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).

[Jose Fly]

Truthfully, no. There is no actual proof. There is only total speculation and guesswork, where so-called scientists guess at what they want to believe, and then see if they can make up something that looks and sounds "scientific" to sell their desperate alternative origin story to their unwitting(?) customers.

Sorry, but that doesn't become so just because you say so. Basically all you've done here is say "Nuh uh" and expect others to go along with it.

That's why we find total nonsense like this, to try to work around the non-existence of any intermediate species ("the missing link"), coupled with DNA evidence that the experts don't seem to realize is a programming code for life that very obviously didn't write itself.

Same thing....you simply declaring something to be "nonsense" doesn't automatically make it so.

If you don't like the work, fine. But really that only matters to you.

Are we really not supposed to hold any of these experts to account for how they came up with these random numbers, or what evidence they have to support this and other totally made-up stories? Or should we ignore the fact that even by their own account they could be millions of years off, and have no actual fossil records of intermediate species, or any other physical evidence to back up their hypotheses?

Seriously? You actually think the dates were just picked at random?

That's quite an accusation, so let's see what evidence you have to back it up.

These so-called scientists then admit that they are going to fabricate models out of thin air to try to support their baseless assumptions (they "aim to reconstruct the physical characteristics AND the environment of the last common ancestor of humans and chimps"), even though they have NO IDEA what was going on millions of years ago, and are completely clueless as to whether the environment was even suitable for human, apes, or their alleged common ancestor, or even if there was a common ancestor. Perhaps not surprising, because they have NOTHING but conjecture to build on. Can't wait to see the CGI models and the made-for-TV documentary!

Obviously you didn't even bother to read what you cited, since they describe the basis for their work (fossils and DNA mostly). Something can't be "fabricated" or "baseless" while also being based on data. IOW, make up your mind.

This has absolutely NOTHING in common with the methods used to establish paternity in court.

Well duh. I never cited this work, you did!

My point about using genetic testing is about establishing relatedness, not about identifying a specific common ancestor. I guess you don't understand the difference.

But don't let little things like honesty and integrity get in the way of peddling the latest tale the Darwinian worshippers want to hear from their priests/pseudo-scientists/magicians.

You're confusing your own ignorance with others being dishonest. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean the people who work on it are dishonest.

[A Freeman]

Concerning the OP...

The following excerpt is from:

https://lifesciences.univie.ac.at/news- ... n-mammals/


A small deer with the smallest numbers of chromosomes in mammals
03.12.2021

The diverse chromosomal structure of muntjac deer gives deep insights into evolution of population dynamics as well as chromosome organization.

Muntjacs, also known as ‘barking deer’ for their distinctive call, show the greatest diversity of chromosome numbers among mammals. They range from 46 in Chinese muntjac to 6 or 7 chromosomes in Indian muntjac during the course of only 3 million years of their evolution. In an article in Nature Communications, scientists from the University of Vienna, the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Northwestern Polytechnical University deciphered the genomes of these curious deer species and examined the causes of such dramatic chromosome changes, and the consequences of chromosome reduction for the overall genome.

Exotic pets for studying dramatic chromosome evolution

In the worst case, dramatic chromosome rearrangements can lead to cancer, but a group of deer species called muntjacs have coped with them extremely well during their evolution. Most muntjac species are mainly distributed in Asia. Some species like black muntjacs have become endangered due to recent disruption of habitat; while others like Chinese muntjacs, also called ‘little muntjac’ in Chinese, were introduced to the UK and become widespread in rural areas. Because of their small body size, tamed character and the barking sound that they make, some muntjacs are even kept as pets. But scientists have been curious about these lesser-known deer for another reason. Indian muntjacs only have 6 chromosomes in females, and 7 chromosomes (the additional chromosome is the Y chromosome) in males, making them the species with the lowest number of chromosomes known in mammals. What is even more astonishing is that their closely related species, the Chinese muntjacs, have the same chromosome number as human, i.e., 46, even though the two species only diverged within 3 million years.

