Pakicetus

Pakicetus

A Quadrupedal Forced to be the ‘Ancestor of the Whale’

In 1983.  P. D. Gingerich and his assistants, who found the fossil, had no hesitation in immediately claiming that it was a ‘primitive whale,’ even though they actually only found a skull.
Its skeleton turned out to be similar to that of common wolves.  It was found in a region full of iron ore, and containing fossils of such terrestrial creatures as snails, tortoises or crocodiles.  In other words, it was part of a land stratum, not an aquatic one.
So, why was a quadrupedal land dweller announced to be a ‘primitive whale’? 

'Subtle clues in combination—the arrangement of cups on the molar teeth, a folding in a bone of the middle ear, and the positioning of the ear bones within the skull—are absent in other land mammals but a signature of later Eocene whales.'

In other words, based on some details in its teeth and ear bones, some persons felt able to describe this quadrupedal, wolf-like land dweller as a ‘walking whale.’  Just one look at the reconstruction of Pakicetus by the evolutionist illustrator will reveal the absurdity in terming it a ‘walking whale.’

Even Gingerich himself admitted:

'But we do know that its hearing mechanism was that of a land mammal and that it was found in fluvial sediments with other land animals'

Distortions in The Reconstructions :





(Paleontologists believe that Pakicetus was a quadrupedal mammal.  The skeletal structure on the left, published in the Nature magazine clearly demonstrates this.  Thus the drawing of Pakicetus by Carl Buell, which was based on that structure, is somewhat realistic.)

(Pakicetus reconstruction by National Geographic  

The animal has been portrayed in a ‘swimming’ position.  Its hind legs are shown stretching out backwards, and an impression of ‘fins’ has been given.)

Top left: Gingerich’s first reconstruction
Bottom left: what he had actually found
Top right: more complete skeleton (remaines claimed to be found later)
Bottom right: more reasonable reconstruction

'illustration shows the skulls of two pakicetids (Ichthyolestes and Pakicetus) are comparable to that of a modern coyote (Canis latrans). Saying that the evolution of whales started with this doglike animal is sheer nonsense' (EUGENE M. MCCARTHY, PHD on evolution of whales)

The features of the details are no compelling evidence on which to base a link between Pakicetus and the whale:

•  some of these features are actually found in other terrestrial animals as well.
• None of the features in question are any evidence of an evolutionary relationship.  Even evolutionists admit that most of the theoretical relationships built on the basis of anatomical similarities between animals are completely untrustworthy.
  
  Quote

  If the marsupial Tasmanian wolf and the common placental wolf had both been extinct for a long time, then it is no doubt that evolutionists would picture them in the same taxon and define them as very close relatives.  However, we know that these two different animals, although strikingly similar in their anatomy, are very far from each other in the supposed evolutionary  tree of life.  (In fact their similarity indicates common design—not common descent.)

  The mole has a bird-like sternum and wrist bones, but it would be absurd to conclude that birds evolved from moles! Many more examples can be found here: Similarities and Homology: No Evidence For Evolution!

Pakicetus, was a unique species harboring different features in its body.
In fact, Carroll, an authority on vertebrate paleontology, describes the Mesonychid family, of which Pakicetus should be a member, as “exhibiting an odd combination of characters.”^[3]
As paleontologist Robert L. Carroll (1997: 329) notes,

'It is not possible to identify a sequence of mesonychids leading directly to whales, although some teeth now recognized as belonging to primitive whales were originally described as from mesonychids. All adequately known mesonychids were terrestrial in most aspects of the skeleton, and some show specializations for cursorial [i.e., running] locomotion.'

Such prominent evolutionists as Gould accept that ‘mosaic creatures’ of this type cannot be considered as transitional forms.

