Florence to whom speaking Latin meant using the invention of speaking grammatically, an "invention" he describes in terms reminiscent of Esperanto - all the while using "si" "oc" and "oïl" to distinguish the languages he thinks of as real vernaculars (recognisable as Spanish/Italian, Provençal, French). And between them we know Alcuin and the oaths of Strassburg. Before Alcuin and after Ausonius we know that Gregory of Tours wrote bad Latin and Fredegar worse - as if they spoke Frenchily but wrote nearly Latin. After Alcuin we have the varied literary works in diverse Romance languages coming up, Song of Roland nearly two hundred years before Dante wrote Vita Nuova and Divina Commedia. We know all these individuals as we will never know Lucy - because either Lucy didn't write, or if she did her writing has not survived or if it did it is not put in relation to her sceleton. We know writers of old centuries as well as we know bloggers of foreign continents. At least as well as we know bloggers we have never written to or who have no possibility to write back. There are things we can never know about someone, because he is far away in place or time, because they are not directly there in the text, or because they have not been written down, but there are things we do know, because they have been written down. Lies cannot be totally excluded in all circumstances, but neither can those or other fakes in face-to-face intercourse. And what language someone writes when he writes himself is hard to fake. You may write a foreign language, but you may not write above your level in it, though you may sometimes improve it.

Speciation observed - but not in mammals

Talkorigins claims speciation has been observed ... in plants and invertabrates. Exactly not in mammals who are exactly the type of animals where polyploidy is excluded. One event includes a diploid variety having as many chromosomes as a tetraploid would have - but noone observed it becoming diploid. The botanist found the new species among his plants:

5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

If he found it, how can he be sure it was offspring of his previously studied plants? Because, you see, if the new chromosome number had been not 2n=28, but 4n=28, it would have been a very simple case of polyploidy. Here the question is: how did the 28 start out as 4*7 and end up as 2*14? Also, it is not specified (ha ha) if he could breed Oenothera gigas at all. There is of course cloning ...

As for diverse chromosome numbers (a k a karyotypes) in mice, they do not make different species, it seems. Do not ask me when and where Mus musculus domesticus with 2n=40 and such with 2n=22 have crossbred, but they count as same species, hence they have the same Latin name. A new chromosomal race of the house mouse, Mus musculus domesticus ...

A want-to-read: creationist Jack Cuozzo's book about Neanderthal man.

Non-replies

Emanuela Solano has not replied on question whether mice with different caryotypes have been observed to interbreed, which I sent her after reading link in "Speciation observed, but not in mammals". Ian Johnston has not replied to my argument immediately below the quote.

I have given both the opportunity to do so, by mailing them.

series and tinyurl to this one --- see comments Why is this a problem for evolution? Genes mutate. In each population, sometimes the mutation, sometimes the unmutated gene and sometimes both prevail. If a population splits in two, they will mutate into different ways. If enough genes are different, at last the populations will be genetically too different for mating to occur with offspring viable and fertile. They are two different species. This link is to an article - in fulltext - dealing with an experiment where speciations is seen as having been directly observed. Read their definitions carefully. "Even though behaviorally isolated species ..." "behaviorally isolated" - well that would make different human cultures count as different species too. SO WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? CHROMOSOMES Genes bunch in chromosomes, and chromosomes are counted in whole numbers. And the number of chromosomes is fairly fixed, and yet mammals have different numbers of chromosomes. In most species, mammal or not, chromosomes are diploid (Greek for twofold, meaning all of the chromosomes) in the cells making up a single body, haploid (Greek for simple, meaning in all of the chromosomes) in sex cells. Triploid (Greek for threefold, meaning in all of the chromosomes) individuals occur in plants, fish, lizards, birds, they are infertile or selffertilising females, both ways are roads out of sexual reproduction and therefore evolution as usually understood. Diploid chromosome setups mean that chromosomes go in pairs that hang together at the centromere and branch off to telomeres. Centromeres (middle pieces) and Telomeres (end pieces) are like full stops in genetic information. It is DNA bundled too tight for readability. But they are essential for the RNA-readings of the arms - an arm is whatever part of a chromosome is between one Centromere and one Telomere. Chromosomes have one centromere and two telomeres, except (if I recall correctly) Y-chromosomes that have only two telomeres, one of which counts as centromere because bundling with such of the X-chromosome.
Less chromosomes	More chromosomes
Normally for diploid beings:
Sex cells forming halve the number of chromosomes into only one for each pair.	Sex cells meeting and forming new individuals double the number of the sex cell chromosomes, getting back to normal.
Not Normally for diploid beings:
Haplosomy (onefold in one single pair) going on to asomy (none in that pair)? Asomy means total lack of one chromosome and means non-viability of embryon. So haplosomy is a non-way. Unless, which is not very likely, all the vital information of a chromosome had been transferred to chromosomes of another pair. In mankind, Y-chromosome haplosomy is not viable, but X-chromosome haplosomy gives infertile or less fertile women. But they are same pair, XX a normal woman, XY a normal man. Robertsonian chromosome fusion, is this how it works? Have I proven too much? Mice go in different chromosome numbers, and they seem to be yet one species. Okapi may have one or two chromosome pairs or even a pair and a half, for same parts of genome.	Chromosome fission - as complex as fusion (study diagrams and handwritten text on image left), plus where does the new centromere or the new telomeres come from? (P Z Myers claims new centromere comes from locus duplication - but that does not explain new telomere on the intra-centromere side of each split) Trisomy (three chromsomes in one single pair) - means handicap, sometimes to fertility (in sex chromosomes) sometimes to other chromosomes. But a trisomy, even if extended after a generation to tetrasomy, does not mean two pairs where there was one, only four chromosomes to a pair, and that is handicap. Polyploidy: triploidy see above. Tetraploid and octoploid individuals occur in amphibians and plants - that are typically greater or stronger or twice as complex as diploid samples. Mammals are neither amphibians nor plants. Even if they could be polyploid, which seems not to be the case, that would not open the way for new pairs forming. Each four chromosomes are the four chromosomes of a pair, not the two by two chromosomes of two pairs.
Theories should in principle be falsifiable. If evolution is a theory, chromosome numbers - as well as other similar creationist arguments - are not theories, but falsifications of this theory. I think chromosome numbers is such a difficulty (if not downright disproof) that that is why Scientists are very shy about putting on the web articles for free about this subject. On my comments to Non-replies I have been looking for such using a scholar google. Time after time I have only got to the abstract of an article that is readable for paying subscribers only. See list at end of comments.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
en dépt^nt13 ou 84
30 May/11 June AD 2009

