Evolution is a joke Pt. VIII

Incorrect - I just told you... anemones streatching starts the process... Unless you can find something that says different with a link, you are wrong... Because that is EXACTLY what the link you posted stated...

Did you even read it? I didn't think so... You are getting sloppy again...

 

It doesn't matter how the process starts. Both of them use apoptosis to facilitate fission. Unicellular colonies don't do that.

 

Let me set you your own wrong...

YES or NO - When fission occurs is it the same within anemones and yeast?

If your answer is YES - then which fission do they share?

*Why I post this is because this is very important. Cell Death happens, Programmed Cell Death happens… That is how a colony operates. BUT in this “ridiculously” rare case in anemones I have to let all know that the comparison is outrageous.

It is said that yeast grows – then breaks by apoptosis – then starts from scratch (which hasn’t been answered on how it reproduces at this point). This is so far from what an anemone does. An anemone first starts to stretch (does yeast? No&#8230 Then all kinds of things happen – chemical reactions happen that induce apoptosis (does this happen in yeast? No&#8230 After that, the anemone is “another” multicellular organism (does this happen with yeast? No&#8230 AND THAT IS WHY THEY DO NOT SHARE THE SAME FISSION… Yeast is unicellular fission, anemones are a type of multicellular fission (I say type, because there is more than one and I don’t want to look it up)…


Readers - What happens to the colony of yeast is, you can take ANY and I do mean ANY reproducing/replicating yeast cell (any cell – singular) and in the right conditions will produce another colony (as they did in the experiment with the yeast when it started to reproduce). In anemone’s this is not the case. Plain and simple, the flatworm is out and now, so is the anemone. There will be no links, no videos… The yeast is a colony and acts like one.

The best way to explain it… I can divide the yeast colony of 100 yeast cells into clusters of 5 cells –CELL CLUSTERS OF FIVE, and as long as there was one reproducing/replicating yeast cell, it would (or has the capability) of creating new colonies. There is not ONE multicellular lifeform on this planet – nor has there ever been that has this capability.

OH – and just to remind everyone – the person doing the experiment said it wasn’t multicellular! He heee… I wanted that to be saved for the end. I want all these pages of me saying – it’s not multicellular – dude said it and people arguing about it to be EPIC! I mean – how can you give someone everything they need to says it’s not multicellular and they still argue? I blame that on bordome…

Well here you go: “A cluster alone isn’t multiellular,” Ratcliff said. “But when cells in a cluster cooperate, make sacrifices for the common good, and adapt to change, that’s an evolutionary transition to multicellularity.”

 

All hail to Gaia, you finally accepted evolution.

 

Breaking down the Religious lies of Evolutionary Biologist… (When there is a * - means it's a quote from a website and can be looked up - I did put down two main websites at the bottom of my post)

http://www1.umn.edu/news/news-releases/2012/UR_CONTENT_370158.html

Let us break this down shall we? Let us begin…

In essence, here’s how the experiments worked. The two chose brewer’s yeast or Saccharomyces cerevisiae, a species of yeast used since ancient times to make bread and beer, because it is abundant in nature and grows easily. They added it to a nutrient-rich culture media and allowed the cells to grow for a day in test tubes. Then they used a centrifuge to stratify the contents by weight. As the mixture settled, cell clusters landed on the bottom of the tubes faster because they are heavier. They removed the clusters, transferred them to fresh media, and grew them up again. Sixty cycles later, the clusters – now hundreds of cells – looked roughly like spherical snowflakes.
Take yeast – shake – remove – repeat for sixty cycles – hundreds of yeast cells…

Analysis showed that the clusters were not just groups of random cells that adhered to each other, but related cells that remained attached following cell division. That was significant because it meant they were genetically similar, which promotes cooperation. When the clusters reached a critical size, some cells essentially committed suicide (apoptosis) to allow offspring to separate. The offspring reproduced only after they attained the size of their parents.
So many wrongs I need to break this one down a little more…

Analysis showed that the clusters were not just groups of random cells that adhered to each other, but related cells that remained attached following cell division. That was significant because it meant they were genetically similar, which promotes cooperation.
You mean like a mother cell and a daughter cell? Then they connect after division? Then after that they cooperate? Okay got it… Sounds like a colony…
*all organisms within the colony descend from a single ancestor, they are genetically identical..
*The cells have eyespots, more developed near the anterior, which enable the colony to swim towards light. (this colony can swim toward light) They are known to demonstrate some individuality and working for the good of their colony, acting like one multicellular organism.