Massive chromosome fusions, few genomic changes

the intriguing case of muntjacs was already noticed in the 1980 by the Nobel Laureate Barbara McClintock. She described the radical change in chromosome number in a lecture as a case of ‘genomic shocking’ event. But so far, neither the causes for the massive disruption nor its consequences were known. Recently, groups of Qi Zhou from University of Vienna and Zhejiang University of China, Wen Wang from Northwestern Polytechnical University of China, and Fuwei Wen at Chinese Academy of Sciences, collaborated and produced high-quality chromosomal genomes of several muntjac and some other related deer species. From the new genomic data, they inferred that about 1 million years ago a glaciation event in Southwest China led to the drastic population decline in those muntjac species that nowadays have much less chromosomes. Chinese muntjacs, that have the same chromosome number as humans, did not experience the decline as they were likely distributed in another area which was not affected by the steep decline in temperature. The historical population shrinkage might be associated with the observed massive chromosome fusions in muntjacs. Another possible contributing factor may be located within the muntjacs’ genome. There are complex repeat sequences, located at the chromosome ends that are specific to the muntjacs. These repeat sequences are on the one hand prone to sequence breaks and on the other hand, they have a high chance to ‘connect’ to each other due to their sequence similarities. Both factors may contribute to chromosome fusions.

-------

When people make statements like: "even though the two species only diverged within 3 million years" and "...they inferred that about 1 million years ago a glaciation event in Southwest China led to the drastic population decline in those muntjac species..." it logically follows they should have to provide actual evidence for these assumptions. Without any evidence, these kinds of statements are baseless propaganda.

We have been drilling into the Earth's crust for oil for roughly 125 years, and are quite capable of taking core samples or examining the drill cuttings returned by the drilling fluid (aka "mud"). From those core samples or mud-logging, we find layers of various rock (limestone, dolomite, shale, etc.) and fluids (water, oil, and gases), deposited there in a specific order. We can speculate on how quickly those layers were formed, or how they were formed, and we can even make educated guesses at events that may have happened during the formation of those layers. But assigning specific times to those layers becomes much more problematic.

In the 1950s, Libby developed the radiocarbon dating system that has become the go-to standard for the past 60+ years to determine the age of organic material. It is known to be wildly inaccurate, and yet it is considered "established science" for those who worship it (yes, worship it). It's understood that those who worship this pseudo-science will have a knee-jerk reaction to someone sharing these FACTS, because it attacks their idol. But that doesn't change the fact that radiocarbon/C-14 dating has inherent flaws that simply render it useless in many if not most cases.

There are other dating methods, e.g. luminescence dating and U-Pb dating, but these too are based on arbitrary assumptions that simply cannot be proven. In the case of luminescence dating, "dose rates" from an allegedly known radiation source in a laboratory, are used to deduce the radiation dose accumulated by the crystals throughout antiquity. But the calibration of the laboratory radiation source as well the luminescence measurement procedures, and thus the validity of the basic assumptions of the process, are always suspect,

In the case of U-Pb dating, it is assumed that most of the three lead (Pb) isotopes we see on earth (206Pb, 207Pb and 208Pb), which today are produced by radiometric decay of Uranium (U), Thorium (Th), Actinium (Ac) and several other elements with radioactive isotopes, were derived in the past only from radiometric decay of these elements.

What does this mean? Simply put, it means we either have to ignore the flawed assumptions built into these processes, because we have no means of verifying them in most cases*, or we have to face the facts that these dating methods are TOTALLY SPECULATIVE.

*There are instances where we can use secular and non-secular historical sources to place specific people in specific places in a narrow date range, and use that as a gauge of the accuracy of the "scientific" dating methods. An example of this is Newgrange in Ireland, where we can accurately date its builders (Eochaidh mac Duach/Dui and his third son Aengus) from multiple secular Irish historical records proving Newgrange was built ~2600 years ago, between 600 and 550 BC, making it IRON AGE.

What date does radiocarbon dating provide? Over 5000 years old (3100-3200 BC), which would double its actual age, making it seem stone age rather than iron age. But instead of admitting these obvious faults, the Irish government doubles down on the very obviously erroneous radiocarbon dating, to protect the reputations of the "scientists" who have written books on their dating of that historical site.

