Can Chromosome Counts Change?

As I creationist I believe in chromosome changes for sure! That's where the whole "created kind" debate comes from. That animals like zebras and horses and donkeys all came from one created kind in the beginning. And so if that is true then the chromosomes must have changed because horses and zebras don't have the same amount. But there is one crucial aspect of that change that creationists believe that evolutionist's don't. The amount of chromosomes cannot increase. As in genetic information is never added, which must be true for evolution to work. Therefore with the "created kind" thinking, the very first horse kind would have had the most chromosomes. And all the variations of that kind would have the same or less chromosomes.

yes id like an evolutionist to prove to me that "new" genetic information can be added.[This message has been edited by some_guy, 12-19-2003]

"[The created kind concept] proposes that a kind will consist of populations that can interbreed, while still allowing room for variation." Page not found - Apologetics PressBut there is no easy method right now (other than interbreeding all animals, which would also be a very inacurate way to go about it). There would need to be much further research into this to set up a syetem to determine the specific barriers between different created kinds.And Rej, alright maybe saying that chromosomes cannot increase is false. But generally i mean that the first created kind would have the most chromosomes and the variations after would have the same or less. Although in each of the methods of chromosome increase you mentioned, neither of them allow for "NEW" genetic information to arise.

"Although in each of the methods of chromosome increase you mentioned, neither of them allow for "NEW" genetic information to arise."Rrhain: Where did i say that chromosome increases don't happen?? I simply stated that "NEW" information had not arised. The duplication of a chromosome does not create "NEW" information, and when in the merging and breaking of chromosomes no "NEW" information is added either. The chromosomes are only being mixed up allowing for more deversity within a certian pool of genes. But neither of these case produces brand new genetic information.Crashfrog:No species is to specific. If i use the example from above you will understand. Just from looking up the zebra species which i had thought there to only be one i found that there are actually 3 species of zebra. And they can interbreed. But Zebras can also hybridize with other species too like horses(Zorse) and donkeys(Zonkey) to and give birth to both feritle and infertile offspring. A Mule(cross of a horse and dokey) for instance usually only gives birth to infertile offspring but fertile mules have been born. I think its about 1 in 10,000.
Lions and Tigers have been crossbread(Ligons, Tigions), wolves and dogs have, Dolphins and whales(Wolphin), Lama and camel(Cama), Smallmouth and large mouth bass(meanmouth), Lake trout and brook trout(splake).So Species is to precise, because if a zebra and a horse, which are two different species can interbreed then they are apart of the same "created kind". So kind would be above species.

No if historically 2 species could interbreed then they are apart of the same created kind. EX:"In the case of three species, A, B and C, if A and B can each hybridize with C, then it suggests that all three are of the same created kind whether or not A and B can hybridize with each other. Breeding barriers can arise through such things as mutations. For example, two forms of ferment flies (Drosophila) produced offspring that could not breed with the parent species.5 That is, they were a new biological 'species'. This was due to a slight chromosomal rearrangement, not any new genetic information. The new 'species' was indistinguishable from the parents and obviously the same kind as the parents, since it came from them."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...Here are some examples of what can cause breeding barriers:Ecological isolation- this is when the populations' habitat differences prevent them from establishing contact with one anotherTemporal isolation- if the populations exhibit different mating times, they will not hybridizeBehavioural isolation- if the populations exhibit different mating habits, they will not mate with one another (for example, they may exhibit different degrees of responsiveness to pheromones)Mechanical isolation- if the morphologies of the genitalia of the two populations are "mismatched" they will be unable to mate with one another (such differences are particularly important in insects)Gametic isolation- if the sperm of one species is not tolerant of the conditions required by eggs of the other species, fertilization will be preventedHybrid sterility (the hybrid cannot reproduce, e.g., horses and donkeys yield sterile mules)http://tidepool.st.usm.edu/principles/B110MicrSpecRepr.htmlAlso think of this, a mule has lost the ability to interbreed with a horse and donkey but it is not a separate kind, because it came from the horse. Why would a species that is proven to have come from a certain species but then cannot interbreed be considered a sperate kind? In the beginning God created a set amount of animal and plant "kinds" and from those kinds many other species broke of from them, but they still remain apart of the same "kind", never being able to interbreed with other kinds whether or not they could interbreed themselves.Ring species are also all apart of the same kind."An ascending inter-infertility is consistent with increasing genetic distance due to gradual evolution but how does that jive with your created kinds?"This is not true. Increasing genetic distance is not an example of evolution it is only variation in an extreme direction within a specific gene pool. "NEW" information must be added for it to be considered evolution."What about processes that add totally new base sequences? Do those add new "information" (whatever that is)?"Would you care to give me some of these processes?Rrhain:Think about this, if I have one document and I go over to a photocopier and photocopy it then I have 2 documents, but does that second document tell me anything more than the first did? How does polyploidy, the duplication of chromosomes, add "new" information then?"How is having more chromosomes not an example of more information?""More" is not "New". Could you tell me how an animal or plant could evolve my having more chromosomes? It would eventually have more chromosomes then it could handle and would just die."Somatic doubling does not introduce any new genetic material, but rather produces additional copies of existing chromosomes. This extra DNA must be replicated with each cell division. Enlarged cell size is often associated with polyploids which can result in anatomical imbalances. Other deleterious effects can include erratic bearing, brittle wood, and watery fruit (Sanford, 1983). High level polyploids (e.g. octaploids) can be stunted and malformed, possibly resulting from the extreme genetic redundancy and somatic instability that leads to chimeral tissue."
http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/fletcher..."And if you still can't figure it out, think of this: What happens when the genes on that new chromosome mutate? Now you've got the original gene on one of the chromosomes and a different gene on the other one."At the moment I am not disputing mutation I am disputing that polyploidy does not produce new genetic information. How does mutation happening during polyploidy prove that polyploidy itself allows for new genetic information to be produced? Cannot mutations happen outside of polyploidy?Now that we are talking about mutations though can you tell me how genetic mutations can progressively (as in continue to produce new information over time) result in new genetic information being added? And allow for evolution to take place. edited urls to fix page width - The Queen[This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 12-22-2003]