When the clusters reached a critical size, some cells essentially committed suicide (apoptosis) to allow offspring to separate. The offspring reproduced only after they attained the size of their parents.
How did it reach that “critical” size… How did the offspring reproduce “after” they attained the size of their parents? I mean – did the offspring cell (singular) grow? Hmmm – kinda shadey there, as they don’t say how and the offspring attained the size of their parents… But we know how it works in the yeast beforehand? By dubbing, which is unicellular reproduction/replication. Since they did not give any explanation of “how” this happened, we must assume that it is defined on how yeast already creates more yeast, and that is by dubbing, unless they release some “new” reproduction/replication process… And if that process didn’t change – it’s a colony of yeast…

Oh, those sneaky evolutionary biologist monks… messing wording up for their followers…

But… we also have this - *Wild strains of S. cerevisiae therefore form complex, differentiated colonies that are very similar to biofilms in terms of their organization and protective mechanisms. Palková and first author Libuše Váchová hope that their groups’ studies will establish budding yeast as a model for investigating the conserved features of biofilm form and function. “

“A cluster alone isn’t multiellular,” Ratcliff said. “But when cells in a cluster cooperate, make sacrifices for the common good, and adapt to change, that’s an evolutionary transition to multicellularity.”
Why? *a colonial organism is that individual organisms from a colony can, if separated, survive on their own, while cells from a multicellular lifeform (e.g., cells from a brain) cannot.

In order for multicellular organisms to form, most cells need to sacrifice their ability to reproduce, an altruistic action that favors the whole but not the individual, Ratcliff said. For example, all cells in the human body are essentially a support system that allows sperm and eggs to pass DNA along to the next generation. Thus, multicellularity is by its nature extremely cooperative. “Some of the best competitors in nature are those that engage in cooperation, and our experiment bears that out,” said Travisano.
That’s nice… we have just read that (from previous links) that this is also how a colony works… But, if you don’t remember – here: *Laboratory strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae enjoy a much more comfortable life than their undomesticated relatives. Váchová et al. detail the complex colonies that wild strains of budding yeast form in order to survive the hostile conditions of their natural environment (1).

Evolutionary biologists have estimated that multicellularity evolved independently in about 25 groups. Travisano and Ratcliff wonder why it didn’t evolve more often in nature, since it’s not that difficult to recreate it in a lab. Considering that trillions of one-celled organisms lived on the Earth for millions of years, it seems as if it should have, Ratcliff said.
Millions is an understatement… Volvox has been around for about 250 million years! So… Why hasn’t it? Hmmm – 250 million years… My guess… I’m just shooting this out there on a hunch since it has been 250 million years if not more…

It can’t…


Some of the sites I used are http://jcb.rupress.org/content/194/5/659 - http://www1.umn.edu/news/news-releases/2012/UR_CONTENT_370158.html all other sites can be seen if you see the (*) and copy and Google that sentence… Gotta run!

Hope you all liked it! I had fun this time! Without dealing with Peanuts, it was a good discussion. Thank you all that were involved and were not peanuts…

 

Hail Gaia…

I will accept evolution and you can discuss your issue with Chromo 2 dealing with beavers, and rabbits/hares, types of mice, and a whole gambit of life on this planet… just express to us, since it was you that stated this, how Chromo 2 is an example of evolution when there isn’t that example with species more closely related between us and the rest of the ape clade…

I really didn’t expect to see you for a month, but here you are? OH!! I got it – you’re here because the thread is about to close and what other way to put in your last two cents… Like the kid who while walking out of the class room to the principal’s office sticks his tongue out as the doors closing!! Got it!!

 

Do you mean the discussion is about to close or that the thread is about to reach 500 posts so that a moderator will close it?

 

500...

