... on Evolution of Mammals

Video commented on

How Creationism Taught Me Real Science 64 Mammal Evolution?
Tony Reed | 17.XI.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ky3bfbRcHU

It set out to answer

these claims from other creationists:

CMI : Mammal-like reptiles: major trait reversals and discontinuities
by John Woodmorappe
https://creation.com/mammal-like-reptiles-major-trait-reversals-and-discontinuities

ICR : The Mammal-Like Reptiles
BY DUANE GISH, PH.D. | TUESDAY, DECEMBER 01, 1981
http://www.icr.org/article/mammal-like-reptiles/

AiG Kid's Answers : Mammal-Like Reptiles: Transitional Forms?
on May 9, 2016
https://answersingenesis.org/kids/reptiles/mammal-like-reptiles/

He did not set out

to answer a question about evolution of mammals from the first one to the present variety, presumably since it was not asked.

When I started viewing the video, I was waiting for it to come up (or not to), and as it didn't:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

On your view, Tony, all mammals should have one common ancestor.

That common ancestor would have one specific number of chromosomes.

Fusing chromosomes is not very over the top difficult to imagine and mice on Madeira have fewer chromosome pairs than the house mice on the continent. But fission of chromosomes is a thing which P Z Myers has tried to and failed to explain. His diagrams seem more coherent than they are since he omits centromeres and at least espacially telomeres from diagram.

In the end, even with a reduplication even around the centromere, resulting in a version with a double centromere, you cannot from there go on to split it next generation into two chromosomes with each a centromere and two telomeres. A split between the doubled centromeres would result in an arm without a telomere and a split on one of them would result in one of the new chromosomes having a centromere/telomere coincidence, being telocentric and not just acrocentric.

My creationist claim is thus:

• original mammal if any cannot have had a very large number of chromosomes, since these are less typical than 2n=48 and since large numbers of chromosomes tend to go with large bodies
• original mammal if any cannot have had a typical number of chromosomes, like 2n=48, since that would leave mammals with large numbers of chromosomes unexplained
• the original mammal from which other mammals descend would have to fulfil contradictory conditions and cannot therefore have existed, therefore mammals were specially created.

Tony, investigate!

qabbalah

• 1. How do you test those predictions?
• 2. How could any of them potentially falsify creationism?
• 3. You have my main account blocked so I can't respond. Unblock me or this will be your last post on my channel ever.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

• 1. "How do you test those predictions?"
  
  They are not predictions, but facts.
  
  "original mammal if any cannot have had a very large number of chromosomes, since these are less typical than 2n=48"
  
  I take it that any trait original to a real monophyletic clade would be either universal, or dominant or at least typical among the diversified clades.
  
  "and since large numbers of chromosomes tend to go with large bodies"
  
  In salamanders (which is not a mammal) tetraploid salamander is smaller than octoploid salamander. In lagomorphs, hare has two chromosome pairs more than rabbit, and rabbit is smaller. Rhino being one of the biggest clades also has a large karyotype.
  
  "original mammal if any cannot have had a typical number of chromosomes, like 2n=48, since that would leave mammals with large numbers of chromosomes unexplained"
  
  See detailed discussion above, the test is in geometry.
  
  "the original mammal from which other mammals descend would have to fulfil contradictory conditions"
  
  Follows from the above premisses.
  
  Also, chromosomal aberrations outside cancer do not show fissions, only trisomies, tetrasomies, aneusomies and fusions, and the fissions in cancer involve chromatid arms without ending telomeres, which is fine for the cancer but less fine for heritary karyotypes.
  
  
• 2. "How could any of them potentially falsify creationism?"
  
  If you mean potentially falsify the creationist claim I just made, rather than creationism as a whole, here is the deal:
  
  
  • higher animals (in fact all eucaryotes with more than one chromosome pair) not having genome divided into chromosomes would have left you with one difficulty less (one not yet foreseen by Darwin, by the way)
  • mammals having plenty of cases of tetraploidy and also of tetraploidy rearranging into diploidy with a larger number than original diploidy would have been a boon to you
  • trisomy not being handicapping and tetrasomy known to lead to an extra chromosome pair would have made your day
  • chromosomes having such a geometry that any extra mere would have made a fission easy ... if that were imaginable ... I don't think it is ... would have meant you could go by the chromosome fission theory
  • no mammals having more chromosomes than 2n=48, alternatively the number 2n=84 or more being as typical as 2n=48 would have given you one worry less.
  
  
  If you meant falsify creationism as such - sorry, there are not just criteria where one solution will prove evolution and one prove creationism, there are also such where one will disprove and other leave alone only one of these. For instance, on your side, proving millions of years will disprove creationism (the version I care about), but proving them will not prove evolution, as seen by Hugh Ross.
  
  
• 3. You have my main account blocked so I can't respond. Unblock me or this will be your last post on my channel ever.
  
  I took a "wild guess" and unblocked "theoledevil" - is that the right one?
  
  Well, "qabbalah", I never blocked "Tony Reed" but I had blocked and now did unblock "theoledevil" ... is that you?
  
  Now you are able to answer (if it is so) how about doing so?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

[three days later]

I got no answer.

Wondering if Tony Reed and qabbalah agreed to trick me to answer someone pretending to be Tony and who wasn't, so Tony could ignore me.

Especially, if I had blocked Tony Reed's main account, how would I still be able to see videos on his channel?