Pharyngula

I get email

Category: Creationism • Kooks
Posted on: April 17, 2008 9:47 AM, by PZ Myers

The email below the fold is a fairly typical rant from a creationist who has a teeny tiny bit of information, and therefore thinks he has uncovered an irrefutable disproof of evolution. In this case, he has noted that different species have differing numbers of chromosomes, and therefore, because he believes variation in chromosome number is an absolute barrier to fertilization, evolution could not have occurred.

He's missing a few key pieces of information. One is that, contrary to his belief, variation in chromosome number is not a barrier to reproduction, although it can reduce fertility. Chromosomes are fairly arbitrary collections of genes; they're like a small collection of filing cabinets in the cell, in which genes have been tossed haphazardly by chance and time. Chromosomal rearrangements are like grabbing one stack of stuff from one cabinet and shoving it in another — it doesn't change what stuff is present, it just changes the filing system. And since the filing system is remarkably disorderly in the first place, it really doesn't make that much of a difference.

The other problem with his screed is that barriers to reproduction aren't really a problem for evolution, either. If you look at the speciation literature, what you find are lots of people talking about how reproductive barriers between populations are constructed, either geographically or genetically.

Most of the papers in that literature, though, do not depend on the argument from extreme capitalization, on strange color changes in the text, or a peculiar dislike of the space bar on their keyboard. At least this guy didn't use Comic Sans throughout.

         EVOLUSION.

Karyotypes,meiosis and integrated functions of chromosomes unequivocally prove creation,and cannot by any means fit into or be explained by evolution. Masterfully crafted karyotypes skilfully recombine inheritances while perfectly preserving original types!

KARYOTYPES THEREFORE HAD TO HAPPEN AT ONCE!

1).Chromosome numbers of karyotypes conclusively and conspicuously prove that phylogenies are false.Karyotypes make creation most obvious. Evolution is still in search of evidence.

2).Meiosis preserves karyotypes by absolutely preventing reproduction of altered chromosome numbers or alterations in chromosomal configurations(see below). Evolution has no progeny.Evolution is a msiconception.

3).Integrated functions of chromosomes obviously require absolute preservation of karyotypes(karyotypes which resoundingly disprove phylogenies).

1).and2).and3).demonstrate that karyotypes absolutely require creation.

Evolution would inevitably imperil both reproduction and integrated chromosome functions and would therefore seriously imperil survival.For reasons which are explained below it is patently obvious that evolution could produce neither karyotypes nor integrated functions of chromosomes.

Karyotypes are never reproduced if they did not copy right chromosome numbers and configurations.This is because meiosis absolutely requires synapsis of all chromosomes with homologous partners,which becomes impossible if chromosome numbers or configurations are altered-please see for yourself with a pencil and scrap paper-please try to draw up a chain of novel gametogenesis=>fertilisation/fusion=>meiosis events to enable evolution of any karyotypes(and PLEASE tell me if you succeed)and then try to devise origins of known karyotypes(and remember that centromeres disown split chromosomes)-but please read to the end first.You will soon see that novel gametes would result in aneuploid(infertile)zygotes unless novel gametes appeared in matching novel couples,each of the couple having originated from a different mating partner in order to form a euploid novel zygote.It does not require much mathematical skill to ascertain the impossibility of such an occurrence.Wrong copies of karyotypes(i.e.karyotypes with altered chromosome numbers OR configurations)are therefore not reproduced.If aberrant/novel karyotypes somehow succeeded in breeding their offspring would not have the same aberrant/novel karyotypes unless both parents had matching sets of novel chromosome pairs.If not,the offspring would be a "throwback" to the original,or another aberrant by fluke.Novel karyotypes could not be sustained by fluke.This reality would require of evolution to have produced each and every karyotype separately/uniquely/individually(and with a reproducing partner every time)from a prokaryote(or some non-karyotype)precursor.

Karyotypes are unique creations which do not evolve because life depends on their being inherited in complete and original forms.

Karyotypes and meiosis verify the Mosaic account of the origin of species.

2n=evolution disproven.Chromosome numbers of karyotypes reveal that evolution is a gross miscalculation.Karyotypes and phylogenesis are totally at variance.Chromosomes corner evolution.Karyotypes totally disprove phylogenies.

Gene sizes=evolution disproven. 

Repetition is necessitated by the obtuseness of evolutionism.

Meiosis copyrights karyotypes by blocking reproduction of altered karyotypes.

The whole mode of karyotype function reveals that "evolution" of phenotype could never be "catalysed" by external influences.Even radiation would impair function and impede reproduction.I am sure you are intelligent enough to see that karyotypes could not have originated by evolution.

Aneuploidy would derail evolution.

Karyotypes transform evolution from a seemingly credible suggestion to an absolute absurdity.Chromosome numbers of karyotypes make phylogenesis (as it stands)totally insane.Phylogenesis is absurdly constructed on the basis of phenotype characteristics,and it is absurd because there is no consistent correlation between karyotype similarities and phenotype similarities-i.e.some very similar phenotypes have very dissimilar karyotypes-see below.And phenotypes are only inherited via karyotypes.By the same token,genotypes are solely inherited via karyotypes,and some similar genotypes are borne on dissimilar karyotypes.Variations of genotype within species contrast with karyotype uniformity in the same species.Karyotypes unequivocally disprove phylogenesis.My repetitivenes is generated by the stubbornness of evolutionism.

Genesis genes were packaged in chromosomes,arranged into karyotypes in such a way as to preserve species and to prevent and disprove evolution.

Evolution has been fatally flawed ever since it was conceived-evolution was proposed and impulsively adopted at a time when the biological world was completely ignorant of Mendelian genetics.

That particular shortcoming was,of course,partially corrected subsequent to Gregor Mendel's publication of his findings on the principles of inheritance, i.e.at some time after scientists became aware of Mendelian principles of inheritance.But other equally serious errors continue to invalidate evolution just as profoundly as the original errors,making it a miscreation.

Evolution would only die out since the mechanisms of meiosis prevent reproduction of altered karyotypes.If an altered karyotype somehow produced a gamete that would only result in the conception of an infertile form since no novel gamete could be expected to find a matching novel gamete with which to fuse so as to form a novel-and-fertile zygote (unless it was a "throwback"to the original),since the mechanisms of meiosis ultimately only allow reproduction of original karyotypes-see below.One of the wonders of the world is that evolutionism has overlooked this fact-probably because it has been mesmerized by numerous inconsequential hypotheses.The vast and hardly measurable quantum of theorisation upon which evolution has been built is rendered totally meaningless by this reality.There does not appear to be any way of linking any prokaryotic evolution with karyotypes as they now exist.Nor does there appear to be any possibility of evolutionary origin of meiosis which is so uniformly operative across such a vastly differing range of karyotypes,since meiosis would have had to appear independently in each "karyotype line" and simultaneously in each of a breeding couple every time.The simplest free-living and self-reproducing organism is by far too complex to have originated de novo. The simplest "life"forms-viruses and prions(?)-only reproduce via the cellular apparatus of more complex life forms-forms far too complex to have originated

de novo.

   The following summary includes several other realities which are equally devastating to evolution.  

   The sizes of genes defy evolution.Although genes vary greatly in size,most extend over 20-40thousand base pairs,but a few can extend over millions of base pairs.An incomplete gene is a useless gene,is an encumbrance,is a survival disadvantage.The appearance of a novel and whole and useful gene,de novo,a novel gene with functions integrated with those of pre-existing genes,is obviously impossible,obviously beyond the realms of credibility. 

Evolution does not have an explanation for the chromosome numbers of karyotypes.Evolution cannot produce novel karyotypes with novel reproducible chromosome numbers.Evolution cannot account for the reproducible origins of integrated functions of all the chromosomes of karyotypes.

The origin of karyotypes is not explained by evolution,which makes evolution biologically irrelevant.Chromosome numbers unequivocally disprove evolution.

Furthermore,karyotypes unequivocally demonstrate that no incremental

modification of karyotype would ever produce matching incremental modification of phenotype-because karyotypes are just not arranged in such a way-the composition of karyotypes simply does not reflect origin by incremental growth.

Karyotypes could not have originated by sequential acquisition of chromosomes. Which means that karyotypes could not have originated by evolution.

Genes are almost exclusively inherited via karyotypes.Mitochondrial genes,whilst essential for life,do not facilitate evolution.The same might be said for any extra-chromosomal genes which have been identified-for such genes could never alter the chromosomal constitution of karyotypes,mutate as they might.Genetic mutations(anywhere)have zero effect on the chromosomal constitution of karyotypes.Chromosomal "mutations",if not lethal,would produce infertility or malfunction,and would play havoc with the postulates of evolution(Fool's mate).