And you can help it on its way if you answered the question that you so adamantly argued about earlier… What don’t remember? Rs199 screaming about Chromo2 and you coming into the conversation? No…? Do you want a link? Or can you remember and that is why whenever I post about it you disappeare for a while... Never answering the quesiton....? You tell me Freeware... Explain this "epic" knowledge about biology that you stated and said I had "no clue" on several occasions... Address Chromo 2 and let the world know how big your internet brain is!!! It's probably so big it wouldn't fit in my monitor - not enough pixels!!! Teach your hungry followers!! WE AWAIT YOUR COMING!!! WE THIRST FOR YOUR KNOWLEDGE!!!







yea...


nothing....

Readers - I find something funny after all these threads… It is a habit of the Darwin Religious to “jump in” knee deep in a conversation/discussion when they have no clue about the topic to defend another Darwin Religious follower! They just start posting and agreeing with some idiot who is a Darwin Religious nut job, just because they are of the same faith. Then after they “see” they messed up, they just keep posting OR like Freeware “huh? What… don’t know what you’re talking about…” I mean… Think about it… How did the Peanut Gallery get their names? Who is in it? Why are they in the Peanut Gallery? Some of you have been reading for quite some time. One idiot will post something and if they “think” it’s worth a go, I mean I get like 10 people posting about something they did no research on… and you know it’s a hot topic when “lopey” posts… (lopey posts when they “think” they are FINALLY going to prove me wrong for the first time… - hasn’t happened yet and thanks lopey for the help of posting the link that stated the yeast guy stated it wasn’t a multicellular organisms! I still don’t know if he/she is for evolution or not, but his/her post always seem to help my argument… He/she’s the greatest…. ) and it all ends the same way... in their failure…

Now I will give my kudos to Burz, Ak, and Goldie… I do love their conversations, and they are at least Google Samurai Maters (not the fly by Ninja's) that there is none like. Ak, hands down is the most knowledgeable on biology… but Goldie and Burz do give him/her a run for Ak’s money. But we are at the end of yet another Evolution is a Joke… Until next time folks… during out time off please watch the Detroit Red Wings and Liverpool English Premier League Soccer…

Gaia Bless… God Bless… Darwin Bless…

 

Just realized that I proved everyone wrong again too early… Dang it… Well, we have like 20 pages left, so I will just provide something that I just find funny on the subject… People were arguing with me AFTER I posted that the person giving the experiment (Ratliff) stated it wasn’t a “multicellular” organism… I stated it – Lope (thank you again) posted a link that stated it… But, the evolutionary religious are going to put out to their “mass”es (get it? Masses – Mass…) that it is!! The messed up thing about it? They were EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST and stated it wasn’t…

But, I will say this again as I have stated so many times in the past, but it doesn’t seem to get through to these religious folks. Dealing with science, as they say they do, what evidence do they have of anything evolving? Has anything they have found “alive” evolved? Or are they making up stories of what they think happened… So, as I always do – give an example of just how retarded evolution is!



OH HOW I LOVE USING DARWIN’S RELIGION AGAINST THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN DARWINISM! It has now been discovered that, as predicted, the genes determining this difference in V. carteri are linked to the MT locus [5]. Volvox species are very distantly related to Chlamydomonas, and probably diverged ∼200 million years ago [1] and [14]. Nevertheless, sequencing of V. carteri genomic DNA has identified a region containing several genes also known to be in the C. reinhardtii MT region, and genetic mapping in V. carteri showed that this region includes the gamete size-determiner. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982210005798

What that means folks is that this unicellular organism and his/her distant cousin have been around for about 200 million years… Just being colonies… Not making the leap to multicellular life… Now, what does that mean to me and you? Here…

Volvox, like most unicellular life reproduces/replicates two to four times a day, we’ll take three (3) just be be in the middle… That three generations daily… Now, after some quick math we see that equates to about 219,000,000,000 generations to “evolve”… Also, just to add, 200 mya means Volvox is unchanged after “two”… Wait let me say this again – TWO major extinctions (as I have stated before life after all major extinctions stay the same and DO NOT evolve and there is no evidence stating such). Now, we reproduce at, we’ll take an average of (now mind you the majority of time of us being on this planet there was no age limit and rape was just part of life) 17 years old. So, we divide the 219 billion by 17 years and we get 12,900,000,000 years (I rounded up from 12,88?)… Now let us look at us shall we? Our history only goes back I believe under 70 mya (some sort of bird monkey or something)… So what were we 12,000,000,000 years ago?!?! What were we after that last major extinction? Do we have ANY evidence of anything about us 12 billion years ago? ANYTHING? But, the religious will tell you they assume they do! (I found it… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus_tchadensis our last ancestor)