This isn't science. Real science provides repeatable results, the accuracy of which can be verified. Like the tensile strength and impact resistance of bolts. If we attempted to engineer buildings and bridges based upon faulty assumptions, they would collapse and people would die. And very quickly everyone would know that the initial assumptions were total nonsense. But in other fields, like archaeology and medical/pharmaceutical industry, we build off of a series of baseless assumptions that can be sold to the public as "science" when, in fact, they ignore most scientific methodology. And even when these methods are proven beyond all reasonable doubt to be in error, or even to be deadly, these errors are ignored.

Returning to the Muntjac deer, and bearing in mind that the explanations given for the variety of chromosomes found in the different strains is all based on dating assumptions and what may or may not have been going on during these times, it should be self-evident that the only logical conclusions that can be drawn are:

a) we either don't know nearly as much about DNA as we would like to believe we do, or
b) we don't know nearly as much about our natural environment and its relationship with DNA as we would like to believe we do, or
c) a combination of a) and b) above.

[otseng]

But don't let little things like honesty and integrity get in the way of peddling the latest tale the Darwinian worshippers want to hear from their priests/pseudo-scientists/magicians.

Moderator Comment

Please just debate the topic without making comments about others.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Jose Fly]

When people make statements like: "even though the two species only diverged within 3 million years" and "...they inferred that about 1 million years ago a glaciation event in Southwest China led to the drastic population decline in those muntjac species..." it logically follows they should have to provide actual evidence for these assumptions. Without any evidence, these kinds of statements are baseless propaganda.

You can't be serious. Do you not understand the basics of how to read science articles?

I guess not because if you did, you would know to click the link at the bottom of the LS article that takes you to the actual published paper where you can see all the citations given for various statements, including the ones you're grousing about.

As before, don't assume your ignorance of basic science and how it works is an indication of dishonesty from scientists. Learn some humility and take the time to actually look and learn.

radiocarbon/C-14 dating has inherent flaws that simply render it useless in many if not most cases.

As before, that doesn't magically become true just because you say so.

But the calibration of the laboratory radiation source as well the luminescence measurement procedures, and thus the validity of the basic assumptions of the process, are always suspect

Again, for no other reason than that you say so?

In the case of U-Pb dating, it is assumed that most of the three lead (Pb) isotopes we see on earth (206Pb, 207Pb and 208Pb), which today are produced by radiometric decay of Uranium (U), Thorium (Th), Actinium (Ac) and several other elements with radioactive isotopes, were derived in the past only from radiometric decay of these elements.

What other process do you think makes them?

What does this mean? Simply put, it means we either have to ignore the flawed assumptions built into these processes, because we have no means of verifying them in most cases*, or we have to face the facts that these dating methods are TOTALLY SPECULATIVE.

No, it means you apparently think things become true based on nothing more than your say-so, which is indicative of a serious lack of humility.

Returning to the Muntjac deer, and bearing in mind that the explanations given for the variety of chromosomes found in the different strains is all based on dating assumptions and what may or may not have been going on during these times, it should be self-evident that the only logical conclusions that can be drawn are:

a) we either don't know nearly as much about DNA as we would like to believe we do, or
b) we don't know nearly as much about our natural environment and its relationship with DNA as we would like to believe we do, or
c) a combination of a) and b) above.

Or it could be that your rant is based on two fundamental errors....1) you not even bothering to read the paper, and 2) you arrogantly thinking your empty assertions carry any weight.

[A Freeman]

When people make statements like: "even though the two species only diverged within 3 million years" and "...they inferred that about 1 million years ago a glaciation event in Southwest China led to the drastic population decline in those muntjac species..." it logically follows they should have to provide actual evidence for these assumptions. Without any evidence, these kinds of statements are baseless propaganda.

You can't be serious. Do you not understand the basics of how to read science articles?

Sadly, this is life or death serious, despite the ignorance of most of mankind to see through this charade.
The so-called science (pseudo-science really) isn't saving the planet; "SCIENCE" IS DESTROYING THE PLANET, including all human life on it.

The chemical/medical/pharmaceutical industrial complex literally sells the unwitting(?) public poisonous potions because the "science" is based upon a series of published papers that usually, if not always, trace their origin back to a SINGLE ERRANT VIEWPOINT EXPRESSED IN A SINGLE PUBLICATION. That's why the "science" appears to be constantly "evolving", as we learn the hard way how wrong our previous guesswork was.