Diploid karyotypes are formed by fusion of two matching haploid gametes.A haploid gamete is only formed by meiosis which only proceeds if all chromosomes are present in homologous pairs,which means that zygotes always have the same karyotype as parental karyotypes.The rare exception,such as the mule,is always infertile,since its chromosomes are not all paired in homologous doublets.Any similar aberration in chromosome number (or any aberration in configuration which impairs synapsis)will produce infertility,which proves that karyotypes all originated from precursor karyotypes with identical chromosome number and configuration.This reality unequivocally proves creation.See below where I approach the problem from the other side.

Evolution crashes when karyotypes,meiosis and integrated functions of chromosomes are taken into account.Phylogenies are fallacious since they do not correspond with chromosome numbers of karyotypes.If life had evolved there would have had to be some correlation between chromosome numbers and phylogenies,assuming that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes.Phylogenetic proximity should correlate with karyotypic similarity.But,in fact, chromosome numbers prove that evolution is totally fallacious. 

Furthermore,karyotypes display degrees of organization which are certainly not attainable by evolution.But just to remove any doubt,let us consider the following phenomena.

The reproduction of a diploid karyotype requires production and subsequent

fusion of two matching haploid gametes,each of the two gametes having originated from a different precursor cell(that is,in the natural environment).

(Polyploidy,hermaphroditism and vegetative reproduction are not really relevant to the issue under discussion,as you will see).These gametes must have the correct and original haploid chromosome number and constitution otherwise their fusion would ALWAYS produce something OTHER THAN the original parental karyotype.In order for gametogenesis to produce original haploid gametes with the correct chromosomal number and constitution,precise and efficient mechanisms to ensure this outcome are essential otherwise gametogenesis would produce aberrant gametes, and thus aberrant zygotes,and the reproduction of original karyotypes would forever remain rare and fortuitous events,and"speciation"would never be  more than a dream.And if ALL chromosomes did not ALWAYS synapse with homologous partners,gametogenesis WOULD NOT produce original haploid gametes.The ONLY WAY that the production of original gametotypes could be assured is by the absolute requirement that ALL chromosomes MUST SYNAPSE with HOMOLOGOUS PARTNERS during meiosis.Otherwise the gametes would invariably lack some of the parent's chromosomes while having an excess of some others,and karyotype reproduction would forthwith cease to reproduce original types and would produce types differing from parental types. Without a mechanism to ensure synapsis of homologous chromosomes and only of homologous chromosomes karyotypes could never be reproduced.The essential synapsis of chromosomes with homologous partners must be an essential component of the mechanisms of karyotype preservation at any and every reproductive event.AND THIS VERY SAME REQUIREMENT MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR NOVEL KARYOTYPES TO BE REPRODUCED.

KARYOTYPE REPRODUCTION AND KARYOTYPE EVOLUTION ARE THEREFORE IMNCOMPATIBLE.The very mechanisms which are absolutely required for karyotype reproduction are the very same mechanisms which prevent reproduction of altered/novel karyotypes and which thus prevent "karyotype evolution".In the absence of such mechanisms karyotypes would never be reproduced,and aberrant karyotypes would invariably result.The more effectively a reproductive mechanisms preserves a karyotype,the more effectively that system would therefore prevent evolution.The less effectively a reproductive system preserved a karyotype,the more effectively it would enable evolution,such that the reproductive system which most favoured evolution would be one which produced KARYONONTYPES.I have gone to great lengths to explain this in the following paragraphs.KARYONONTYPES could hardly be expected to be functional,nor would they be reprdouced,thus their "evolution" would be utterly futile.   

Please take your time,with a pen or pencil and some paper(if necessary)and think this through for yourself.The concept of "karyotype evolution"is easily seen to be sheer nonsense,as is all of evolution.

By virtue of the same requirement,any karyotype containing an odd or unmatched chromosome would never reproduce itself.

    Eureka!Differing karyotypes obviously do not share common ancestors,for the following easily understood and overriding reasons.

    Eureka!Evolution cannot make karyotypes because karyotypes only reproduce if they are complete.Incomplete karyotypes refuse to function and refuse to reproduce.I offer you this summary with the best of intentions,only to promote  an objective and complete consideration of the following biological facts.

I use the term "evolution" primarily to denote "progression/change in chromosome numbers of karyotypes",since this would have been an essential feature of evolution if life had originated by means of evolution.

Eureka!Aneuploidy disengages evolution every time.Aneuploidy means infertility. Eureka!Evolution would fail because karyotypes always result from fusion of two unrelated* gametes which could never simultaneously provide matching novel chromosomes to produce novel karyotypes which could reproduce.

*(unrelated as in originating from different precursors)

Eureka!Polyploidy and hermaphroditism do not rescue evolution from its dilemma.

Karyotypes disprove evolution conclusively and prevent evolution.

Please concentrate on the(disproven)concept of"karyotype evolution"-i.e. progression or change of chromosomal constitution(chromosome number+ configuration)of karyotype.For if life had originated by evolution,"karyotype evolution"would have been required,and karyotypes would reflect phylogenetic relationships(but they do not).Karyotypes bust up evolution.Genotypes are inherited only via karyotypes.   

Eureka!Meiosis was marvellously designed to mandate genetic interchange while not allowing reproduction of changes in chromosome number or configuration.

Meiosis makes evolution infertile.Meiosis thus busts up evolution.

Eureka!Chromosome numbers of karyotypes deafeningly contradict evolution's phantom phylogenies.

Eureka!Integrated functions of chromosomes demand the inheritance of complete and original karyotypes.Integrated functions of chromosomes are not compatible with evolutionary origin of karyotypes.Karyotypes desecrate evolution.Mutations invariably disrupt karyotype functions.

Evolution would not propagate(see below).

Evolution(of karyotypes/chromosome numbers)is unbequeathable.

Everything written hereafter is an expansion of these realities and a demonstration of how they appear to negate the theory of evolution.

Karyotypes contradict evolutionary phantom phylogenies-does this not  mean that karyotypes did not originate by evolution?Karyotypes,which are the vehicles of inheritance,appear to shatter phantom phylogenies and phantom phylogenesis.

Karyotypes appear shrewder than evolution.Karyotypes are coded for preservation. The language of evolution is unintelligible.

The absolute requirement of synapsis of all chromosomes in homologous pairs to enable meiosis would appear to make reproduction of altered karyotypes  impossible.How many times must this be repeated before it is appreciated?

The appearance of any novel chromosome,by whatever means,would appear not to result in karyotype change since meiosis would simply not proceed in the absence of synapsis of all chromosomes with their respective homologous partners.This means that karyotypes could apparently never have evolved since their chromosome numbers could never have changed in such a way as to be reproducible via meiosis.A karyotype simply never could inherit novel chromosomes in homologous pairs,since each chromosome of such a pair would have had to originate from a different parent-hardly possible.  Meiosis blocks karyotype evolution. Integrated functions of chromosomes which make karyotypes into functional units are quite beyond the reach of evolutionary conjectures.And these functional units cannot tolerate addition or removal of chromosomes-i.e.do not tolerate changes in chromosome number. Karyotypes perpetuate creation by means of meiosis which preserves karyotypes while recombining genes. Meiosis cannot reproduce altered karyotypes. Karyotypes thwart every evolutionary effort to link them phylogenetically.Karyotypes appear to disprove evolutionary phantom phylogenies. Evolution is a work of errors.Evolution offers no explanation for the origins of karyotypes, but, instead, stupidly persists in proposing endless theories for the origins of genotypes without payimg any attention to the fact that karyotypes so thoroughly disprove its phantom phylogenies.Nor would the endless passage of time solve this/these problem-s.

Evolution naturally selects evidence. 

Meiosis is designed to prevent reproduction of altered karyotypes.

Integrated functions of chromosomes defy every effort to explain how they might have arisen by evolution and  these functions would shut down whenever karyotypes change.Karyotypes chorus creation(PLEASE see quote at bottom of page).Karyotypes epitomize design.

Integrated functions of chromosomes demonstrate that karyotypes are immodifiable functional units.Evolution cannot account for them.

The requirement of homology for synapsis of chromosomes in meiosis taunts evolution by preventing REPRODUCTION OF karyotypes with ALTERED chromosome number. If, somehow, reproduction did occur, the OFFSPRING would NOT have the SAME chromosome number or constitution as the "different" (or "altered") parent(having been formed by fusion of two differing gametes)and would likewise be incapable of SELF-reproduction.

NO REPRODUCTION OF ALTERED/DIFFERENT KARYOTYPES MEANS NO EVOLUTION.Of course meiosis could never ever have evolved,because it MUST WORK PROPERLY THE FIRST TIME AND EVERY TIME,OR NOT WORK AT ALL.EVOLUTION WOULD NOT WORK AT ALL.PLEASE DO NOT LET EVOLUTION DECEIVE YOU.

KARYOTYPIC TRENDS TOTALLY CONTRADICT PHENOTYPIC TRENDS.

KARYOTYPES ANNIHILATE EVOLUTIONARY PHANTOM PHYLOGENIES.

MEIOSIS REVERSES KARYOTYPE EVOLUTION.

