Only if it evolves into understandable English.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Questions that evolutionists and billions of years proponents cannot answer but disprove their theories.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
Only if it evolves into understandable English.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
So chimps have 48 chromosomes, man only 46. Therefore man is not descended from chimps.
Please explain these foxes.
Chromosome counts various fox species.
Red fox 34
Tibetan sand fox 36
Kit fox 50
Bengal fox 60
Fennec fox 64
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The difference between human chromosome pairs and those of the other great apes has been explained to you. You accepted it at that time. Now you are pretending it never happened. Apologize for your bad behavior and I will link the explanation that I gave you.
And please drop the strawman arguments. The way that you use them is a form of lying.
You lost the chess match. Again arguing from ignorance to justify your agenda. What is your source based on your ignorance? You still have not provided an unanswered question involving evolution,
This is not a completely solved problem, but nonetheless, the statement above is very misleading based on your agenda. Actually more reference to follow where natural metallic enzymes can function like biological enzymes.
The general notion of an “RNA World” is that, in the early development of life on the Earth, genetic continuity was assured by the replication of RNA and genetically encoded proteins were not involved as catalysts. There is now strong evidence indicating that an RNA World did indeed exist before DNA- and protein-based life. However, arguments regarding whether life on Earth began with RNA are more tenuous. It might be imagined that all of the components of RNA were available in some prebiotic pool, and that these components assembled into replicating, evolving polynucleotides without the prior existence of any evolved macromolecules. A thorough consideration of this “RNA-first” view of the origin of life must reconcile concerns regarding the intractable mixtures that are obtained in experiments designed to simulate the chemistry of the primitive Earth. Perhaps these concerns will eventually be resolved, and recent experimental findings provide some reason for optimism. However, the problem of the origin of the RNA World is far from being solved, and it is fruitful to consider the alternative possibility that RNA was preceded by some other replicating, evolving molecule, just as DNA and proteins were preceded by RNA.
I believe this was explained to you in detail before, Your ignorance record has a crack in it, and your intentional ignorance and lack of knowledge of science remain profound. You continually poke around in the dark with no knowledge to support your questions. Of course, your lack of knowledge negates any relevance of your questions. The mechanism of Change in the number of chromosomes is well-known in genetics. I doubt you remotely understand the science.
The Evolution of Chromosome Numbers: Mechanistic Models and Experimental Approaches
Abstract. Chromosome numbers have been widely used to describe the most fundamental genomic attribute of an organism or a lineage. Although providing stron
The extant chromosome-number variation is external manifestation of the underlying dynamic genomic processes, encompassing structural chromosomal rearrangements and changes in the DNA content. The most recognizable chromosome-number change is through a whole-genome duplication (WGD), or more generally polyploidization, which describes the acquisition of one or more complete chromosome sets to the genome. Single-chromosome changes represent another common pathway underlying chromosome-number variation. These transitions include the gain/loss of a single chromosome(s)—a process known as aneuploidy, and processes such as chromosome fission and fusion (ascending and descending dysploidy, respectively), which change the chromosome number while preserving most of the genomic content.
The size and morphology of chromosomes change through double-strand breaks (DSBs) in chromosomal DNA and by subsequent miss-repair at these breakpoints. Duplications, deletions, inversions, and translocations, and sometimes combination of these rearrangements, have the potential to alter the length of chromosome arms, change the centromere position, as well as the order and position of genes on chromosomes (gene linkage). Chromosome translocations mediate the reduction of chromosome numbers through recombination between at least two nonhomologous chromosomes (descending dysploidy). Conversely, chromosome breakage not followed by DSB (miss-)repair can potentially result in chromosome-number increase (ascending dysploidy).
During the last decade, revolutionary advancements have enhanced our ability to make inferences regarding historical events that led to chromosome-number changes. These include both experimental procedures, encompassing novel comparative genomics approaches, and computational methodologies that offer more robust and flexible predictions of ancestral chromosome numbers and their phylogenetic placements. Here, we first describe mechanistic processes underlying changes in chromosome numbers. Then, we focus on state-of-the-art experimental and computational methodologies that are applied to uncover such changes and to estimate their timings.
