lundi 7 novembre 2011

Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals


I sent the post in three and a half years ago. It did not enter. I left the post as such untouched so as to make sure if they took it in it would be exactly the same as what I sent them. They are however not doing that and very probably are defending the decision by some policy banning publication of text sent on blog post links. This policy in its turn is also - though not legally binding on publishers - being imposed on so many that it ruins my options of getting my blogs printed in more than one quarter, one is even trying to impose it on me as a necessity. Do not participate in this scam, but do use the options I gave on the conditions, if you like the content of this or other posts of mine:

hglwrites : A little note on further use conditions:*

*Taken straight from conditions on my main blog on blogger.
deretour :A little note on further use conditions

Deretour was my main blog and has been succeeded by two other such - conditions remain valid./HGL

I thought I had very clearly proven evolution impossible or so highly improbable as to be less credible than creation, except to atheist prejudice, here are my articles:

[This blog, as the following ones] Karyogrammata

I had a dream one night ...

Another possibility

However, first one of these - a composite one - quotes to refute a post by P Z Myers, and I found at last that I should comment on it, this short link gives you comment #210, my first in this series: [url burner was first disabled and then reenabled - with the short links I had made taken off since back then.] - and there I found such a support of chromosome splits occurring and being viable, that I thought you guys might like to offer up that link so the thread of discussion can be peer reviewed by you!

Have they found people who have actually one chromosome pair more by split chromosome in common ancestor, cousin marriage and the split chromosome of each parent being transmitted to child?

As far as I understood the link about 1982 publication by Janke D., entitled "Centric fission of chromosome nr. 7 in three generations", it is in each generation only one of the pair 7, but the link gives no actual text or summary, only the bare reference, and I have not checked it:

So, have I still a chance of having disproven possibility of mammals having common ancestor (alternatively of evolution being sth that can't be proven, see my third essay), should I have counted on first mammal being tetraploid 4n=96 and simplifying to diploid (2n=48) in some cases (that might give less immunity reaction than other way round, where polyploidy is a cause of spontaneous abortion) and in others diversifying each pair to two different ones (2n=96)? But if so, why are there mammals with more than 48 chromosomes in diverse genera, like both primates (lemurians) and whatever is the genus of rhinoceros? Again, a scenario in which parallel developments would be occurring after species or even genus diversification, thereby invalidating the assumption "common trait implies common ancestor".

Do publish, I am afraid of leaving their arguments about chromosome splits without peer reviews! At least in the form of debate.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

12 commentaires:

  1. It seems that since then P Z Myers deleted or hid the comment thread on his blog post. only linked to P Z Myer's original blog post without comments thread last time I checked.

  2. And now it links to beginning thread, but not to where I come into the debate, as that was well after 2009.

  3. Can you access the short links on your server, I cannot on this one here in the libraries of Paris:

    shows as: Forbidden
    You don't have permission to access /30jp on this server.

  4. That short link linked to:

    However, the comments discussion only shows up to before I jumped in at #210 (as I recall). PZM dares not show (has maybe even deleted - or possibly just hidden by some "show maximum") my contribution to the debate. At least that is the case last time I looked, just before posting this comment.

  5. It seems there is no diagram on karyogrammata for the impossibility of chromosome fission resulting in chromosomes of the usual shape, arms both below and above the centromere, each arm ending outwards from centromere in a telomere.

    It has probably disappeared because I was comparing it with one picture taken from the web from PZM's post. That was done with attribution, it was a reasonable portion for the sake of refutation, so he has had no legitimate cause for complaint. That does not mean he cannot have told some hacker without juridic skills of the needed level that I was breaking his copyright and then that hacker removed it.

    Unless of course CMI or AiG were jealous at my scoop or worried the argument should be used and refuted before they had time to - very slowly, like millions of years - test and perhaps approve it.

    Well, here is another comparison of two diagrams, one of which resumes that of PZM and the other one (purely my own) adds telomere signs to it and shows the weakness of PZM's thought:

    Fission de chromosomes, diagramme de PZM corrigé et refuté

    Even if it is in French, you will know how to read the diagram, I hope.

    Oh, the culprit could of course also be like Darwin Catholic or else some Russian, or some Orthodox Modernists of other nations, eager to jealously guard and safeguard justifications for their Evolution compromise since back in the Communist era.

    How wise was Our Lord when he refused to talk when blindfolded and asked to prophecy who had hit him!

  6. Now the debate has started showing, since two comments from it are shown under PZM's blogpost. But not near as much as there was to it.

  7. Found the parenthesis "(alternatively of evolution being sth that can't be proven, see my third essay)" in the shape of "(alternatively of evolution being sth that can be proven, see my third essay)," which I corrected.

  8. Now the debate is at least for the moment up again. My latest comment is there.

  9. Under Pharyngula : Basics, how can chromosome numbers change, that is.