INTEGRATED CHROMOSOME FUNCTIONS REFUSE KARYOTYPE "EVOLUTION".It has been rpeatedly observed that addition(or removal)of chromosomes to(or from)karyotypes is highly disruptive,and karyotype functions are therefore totally incompatible with the mistaken concept of karyotype evolution.Does karyotype evolution equate to extinction?

KARYOTYPES OBSTRUCT EVOLUTION.

MEIOSIS PERFECTLY PRESERVES CHROMOSOME TYPE.

KARYOTYPES,MEIOSIS,INTEGRATED FUNCTIONS OF CHROMOSOMES CONCLUSIVELY PROVE CREATION AND CONCLUSIVELY DISPROVE AND ANNUL EVOLUTION.CREATION IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE EXPLANATION FOR THESE PHENOMENA -please read on and see my detailed explanation of the purely biological reasons for coming to this conclusion.You cannot afford to ignore this.Evolution is not a rational theory.Natural selection for/against genotypes/phenotypes will never affect karyotypes(karyotype=the characteristic chromosomal constitution of the species)i.e.will never change the chromosome number or morphology.

EVOLUTION IS QUITE IRRECONCILABLE WITH KARYOTYPES,UTTERLY FAILS TO EXPLAIN THEIR ORIGINS,AND UTTERLY FAILS TO PROPOSE FEASIBLE MEANS OF ORIGINATION OF NOVEL KARYOTYPES THAT ARE FERTILE.MEIOSIS PROHIBITS REPRODUCTION OF ALTERED KARYOTYPES AND THUS ANNULS 'KARYOTYPE EVOLUTION' (see below).

EXQUISITELY ORCHESTRATED,INEXTRICABLY INTEGRATED,INTRICATELY INTERLINKED FUNCTIONS OF CHROMOSOMES WOULD NEVER TOLERATE NOR EVER HAVE TOLERATED EVOLUTION.EVOLUTION THEREFORE COULD NEVER HAVE ACCOMPLISHED ANYTHING AT ALL,NOR HAVE SURVIVED.

Evolution is unique in that,unlike other theories,it offers the least plausible explanation of the evidence.Karyotypes do not display any features which suggest that they originated by evolution. On the contrary,there is no way karyotypes could have originated by evolution.

   Muntiacus(like many other genera,no doubt)refutes evolution.Muntiacus reevesi has 46 chromosomes while Muntiacus criniformis rams have 9chromosomes and their ewes have8 chromosomes. Meanwhile the fruitfly has 8 chromosomes and the housefly 12.Since all our genes are inherited via our karyotypes, these karyotypes(and,undoubtedly,many others)refute evolution.

    Evolution destroys itself by producing infertility. Evolution has invented a host of intermediary life forms(in order to invent origins)without any evidence whatsoever that any such life forms might have been fertile or even viable. If karyotypes had evolved evolution's phylogenies should obviously be very very different from their present format.The evolution of karyotypes would have required progressive acquisition of chromosomes which is absolutely obstructed by the mechanisms of meiosis, and which is not compatible with integrated functions of chromosomes, and which is resoundingly contradicted by the chromosome numbers of karyotypes.

There is no way karyotypes could have originated by incremental evolution.The chromosome numbers of karyotypes(with their centromeres) prove that such a process never occurred.

SIMILARITIES IN GENOMES OF DIFFERENT SPECIES SUGGEST COMMON ORIGINS BUT THE VAST DIFFERENCES(FREQUENTLY OBSERVED)BETWEEN THE KARYOTYPES OF  SUCH SPECIES TELL US THAT THESE COMMON ORIGINS ARE NOT EVOLUTIONARY.(see also Muntiacus below)

IF KARYOTYPES DO NOT REFLECT EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY,IF CHROMOSOME NUMBERS OF KARYOTYPES DO NOT CORRELATE WITH PHYLOGENESIS THEN NOTHING GENOMIC IS IN ANY WAY RELEVANT TO EVOLUTIONARY CONJECTURE. 

KARYOTYPES ARE THE VEHICLES OF INHERITANCE,OF COURSE,AND ARE THEREFORE PIVOTAL TO THE UNDERSTANDING OF ORIGINS. 

Meiosis preserves original karyotypes by absolutely requiring synapsis of each chromosome with its homologous partner.Integrated functions of chromosomes require entire original karyotypes,and cannot accomodate evolution.Integrated functions of chromosomes cannot/could not tolerate/have tolerated addition or removal of novel or native chromosomes.Karyotypes therefore could not have tolerated the evolutionary requirement of progression/regression of chromosome numbers.

Karyotypes are so constituted that they could not have originated by means of incremental growth.Chromosomes also defy evolutionary conjecture.Evolution has no explanation for the origin of karyotypes.

Meiosis aborts gametogenesis if any chromosomes do not synapse with homologous partners.Variant karyotypes would therefore be infertile and would be eliminated by natural selection.

Inextricably integrated functions of chromosomes cannot be produced by incremental growth of karyotypes since the synergistic functions of chromosomes require complete karyotype ab initio.Integrated functions of chromosomes rule out evolution.Evolution cannot link karyotypes with phylogenies-which makes evolution meaningless.

Meiosis thwarts the generation of novel karyotypes that are reproducible since that would require the simultaneous appearance of novel chromosomes in matching homologous pairs in each of a breeding couple which is obviously impossible.There is no way evolution can be reconciled with the mechanisms of meiosis.Meiosis preserves original karyotypes,which rules out the possibility of evolution of karyotypes.Evolution is proven to be false by enormous disparities between karyotypes and phantom evolutionary phylogenies. Karyotypes flatly reject evolutionary phantom phylogenies.There is no way evolution can be reconciled with karyotypes.EVOLUTION IS THEREFORE DESIGNED TO FAIL.

'MUTATIONS' CANNOT 'MAKE' CHROMOSOMES,CANNOT 'MAKE' KARYOTYPES.

KARYOTYPES AND MEIOSIS WERE OBVIOUSLY DESIGNED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO OUTSMART EVOLUTION.

CONSTITUTIONS OF KARYOTYPES  THWART EVOLUTION.

INEXTRICABLY INTEGRATED,EXQUISITELY ORCHESTRATED,INTRICATELY INTERLINKED FUNCTIONS OF CHROMOSOMES REQUIRE INHERITANCE OF ENTIRE AND ORIGINAL KARYOTYPES-THUS THWARTING EVOLUTION.

SHEER SIZES OF CHROMOSOMES DEFY EVOLUTIONARY CONJECTURE.

EVOLUTION CANNOT PRODUCE NOVEL FEATURES OR FUNCTIONS SINCE  IN MOST INSTANCES PHENOTYPIC FEATURES AND FUNCTIONS ARE RESPECTIVELY CONTROLLED OR CODED FOR BY RESPECTIVE GROUPS OF GENES SITUATED AT WIDELY SEPARATED LOCI  ON DIFFERENT CHROMOSOMES.TO PROPOSE THE APPEARANCE OF SUCH ARRANGEMENTS AS ACCIDENTAL SIMULTANEOUS NOVEL OCCURRENCES WOULD BE ABSURD.

FURTHERMORE,THESE ARRANGEMENTS ABSOLUTELY REQUIRE INHERITANCE OF COMPLETE AND ORIGINAL KARYOTYPES-A REALITY WHICH FURTHER ILLUSTRATES THE ABSURDITY OF EVOLUTIONARY CONJECTURES.

ANIMAL DATA CANNOT THEREFORE BE SAFELY EXTRAPOLATED TO HUMANS

By proposing a theory fashioned after phenotype,explaining it by genotype,while it is contradicted by karyotype,evolution defeats itself.If a karyotype changes'by chance'either the change will not be reproduced,or the karyotype will not be reproduced.Meiosis blocks reproduction of karyotypes with altered chromosome number.MEIOSIS OBVIOUSLY COULD NOT HAVE EVOLVED.

Evolution of karyotype cannot be inherited!

Darwin published his theory decades before Mendel's discoveries became common knowledge!

EVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE! Evolution has assumed that life as we know it is 'descended' from a host of intermediary and 'more primitive' life forms.This assumption rests on another assumption-i.e.that more 'primitive'forms of life would have been 'compatible' with 'life'-which is a very tenuous assumption. 

MEIOSIS WILL NOT REPRODUCE NOVEL KARYOTYPES.

Evolution would have absolutely required changes in chromosome numbers:such changes would be rendered sexually irreproducible by meiosis.

MEIOSIS THUS OUTSMARTS EVOLUTION.

-SPLITTING CHROMOSOMES CANNOT BEGET EVOLUTION.