Now to the point of all this… How come Volvox hasn’t become multicellular? Ratliff stated it himself – Travisano and Ratcliff wonder why it didn’t evolve more often in nature, since it’s not that difficult to recreate it in a lab. Considering that trillions of one-celled organisms lived on the Earth for millions of years, it seems as if it should have, Ratcliff said. I mean, after all this time, we can look at life on this planet and if (and that is a big if) there is “any” evidence of evolution we should be able to look back at examples and say – if we were fish about 12 billion years ago, then things that replicate/reproduce daily we should witness or have witnessed them become different lifeforms all together!

Just simple common sense here… How can ANYONE say things evolve when we have evidence that EVERY LIFEFORM THAT SURVIVED AN EXTINCTION DID NOT EVOLVE! Some dating all they way back to the first life on this planet… example? No – well, here you go - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolite Hmmm – still around aren’t they? How about the life that survived the extinction after what “they” call the Cambrian Explosion? Did any life survive that extinction and appear in the fossil record after? Now, did it evolve OR did it stay the same until it became extinct or is it still the same species? So, why do evolutionary religious, since there is no evidence (if there is – it’s so obscure it becomes irrelevant) of evolution happening whatsoever? Not in a lab, not in the fossil record, not by history… Why do they get their imaginations from?

There has not been one thing – in all the post – thread – debates, that has been brought to the table that provides ANY evidence of evolution “which” mind you is supposedly a theory! It hasn’t passed the scientific method, in fact – it hasn’t even came CLOSE!!!

Well, unless someone wants to discuss their evidence of evolution of course… Since nobody has brought crap to the table that stand “for” evolution yet, I will be waiting… love to discuss, just don’t be all “religious” on me like the Peanut Gallery please…

 

The explain to us how human got here then... Unless you are trying to say that we were living side by side with the dinosaur...

 

I can't believe you're still claiming that Ratcliff, the primary author on the research report entitled "Experimental evolution of multicellularity," said that the result of that experiment isn't multicellular. You really think this guy developed the first obvious example of evolution in a lab and then completely contradicted the results of his own experiment?

 

The slower animals are more likely to get eaten and therefore eventually, over a long long period of time, die out. The animals that have mutations that allow them to survive more easily don't die as much. Survival is never absolute, but far more likely in the better adapted mutations. Isn't this common sense? If you accept that mutations happen, then evolution is just a logical conclusion.

 

Uh... We "were"? We were living next to dinosaurs? First, (huhhh.... frustrating sometimes, I swear...) "were" is past tense, so... therefore your question states that either Homosapien Sapiens were shopping at the Gap during the Jurassic period or you believe that dinosaurs survived the K-T extinction and were strolling on the Earth about 10 million years ago - THEN went extinct...

But, just so everyone knows this, as I have stated before. Dinosaurs live today... They are birds... This is like first year biology dealing with the word "avian"... But, we can always go back to the one site I have posted like eight thousand (8,000) times - University of Berkeley... • Dinosaurs are not extinct. Technically. Based on features of the skeleton, most people studying dinosaurs consider birds to be dinosaurs. This shocking realization makes even the smallest hummingbird a legitimate dinosaur. So rather than refer to "dinosaurs" and birds as discrete, separate groups, it is best to refer to the traditional, extinct animals as "non-avian dinosaurs" and birds as, well, birds, or "avian dinosaurs." It is incorrect to say that dinosaurs are extinct, because they have left living descendants in the form of cockatoos, cassowaries, and their pals — just like modern vertebrates are still vertebrates even though their Cambrian ancestors are long extinct. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/dinosaur.html

 

I linked it... Posted it... Lopey posted it... Linked it again... Posted it again... then posted it again... then linked it and posted it yet again...