 In his article ‘The Overselling of Whale Evolution,’ Ashby L. Camp wrote:

 “The reason evolutionists are confident that mesonychids gave rise to archaeocetes, despite the inability to identify any species in the actual lineage, is that known mesonychids and archaeocetes have some similarities.  These similarities, however, are not sufficient to make the case for ancestry, especially in light of the vast differences.  The subjective nature of such comparisons is evident from the fact so many groups of mammals and even reptiles have been suggested as ancestral to whales.”^[4]

G.A. Mchedlidze, a Russian expert on whales, has expressed serious doubts as to whether creatures like Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, and others—even if accepted as aquatic mammals—can properly be considered ancestors of modern whales. He sees them instead as 'a completely isolated group.'
‘All the postcranial bones indicate that pakicetids were land mammals, and … indicate that the animals were runners, with only their feet touching the ground.’ This is very different from Gingerich’s picture of an aquatic animal! But the evolutionary bias is still clear, describing Pakicetus as a ‘terrestrial cetacean’ and saying, ‘The first whales were fully terrestrial, and were even efficient runners.’ But the term ‘whale’ becomes meaningless if it can describe land mammals, and it provides no insight into how true marine whales supposedly evolved.
http://harunyahya.com/en/works/3378
5-whale evolution

Summary:
http://youtu.be/2nS-RifoPFA?t=9s

Indohyus

Indohyus
A report published December, 2007, outlined a description of a new fossil discovery claimed by Dr. J. Thewissen and his colleagues to represent the ancestor of the whale/cetaceans. This went viral.

(Imaginary drawings)

The reason why evolutionists cling to Indohyus as a missing link is that:
1- they depict a structure between the middle and inner ear (tympanic bullae, involucrum  extra "wall") as similar to that in marine mammals.
2- they claim that Indohyus' teeth have a similar structure to those of marine mammals
3- eyes being higher in the skull than is the case in other ungulates,and  this is a feature shared with whales. 

(Magnified, actual bones in the link below:
http://static.guim.c...-indohyus-1.jpg
However, the idea of the evolution of the whale, a fantastical and unscientific fairy tale, is incompatible with the emergence of Indohyus. Let us now examine these inconsistencies.

a) Indohyus is a finding that rocks the idea of whale evolution, and the idea that it supports it is a total deception.
According to the classic scenario of whale evolution, mammals dwelling on the land are considered to have moved into the water. The fact is, however, that an examination of Indohyus shows that it already lived in water (teeth ¹⁸O values and osteosclerotic bones- Virtually all aquatic vertebrates have it ), and its dental structure shows that it lived a herbivorous existence. This feature of Indohyus represents a major contradiction of those evolutionists who say, in their classical accounts, that terrestrial mammals moved into the sea in order to find prey.
The New Scientist article said this on the subject:

 The research also challenges the idea that cetaceans – the order that includes whales, dolphins, and porpoises – split from their land-dwelling forebears and returned to the water to hunt aquatic prey.

This suggests that Indohyus was a shallow water wader already, and had not returned to the water simply to hunt live prey.
Whenever they are confronted by findings that clash with their own fairy tales they attempt to save their theories by means of such trickery as saying “evolution happened in this way, rather than that,” when what they should say is; “our accounts are wrong, there is no foundation to what we have been describing as the true facts in school text books.”

b) The similarities constructed between Indohyus and whales are not restricted to these life forms alone.
The similarities they have come up with between the two can also be seen in other mammals which have no connection at all to whales in respect of the theory of evolution. Scientists make the following admission on the subject:

None of these features characterize all modern and extinct cetaceans [whales—KB].... In addition, all of these characters are found in some mammals unrelated to cetaceans”(Thewissen, et al., 2007)

As we have seen, Indohyus shares anatomical features not just with whales, but also with other mammals which are totally incompatible with whales in terms of the myth of evolution. For that reason, the depiction of Indohyus as “the missing link in whale evolution” in New Scientist magazine is devoid of any scientific justification.


'The 48-million-year-old actual skeleton of Indohyus spent much of its life in water.
The cell phone is for size comparison .'

