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
[This blog, as the following ones] Karyogrammata
I had a dream one night ...
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: http://o-x.fr/30jp [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.