Last edited:
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
So 48=46I believe this was explained to you in detail before, Your ignorance record has a crack in it, and your intentional ignorance and lack of knowledge of science remain profound. You continually poke around in the dark with no knowledge to support your questions. Of course, your lack of knowledge negates any relevance of your questions. The mechanism of Change in the number of chromosomes is well-known in genetics. I doubt you remotely understand the science.
The Evolution of Chromosome Numbers: Mechanistic Models and Experimental Approaches
Abstract. Chromosome numbers have been widely used to describe the most fundamental genomic attribute of an organism or a lineage. Although providing stronacademic.oup.com
The extant chromosome-number variation is external manifestation of the underlying dynamic genomic processes, encompassing structural chromosomal rearrangements and changes in the DNA content. The most recognizable chromosome-number change is through a whole-genome duplication (WGD), or more generally polyploidization, which describes the acquisition of one or more complete chromosome sets to the genome. Single-chromosome changes represent another common pathway underlying chromosome-number variation. These transitions include the gain/loss of a single chromosome(s)—a process known as aneuploidy, and processes such as chromosome fission and fusion (ascending and descending dysploidy, respectively), which change the chromosome number while preserving most of the genomic content.
The size and morphology of chromosomes change through double-strand breaks (DSBs) in chromosomal DNA and by subsequent miss-repair at these breakpoints. Duplications, deletions, inversions, and translocations, and sometimes combination of these rearrangements, have the potential to alter the length of chromosome arms, change the centromere position, as well as the order and position of genes on chromosomes (gene linkage). Chromosome translocations mediate the reduction of chromosome numbers through recombination between at least two nonhomologous chromosomes (descending dysploidy). Conversely, chromosome breakage not followed by DSB (miss-)repair can potentially result in chromosome-number increase (ascending dysploidy).
During the last decade, revolutionary advancements have enhanced our ability to make inferences regarding historical events that led to chromosome-number changes. These include both experimental procedures, encompassing novel comparative genomics approaches, and computational methodologies that offer more robust and flexible predictions of ancestral chromosome numbers and their phylogenetic placements. Here, we first describe mechanistic processes underlying changes in chromosome numbers. Then, we focus on state-of-the-art experimental and computational methodologies that are applied to uncover such changes and to estimate their timings.
32=72
What kind of math do the evolutionist use?
So based on this post of yours, any common traits cannot be used as proof of common descent. Thanks.
Poof! ALL GONE FOREVER.
There are more problems for the evolutionists. Remember, common traits could be from common descent or intelligent creation by the Almighty Creator, but inexplicable differences and inexplicable prove common descent false and intelligent creation by the Almighty Creator true.
You have so splaying to do.
Chromosome counts for various fox species.
Red fox 34
Tibetan sand fox 36
Kit fox 50
Bengal fox 60
Fennec fox 64
Chromosome counts various species.
Butterfly 268
Gypsy moth 62
Japanese oak silk moth 31
I believe this was explained to you in detail before, Your ignorance record has a crack in it, and your intentional ignorance and lack of knowledge of science remain profound. You continually poke around in the dark with no knowledge to support your questions. Of course, your lack of knowledge negates any relevance of your questions. The mechanism of Change in the number of chromosomes is well-known in genetics. I doubt you remotely understand the science.
See reference question answered repeatedly. Of course, you are clearly clueless concerning science and cannot respond to the reference cited.
The references to your questions are in the language of science and you are illiterate.
Last edited:
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Then all supposed similarity is no evidence for evolution at all. But the inexplicable differences and inexplicable similarities disprove evolution.
Mankind 46
Chimps 48
Chromosome counts for various fox species.