PS, A list of different chromosome numbers from a creationist site:

The Evolution of Species by Means of Increasing Number of Chromosomes
-or-
The Preservation of Complex Life Forms in the Struggle for Life

-By Dr. Kent Hovind-

Number of Chromosomes:

Fern 480 The ultimate goal.

White Ash 138

Carp 100

Goldfish 94

Sweet Potato 90
Turkey 82

- Chicken 78
- Dog 78
- Duck 78 Identical Triplets!

Horse 64

Cow 60

Silkworm 56

Cotton 52

Amoeba 50

- Chimp 48
- Tobacco 48 Identical Twins!

Human 46

Bat 44

Wheat 42

Soybean 40

Cat 38

Starfish 36

Apple 34

- Alligator 32
- Onion 32 Identical Twins!

Frog 26

- Opossum 22
- Redwood 22
- Kidney Bean 22 Identical Triplets!

- Corn 20
- Marijuana 20
- Carrot 20 Identical Triplets!

Lettuce 18

Honeybee 16

Garden Pea 14

- House Fly 12
- Tomato 12 Identical Twins!

Fruit Fly 8

Penicillium 2

Source: DrDino/Kent Hovind - after reading which I searched in Talkorigins.org and got this. Which is where my argument comes from.

Credits to user Jon for giving me the opportunity to refind it.

comments part:

Hans Lundahl a dit…
"http://o-x.fr/292" = biologist P Z Myers saying this is no problem.He gives a diagram, but no medical or veterinarian cases where chromosome fission has happened before eyes of researchers. Fusion does happen: cancer, Downs, fertility problems. I DID look up Robertsonian fusion on a scholar google, as he said I should.What he considers sufficient evidence might be related or (to creationists simply) similar species, in which the corresponding parts (remember, there are non-corresponding parts as well) of total genomes are stocked on different numbers of chromosomes. Like his example on an earlier post, where two chimpanzee chromosomes are supposed to correspond to one fusioned human chromosome, because of corresponding genetic material on them.
13 juin 2009 07:45
Hans Lundahl a dit…
This is from a man Myers calls an "ignorant" creationist: Evidence for Fusion in a Human Chromosome Tells you LITTLE TO NOTHING about whether Humans Share a Common Ancestor with Living ApesUsually Darwinists argue for human-ape common ancestry based upon alleged "shared errors" in human DNA and ape DNA. But the chromosomal fusion evidence is not a “shared error” argument for human / ape common ancestry, because apes do not have a fused chromosome. The human chromosomal fusion argument focuses on a fusion event that is specific to the human line, and therefore provides a highly limited form of evidence for human / ape common ancestry.Ignorant of biology or not, he is at least knowledgeable in textual criticism establishing of manuscript history --- as well as logic. Whether there are common transcription errors had by both apes or men or no, the fusion of #2 (if indeed it was a fusion) is special to man. Whether this fusion adequately explains how men can have evolved from a common ape ancestor or not, it does not prove we actually did.
13 juin 2009 08:14
Hans Lundahl a dit…
That was from "http://o-x.fr/-53" --- And the Miller Told His Tale: Ken Miller's Cold (Chromosomal) Fusion (Updated)
13 juin 2009 08:16
Hans-Georg Lundahl a dit…
This is now accessible on http://o-x.fr/tcu
28 juillet 2009 12:26
Hans-Georg Lundahl a dit…
An extra check on chromosome numbers per species ...

4 commentaires:

Hans Georg Lundahl3 août 2009 à 08:00
http://o-x.fr/lsf is the index post to this series.
RépondreSupprimer
Réponses
Hans Georg Lundahl6 novembre 2010 à 06:42
Telocentric chromosomes could however result from chromosome fission. I let Wiki explain concept telocentric:

Telocentric

A telocentric chromosome's centromere is located at the terminal end of the chromosome. Telomeres may extend from both ends of the chromosome. For example, all mouse chromosomes are telocentric.[4] Humans do not possess telocentric chromosomes. Some authors denote extreme acrocentric chromosomes as telocentric- 21, 22, Y.

My point against PZMyers is, with chromosome fission, at least one of the resulting chromosomes would be telocentric - and for real, not just extremely acrocentric. I wrote as not knowing telocentric chromosomes even existed.

Wiki on "telocentric"
RépondreSupprimer
Réponses
Hans Georg Lundahl13 novembre 2010 à 04:18
I had a dream one night ... is a post that deepens reflection, or at least imagination in reflection, for the possibility rejected even above about trisomy leading to tetrasomy to two new pairs instead of one old.
RépondreSupprimer
Réponses
Hans Georg Lundahl13 novembre 2010 à 04:20
Here is where I had previously examined the question.
RépondreSupprimer
Réponses

Ajouter un commentaire

Creation vs. Evolution

Pages

dimanche 2 août 2009

Karyogrammata

4 commentaires:

Qui êtes-vous ?

Archives du blog