Quote

What does Indohyus actually prove? It proves that the alleged closest relative of the whale can change from the hippopotamus to a small deer-like creature in the blink of an eye, based on certain similar structures that it has in common with other mammals besides whales.
The DNA of whales is most like the DNA of hippos. Therefore, the molecular biologists say whales must have evolved from an early hippopotamus.
Paleontologists don’t buy that argument because they think the oldest whale fossils are 50 million years old, and the oldest hippo fossils are just 15 million years old. If whales preceded hippos by 35 million years, they could not have evolved from them. But the fossil record has “not resolved the issue of cetacean relations” either. So, there are several different proposed whale ancestors.

c) The similarity constructed between Indohyus and whales on the basis of dental structure is also questionable

Those making these claims about Indohyus also suggest that it shares a common dental structure with whales. However, whales are carnivores. Indohyus, on the other hand, was a herbivore, with totally different feeding patterns.

http://www.scientifi...09B24DA94_1.jpg
They said

"All fossil and recent cetaceans differ from most other mammals in the reduction of crushing basins on their teeth: there are no trigonid and talonid basins in the lower molars, and the trigon basin of the upper molars is very small (for example in pakicetids and ambulocetids) or absent. Crushing basins are large in raoellids -indohyus- and other basal ungulates. This implies that a major change in dental function occurred at the origin of cetaceans, probably related to dietary change at the origin"(Thewissen, et al., Nature)

What they are basically saying is that Indohyus must have been a whale ancestor because its teeth are NOT whale-like, which is proof that the shape of whale teeth evolved!

Additionally, ScienceNOW, a daily news feature of the journal Science, notes that "cetaceans are so different from any other creature that researchers haven’t been able to agree which fossil relatives best represent their nearest ancestors."
Conclusion:

Since evolutionists adopt their theories as a dogma right from the outset, and since evolutionary development is a belief imposed by materialist ideology, they are quite capable of manufacturing huge flights of fancy based on the very smallest similarities. The way they regard Indohyus, an animal that lived in rivers and no larger than a racoon (compared to the small swimming mouse deer), as the ancestor of the whales, on the basis of superficial similarities, such as Indohyus' eye sockets being located a little higher, represents a striking and dazzling example of this dogmatic and fantastical mindset. 

Any normal, rational individual whose thought processes are unfettered by materialist preconceptions will know that this design can only be possible as the result of a mind having planned it. In the same way that the existence of a computer points to the existence of a computer engineer, or a building to that of an architect, so the sublime complexity and vast quantities of information in the biological systems in living things indicate the existence of the Creator who brought them into being. It is quite certain that this Creator is Almighty God, Who has no need of blueprints or designs in order to create, and Who brings all things into existence merely by commanding them to “Be!”
http://www.darwinism...akale_id=148106
http://www.ridgenet....sage/v12i4n.htm

A funny complaint about the recurrent laryngeal nerve !

The funniest complain I've ever heard by some Darwinists and atheists is that RLN is too long, It must be badly designed !!

Analysis:

1- Failure of Natural Selection ?!

[For the sake of argument] A totally nonsensical and relictual misdesign would be a severe contradiction in their own neo-Darwinian (or synthetic evolutionary) world view. Biologist and Nobel laureate Francois Jacob described this view on the genetic level as follows:

 "The genetic message, the programme of the present-day organism ... resembles a text without an author, that a proof-reader has been correcting for more than two billion years, continually improving, refining and completing it, gradually eliminating all imperfections."

The result in the Giraffe?

Jerry Coyne:

 "One of nature’s  worst designs is shown by the recurrent laryngeal nerve of mammals."

the question arises: why did natural selection not get rid of this "worst design" and improve it during the millions of generations and mutations from fish to the giraffe onwards?

2- Maldesign = No design ?

[For the sake of argument] why "imperfect design" should refute design. we complained before about the breakdowns and flaws I've had with computers, but obviously computers are designed. In fact, every piece of technology that has ever had a flaw shows that imperfect designs are still designed!

3- Homology (similarities) is NOT and evidence for common ancestry, Why ?