If we can't understand how one species of muntjac deer have 6-7 chromosomes while another, very similar species of muntjac deer living next door to it has 46 chromosomes, what are the odds that we understand how to manipulate the genetic code of humans to produce some beneficial result?

Given the mass psychosis that we're presently experiencing, it's not surprising that over two-thirds of the population was duped into taking a toxic "vaccine" based upon their irrational fear a provably FAKE PANDEMIC, which itself was based upon A VIRUS THAT NO ONE HAS EVER PROVEN TO EXIST. A "vaccine" euphemistically called "gene therapy", as if these kindergarten level researchers somehow know more than The Master Designer/Programmer. An vaccine that was literally sold to the public on the advertising campaign slogan "trust in the science".

THAT is arrogance/ignorance. Calling out that extremely dangerous and potentially life-threatening insanity is simply being honest, even if that honesty is but a foreign language to those who don't have the courage to face it.

The rest of your own rant is nothing more than you actually doing what you falsely accuse me of doing. What's the word for that?

[Jose Fly]

When people make statements like: "even though the two species only diverged within 3 million years" and "...they inferred that about 1 million years ago a glaciation event in Southwest China led to the drastic population decline in those muntjac species..." it logically follows they should have to provide actual evidence for these assumptions. Without any evidence, these kinds of statements are baseless propaganda.

You can't be serious. Do you not understand the basics of how to read science articles?

Sadly, this is life or death serious, despite the ignorance of most of mankind to see through this charade.
The so-called science (pseudo-science really) isn't saving the planet; "SCIENCE" IS DESTROYING THE PLANET, including all human life on it.

The chemical/medical/pharmaceutical industrial complex literally sells the unwitting(?) public poisonous potions because the "science" is based upon a series of published papers that usually, if not always, trace their origin back to a SINGLE ERRANT VIEWPOINT EXPRESSED IN A SINGLE PUBLICATION. That's why the "science" appears to be constantly "evolving", as we learn the hard way how wrong our previous guesswork was.

If we can't understand how one species of muntjac deer have 6-7 chromosomes while another, very similar species of muntjac deer living next door to it has 46 chromosomes, what are the odds that we understand how to manipulate the genetic code of humans to produce some beneficial result?

Given the mass psychosis that we're presently experiencing, it's not surprising that over two-thirds of the population was duped into taking a toxic "vaccine" based upon their irrational fear a provably FAKE PANDEMIC, which itself was based upon A VIRUS THAT NO ONE HAS EVER PROVEN TO EXIST. A "vaccine" euphemistically called "gene therapy", as if these kindergarten level researchers somehow know more than The Master Designer/Programmer. An vaccine that was literally sold to the public on the advertising campaign slogan "trust in the science".

THAT is arrogance/ignorance. Calling out that extremely dangerous and potentially life-threatening insanity is simply being honest, even if that honesty is but a foreign language to those who don't have the courage to face it.

The rest of your own rant is nothing more than you actually doing what you falsely accuse me of doing. What's the word for that?

Oh....well, have fun with all that.

But I have no interest in having an online back and forth with a seemingly unhinged conspiracy theorist.

[A Freeman]

When people make statements like: "even though the two species only diverged within 3 million years" and "...they inferred that about 1 million years ago a glaciation event in Southwest China led to the drastic population decline in those muntjac species..." it logically follows they should have to provide actual evidence for these assumptions. Without any evidence, these kinds of statements are baseless propaganda.

You can't be serious. Do you not understand the basics of how to read science articles?

Sadly, this is life or death serious, despite the ignorance of most of mankind to see through this charade.
The so-called science (pseudo-science really) isn't saving the planet; "SCIENCE" IS DESTROYING THE PLANET, including all human life on it.

The chemical/medical/pharmaceutical industrial complex literally sells the unwitting(?) public poisonous potions because the "science" is based upon a series of published papers that usually, if not always, trace their origin back to a SINGLE ERRANT VIEWPOINT EXPRESSED IN A SINGLE PUBLICATION. That's why the "science" appears to be constantly "evolving", as we learn the hard way how wrong our previous guesswork was.