Red fox 34
Tibetan sand fox 36
Kit fox 50
Bengal fox 60
Fennec fox 64
Chromosome counts various species.
Butterfly 268
Gypsy moth 62
Japanese oak silk moth 31
Earth worm 36
Silk worm 56
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Once again, this has been explained to you. If you want me to explain again you need to apologize. It is not my fault that you ignored a detailed answer to your questions.
b
No, you are intentionally ignorant as the relationship of the evolution of life and the number of chromosomes.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
I am not at all.
All supposed similarity is not evidence for evolution at all. But the inexplicable differences and inexplicable similarities disprove evolution.
Chromosome count
Mankind 46
Chimps 48
Chromosome counts for various fox species.
Red fox 34
Tibetan sand fox 36
Kit fox 50
Bengal fox 60
Fennec fox 64
Chromosome counts various species.
Butterfly 268
Gypsy moth 62
Japanese oak silk moth 31
Earth worm 36
Silk worm 56
Grape fern 90
Rattlesnake fern 184
No, you are intentionally ignorant of the relationship between the evolution of life and the number of chromosomes.
Evolutionary Mechanisms of Varying Chromosome Numbers in the Radiation of Erebia Butterflies
The evolution of intrinsic barriers to gene flow is a crucial step in the process of speciation. Chromosomal changes caused by fusion and fission events are one such barrier and are common in several groups of Lepidoptera. However, it remains unclear ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
recombination and prevent the breakup of co-adapted genomic regions is thus vital for the progression of speciation [5,6]. Intrinsic barriers may not only stabilize initial differentiation [3,7,8], but also promote the subsequent coexistence of closely related species [9,10]. Theory supports the idea that chromosomal rearrangements, such as translocations, inversions and the change in chromosome numbers through fusion and fission of existing chromosomes, can act as intrinsic barriers [11,12,13]. Changes in chromosome numbers through fusion and fission may, in particular, result in reproductive isolation, and thus promote speciation. This is because complex and unstable meiotic chains can form in hybrids between species with different chromosome numbers, leading to meiotic nondisjunction and sterility [14]. Hybrid sterility may, however, take a long time to establish. This is indicated by often widespread hybridization between closely related species or chromosomal races in the wild [15,16], especially in butterflies [17]. Recent genomic data further suggests that chromosomal barriers may be more porous than formerly thought [18]. Differences in chromosome numbers nevertheless often reduce gene flow and thus provide some initial degree of isolation [19]. The extent to which such differences contribute to speciation remains yet unknown [12,13,20,21].
Speciation through fusion and fission of chromosomes has, for example, been suggested to drive diversification in some groups of mammals [13,20] or Lepidoptera [21,22,23]. Chromosome numbers are often highly conserved among many Lepidoptera genera and families with a haploid chromosome number (n) of ~31 [22]. However, several groups of butterflies, such as Agrodiaetus [21] or Lysandra [24], exhibit high karyotypic diversity [22]. The Agrodiaetus group (n range: 10–134) has become a model system for studying the evolutionary interplay between chromosome numbers, speciation and the coexistence of species [21,23]. In contrast, the evolutionary mechanisms remain unclear for most other Lepidopteran groups, including Erebia. Erebia is a genus of Palearctic butterflies consisting of more than one hundred described species that differ phenotypically, ecologically and karyotypically from each other [22,25,26]. Phylogenetic inferences suggest that the radiation of European Erebia emerged over the last ~15 million years [26]. However, among European Erebia, the E. tyndarus group is much younger (0.15–1 million years; [26,27,28]). The process of speciation is not complete in the E. tyndarus group, as interspecific gene flow is still possible [17,26,28]. Similar to Agrodiaetus, speciation in Erebia is suggested to be driven by changes in chromosome numbers (n range: 7–51), associated with allopatric phases followed by secondary contact [26,29]. The high karyotypic diversity in E. tyndarus (n range: 8–51; Figure 1) suggests that chromosomal fusion and fission processes, in combination with ecological adaptation, could have promoted the rapid diversification in this group [17,22,25,30,31].