EACH CHROMOSOME HAS AT LEAST ONE CENTROMERE.A SPLIT CHROMOSOME WILL LOSE THAT PART WHICH IS NO LONGER ATTACHED TO THE CENTROMERE- THE DETACHED PART WILL NOT BE INCLUDED IN NEXT CELL DIVISION.THE PART STILL ATTACHED TO THE CENTROMERE  WILL  PROBABLY NOT BE ABLE TO SYNAPSE SO AS  TO ENABLE THE NEXT MEIOTIC DIVISION.IF A CENTROMERE SPLITS TRANSVERSELY ALL THE GENES OF ONE OF THE SEGMENTS OF THE CHROMOSOME WILL BE LOST.SPLITTING OF CHROMOSOMES CANNOT BEGET EVOLUTION.CENTROMERES OUTSMART EVOLUTION.

-LIFE AND HEALTH DEPENDS ON THE FIXITY OF KARYOTYPES.

Addition/insertion of novel or native chromosomes to karyotypes is well known to be grossly deleterious,and never advantageous.

Many other facts also thwart evolution.

EVOLUTIONISM HAS PROPOSED 'POINT MUTATIONS'(ERRORS IN DNA/RNA REPLICATION) AS A MECHANISM FOR EVOLUTION WHEREAS MULTIPLE SIMULTANEOUS MUTATIONS AT WIDELY DIVERSE LOCI ON DIFFERENT CHROMOSOMES WOULD BE NECESSARY TO EFFECT ANY SIGNIFICANT FUNCTIONAL OR  MORPHOLOGICAL CHANGES.THIS AGAIN DEMONSTRATES

THAT EVOLUTION IS ABSURD AND IMPOSSIBLE- THWARTED BY LOGISTICS OF KARYOTYPE FUNCTION.  

      Evolution has placed great emphasis on the concept of gene mutations without pointing out that many physiological and morphological features are respectively regulated by groups of synergistic genes situated on widely separated loci often on different chromosomes.And it is quite unfeasible and entirely impracticable  to postulate evolution of functions and/or morphological features by means of mutliple simultaneous mutations at widely separated  loci.Evolution again confounded.

      Evolution has made little mention of the absolutely necessary 'evolution'of karyotype-necessary for the purpose of evolutionary conjecture-and such evolution is blocked by the mechanisms of meiosis.Evolution cannot breed.'Evolution of karyotype' would have produced multisystem and often bizarre defects/changes almost certainly of a deleterious nature,as well as infertility.

      Evolution would have required the appearance of novel breeding karyotypes.Which ,at the very least,and in every instance,would have required the appearance of two matching novel(and fertile)karyotypes as a breeding couple.Which,at the very least, would have had to originate by the production and appearance of four novel-and-matching gametes, in two pairs,for their conception.

Such a scenario/scenarios is/are beyond the reaches of the most vigorous imaginations and entirely unfeasible/impracticable. EVOLUTION IS IMPLAUSIBLE.

(See below for a more detailed explanation)

IRONICALLY THE PASSAGE OF TIME DOES NOT ASSIST EVOLUTION(SEE BELOW).NOR CAN EVOLUTION DECLARE THE ORIGINS OF ITS INDISPENSABLE ENVIRONMENTS. 

IF LIFE HAD EVOLVED,KARYOTYPES WOULD HAVE REVEALED PATTERNS OR RELATIONSHIPS CORRELATING WITH PHANTOM PHYLOGENESIS-INSTEAD KARYOTYPES REFUTE EVOLUTIONARY PHANTOM PHYLOGENESIS .

EVOLUTION IGNORES KARYOTYPES BECAUSE IT CANNOT EXPLAIN THEIR ORIGIN.

EVOLUTION IS CAUGHT IN THE MEIOSIS TRAP-THE DEVICE WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW  REPRODUCTION OF CHANGES IN CHROMOSOME NUMBER OR CONFIGURATION. KARYOTYPES THEREFORE ESCAPE EVOLUTION.MEIOSIS WILL NOT REPRODUCE NOVEL KARYOTYPES. 

Evolution has no modus operandi,since gene mutations cannot produce novel chromosomes or karyotypes.And novel karyotypes cannot breed.Has evolution not seen these most obvious errors? 

Dear Reader,I suspect that the few facts discussed here represent merely the starting point of an exciting journey of discovering the grossness of the errors of evolution.Evolution is a very elaborate fallacy which is very simply disproven.EVOLUTION IS ENTIRELY IMPRACTICABLE AND UNFEASIBLE-ABSURD.Many many facts trash evolution.The discussion below centres on sexual reproduction.Evolution could never ever have produced a cell,let alone progress beyond asexual reproduction.Polyploidy could never have produced karyotypes as we know them,for two reasons at least.Firstly,polyploidy never produces novel chromosomes. Secondly,simple arithmetic tells us that polyploidy could never have produced karyotypes as we know them.And besides,polyploidy is only relevant to plants.Karyotypes ridicule evolution and laugh it to scorn.Evolution cannot breed.

Exquisitely orchestrated,intricately interlinked and inextricably integrated functions of chromosomes could obviously not have originated by incremental evolution,as demonstrated by the severe disruptions resulting from gain or loss of chromosomes.This marvellous phenomenon (of integrated functions of chromosomes) reveals the absurdity of evolution.The serious multisystem disorders accompanying aberrations in chromosome number illustrate the fact that karyotypes are so constituted that they cannot tolerate gain or loss of chromosomes.This makes it most implausible to postulate that karyotypes evolved. Evolution cannot breed.

PHYSICAL(PHENOTYPE) CHANGES ACCOMPANYING CHANGES IN KARYOTYPE STAND IN STARK CONTRAST TO GRADUAL/INCREMENTAL/ CHANGES PORTRAYED BY EVOLUTIONISM,such changes(accompanying karyotype changes) almost certain to abort or to be irreproducible.More than obvious

CHANGES IN CHROMOSOME NUMBER(POLYPLOIDY ASIDE)CANNOT BE INHERITED BY SUCCESSIVE  GENERATIONS.......

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION SINCE SIMILARITIES IN GENOTYPE ARE OFFSET BY ENORMOUS DIFFERENCES IN KARYOTYPE.

PROGRESSION IN CHROMOSOME NUMBER WOULD OBVIOUSLY PRODUCE INFERTILITY AND BIZARRE RESULTS NOT AT ALL ANTICIPATED BY EVOLUTIONISM and quite contradictory to it's implausible suggestions.

KARYOTYPES,OF COURSE,ARE THE ENGINES OF INHERITANCE.

-evolution's unbelievable phylogenies are so obviously incompatible with karyotypes(perhaps because Darwin knew nothing about inheritance-he published his fantasies 7 years before Gregor Mendel's original publication,decades before Mendel's findings were widely known).Evolution's fantasies have never caught up with and can never catch up with or accomodate the facts of biology(read on,please);karyotypes conclusively disprove evolution's implausible phylogenies.

-meiosis absolutely/obviously thwarts evolution(by thwarting the generation of novel-and-fertile karyotypes)

-evolution cannot account for karyotypes,nor,therefore,for the origin of species.

-karyotypes and their modes of function prove that they could not have originated by incremental growth.

Evolution's fantasies rest on false premiss,evade contradictory evidence,are incompatible with karyotypes,meiosis,the environment,and more.

Evolution rests on the absurd assumption that errors in nucleic acid replication could produce novel karyotypes-obviously entirely irrational.

Evolution cannot incorporate karyotypes nor the mechanisms of meiosis since they are entirely incompatible with it.Meiosis thwarts reproducible modification of chromosome number.

Ironically,and for exactly the same reasons as above evolution provides no explanation for any fossil ever found!!!And conversely,fossils are no evidence of evolution!!!

The evidence of design is compelling.The evidence for evolution is nonexistent.

NO ENVIRONMENT/-S COULD,ON THE ONE HAND,SELECT ONLY MUTATED SPECIMENS FOR SURVIVAL WHILST,ON THE OTHER HAND,SUSTAINING EVOLUTION FOR BILLIONS(?)OF YEARS.THE CONCEPT IS IRRATIONAL.

"NATURAL SELECTION" OF "ADVANTAGED/MUTATED" SPECIMENS IMPLIES ELIMINATION OF THE STRAINS WHICH ENGENDERED THEM-A SELF CONTRADICTORY AND IRRATIONAL CONCEPT.

WHILST EVOLUTION OFFERS AN IRRATIONAL EXPLANATION FOR THE  ORIGIN OF SPECIES,IT OFFERS NO EXPLANATION AT ALL FOR THE ORIGIN OF THE CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT ENVIRONMENT WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO DRIVE THE PROCESS.

I would value your considered and dispassionate comments on this document.

The following is a summary and an explanation of those natural phenomena which have enabled me to honestly satisfy myself that the hypothesis of evolution does not represent a feasible or plausible explanation for the origins of life or of species.I am sending this email since I feel obliged to share these facts with my fellow-thinkers.I shall employ the term 'evolution'to refer to the  hypothesis of evolution.

    All the conjectured evidence for evolution is negated by the few simple facts which I shall attempt to communicate in this brief.

    Darwin knew naught of the principles,and less of the mechanisms, of inheritance.And Mendel had not yet published.