If you want to run in a cave and close your eyes with your fingers in your ears, there is nothing I can do about that and yes, I think that guy developed an obvious example of what he said - a cluster of yeast that "can be looked at" as a step toward multicellular life... What the Darwin Religious do with that is on them... I just don't believe their lies and propaganda! I believe what the researcher said, not what some lunatic Darwin Priest says... So, you have a choice, believe what the person doing the experiment states, or some lunatic...

 

Yea, if it was that easy... but it's not... how does this work in plants? How does this work in unicellular life? How about insects? Jellyfish? Coral? And the list will go on forever... Animals that hunt and animals that get eaten is about 2% of the world's life on this planet, if not less... So, no... I don't see evolution as being the logical conclusion. But, I will agree that mutation is the foundation of evolution though and not natural selection as some people suggest...

 

Why would the primary author of the experiment contradict the experiment's conclusion? It's like Pythagoras coming up with his theorem and then saying triangles don't exist. It makes no sense. You just don't understand what he said, and you don't understand that Lopey's post was intended to contradict you rather than support your side.

In the PNAS article, he says the exact opposite of what you claim he said. From the experiment report: "We observed the rapid evolution of clustering genotypes that display a novel multicellular life history characterized by reproduction via multicellular propagules, a juvenile phase, and determinate growth." That's as good as a direct quote from Ratcliff himself since he's the primary author.

 

You need to take that up with him… not me…

AH ha haa HA HAHAAA!!!! I KNOW!!!! That is what makes it SO FUNNY!!!! Every time Lopey posts something to try to contradict me there is always something “juicy” within his/her link that only furthers my point… It’s classic! I call it “FAIL by drive-by” since he/she doesn’t post that often…

Well, the direct quote I got is his… it’s in different links… The cluster is not multicellular…. End of story… now you are going to say that the quote is wrong? Just admit being wrong – you always say you’ll admit it (even though you’ve been wrong numerous times) and I haven’t seen it yet.

You argued with someone who doesn’t know biology from his big toe on this just because he Google’d some evolution propaganda and you jumped on board without knowing Homer Simpson was steering the ship. I gave you SO many chances to jump ship… I can’t believe you fell for the colony being multicellular… you should have done experiments with yeast… Well, like I said, for you to fall for that ridiculousness, you haven’t seen the inside of a biology book and your skills in Google Searching are matched by none! By every cell, the yeast is a colony… and works like a colony… it is not, never will be, won’t even come close, to being multicellular…

Ever…

 

He didn't say the cluster is not multicellular, he said a cluster is not multicellular. As in, a single cluster of cells of any kind is not automatically a multicellular organism. He then went on to describe the actions of his yeast clusters which do make them multicellular. That's why he said "but...."

No colony of unicellular organisms splits via apoptosis. None. You have never addressed that issue. You constantly ignore it. You constantly say that the yeast is just a colony of unicellular organisms and ignore the fact that they exhibit a behavior that no colony has ever displayed. That alone indicates that the clusters are multicellular organisms, or at least in-between like Volvox.

 

Now your just posting silliness… Word games will not help you. There was more than “one” cluster, thus “the cluster” does not apply. Out of the many clusters, “A” cluster applies, and it applies to them all…

Dealing with “A” – I will give you an “A” for effort… but NO DICE!!!!!

They are nowhere CLOSE to volvox… Volvox MOVES!!!! Not just random floating, I mean it says, let’s move over there – and the colony MOVES!!! Also, programmed cell death is irrelevant dealing with uni/multicellular life… Why? Name five clades of life that split by apoptosis. Also, that does happen in most of life on this planet including colonies… How do you think Volvox splits?

The point that you initially stated apoptosis was for replication/reproduction and we know that was just wrong from the get-go… But, just dealing with splitting into another – well, that happens with almost ALL colonies… You just think just rip off new living cells?

 

NOTE:this is from another thread: http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/232902-religion-not-uniter-divider-25.html#post1060902893
I moved this here so the other thread doesnt get bogged down with BS.

