Should at Least Make Evolutionists Consider

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Why, and how, does the muntjac deer have only seven pairs of chromosomes?

Please don't look this up, at least until you've considered for a moment how weird this is. Imagine you have 20 pairs of chromosomes, and you have a baby that has sixteen pairs. He shouldn't be able to breed with the rest of your species.

Is this at least weird? A regular deer has around 40-70 chromosomes. Is it at least strange that he can even be alive having lost that much genetic information? One more halving and he'll be a fruit fly (they have 4 pairs).

[Purple Knight]

Do you have a link for that? I don't see a correlation between size of animal and chromosome count.

I think I read it on messybeast. I was also talking about this with another breeder. Let's see...

Here we go.

http://messybeast.com/small-hybrids/fer ... ybrids.htm
This is apparently because the F1 hybrids are heterozygous, and can produces eggs or sperm containing either 19 chromosomes or 18 chromosomes. F1 hybrids tend to be large while F2 and later generations are the same size as domestic cats. By testing for chromosome count, it is theoretically possible to select and breed hybrid cats which consistently have 38 chromosomes (like the wild ancestor) to maintain the size and appearance of the initial hybrid.

Now this is not something which has absolute proof behind it. But as breeders keep making brand new F1s and trying to fix larger size in a truebreeding population, they keep failing, just as the chromosome number keeps fixing on the smaller number of the domestic cat. So among breeders the issue is thought to be related, and something we think is that the extra chromosome pair probably has growth promoters on it. What is most desired right now since laws do not account for size - no one is going to weigh your cat and determine that because it weighs 200lbs you are not allowed to have it - but species, a 50lb savannah will be as legal as a halfsized one... is a cat with the tameness and less willingness to hiss of the housecat and some of its colours and patterns if we can get them, with the size and bearing of the serval. People keep trying for this and the larger size and 38 chromosomes simply refuse to fix.

My hypothesis right now is that the people poised to use screening to try to make fertile 38's will fail. They will pick out the gametes that are 19's, and find that these are precisely ones that do not produce a fertile F2, or even do not make a viable embryo at all.

What I'm going to try to do is see if those feral cat shooters out in Australia bagging 40lb specimens of feral domestic cats, will freeze and send me their testicles. These should be 36's which will produce a larger-bodied cat, which can then be elongated with gracile breeds like the Oriental Shorthair or Abyssinian, to produce a cat that is unable to be seized or criminalised (because it will be genetically 100% felis catus) but large and regal.

[The Barbarian]

Do you have a link for that? I don't see a correlation between size of animal and chromosome count.

I think I read it on messybeast. I was also talking about this with another breeder. Let's see...

Here we go.

http://messybeast.com/small-hybrids/fer ... ybrids.htm
This is apparently because the F1 hybrids are heterozygous, and can produces eggs or sperm containing either 19 chromosomes or 18 chromosomes. F1 hybrids tend to be large while F2 and later generations are the same size as domestic cats. By testing for chromosome count, it is theoretically possible to select and breed hybrid cats which consistently have 38 chromosomes (like the wild ancestor) to maintain the size and appearance of the initial hybrid.

Now this is not something which has absolute proof behind it. But as breeders keep making brand new F1s and trying to fix larger size in a truebreeding population, they keep failing, just as the chromosome number keeps fixing on the smaller number of the domestic cat. So among breeders the issue is thought to be related, and something we think is that the extra chromosome pair probably has growth promoters on it. What is most desired right now since laws do not account for size - no one is going to weigh your cat and determine that because it weighs 200lbs you are not allowed to have it - but species, a 50lb savannah will be as legal as a halfsized one... is a cat with the tameness and less willingness to hiss of the housecat and some of its colours and patterns if we can get them, with the size and bearing of the serval. People keep trying for this and the larger size and 38 chromosomes simply refuse to fix.

My hypothesis right now is that the people poised to use screening to try to make fertile 38's will fail. They will pick out the gametes that are 19's, and find that these are precisely ones that do not produce a fertile F2, or even do not make a viable embryo at all.

What I'm going to try to do is see if those feral cat shooters out in Australia bagging 40lb specimens of feral domestic cats, will freeze and send me their testicles. These should be 36's which will produce a larger-bodied cat, which can then be elongated with gracile breeds like the Oriental Shorthair or Abyssinian, to produce a cat that is unable to be seized or criminalised (because it will be genetically 100% felis catus) but large and regal.