    Evolution is illogical,nor is it feasible to suggest that life evolved by illogical happenstance.Evolution is,furthermore,contrary to a vast body of evidence.Evolution is illogical because mutations do not make karyotypes.Illogical also because evolutionary phylogenesis cannot(at all,in any way)be manipulated/conjectured such that the product/-s thereof correlate with known karyotypes.There is absolutely no correlation whatsoever between evolutionary phylogenies and known karyotypes.This makes evolution both illogical and absurd.Unfeasible because meiosis obstructs generation of novel and fertile karyotypes.

    In this summary I have concentrated on features which demonstrate the unfeasiblity of evolution principally by virtue of their causing infertility.I have made no mention of protista nor have I considered vegetative reproduction.Because,I think the facts which I summarise below,are sufficient to dispel the notion of evolutionary origin of species.The simplest life-forms are neither free-living nor self-propagating,and are entirely dependent on the cellular apparatus of more complex organisms.Evolution would have required the appearance,de novo,of a free-living and self propagating organism-a proposition which clearly cannot be seriously contemplated.

    Whilst I have principally concentrated on those features which negate evolution  by virtue of causing infertility,it is also worth considering the fact that the constitution of karyotypes,and the logistics of their multiplicity of functions is not consistent with any origin by means of incremental evolution.

    What I am trying to say is that karyotypes display features which are not consistent with origin by incremental growth.And karyotypes also display features of function which demonstrate that they cannot alter in such a way that any such alteration might be fertile.I am referring to alterations in chromosome number and morphology.Evolutionism has made much of mutations at level of  the DNA/RNA nucleotide base sequence,but,as I shall try to demonstrate,such mutations are not capable of producing karyotypes nor of changing them.Karyotypes display the indelible imprint of design.

     I have employed various modifications of  text type simply to facilitate the process of communcating the direction of my thoughts.

     I would value the responses you might have to this document,since they might provide new insights into this controversy.

  Evolution is irreconcilable with karyotypes,with meiosis(gametogenesis),and with exquisitely orchestrated integration of all functions of all chromosomes.

   Evolution is intrinsically erroneous since it bases it's illogical and phoney phylogenies on phenotypes which do not correlate with karyotypes.

   Mutations cannot create karyotypes.

   Evolution is ruined by virtue of the fact that meiosis/gametogenesis obstructs the generation of novel fertile karyotypes.

   This document is a brief discussion of some of evolution's most disastrous errors of omission.

Karyotypes were obviously designed in such a way as to prevent evolution,and thereby to disprove it.

Karyotypes,chromosomes,meiosis/gametogenesis obstruct and defy evolution.It might be suggested that evolution is science at it's worst.

    These few thoughts on evolution comprise only a consideration of biological and natural phenomena which obviously disprove evolution.The reason for my mailing these to you is because it is too important to be witheld from you.Evolution is an institutionalized fallacy which must be discarded.

 Evolution cannot account for karyotypes,and cannot,therefore,account for life nor for the origin of species.

 Evolution has enjoyed a protracted reign of error which is rapidly drawing to a close.                 

Evolution is a quasi-religion which has acquired the trappings of science.The science of evolution is seriously deficient ,as I shall demonstrate in this short summary.

Evolution was dreamed up by a man who did not even know the principles of inheritance.

Karyotypes,meiosis,integrated chromosome functions must be included in all biological conjectures,so as to avoid gross errors.Evolution is entirely irrational since karyotypes,chromosomes,gametogenesis,and exquisite orchestration of integrated chromosome functions have been omitted from its conjectures.

Karyotypes are functional units which are not amenable to alteration,whose functions are severely disrupted thereby.

Cellular functions are respectively orchestrated by respective groups of genes situated on respective groups of chromosomes-an arrangement which is entirely incongruous with evolution(see below).

Evolution is therefore entirely irrational.

It is futile to compare skeletons/organs/systems/functions of different species if you do not simultaneously compare the karyotypes which produced them-and when you do it will become obvious that the common threads are not of evolutionary origin.Evolution is irrational.

     Meiosis fixes karyotypes and thereby nixes evolution.

     The observation that gain or loss of chromosome/-es is invariably most deleterious to karyotypes demonstrates also that the constitution of karyotypes is such that they are intolerant of the types of changes which would have been necessary if they had originated by means of incremental evolution.Karyotypes are seen to be marvellous and delicate creations consisting of exact ingredients in exactly correct proportions,which could never have survived the cruelties of evolution.Evolution is a half-baked doctrine of extreme cruelty.

Exquisitely orchestrated integration of the muptiplicity of all the functions of all the chromosomes of the karyotypes naturally(and absolutely)necessitates the inheritance of complete and original karyotypes,a requirement which obviously prohibits evolutionary phylogenesis and thereby nixes evolution.

   The sheer size of chromosomes(see below) obviously precludes the possibility of their having evolved-which makes evolution an impossible explanation of their origins.

   As mentioned elsewhere,groups of synergistic genes(respectively situated on groups of chromosomes)cooperating in the execution of vital functions whilst being situated on widely separated loci and separate chromosomes could obviously not have been thus arranged by a process of incremental evolution of karyotypes.Such arrangements obviously require the respective groups of respective genes(and the chromosomes which bear them)to have been inherited in whole groups.When we consider the overlaps in functions of chromosomes-i.e.the fact that different chromosomes contribute different constituents of the same products,it is easy to see that whole karyotypes require to have been inherited as such,and this,of course,entirely negates the notion of incremental evolution of karyotypes,and evolutionary phylogenesis.Those described syndromes with aberrant karyotypes have no bearing on species specificity or"speciation",and do not serve to ameliorate this "problem".  

   Evolution has no credible modus operandi since it would have required sexually reproducible progression/change in chromosome numbers of  karyotypes,a requirement whicn is prohibited by effective inherent prohibitive cellular mechanisms.Evolution is irrational.

Evolutionism appears to have overlooked the fact that survival of the fittest requires the origin of the fittest.

The discovery of the double helix of DNA was seized upon as providing a mechanism for mutations and evolution.It was thought that mistakes in transcription of the code(written into the order of arrangement of nucleotide bases)provided an effective means for the generation of mutations,the 'driving force'of evolution.However,the requirements of meiosis,which fix the fertile karyotypes of species and the actual chromosome numbers,which discredit evolutionary phylogenies, are not at all conducive to evolutionary conjecture,and reveal the futility of this much-vaunted machine of evolution(DNAdouble-helix is not a useful tool for evolution). Evolution is irrational.

Evolution is an irrational theory which was published seven years before the discovery of Mendelian inheritance.Evolution has subsequently failed to catch up with scientific facts.

   This short synopsis was inspired by the realisation that the biological principles discussed above equate to a confounding contradiction of evolutionary conjecture,an unavoidable negation of the credibility of evolutionism.Evolution is irrational.

   The implications can be likened to an error at the beginning of an algebraic equation which renders the entirety of subsequent calculations erroneous/irrational.

This short synopsis also lists several other crucially important biological phenomena which demonstrate the irrationality of evolution.No doubt there are a great number of similar facts not here represented.

Evolutionism is a belief system originally founded on uninformed irrational conjecture and subsequently not reconciled with all related facts,and irreconcilable with a great numbers of facts,and entirely unworkable and irrational.

During the course of compiling these facts I was particularly impressed by the degrees of difficulty I encountered while trying to find chromosome numbers of species .(Please see attachment.)

     I had always wondered about chromosome numbers of species since my first encounters with the theory of evolution,because I reckoned that such numbers should confirm the theory of evolution,if it was true, or else these numbers would discredit evolutionary conjectures.

     When I did find some(chromosome numbers),I was immediately compelled to conclude that karyotypes decisively discredit evolutionary phylogenies.These numbers may be viewed in the attachment.

      I can't help wondering at the scarcity/unavailability of chromosome numbers in evolutionary literature since, I thought, these chromosome numbers/karyotypes should have been the prime focus of attention of evolutionism- since any and every gene(mutated or not)is inherited via the total-and-invariable number of reproducible chromosomes of the karyotype of the germ cell precursors of the reproducing male/female couple .Those chromosome numbers/karyotypes(in evolutionary literature)which appear to conform to evolutionary conjectures are outnumbered by those(not readily included in evolutionary writings) which decisively discredit such conjectures.

      My impressions(of the irrationality of evolution) were greatly reinforced by the realisation that the mechanisms of meiosis/gametogenesis,particularly the requirement for synapsis(and homology)of chromosome pairs during meiosis/gametogenesis ,absolutely fix the reproducible karyotypes of species.It is most intriguing to note that whilst some species appear to have variable chromosome numbers these variations are apparently not  associated with great phenotypic variations.Are these variations a sort of polyploidy-a duplication of some chromosomes or of groups of chromosomes?(It is worthy of note that all human chromosome pairs are distinctly identifiable and there are no apparent duplications).