4- Prefer direct nerve to the larynx ?

Actually, Some innervations to the larynx go directly to the larynx, including the sensory internal laryngeal nerve and the motor external laryngeal nerve. Other nerves, the left and right superior laryngeal nerves, branch off close to the larynx to provide this structure with direct innervation.
 A hint is provided from the fact that the two nerves regulate different vocal responses. Paralysis of the superior laryngeal nerve (the non-circuitous nerve) causes difficulty in increasing voice loudness, producing a high pitch, vocal fatigue, and an inability to sing because the vocal cords lack their normal tone and cannot sufficiently lengthen. In contrast, paralysis of the recurrent nerve results in a weak voice that sounds like Mickey Mouse.

In one patient, a traumatic rupture of the aortic arch in a car accident required an aortic graft that left him with a severed left RLN. Although his voice was slightly feeble, his articulation was unaffected. He speaks perfectly well, but cannot project his voice because the laryngeal muscles have multiple innervations and the set as a unit controls its function.



5- Long course = Bad design ?

The optic nerves do not take the shortest route to the occipital lobe of the brain (the lobe near the back of the head), but rather cross over at the optic chiasm (where the two tracts cross over in the form of an "X") for reasons now known to be based on good design. The nerves from the right side of the brain go to the left side of the body (except for the right and left frontal branches of a facial nerve, which are supplied by both sides of the brain) also for good reasons.

 “Human-designed machines and structures are full of such things as circuitous wiring and plumbing, but that hardly means that they are not the products of intelligent design.

6- You were an embryo !

 Human-designed devices, such as radios and computers, do not need to function until their assembly is complete. By contrast, living organisms must function to a high degree in order to thrive during every developmental stage from a single-cell zygote to adult. The embryo as a whole must be a fully functioning system in its specific environment during every second of its entire development. For this reason, adult anatomy can be understood only in the light of development. The embryo develops from a single cell in a certain order. Embryo needs a functioning simple heart early on; this later descends to its position in the chest, dragging the nerve bundle with it.


The recurrent laryngeal nerve, move downward as development proceeds. The movement occurs because the neck's formation and the body's elongation during fetal development force the heart to descend from the cervical (neck) location down into the thoracic (chest) cavity.
As a result, various arteries and other structures must be elongated as organs are moved in a way that allows them to remain functional throughout this entire developmental phase. 

6-Importance for ductus arteriosus:

However, just to refer to one possible substantial function of the Nervus laryngeus recurrens sinister during embryogenesis: "The vagus nerve in the stage 16 embryo is very large in relation to the aortic arch system. The recurrent laryngeal nerve has a greater proportion of connective tissue than other nerves, making it more resistant to stretch. It has been suggested that tension applied by the left recurrent laryngeal nerve as it wraps around the ductus arteriosus could provide a means of support that would permit the ductus to develop as a muscular artery, rather than an elastic artery" - Gray's Anatomy, 39th edition 2005, p. 1053.




7-  This is the vagus !

"In mammals, this nerve avoids the direct route between brain and throat and instead descends into the chest, loops around the aorta near the heart, then returns to the larynx. That makes it seven times longer than it needs to be.(Prothero, D. 2008. Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters. New York: Columbia University Press, 37-38.)

Images and statements like those above are often used to make you imagine that RLN origin is from the brain, However, It actually originates from The vagus nerve below far away from the brain !!

The vagus nerve (the longest of the cranial nerves) travels from the neck down toward the heart, and then the recurrent laryngeal nerve branches off from the vagus just below the aorta (the largest artery in the body, originating from the left ventricle of the heart and extending down the abdomen). The RLN travels upward to serve several organs, some near where it branches off of the vagus nerve, and then travels back up to the larynx


8- Any other purpose ?

