Emanuela Solano has not replied on question whether mice with different caryotypes have been observed to interbreed, which I sent her after reading link in “Speciation observed, but not in mammals“. Ian Johnston has not replied to my argument immediately below the quote.
I have given both the opportunity to do so, by mailing them.
[Update omitted because links are illegible, probably I meant it was inserted in the post here:
Creation vs. Evolution : Karyogrammata
Comments, in which I document a few googles and meaningful results:
Vatican Conference commemorating Darwin’s book – furthering the policy of non-replies towards any creationist challenge.
A reverend admitting that his classification of other people makes dialogue difficult:
“We think that it’s not a scientific perspective, nor a theological or philosophical one,” said the Rev. Marc Leclerc, the conference director and a professor of philosophy of nature at the Gregorian. “This makes a dialogue very difficult, maybe impossible.”
Let us put things clear:
a) being creationist in observance of literal meaning of Genesis ch. 1 & 2, or of St Paul who said “by the sin of one man, death entered the world” is clearly a theological perspective – just as much as theistic evolution is theological in Theilhard de Chardin and his “point Omega”;
b) accepting Intelligent Design as the only intelligent and coherent explanation of complex systems with simple and obviously good functions (eye is complex, sight as we experience it is simple), or at least far superior to atheistic and materialistic evolution is, for both creationists and theistic evolutionists (it excludes neither) a philosophical perspective, at least as much as atheistic and materialistic versions of darwinism;
c) criticising radioactivity based datings, the missing of transitional fossiles – systematic if we are to agree with that chapter of a book from Watchtower Society (I disagree with others), the impossibility or near so of stable chromosome number mutations in mammals (except Richardsonian fusions, maybe) is clearly at least as scientific as not bothering to answer the chromosome problem properly.
And scientific as well as philosophic (epistemologic) is the question admitted even by Darwinists in the Flores Hobbit case:
Hobbit-Like Human Ancestor Found on Flores National Geographic, text Page 2 Picture 1 Picture 2 Picture 3 Picture 4 Picture 5 Picture 6Here’s the main link to the news story on National Geographic, above links are reserve links.Alternative Story: ABC, Science Articles: Is the hobbit just a dwarf cretin? Reserve Link In other words: separate species or misbirth?
“Nobody who has invested much time down a blind alley likes the messenger who shines a light at the brick wall up ahead.”
courtesy of Art Renewal – www.artrenewal.org – Central Philosophy
Wiki article, cached 2009-04-16 7:20:43
“In some cases of differing counts, the difference in chromosome counts is the result of a single chromosome undergoing fission, where it splits into two smaller chromosomes, or two undergoing fusion, where two chromosomes join to form one.
This condition has been detected in many species. Trichomycterus davisi, for example, is an extreme case where the polymorphism was present within a single chimeric individual.
It has also been studied in alfalfa, shrews, Brazilian rodents, and an enormous variety of other animals and plants.”
Note five goes to a google search where many links (as of my short specimen taking) are NOT questions of varying chromosome numbers, but only of various chromosome lengths on this or that chromosome.
Brazilian rodents are a bit like mice. Shrews and alfalfa are clearly not mammals and therefore irrelevant for my problem.
Robertsonian fusions occur in Nucella lapillus – which is not a mammal
the fusions are of course Robertsonian, not Richardsonian, as I wrongly wrote on previous comment
Owl monkeys (Aotus) seem to have different chromosome numbers. Mammals, not rodents but primates.
This article says that Robertsonian translocation/Homologous fission is seen in diverse species of equus – but the abstract does not explain how that is supposed to work.
This article on American Negro and White populations concerns chromosome lengths, not numbers.
This scholar Google has been further narrowed down to recent articles:
I have also taken away species already commented on, I have also taken away some species clearly not mammal (plants, fish, birds).
Here’s the top article – chromosome polymorphisms cause reproductional abnormalities.
The article on South American deer promises evolutionary history … but are the polymorphisms seen in genesi or after the supposed events?
Top articles of above:
- Chromosomal translocation, infertility
- Robertsonian Down’s syndrom
- Robertsonian fusion, mouse, Down syndrom
“Using G-banding and deleting the heterochromatic short arms, the chromosomes of the African Green monkey can be artificially fused to reconstruct a karyotype of the Rhesus with only one pair of unmatched small metacentrics.”
The Nucella link – Nature, abstract of article —
owl monkeys – ncbi, abstract of article —
equus – Cytogenet Genome Research, abstract of article —
Chromosome Polymorphism in American Negro and White Populations – nature, ludicrous small abstract —
[The relationship between clinical outcomes of reproduc-tive abnormalities and chromosome polymorphism] – ncbi, abstract of article —
The surprising evolutionary history of South American deer – ScienceDirect, abstract of article —
The nature of telomere fusion and a definition of the critical telomere length in human cells (=cancer) – Genes and development, abstract of article — the publications are few, the abstracts are more prominent than the fulltext. — Hans-Georg
[In other words, doing research by internet is being made less easy because of having to buy articles. Now I am on academia.edu and perhaps I should try again.]
http://o-x.fr/lsf is the new index post to this series.
Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6YoUVB0pj to access the cached copy of this page