   Please note that my emphasis on chromosome number/karyotype is due to the fact that chromosome number/karyotype is the most obvious feature of the segregation of genes into specific(and fixed)numbers of uniquely identifiable chomosome pairs(karyotypes=the whole number of chromosomes))whose number(and structure)are ingeniously preserved by the mechanisms of meiosis,and the fact that this marvel of meiosis constitutes the most definitive and powerful impediment to conjectured evolution.This is plain for all but the unwilling to see.

 This fact is amply demonstrated by the infertility of mules. 

     The actual chromosome numbers(karyotypes) of species constitute the most eloquent evidence to discredit irrational evolutionary conjectures.

     Whilst it is true that many different species share identical chromosome numbers(but obviously not identical karyotypes),it is equally true that evolution would have required progression/-s in chromosome number since evolution proposes the origin of all species from prokaryote/-s.Without such  progression/-s,and without plausible hypotheses for the mechanism/-s   of progression of reproducible chromosome numbers of fertile karyotypes,other evolutionary conjectures(the entire theory of evolution) are(is) without substance and irrational.(Please note that polyploidy=muliples of FIXED haploid chromosome number)

"The cell" is equipped with mechanisms which are tailored to prevent disorderly synapsis(between non-homologous chromosomes)in meiosis(please see attachments,and see many similar articles on the web)."The cell"is thereby enabled to prohibit the sexual reproduction of aberrations of chromosome number-in other words these mechanisms FIX the reproducible chromosome numbers/fertile karyotypes of cells,and prevent the sexual reproduction of novel chromosomes.These mechanisms therefore prohibit evolutionary progression in the sexually reproducible chromosome numbers/fertile karyotypes  of species.In other words,novel karyotypes would be infertile/would not reproduce THEMSELVES. "Speciation"is a peculiar term peculiar to irrational evolutionary conjecture.The concept of "speciation"is of no consequence,is totally irrelevant in the face of these mechanisms of meiosis which so efficiently preserve sexually reproducible/fertile karyotypes.

THE INFERTILITY OF MULES AMPLY DEMONSTRATES THAT CHROMOSOMES WILL NOT SYNAPSE IN PROPHASE-I OF MEIOSIS IF THEY ARE NOT HOMOLOGOUS,AND,THEREFORE,DEMONSTRATES THAT MEIOSIS/GAMETOGENESIS FIXES KARYOTYPES .THE MULE IS LIVING PROOF OF THE IRRATIONALITY OF EVOLUTION.

   Interspecies similarities in gene sequences seen in the light of dissimilarities of respective karyotypes suggest that genomes were designed and karyotypes and meiosis were constructed for the express purpose of preventing evolution.

  The cellular mechanisms(mechanisms operative in the nucleus)-mechanisms which ensure that only homologous chromosomes synapse in meiosis,are currently being elucidated and enumerated by gifted(and energetic)scientists.

  This fixity of reproducible chromosome numbers/fertile karyotypes places an insurmountable obstacle in the path of evolutionary conjectures.These few facts serve to discredit irrational evolutionary conjectures most decisively.

  Apart from the astonishing implications/consequences of these facts,and the astonishing simplicity of the deduction that these facts refute the theory of evolution so entirely and so effectively,it is almost as astonishing to note that these facts are so assiduously ignored by those unwilling to abandon the irrational myth of evolution.

 In essence the theory of evolution cries out for chromosomal explanations,cries out for chromosomal genealogies.These cries fall on deaf(unwilling)ears.

Such genealogies,if any have been constructed, might have been expected to have been the first priority of evolutionism,but they appear to be the last. 

It is patently obvious that the mechanisms of meiosis and of inheritance specifically function to preserve genomes/fertile karyotypes and to prevent evolution,and that evolutionism steadfastly ignores this reality.

     An elementary review of salient principles is set out below.

I would be grateful if you could inform me of factual errors in this precis.At the same time I would implore you to assess wether any such errors actually detract from the essence of what I am trying to convey to you.

I am a medical practitioner,and have long pondered on the origin of species.As I approach this subject,I recall that:-

      SURVIVAL of ANY TYPE OF ORGANISM(FIT OR UNFIT) DEPENDS UPON IT'S ABILITY TO REPRODUCE.

(I would like to CONFINE THIS LETTER  to the subject of SEXUAL REPRODUCTION,which ABSOLUTELY REQUIRES GAMETOGENESIS which absolutely necessitatesMEIOTIC cell division which ABSOLUTELY REQUIRES SYNAPSIS OF ALL CHROMOSOME PAIRS in the MEIOTICally dividing cell.)

 **** Aneuploidy causes sterility(see attached article)*****

Synapsis of chromosomes( ALL PAIRS ARE REQUIRED TO SYNAPSE in order for meiosis to proceed)ABSOLUTELY REQUIRES A DEGREE OF HOMOLOGY between the respective members of EVERY RESPECTIVE PAIR of synapsing chromosomes i.e.EVERY PAIR in the nucleus.Dedicated and ingenious scientists are in the process of discovering and describing the several mechanisms operating in the nuclei of meiotically dividing cells which ensure that only homologous chromosomes synapse during Prophase I of meiosis.

The "X"and"Y"chromosomes appear to have a special arrangement which keeps them together.

The homologous autosome pairs are absolutely required to match at every single meiotic division.If this were not the case it is quite obvious that karyotypes would never ever have been preserved.

There are obviously very powerful mechanisms in operation in the nuclei of germ cells(precursors of spermatozoa and ova)which have served to preserve our reproducible/fertile karyotypes very faithfully.These same mechanisms have served and continue to serve to prohibit "evolutionary"(or any other)changes in sexually reproducible/fertile karyotype.These are the mechanisms which allow only homologous chromosomes to synapse in prophase I of meiosis.And which decisively discredit evolutionary conjectures. 

If it were not for the operation of such mechanisms our karyotypes could never have been preserved as faithfully as they are.

These very same mechanisms(which are being elucidated and enumerated at this time)are at the same time preventing sexually reproducible/fertile"progression"of chromosome numbers of species,and thereby prevent evolution of species.

Surprisingly,these mechanisms have hardly been accorded much attention by evolutionists(and biologists in general?)whilst the human(and other?)genomes have been decoded with almost frantic urgency.

These are the mechanisms which have prevented the evolution of species,by preventing the progression (or change)of chromosome numbers/fertile karyotypes of species.

Whilst much study has been devoted to the operation and composition of genes,little has been said about the sexual reproduction of the vehicles(chromosomes)which bear them.Evolutionism has grossly neglected the description of karyotypes,and the mechanisms of inheritance of karyotypes..

The mechanisms of meiosis therefore serve to FIX  THE REPRODUCIBLE CHROMOSOME NUMBERS/FERTILE KARYOTYPES OF SPECIES.

*****The phenomenon of polyploidy is not relevant to this problem,since polyploidy represents mere duplication of fixed numbers of chromosomes/duplications of karyotypes(or of portions?of karyotypes).Polyploidy pertains only to  reduplications of fixed numbers of chromosomes.And there appear to be variations in number of certain chromosomes or groups of chromosomes in some species without any notable variation in the actual composition of the respective chromosomes(?)and without corresponding phenotypic variations.

And evolution would have required the appearance of novel chromosomes and novel REPRODUCIBLE/FERTILE karyotypes,in order to account for the observed chromosome numbers/karyotypes of species.

ODD CHROMOSOMES withNO SYNAPSING PARTNERS PREVENT the process of meiosis(ANEUPLOIDY PREVENTS MEIOSIS)(please see attachment or any standard textbook of biology)

And any chromosome which is,for any reason,unable to synapse with its homologue,prevents the progression of the meiotic process,and disallows the conclusion of such cell division-thereby causing sterility=inability to pass on such chromosome/-s to subsequent generations. .

For reasons which are difficult to comprehend,it is extremely  and extraordinarily difficult to find chromosome numbers of more than a few species.Karyotypes appear to be assiduously ignored by evolutionists,and to have been hidden by an unknown hand.

However,CHROMOSOME NUMBERS of several species can be viewed in the attachment    

   IF,INDEED,life had evolved from a prokaryotic organism/s,  then the evolutionist is obliged to postulate a chronology/genealogy of progression  of REPRODUCIBLE/FERTILE chromosome numbers/karyotypes such as to have produced,say,a black mulberry with 308 chromosomes(see website).

   The following section consists of a (failed) exercise in evolutionary conjecture(which is unique,in that it appears to be the only such exercise which has included those relevant facts concerning mechanisms of meiosis which impede change in sexually reproducible chromosome numbers of species)-this exercise is intended to demonstrate the utter unfeasibility of evolution.