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/l...oom&p=PMC3&id=5867887_genes-09-00166-g001.jpg
References provided have demonstrated changes in Chromosome numbers in the process of speciation. Your intentional ignorance, and inability to understand English based on an ancient tribal agenda continue to be a problem.
Speciation through chromosomal fusion and fission in Lepidoptera
Jurriaan M. de Vos,
Hannah Augustijnen
,
Livio Bätscher
and
Kay Lucek
Published:13 July 2020https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0539
Abstract
Changes in chromosome numbers may strongly affect reproductive barriers, because individuals heterozygous for distinct karyotypes are typically expected to be at least partially sterile or to show reduced recombination. Therefore, several classic speciation models are based on chromosomal changes. One import mechanism generating variation in chromosome numbers is fusion and fission of existing chromosomes, which is particularly likely in species with holocentric chromosomes, i.e. chromosomes that lack a single centromere. Holocentric chromosomes evolved repeatedly across the tree of life, including in Lepidoptera. Although changes in chromosome numbers are hypothesized to be an important driver of the spectacular diversification of Lepidoptera, comparative studies across the order are lacking. We performed the first comprehensive literature survey of karyotypes for Lepidoptera species since the 1970s and tested if, and how, chromosomal variation might affect speciation. Even though a meta-analysis of karyological differences between closely related taxa did not reveal an effect on the degree of reproductive isolation, phylogenetic diversification rate analyses across the 16 best-covered genera indicated a strong, positive association of rates of chromosome number evolution and speciation. These findings suggest a macroevolutionary impact of varying chromosome numbers in Lepidoptera and likely apply to other taxonomic groups, especially to those with holocentric chromosomes.This article is part of the theme issue ‘Towards the completion of speciation: the evolution of reproductive isolation beyond the first barriers’.
1. Introduction
The order Lepidoptera, which comprises more than 160 000 described species of butterflies and moths, is one of the most speciose branches of the tree of life. Its remarkable diversity is accompanied by a tremendous variation in chromosome numbers, ranging from 5 to 223 chromosomes in the haploid karyotype [1,2]. However, this variation is not randomly distributed among genera, as most show the presumed ancestral haploid karyotype of n=31, while other genera vary widely ([1], figure 1). In several genera, increased diversity in chromosome numbers appears associated with bursts in species numbers, suggesting that chromosomal variation may contribute to speciation [1,3–5]. This view is supported by theory, predicting that chromosomal variation can act as an intrinsic barrier to gene flow, either because hybrids between individuals with different chromosome numbers are at least partially sterile, or because chromosomal rearrangements suppress recombination [6,7]. Nevertheless, empirical evidence for the role of varying chromosome numbers in speciation is mixed, in part contrasting the theoretical predictions. Closely related species with different chromosome numbers can often be crossed [8,9] and hybrid fitness may not necessarily be reduced [10,11]. Moreover, evolutionary modes of diversification within genera in relation to varying chromosome numbers may range from neutral [4,12] to adaptive [5] evolution. However, a comprehensive study across Lepidoptera is lacking. With these inconsistencies at hand, we aim to infer the impact of interspecific chromosomal differentiation on reproductive isolation and rates of speciation across genera. We then discuss potential underlying mechanisms.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
And where are all the intermediary species between all these.
All supposed similarity is not evidence for evolution at all. But the inexplicable differences and inexplicable similarities disprove evolution.
Chromosome count
Mankind 46
Chimps 48
Chromosome counts for various fox species.
Red fox 34
Tibetan sand fox 36
Kit fox 50
Bengal fox 60
Fennec fox 64
Chromosome counts various species.
Butterfly 268
Gypsy moth 62
Japanese oak silk moth 31
Earth worm 36
Silk worm 56
Grape fern 90
Rattlesnake fern 184
Mankind 46
European olive 46
Amoeba dubia 670 billion base pairs
How did that happen?