If we find some rational function or a reasonable purpose for a design, then the "imperfect" or "inferior" design objection falls apart.
The larynx  only its main destination. In reality, the nerve also has a role in supplying parts of the heart, windpipe muscles and mucous membranes, and the esophagus, which could explain its route.
The fact that the left RLN also gives off some fibers to the cardiac plexus is highly indicative of developmental constraints because the nerve must serve both the larynx (in the neck) and the heart (in the chest).The well-known textbook Gray’s Anatomy states:

    “As the recurrent nerve hooks around the subclavian artery or aorta, it gives off several cardiac filaments to the deep part of the cardiac plexus. As it ascends in the neck it gives off branches, more numerous on the left than on the right side, to the mucous membrane and muscular coat of the esophagus; branches to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea; and some pharyngeal filaments to the Constrictor pharyngis inferior.”
Other textbooks explain its importance:

Maintenant que nous connaissons les gros vaisseaux artériels issus de la base du coeur, nous allons pouvoir décrire les nerfs cardiaques.Disons auparavant que leur disposition est infiniment variable, très malaisée à suivre vu leurs fréquentes anastomoses, et que nous ne pouvons en indiquer ici que le type moyen

le plus connu chez l’animal est le « nerf dépresseur de Cyon », né par deux racines, l’une du nerf laryngé supérieur, l’autre du nerf vague. Chez l’homme, ce nerf a été rarement vu isolé ; mais ses fibres existent et doivent passer par les anastomoses que les nerfs cardiaques contractent avec le laryngé supérieur

Le nerf cardiaque cervical moyen naît du nerf laryngé récurrent

http://books.google.co.ma/books?id=7V5JAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr#v=onepage&q&f=false
Darwinian explanations (as is also true for many other so-called rudimentary routes and organs) are not only often in contradiction to their own premises but also tend to stop looking for (and thus hinder scientific research concerning) further important morphological and physiological functions yet to be discovered. 



9- Non-recurrent inferior laryngeal nerve (NIRLN) is a congenital anomaly !

The non-recurrent inferior laryngeal nerve (NIRLN) is a rare congenital anomaly (0.5–0.6% on the right side, extremely rare on the left side (0.004%)), which increases the risk of damage to the nerve during surgery. The right NRILN is associated with a right subclavian artery arising directly from the aortic arch. The left NRILN is associated with situs inversus.
http://casereports.bmj.com/content/2009/bcr.10.2008.1107.full

It  can have catastrophic consequences for the persons so affected: problems in deglutition (difficulties in swallowing) and respiratory difficulties (troubles in breathing) (see Rammerstorfer 2004; moreover“dysphagia  (if the  pharyngeal and oesophageal branches  of nonrecurrent or recurrent inferior laryngeal nerve are injured)” – Yang et al, 2009: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=5868576).

However, this should be taken in consideration:

Shifting of the Burden of Proof

Making a claim that needs justification (the recurrent nerve is maldesign) , then demanding that the opponent justifies the opposite of the claim (It's a purpose) is absurd. The burden of proof typically lies with the person making the claim.

Bergman, J. 2010. Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Is Not Evidence of Poor Design.
Sarfati , J. 2010.Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve
http://www.weloennig.de/LaryngealNerve.pdf
 http://www.eltwhed.com

Living things were created at the most "appropriate" time for them

The real fact that emerges from examination of the fossil record is that living things emerged in the periods most suitable for them. God has designed all creatures superbly, and has made them well-suited to meet their needs at the times when they emerged on the Earth.
Let us consider one example of this: the Earth at the time when the oldest bacteria fossils emerge, some 3.5 billion years ago. Atmospheric and temperature conditions at the time were not at all suited to support complex creatures or human beings. That also applies to the Cambrian Age, the finding of human fossils from which, according to the evolutionist Kence, would invalidate the theory of evolution. This period, which refers to some 530 million years ago, was definitely unsuitable for human life. (There were no land animals at all at that time.)
The situation is the same in the great majority of succeeding periods. Examination of the fossil record shows that conditions able to support human life have only existed for the last few million years. The same applies to all other living things. Each living group emerged when the appropriate conditions for it had been arrived at—in other words, "when the time was right."
Darwinists make an enormous contradiction in the face of that fact, trying to explain it as if these appropriate conditions themselves had created living things, whereas the coming about of "appropriate conditions" only meant that the right time had come. Living things can only emerge with a conscious intervention—in other words, a supernatural creation.