So it's just this particular case, not a general rule. As you can see, chinchillas have more chromosomes than humans. But they aren't bigger than humans.

[Purple Knight]

So it's just this particular case, not a general rule. As you can see, chinchillas have more chromosomes than humans. But they aren't bigger than humans.

My question to discern whether it's a trend or not would be whether a chinchilla with more chromosomes would be bigger than one with fewer.

I hope you'll agree that it's a huge nugget of support for it, if I get my hands on these giant 35kg Aussies and it turns out they're 38's or 40's. If they are so big and they have had a duplication, it really points to the duplication being responsible for the size increase.

[The Barbarian]

So it's just this particular case, not a general rule. As you can see, chinchillas have more chromosomes than humans. But they aren't bigger than humans.

My question to discern whether it's a trend or not would be whether a chinchilla with more chromosomes would be bigger than one with fewer.

A hominid with fewer chromosomes (human) is larger than a hominid with more chromosomes (chimpanzee). But then gorillas have more chromosomes, too. Doesn't seem like a thing.

Polyploid plants are often larger than diploid plants, but polyploidy is very rare in animals. Triple X syndrome in females tends to produce taller women, but Trisomy 21 (Down's Syndrome) people tend to be smaller. Don't see much of a pattern.

I hope you'll agree that it's a huge nugget of support for it, if I get my hands on these giant 35kg Aussies and it turns out they're 38's or 40's. If they are so big and they have had a duplication, it really points to the duplication being responsible for the size increase.

Chromosome duplications in animals tend to cause harm. Chromosome breakages or fusions tend to be less damaging.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #14]

Duplications that cause a pair of chromosomes to gain a third, yes. If gaining an extra pair were as likely to make the individual retarded or somehow fail to develop, given that it is so rare that even with the human population explosion, I don't think anyone has yet been documented with an extra pair, humans and chimps would probably have the same number.

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #14]

Duplications that cause a pair of chromosomes to gain a third, yes. If gaining an extra pair were as likely to make the individual retarded or somehow fail to develop, given that it is so rare that even with the human population explosion, I don't think anyone has yet been documented with an extra pair, humans and chimps would probably have the same number.

XXYY aneuploidy is where a male has an extra pair of sex chromosomes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XXYY_syndrome

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #16]

Is there a case where this has happened in non-sex chromosomes?

[Difflugia]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #16]

Is there a case where this has happened in non-sex chromosomes?

Tetrasomy at Wikipedia

[marke]

Please don't look this up, at least until you've considered for a moment how weird this is. Imagine you have 20 pairs of chromosomes, and you have a baby that has sixteen pairs. He shouldn't be able to breed with the rest of your species.

Is this at least weird? A regular deer has around 40-70 chromosomes. Is it at least strange that he can even be alive having lost that much genetic information? One more halving and he'll be a fruit fly (they have 4 pairs).

The number of chromosomes and amount of genetic information aren't the same thing. Depending on exact details, people with two chromosomes fused or split can successfully have kids as long as the chromosomes can match up and undergo crossover. It's weird and definitely uncommon, but not unheard of.

Human chromosome 2 is actually the result of the fusion of two chromosomes that are still separate in other great apes, apparently fixed in humans through genetic drift rather than fitness. Chimpanzees have 24 pairs of chromosomes and humans have 23 pairs. At some point during humanity's history, there were proto-humans with 46, 47, and 48 chromosomes in the same population. Since meiosis is already error-prone, anything that makes it more so is deleterious and the population will ultimately fix on 23 or 24 pairs, but as long as the unfused chromosomes can pair up with the fused ones, reproduction is still efficient enough prior to fixation. We fixed on 23, chimpanzees fixed on 24. We therefore have fewer chromosomes than chimpanzees, but not fewer genes across those chromosomes.

Devout evolutionists explain the mismatched genetic structure between apes and humans with a single speculation. However, evolutionists have no explanations for the vast assortment of evolutionary changes they assume occurred according to Darwin's tree of life speculation. For example, how can humans and plants have a sigle common ancestor?

[Difflugia]

Devout evolutionists explain the mismatched genetic structure between apes and humans with a single speculation.

Not speculation.

However, evolutionists have no explanations for the vast assortment of evolutionary changes they assume occurred according to Darwin's tree of life speculation.

This is word salad.

For example, how can humans and plants have a sigle common ancestor?

Claiming this is an example of anything is just a non sequitur. Do you have a specific question?