All members of the Great Ape Claude have 48 chromosomes, except one, and that is human beings. When you look at Human Chromosome 2, you can see that the gene sequences are EXACTLY the same as the Chimpanzees Chromosome 2A and 2B. The same holds true for the Orangutang and the Gorilla. The same sequences is the key part. ONLY the members in the Great Ape family have the same gene sequences in Chromosome 2A and 2B\ Human Chromosome 2.

This proves that all four members of the Great Ape Claude share one common ancestor and all 4 of us have EVOLVED from that one specie. It also proves Evolution because evolution would predict this to explain the reason why humans have 46 and the rest of the Great Ape Claude has 48.

BTW, there are no monkeys with 100 chromosomes. No Gorillas with 62, humans with 48. You're simply exaggerating these numbers out of anger because you do not understand Evolution and must resort to child like tantrums like the one above.




I will have to break this bull(*)(*)(*)(*) down line by line:

My apologies for even trying to debate you. Usually ignorance can be fixed.

Not sure where you get this or why bring it up. Are you trying to think for me? Maybe that is why you cannot learn. You assume too much.

Yes that is correct. All 4 members of the Great Ape Claude have the same exact gene sequences in Chromosome 2A and 2B. The only difference is in Humans, Chromosome 2A and 2B has been fused into one.

Yes, then humans would have 48 and not 46 chromosomes

Yes, you seem to understand, Why is the problem then?

Are you for real? I've stated over and over that the Human Chromosome 2 has the same exact DNA Sequences as the rest of the Great Ape Claude, except the rest of the Claude has the information stored in tow different Chromosomes 2A and 2B. NO DNA WAS LOST - NONE!


Are you arguing just to argue?

 

How could he be talking about multiple clusters if he just said "a cluster?" Ratcliff authored a report about the development of multicellular yeast, and spent several posts on this blog defending the fact that the yeast was multicellular, but you want us to believe that he also said the yeast weren't multicellular in a Wired article? Really? Isn't it more likely that you just misunderstood what he said?

Motility is irrelevant as far as multicellularity is concerned. Regardless, Volvox doesn't use apoptosis as part of reproduction. During asexual reproduction, the cells surrounding the daughter(s) just separate from each other. None of them die through apoptosis.

What do you mean that I was wrong from the get-go? The article states that apoptosis is what causes the clusters to split into daughter clusters. That's reproduction through fission.

Please, provide a link to a colony of unicellular organisms that splits through apoptosis.

 

Birds aren't dinosaur... They are the descendant of the dinosaur... They evolved from them.

And for your statement to be true, humans would have to have survived the mass instinction in there present form since, as you stated, we never evolved!

 

University of Berkeley... • Dinosaurs are not extinct. Technically. Based on features of the skeleton, most people studying dinosaurs consider birds to be dinosaurs. This shocking realization makes even the smallest hummingbird a legitimate dinosaur. So rather than refer to "dinosaurs" and birds as discrete, separate groups, it is best to refer to the traditional, extinct animals as "non-avian dinosaurs" and birds as, well, birds, or "avian dinosaurs." It is incorrect to say that dinosaurs are extinct, because they have left living descendants in the form of cockatoos, cassowaries, and their pals — just like modern vertebrates are still vertebrates even though their Cambrian ancestors are long extinct. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/dinosaur.html

Are you suggesting that University of Berkeley is incorrect? Besides, to argue this is ridiculous... it's like high school biology... Bird are avian dinosaurs...

End of discussion... and another site for your enjoyment: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html (from a university of course) Ask your average paleontologist who is familiar with the phylogeny of vertebrates and they will probably tell you that yes, birds (avians) are dinosaurs.

Now, about the whole “human” thing… I stated that every lifeform that survived an extinction is unchanged – you replied: The[n] explain to us how human got here then... Unless you are trying to say that we were living side by side with the dinosaur... Then I replied: Uh... We "were"? We were living next to dinosaurs? First, (huhhh.... frustrating sometimes, I swear...) "were" is past tense, so... therefore your question states that either Homosapien Sapiens were shopping at the Gap during the Jurassic period or you believe that dinosaurs survived the K-T extinction and were strolling on the Earth about 10 million years ago - THEN went extinct...