Coragyps:All right well I guess I cannot dispute this. I am no biology professor so I only have a limited understanding of what you have mentioned. New genetic information seems to have been added. But does this "new genetic information" result in speciation? or does this new information only remain within a specific "kind" or "species"? It seems to me that people in West Africa are as much human as you or I. Not even a new sub species (such as the zebra is to the horse) of humans has speciated or "evolved" due to this slight mutation. And I am also unsure of what the mutation has exactly done to the genes of these people, were new genes actually added, or were old ones simply altered or removed (which could still result in "new" information but I am just curious)?I would like you to give me an example of a mutation that has resulted in actual speciation.Crashfrog:<<"If there's no such test, how can you be sure that all life isn't simply descended from one original "created kind"?">>Well try to think of all of creatures that are and have ever existed on this planet, is there anyway you could think of any ring species that could link say a grasshopper to a buffalo? It is not possible, There are clear and obvious breeding barriers between at least the taxonomic level of "class", but if a clear definition and test for "kind" could be developed these breeding barriers would be defined specifically by "kind".<<"[Ring species is] where you have a linear series of species where each species can interbreed with its neighbours but the first species in the series can't interbreed with the last">>As of right now I have no test to prove that. But what kind of test do evolutionist propose to determine a common ancestor? Because "created kind" is somewhat similar to "common ancestor" (in that all creatures with a certain kind have all descended from a certain common first created kind) it may require a similar test.<<"If entirely new genetic sequences in the organism - such as what happens if a chromosome is duplicated, then mutated - don't represent "new information", then you'll have to explain what you think information is, and what it means to quantify it.">>Evolution cannot happen by chromosome duplication. Did you read my quote and link in my last post?"Somatic doubling does not introduce any new genetic material, but rather produces additional copies of existing chromosomes. This extra DNA must be replicated with each cell division. Enlarged cell size is often associated with polyploids which can result in anatomical imbalances. Other deleterious effects can include erratic bearing, brittle wood, and watery fruit (Sanford, 1983). High level polyploids (e.g. octaploids) can be stunted and malformed, possibly resulting from the extreme genetic redundancy and somatic instability that leads to chimeral tissue."Chromosome duplication does not produce new traits. It creates bigger cells, and can produce bigger than normal plants, but does not produce new genetic traits, or the addition of new genes to the DNA. The DNA does not change. And for evolution to take place the DNA must change.If you are confused by my word use, "new genetic information", then try substituting it with "new genetic material".
Chromosome duplication does not produce new traits. It creates bigger cells, and can produce bigger than normal plants, but does not produce new genetic traits, or the addition of new genes to the DNA. The DNA does not change. And for evolution to take place the DNA must change.If you are confused by my word use, "new genetic information", then try substituting it with "new genetic material".[This message has been edited by some_guy, 12-23-2003]