   In order for the CHROMOSOME NUMBER/KARYOTYPE of any organism to have PROGRESSED to a HIGHER/DIFFERENT AND REPRODUCIBLE NUMBER/FERTILE KARYOTYPE IF,say,this were AT ALL POSSIBLE,or EVER OCCURRED,its NOVEL offspring would have had to have inherited any additional chromosomes via  NOVEL GAMETES with  NOVEL chromosome NUMBERS.Any novel gamete would have had to have been able to  combine/fuse succesfully with a gamete from the parent's reproducing partner in order to have produced a NOVEL ZYGOTE.The novel chromosome/s would have had to have been compatible with life and health and fitness,in order for the novel zygote to have reached the age of reproduction.Then,in the gonads of the NOVEL REPRODUCING ZYGOTE the NOVEL CHROMOSOME/S would have been required to find homologous synapsing partners (in order to be sexually reproduced) in the process of gametogenesis if ,at all,such novel chromosomes were to have survived by being passed on to succeeding generations.

The big question,at this point,is how could such novel and reproducible homologous chromosome pairs have appeared in  novel(and fertile)zygotes unless each respective novel chromosome of the novel pair had originated independently in the gonads of two parents-i.e.two matching/homologous chromosomes would have had to have originated(how?) from separate scources.It is difficult to estimate the unlikelihood or the degrees of improbability/impossibility of such an event/-s,nor do there appear to be any factors which might in any way be/have been conducive to such an occurence/-s.Each parental gamete could contribute only one member of any such novel pair of chromosomes,and for such a pair to be homologous(having originated in a novel fashion/s in two different organisms)is an utterly unfeasible proposition .

Another factor which further compounds the impossibility of such an event/-s is the numbers of spermatozoa(100million/ml).The chances of a spermatozoon with a novel chromosome winning the race to reach the ovum are something of the order of 1in300million. 

BUT WHAT THEN,WHAT NEXT?

    In order for the NOVEL (AND FERTILE) zygote with a novel pair/s of homologous chromosomes to reproduce in such a way as to PRODUCE  FERTILE OFFSPRING it would have had to FIND A  MATING PARTNER WITH  MATCHING   HOMOLOGOUS NOVEL CHROMOSOMES AND ANY SUCH NOVEL CHROMOSOMES WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN DOUBLY HOMOLOGOUSinORDER TO BE REPRODUCIBLE-i.e THERE WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN HOMOLOGY

BETWEEN THE 2 CHROMOSOMES OF THE NOVEL CHROMOSOME PAIR 

AS WELL AS homology B ETWEEN THE  2   RESPECTIVE PAIRS of  novel chromosomes  IN  THE REPRODUCING   PARTNERS in order,EACH TIME,FOR EACH AND EVERY  ONE OF THE novel chromosome pairs WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED, to have beenREPRODUCIBLE by being able to synapse in the gonads of their grown up/adult and fertile NOVEL OFFSPRING ).  

    ThusFOR EVERY NOVEL and REPRODUCIBLE PAIRof homologous chromosomes to have been BEQUEATHED  to  SUCCESSIVE GENERATIONS,they would have had to have respectively originated by chance in the gametes of EACH OF A REPRODUCING COUPLE,and they would then(from the bowels of the reproducing zygote)HAVE HAD TO HAVE FOUND MATCHING REPRODUCING PARTNER-GAMETES IN A REPRODUCING PARTNER i.e. this WHOLE IMPLAUSIBLE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE HAPPENED FOUR TIMES OVER(ONCE FOR EVERY NOVEL GAMETE PRODUCED BY THE FOUR RESPECTIVE PARENTS OF THE NOVEL REPRODUCING COUPLE)-at the very leastFOUR TIMES OVER in order for EACH and EVERY novel pair of REPRODUCIBLE chromosomes to have been bequeathed to posterity

WE WOULD HAVE REQUIRED EACH AND EVERY NOVELTY IN QUADRUPLICATE AND IN  SYNCHRONY IN THE SAME VICINITY-ONE IN EACH MEMBER OF TWO MATING COUPLES OR TWICE OVER IN THE SAME COUPLE AND WE WOULD  HAVE REQUIRED THE APPEARANCE OF A NOVEL MALE AND A NOVEL FEMALE EACH AND EVERY TIME,IN ORDER FOR THE CHROMOSOMAL NOVELTY TO HAVE BEEN  SEXUALLY REPRODUCIBLE .

      Granted,there could have been the same parents,which would have required the identical novel gamete to have been produced twice over(i.e.on at least two separate occasions)by each parent and to have produced a novel male and a novel female each time. 

 (.Don't be distracted by the phenomenon of polyploidy,now.Polyploidy may perhaps be more relevant in plants than animals but is unlikely to be of much assistance to the evolutionist in the attempted explanation of the surmised progression of chromosome numbers-see above.)

               And for the Adder's tongue fern(n=240)HOW MANY TIMES OVER WOULD THIS LUDICROUS SUGGESTION HAVE HAD TO BE PROPOSED ?

 AND FOR THE FOLLOWING:-?

         (black mulberry n=308;king crab n=208;shrimp n=254) .

   Furthermore it has been found that

                                                    a)  different(often multiple) chromosome pairs operate synergistically(exquisitely orchestrated) in order to produce combined(and vital)- effects(effects that are essential for life) such as the synthesis of haemoglobin-to name but one of countless examples-examples which are not necessarily specifically known to me but which are present in the repertoire of every living cell;

                                          and that

                                                    b)  individual chromosomes each respectively control numerous different functions.

There is therefore a vast repertoire of highly orchestrated  and interdependent and synergistic functions conducted by the chromosomes of each organism,and the reproducible chromosome numbers of organisms are FIXED by the requirements of meiosis.Let me give you one example(of many):-

   The cell membranes of human cardiac sarcomeres contain channels to allow/facilitate the transit of ions.Several different channels exist for the passage of different ions by different means.All these channels are essential for cardiac function/life.The genes which code for these channels are therefore all essential to life,as are,therefore,the chromosome pairs which bear them. These genes,obviously,require to have been inherited together ab initio,therefore the chromosome pairs which bear them must all have been inherited together ab initio,in order to have sustained the lives of the bearers.Now the genes coding for the sarcomere-membrane-ion-channels are situated on at least five different chromosome pairs.Such an arrangement completely negates any concept of "progression"of chromosome number/karyotype(and if life had evolved chromosome numbers would have had to have"progressed").Other examples of similarly complex synergistic functions of different chromosome pairs include thyroid function(various aspects of)and the production of thyrotrophin/thyroxin receptors,other cardiac features(as in cardiomyopathy)and it does not require much effort to realise that there are undoubtedly myriads of cellular functions/organ functions which operate in the same fashion.It is therefore quite easy to see that evolutionary conjectures will forever fail to explain these,for the reasons mentioned above.  

    One would expect the appearance of novel chromosome to have been almost invariably associated with serious disruption of cellular function of growth or physiology,as is the case in most conditions caused by aberrant chromosome numbers in humans.Spontaneous abortions are frequently the result of aberration in chromosome number.

    Chromosome numbers of different organisms(see website)do NOT display patterns suggestive of evolutionary origin.

Similarities in chromosome numbers are  offset by enormous dissimilarities.E.g the black muntjac(a little deer) has as many chromosomes as a fruit-fly(8),and fewer chromosomes than a housefly(12).Several fish species have hundreds of chromosomes apiece.You and I have fewer chromosomes than the duck,the goat,the potato and many others.

In the light of these facts,the theory of evolution is entirely implausible.When I was taught  evolution (at school and at medical faculty from whence I graduated)I was not taught that chromosome numbers/karyotypes of species were FIXED by the mechanisms of meiosis.I was taught that apes had similar chromosome numbers to humans.  But I was not taught that a potato has 48 chromosomes,a goat 60 and a duck 80and that a little deer(black muntjac)(muntiacus crinifrons)has a karyotype with 8(eight) chromosomes(fewer than a housefly,as many as a fruitfly),while the other muntjac(muntiacus reevesi)has a karyotype with 46(forty-six) chromosomes.Need I say more?????

     Neither was I taught that the mechanisms of meiosis FIX the REPRODUCIBLEchromosome numbers/fertile karyotypes of apes and the REPRODUCIBLEchromosome numbers/fertile karyotypes of humans in such a way as to prohibit sexual reproduction of aberrations in their karyotypes/chromosome numbers.Such aberrations cause infertility.

I think it would only have been reasonable to have presented us with all these(and there must be many more) facts,rather than to have promoted a theory which is entirely discredited by the totality of facts.And it seems almost obscene to teach evolution in schools without even allowing any alternative suggestions.

If,for the sake of this debate,we circumvent the insurmountable obstacles to evolution discussed above, many other  obstacles remain,obstacles which present a similar magnitude of impossibility.

     Let the evolutionist concede,at this juncture,that the passage of time would not have facilitated evolution,but would,in contrast,have minimIsed the chances of evolution,since changes in chromosome number would have had to have been  transmitted to the next generation during that fraction of the concurrent lifespans of the mutated-and-fertile-and-mating individuals which coincided(each time), in order for any novel AND REPRODUCIBLE/fertile chromosome number/karyotype to be preserved.Therefore in the extremely unlikely event of any novel mammal being born with a novel chromosome number and in the extremely unlikely event that its novel chromosomes were homologous(assuming they were inherited in pair/s) ,the novel chromosomes would

ONLY BEREPRODUCIBLE IF they found matching partner-chromosomes in a similar novel reproductive partner DURING THE COINCIDING SPAN OF THEIR LIVES WHICH FOLLOWED THE SYNCHRONOUS APPEARANCE OF THE NOVEL  CHROMOSOMES.AND THIS TEMPORAL CONDITION WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED FOR EACH AND EVERY CHROMOSOME PAIR OF EACH AND EVERY GENOME.  