In the evolved nature of life.
Similarity is not the only basis for evolution. No your circular reasoning to justify what you believe is to give self-approval to confirm what you believe.
The question you have is what causes the wide range of Chromosome counts and I gave the scientific explanation with references.
Of course, you believe all this is Satan deceiving the scientists.
References provided have demonstrated changes in Chromosome numbers in the process of speciation. Your intentional ignorance, and inability to understand English based on an ancient tribal agenda continue to be a problem.
Speciation through chromosomal fusion and fission in Lepidoptera
Jurriaan M. de Vos,
Hannah Augustijnen
,
Livio Bätscher
and
Kay Lucek
Published:13 July 2020https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0539
Abstract
Changes in chromosome numbers may strongly affect reproductive barriers, because individuals heterozygous for distinct karyotypes are typically expected to be at least partially sterile or to show reduced recombination. Therefore, several classic speciation models are based on chromosomal changes. One import mechanism generating variation in chromosome numbers is fusion and fission of existing chromosomes, which is particularly likely in species with holocentric chromosomes, i.e. chromosomes that lack a single centromere. Holocentric chromosomes evolved repeatedly across the tree of life, including in Lepidoptera. Although changes in chromosome numbers are hypothesized to be an important driver of the spectacular diversification of Lepidoptera, comparative studies across the order are lacking. We performed the first comprehensive literature survey of karyotypes for Lepidoptera species since the 1970s and tested if, and how, chromosomal variation might affect speciation. Even though a meta-analysis of karyological differences between closely related taxa did not reveal an effect on the degree of reproductive isolation, phylogenetic diversification rate analyses across the 16 best-covered genera indicated a strong, positive association of rates of chromosome number evolution and speciation. These findings suggest a macroevolutionary impact of varying chromosome numbers in Lepidoptera and likely apply to other taxonomic groups, especially to those with holocentric chromosomes.This article is part of the theme issue ‘Towards the completion of speciation: the evolution of reproductive isolation beyond the first barriers’.
1. Introduction
The order Lepidoptera, which comprises more than 160 000 described species of butterflies and moths, is one of the most speciose branches of the tree of life. Its remarkable diversity is accompanied by a tremendous variation in chromosome numbers, ranging from 5 to 223 chromosomes in the haploid karyotype [1,2]. However, this variation is not randomly distributed among genera, as most show the presumed ancestral haploid karyotype of n=31, while other genera vary widely ([1], figure 1). In several genera, increased diversity in chromosome numbers appears associated with bursts in species numbers, suggesting that chromosomal variation may contribute to speciation [1,3–5]. This view is supported by theory, predicting that chromosomal variation can act as an intrinsic barrier to gene flow, either because hybrids between individuals with different chromosome numbers are at least partially sterile, or because chromosomal rearrangements suppress recombination [6,7]. Nevertheless, empirical evidence for the role of varying chromosome numbers in speciation is mixed, in part contrasting the theoretical predictions. Closely related species with different chromosome numbers can often be crossed [8,9] and hybrid fitness may not necessarily be reduced [10,11]. Moreover, evolutionary modes of diversification within genera in relation to varying chromosome numbers may range from neutral [4,12] to adaptive [5] evolution. However, a comprehensive study across Lepidoptera is lacking. With these inconsistencies at hand, we aim to infer the impact of interspecific chromosomal differentiation on reproductive isolation and rates of speciation across genera. We then discuss potential underlying mechanisms.
Last edited:
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Just circular reasoning.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
But the pattern they fall into (the nested hierarchy), is. This has been explained to you before. But as usual, with the willfully ignorant:
None of what you mentioned is inexplicable. Being willfully ignorant is not an excuse.
No just science, your approach is circular reasoning with your ASSUMPTION that the Bible is the only authority and justifies itself.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
I did assume that the Bible is true but now have proved to be true,
So now that is fact.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
This is a satirical performance you're putting on, right?