If we can't understand how one species of muntjac deer have 6-7 chromosomes while another, very similar species of muntjac deer living next door to it has 46 chromosomes, what are the odds that we understand how to manipulate the genetic code of humans to produce some beneficial result?

Given the mass psychosis that we're presently experiencing, it's not surprising that over two-thirds of the population was duped into taking a toxic "vaccine" based upon their irrational fear a provably FAKE PANDEMIC, which itself was based upon A VIRUS THAT NO ONE HAS EVER PROVEN TO EXIST. A "vaccine" euphemistically called "gene therapy", as if these kindergarten level researchers somehow know more than The Master Designer/Programmer. An vaccine that was literally sold to the public on the advertising campaign slogan "trust in the science".

THAT is arrogance/ignorance. Calling out that extremely dangerous and potentially life-threatening insanity is simply being honest, even if that honesty is but a foreign language to those who don't have the courage to face it.

The rest of your own rant is nothing more than you actually doing what you falsely accuse me of doing. What's the word for that?

Oh....well, have fun with all that.

But I have no interest in having an online back and forth with a seemingly unhinged conspiracy theorist.

With "seemingly" being the operative word.

[Clownboat]

When people make statements like: "even though the two species only diverged within 3 million years" and "...they inferred that about 1 million years ago a glaciation event in Southwest China led to the drastic population decline in those muntjac species..." it logically follows they should have to provide actual evidence for these assumptions. Without any evidence, these kinds of statements are baseless propaganda.

You can't be serious. Do you not understand the basics of how to read science articles?

Sadly, this is life or death serious, despite the ignorance of most of mankind to see through this charade.
The so-called science (pseudo-science really) isn't saving the planet; "SCIENCE" IS DESTROYING THE PLANET, including all human life on it.

The chemical/medical/pharmaceutical industrial complex literally sells the unwitting(?) public poisonous potions because the "science" is based upon a series of published papers that usually, if not always, trace their origin back to a SINGLE ERRANT VIEWPOINT EXPRESSED IN A SINGLE PUBLICATION. That's why the "science" appears to be constantly "evolving", as we learn the hard way how wrong our previous guesswork was.

If we can't understand how one species of muntjac deer have 6-7 chromosomes while another, very similar species of muntjac deer living next door to it has 46 chromosomes, what are the odds that we understand how to manipulate the genetic code of humans to produce some beneficial result?

Given the mass psychosis that we're presently experiencing, it's not surprising that over two-thirds of the population was duped into taking a toxic "vaccine" based upon their irrational fear a provably FAKE PANDEMIC, which itself was based upon A VIRUS THAT NO ONE HAS EVER PROVEN TO EXIST. A "vaccine" euphemistically called "gene therapy", as if these kindergarten level researchers somehow know more than The Master Designer/Programmer. An vaccine that was literally sold to the public on the advertising campaign slogan "trust in the science".

THAT is arrogance/ignorance. Calling out that extremely dangerous and potentially life-threatening insanity is simply being honest, even if that honesty is but a foreign language to those who don't have the courage to face it.

The rest of your own rant is nothing more than you actually doing what you falsely accuse me of doing. What's the word for that?

Oh....well, have fun with all that.

But I have no interest in having an online back and forth with a seemingly unhinged conspiracy theorist.

With "seemingly" being the operative word.

It's not 'seemingly' when it's put on display for all to see.
- SCIENCE" IS DESTROYING THE PLANET, including all human life on it.
-The chemical/medical/pharmaceutical industrial complex literally sells the unwitting(?) public poisonous potions
- "science" is based upon a series of published papers that usually, if not always, trace their origin back to a SINGLE ERRANT VIEWPOINT EXPRESSED IN A SINGLE PUBLICATION
- Given the mass psychosis that we're presently experiencing
- two-thirds of the population was duped into taking a toxic "vaccine"
- a provably FAKE PANDEMIC
- based upon A VIRUS THAT NO ONE HAS EVER PROVEN TO EXIST
- these kindergarten level researchers somehow know more than The Master Designer/Programmer.

Some people are just conspiracy minded and there are reasons for this.
A big one is that a conspiracy theory can provide comfort by identifying a convenient scapegoat and thereby making the world seem more straightforward and controllable.