TIME IS NOT THE ALLY OF EVOLUTIONISM,MUCH AS IT HAS BEEN INVOKED BY EVOLUTIONISTS. 

.Adding millions or billions or trillions of years to evolutionary history is quite futile and irrelevant.

This is because changes in chromosome number would be destined for the grave in all circumstances apart from the impossible scenarios postulated above.

POINT MUTATIONS in the 'GENES'might CARRY OVER from generation to generation,but

NOT NECESSARILY SO WITH CHANGES IN CHROMOSOME NUMBER/karyotype .

And evolution would have REQUIRED CHANGES IN CHROMOSOME NUMBER/karyotype WITH OR WITHOUT POINT MUTATIONS IN GENES AND WOULD HAVE REQUIRED SUCH CHANGES MANY MANY TIMES OVER.We could speculate,for arguments' sake,that the novel chromosomes(and evolution could not have happened without novel chromosomes) contained sufficient novel genes to diminish(substantially)the need for  point mutations on genes.But this speculation belongs in the the realms of fantasy(for the reasons here mentioned).  

   And evolution would have required a number of different and synchronous point mutations at different loci on groups of different chromosome pairs in order(each time) to produce each of those synchronising and synergistic genes which are required to produce each of those synchronistic/synergistic cellular effects/functions which are executed by genes which are located on different chromosome pairs and which act in concert.This is quite clearly and utterly implausible,as all(but the unwilling)can see.

   Let us now examine the imaginary scenario of a novel mammal -let us limit this problem to mammals(every class of plant or animal would have corresponding and unique problems)-a novel mammal with a novel pair of homologousAND THUS REPRODUCIBLEchromosomes(and there would have had to have been many such,if life had evolved),a novel mammal conceived in the womb of it's mother-to-be. 

  This novel mammal could be expected to be phenotypically sufficiently different from it's mother to have novel gestational requirements.Let  us ignore this potential problem ,for convenience's sake ,and move on to the next problem.

   We know the history of the Caesarian section,obstetrical forceps etc.and we know of many a veterinary surgeon who has had to exctract the macerated remains of a dead calf from the womb of a cow lest she also perish And let us remember that evolution(if it ever occurred) would have required to the appearance of novel mammals with novel chromosome numbers(novel pairs of homologous chromosomes) and therefore with substantially novel phenotypes with novel dimensions and novel proportions.One could never take it for granted that any such novel mammal would be born alive.

But if it were,how could we assume that it's mother would not reject it,especially in view of its substantially-and-necessarily-different phenotype(the evolutionist might as well forget about all the little mutations,for the sake of time and space).I use the term"substantially different"because we're considering phenotypic differences of a magnitude correlating with novel chromosome numbers i.e differences between the parents and the newborn novel offspring.

If for convenience sake mother accepted the substantially different offspring,how could we assume that she could meet it's (substantially different)nutritional requirements?

But for convenience sake she did

How could we be sure her substantially different  offspring would find her mammary glands?and be able to suckle?and be inclined to continue to suckle?.      

Let us assume that the offspring reached reproductive age and met a reproductive partner with a compatible set of novel homologous chromosomes and a substantially different phenotype from its parents.The mating partner would have to be reproductively compatible with its partner with respect to all anatomical,physiological,behavioral and chromosomal requirements of reproduction.

Now go to the attachment and try to calculate how many times  this sequence would have had to have been repeated if life had evolved.

Then ask yourself if you are still able to conclude that life evolved.

Numbers of species are far in excess of chromosome counts-i.e.there are many species with identical chromosome numbers but vastly different genomes/karyotypes.And each species has a powerful mechanism to maintain the identity of it's karyotype.This is most probably accomplished by the need for homology between synapsing chromosomes in meiosis/gametogenesis.But other mechanisms might also be operative,each of which would constitute an additional barrier  to evolution.Since some species which appear very similar have widely divergent chromosome numbers,it would appear impossible to propose chromosomal genealogies which fit imagined/conjectured evolutionary genealogies,and the phenomenon of polyploidy is highly unlikely to overcome this problem,even if only from an arithmetic point of view.

SIZE OF CHROMOSOMES

   There is another enormous problem with the theory of evolution.The dimensions of this problem are of an order which should suffice to allow all but the unwilling to see that chromosomes could not possibly have evolved(and that life as we know it was obviously designed).The sizes of our chromosomes are inversely related to their likelihood of having evolved-even when considered apart from those problems outlined above.The rationale for this deduction is simple-

     Imagine two balls,invisible in a bag,identical in size and shape and texture but different in colour(one red ball and one green ball)--the chance of picking up the red ball is one in two.If you add a black and a brown ball,the chance of picking the red one is smaller-one in four.So with base pairs in DNA. A specific nucleotide chain containing 30 specific base pairs arranged in a specific order is far less likely to have been produced by chance/by accident than a chain of 3base pairs.Therefore the longer the chromosome(i.e.longer in terms of numbers of base pairs),the less likely that it's specific arrangement of base-pairs occurred by accident. 

  There is a threshold value of some sorts beyond which it is possible to perceive intuitively that chromosomes(far less organisms)could not have evolved.

What sort of threshold number would one consider as a threshold for realising/concluding that such a number of specifically arranged nucleotides could not have come together by chance/accident.?

The difficulties of deducing such a number have been overcome by the sheer dimensions of our chromosomes.These dimensions allow me to sense intuitively that they are not the product of chance.

It is reported that our human chromosomes range in size(in terms of nucleotide pairs/base pairs) between approximately

45 MILLION and 245 MILLION base pairs EACH.

Need I say more about the unlikelihood of their having evolved?.

I am sure that I am correct when I sense intuitively that they could never ever have evolved,not in 250 billion/trillion years

Last BUT NOT LEAST

     There appears to be another major flaw in the theory of evolution.Concerning"intermediate forms"of species.Or"missing links"-and many of them:-

    If,indeed,life (as we know it)had evolved,and if,indeed,environmental "pressures"("pressures"powerful-enough-to-eliminate-identical-offspring-b ut-not-powerful-enough-to-eliminate-their-mutated-siblings)had been operative how would the parents have survived for long enough to breed mutated offspring?

       Or,if considered in retrospect,if life(as we know it)is the result of countless generations of "evolutionary culling",then how could the myriad"intermediary forms"of species(which there must have been if,indeed,life had evolved) ever have survived for long enough to have spawned the "fitter and the fittest",since they were(on the evolutionary scale)less well adapted to their environment than their "fitter and fittest"offspring.It would appear that the concept of "survival of the fittest"is self contradictory in that it requires the "fittest"to have been produced by innumerable generations of "those less fit than the fittest"-which is an absurd proposition.Because evolution by culling(of the less-than-fittest) would have required the survival of "parents"whose identical offspring(in 'competition' with "mutated" members of the same stock)were subsequently unable to survive in the same environment as their parents.

    Now if it were conjectured that the 'mutated offspring' were 'sufficiently advantaged'to have 'driven' their 'parent stock' 'out of their ecological niche' this could never have happened all at once nor could it have extended to the entire geographic distribution of that 'ecological niche' in any short space of time.And we find so many different varieties of creatures sharing the same 'ecological niches' in any case. 

 We could even frame this question in another way-if there had been a sufficient variety of life forms which were fit enough for long enough to have produced the great variety of life known to us today,then surely many(if not most)of the "intermediary forms"would still be alive today-and if not,then why not(if they had originally been capable of reproducing well enough for long enough to produce sufficient generations and numbers of "mutating"offspring to provide the awe-inspiring variety of life observed today)?? .

    It appears far more likely that there are no intermediary life forms alive today because there never were any.

    And that our collection of fossils(in their varied and variable layers of sediment in variable and often reversed order)bears testimony to the flood of Noah.

The theory of evolution has been revised on countless occasions in order to accomodate factual information- curiouser and curiouser?.

Can it accomodate chromosome numbers and the mechanisms of meiosis without being totally rewritten?????

Can it accomodate the numbers of base pairs in chromosomes? 

Can it account for the survival(for long enough to breed)of the less-than-fittest parents of the "fittest mutants"in surroundings which disallowed(?) survival of offspring identical to the parents.?

Can evolutionism come to terms with reality?

These are some of my questions.

I would be grateful if you could find the time to tell me your views on these points.

Thankyou 

ANJackson

EUREKA! TRUTH SHALL SPRING OUT OF THE EARTH!

In the beginning was the LOGOS and the LOGOS was with the THEOS.All things came into being through him and without him not even one thing came into being.