For this reason, the emergence of living things by stages is evidence not of evolution, but of the infinite knowledge and wisdom of God, Who created them. Every living group created established the appropriate conditions for the next group to emerge, and an ecological balance with all living things was set up for us over a long period of time.
On the other hand, we must be aware that this long period of time is only long to us. For God it is but a single "moment." Time is a concept that only applies to created things. As the creator of time itself, God is not bound by it.
A theory that maintains that invertebrates turned into fish, fish into reptiles, and reptiles into birds and mammals has to find the fossils to prove it.
As the evolutionist paleontologist Derek W. Ager has admitted, the fossil record shows "not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another."
In conclusion, natural history reveals that living things did not come about by chance, but that they were created, stage by stage, over long periods over time.
http://harunyahya.co...y/chapter/12401

chromosome 2 fusion model

To solve the problem of different number of chromosomes between apes and humans, Darwinists suggested the ‘chromosome 2 fusion model’. This scenario involves the claim that the fusion of two small chimpanzee-like chromosomes (2A and 2B) formed one chromosome in humans, leading to the difference in diploid chromosome numbers between humans and great apes. While the chromosome 2 fusion model is routinely touted as dogma, very little new genomic data, although readily available for analysis, has been presented as evidence.




Wikipedia mentioned that the model is "widely accepted":




But, What you need to know is:
1- A majority of the data for the fusion model is based on DNA hybridization and chromosomal staining experiments conducted prior to the sequencing of the human and chimpanzee genomes.

2- Synteny (shared ordering of genes between organisms) of the chromosomes is not a surprise. We already knew there was a vast amount of similarity between humans and primates both in terms of physical characteristics and genetic material and structure. It is a mistake to assume that observing similarities necessarily brings you to the conclusion of common descent. Taxonomy based on physical characteristics was already a very well established science when the idea of common descent came on the scene.

3- The telomere region involves a complex and dynamic framework of DNA motif repeats 5’ to 3’ (TTAGGG)n , structural loops, structural and a wide variety of proteins. and it confer stability and preventing fusion or shortening of the chromosomes. It's in perfect tandem of DNA from about 10 to 15 kb (10,000 to 15,000 bases) and contains 1,667 to 2,500 telomere repeats at each chromosome end.

4- In a head-to-head fusion of two chromosomes, we would expect at least 5,000 bases of (TTAGGG)n repeats in tandem, we would also expect the orientation of the plus-strand repeat to change to the reverse complement (CCCTAA)n, which should also occur in near-perfect tandem for approximately 5,000 or more bases. The area containing the suspected ‘fusion region’ is often called 2qfus or 2chr2fus and occupies the genomic area between 2q13 and 2q14.1.

5- Within the 10 to 30 kb window of DNA sequence surrounding the hypothetical fusion site,a glaring paucity of telomeric repeats exist that appear mostly as independent monomers, not tandem repeats. The TTAGGG repeat to the left of the fusion site, less than 35 motifs exist. For the CCCTAA reverse complement sequence, to the right of the fusion site, less than 150 telomere motifs can be found.

6- The only research group to seriously analyze the actual fusion site DNA sequence data in detail were confounded by the results which showed a lack of evidence for fusion—a genomic condition for this region which they termed ‘degenerate’.(Fan, Y. et al., Genomic structure and evolution of the ancestral chromosome fusion site in 2q13-2q14.1 and paralogous regions on other human chromosomes, Genome Research 12:1651–1662, 2002. )

7- Fairbanks said that 44 out of 158 repeats match (28%) and that the rest of the sequences are ‘close’. The problem is, to obtain even this low match level, the consensus reading frame is entirely ignored and ambiguous matches are contrived by assuming many insertion and deletion mutations of varying sizes.