So basically, you need to correct your statement of using “were”… Do you understand? Basically your sentence doesn’t really make much sense…

 

First, using the numbers was hypothetical… It can be seen when reading the first sentence when I state the word “IF”… So, you are saying that if the Do I need to give you another lesson in English? Here is a “Learning English” site that can help you out - http://www.ecenglish.com/learnenglish/lessons/how-use-‘if’-conditional-sentences and you can see it in the 2nd conditional usage… Your welcome, because I am always here to help out.

I will get to all your stuff above in a wrap up after I read all this…

Okay – Done… I will delete all the Peanut Gallery comments and just quote the ones that deal with the subject matter.. then address it…

Now, I will address this in full… and this is why Freeware won’t touch this subject (smart on Freeware’s part I do say). You just agreed that since the ape clade (not Claude) has evolved from a single ancestor is why we all have 48 chromosomes. Humans have 46 because 2 got fused (2A and 2B). Also, that within the ape clade (not Claude) the DNA is exact (well, it’s not exact, but I will let you get away with that because of your biology knowledge). Finally, that NO DNA WAS LOST – NONE! Got it….

Just a quick question before I expose this complete FAIL wide open… Think about this “really” hard! If there was a chimp that lived in Africa and an exact replica lived in S. America and there was no evidence of any differences. They are both chimps, but for some odd reason they cannot produce offspring. Then when looking at their DNA we see that the one in Africa has 40 chromosomes and the one in S. America has 48 chromosomes and there is no evidence of fused chromosomes… What does that tell you about your argument?

If you don’t get it, which I am pretty sure you don’t, I will now explain. As I stated, there are rabbits and hares, beavers and beavers and a whole SLEW of exactly like species on this planet that, if evolution is real, have common ancestor a lot closer to modern time than us and our other ape clade cousins. But, for some odd reason in our clade we all have 48 chromosomes and we have 2A and 2B fused. So, in the other life on this planet, why is that not the case? Riddle me that… If the “fused” chromosome is a piece of your evolution evidence, then you can explain what happened to the hare and rabbit and how come we don’t see fused chromosomes within that clade when their ancestor is believed to be not that far back… then we can take the Beaver… we can take mice… if you are going to use Chromosome 2 as evidence for evolution then you need to explain why it is like that in humans (homosapien sapiens) and not presented in other life on this Earth. Why do we not see fused chromosomes in other life that are obviously closer related that us and chimps and the rest of the ape clade lifeforms.

If you are struggling, I will give you some help - Go on this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organisms_by_chromosome_count

When you do search for 78.. You will see a trend, African Wild Dog, Coyote, Dingo, Dog… and the list goes on… Because they all belong to a single clade. That is why they share chromosomes at 78, like the ape clade we all share 48, and the fused one for us. Now, let us look at ALL these species… You can look at them all and tell what they are just by looking at them… Every single one of the 78 chromo group and 48 chromo group can be identified by just looks alone.

NOW – look on the site for beaver! See how their chromo’s don’t match? Well, they probably look different in Wiki – so let’s click on “beaver” to go to their “official” site on wiki… Okay – American one looks like a beaver… and the Europe one is… wait – THAT’S THE SAME PICTURE!!! There is no way for you to tell the difference between the two, but, their chromo’s don’t match.. So, if you are going to use Chromosome 2 as your crutch for evolution, please explain the beaver… mouse… rabbit and hair… I have more, but you can start there…

 

Splitting of Chromosomes (not meiosis) and fusion of Chromosomes is a pretty common event in Evolution. You do realize Chrosomes can also split into two right?

When a fusion or split happens, NO INFORMATION IS LOST!!!! That is why you can have one spiece A in Canada and Specie B in Enlgand, one can have 48 chromosomes, the other 40.

Do you understand this? Yes or no.

You are simply saying thsi specie has X amount of Chromosomes while that one has X amount, with out looking for one reason WHY they do.

Have you looked into WHY one beaver has 40 the other 48? Or are you just looking the numbers?

Here, I'll do some leg work for ya:

Cytogenetics of beavers: a case of speciation by monobrachial centric fusions

And another:

Beavers (page 3)

Well what do you know....Chrosome fusions in the Beaver.

Are you done yet?