8- There are genes throughout the alleged fusion region. In an analysis of a 614 kb area encompassing the postulated chromosome fusion site, Fan et al. found evidence of “at least 24 potentially functional genes and 16 pseudogenes”.(Fan, Y. et al., Gene content and function of the ancestral chromosome fusion site in human chromosome 2q13-2q14.1 and paralogous regions, Genome Research 12:1663–1672, 2002.). In the 30-kb region directly encompassing the fusion site, which should definitely be devoid of any genes, there exists two actively transcribed genes, each in a flanking position in regard to the fusion site (one on each side). There are also at least two other genes in the immediate vicinity of the fusion site thought to be inactive due to frame shift mutations. However, research related to the human ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) project has shown that many genes thought to be inactive (pseudogenes) are actually functional due to a variety of newly discovered regulatory mechanisms.(Identification and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the ENCODE pilot project, Nature 447:799–816, 2007)

9- If the telomere motifs that populate internal areas of chromosomes serve some important, yet unknown function, the chromosome fusion model actually impedes research aimed at determining possible function in these regions.

10- telomeres are designed to prevent fusion. Broken chromosomes at any location immediately invoke the cell’s double-stranded DNA repair machinery where the aberrant fusion of fragments actually triggers cell fault tolerance mechanisms.6 In the case of an aberrant fusion, a senescence response or programmed cell death (apoptosis) cascade is normally triggered, effectively eliminating the damaged cell from the system.

A cell with telomeres that have progressively shortened over time and reached a threshold length will also activate the double-stranded DNA repair machinery; inducing cell senescence and/or death. When in certain types of germline cells, telomerase adds telomere repeats to shortened telomeres, chromosomes are ‘healed’ and can again become stable. The telomeres cap the ends of linear chromosomes and effectively prevent fusion or trigger cell elimination if the telomere is shortened to a certain point, damaged, or aberrantly fused.6 According to the fusion model, this protective process was somehow bypassed in early humans.

11- Telomere sequence is not unique to the telomere. the existence of telomeric repeats in internal sites is not unusual or unexpected. We know that ITS (interstitial telomeric sequences) present in Chromosomes 1,4,5,9,12,16, and 17 (http://www.ncbi.nlm....4?dopt=Abstract)

12- The evidence for a second remnant centromere at any stage of sequence degeneracy is negligible.The supposed evidence includes the finding that “every human and great-ape chromosome centromere contains a highly variable DNA sequence that is repeated over and over, a 171 base-pair sequence called the Alphoid sequence.”3 Fairbanks adds that scientists have “searched for Alphoid sequences in human chromosomes and found them at every centromere, as expected. They also found Alphoid sequences at the site in human chromosome 2 where the remnants of this second centromere should be. These remnants are evidence of a now-defunct centromere.” problem is that, although research has been done on some primates, no systematic study of centromeres exists to determine how common alphoid DNA is in mammals.(Baldini, A. et al., An alphoid DNA sequence conserved in all human and great ape chromosomes: evidence for ancient centromeric sequences at human chromosomal regions 2q21 and 9q13, Human Genetics 90:577–583, 1993) Baldini et al. found that the “highest sequence similarity between human and great ape alphoid sequences is 91%, much lower than the expected similarity for selectively neutral sequences.”

13- Alpha-satellite DNA or alphoid DNA, although found in centromeric areas, is not unique to centromeres and is also highly variable. Because highly variable alphoid DNA is also commonly found in non-centromeric regions of human chromosomes, their presence does not indicate the remnants of a degenerate centromere. Based on the reasoning of Fairbanks and others promoting the human chromosome 2 fusion model, one could conclude that human chromosomes contain literally hundreds of degenerate centromeres.

14- The site is located inside a gene called DDX11L2 on human chromosome 2. Furthermore, the alleged fusion sequence contains a functional genetic feature called a “transcription factor binding site” that is located in the first intron (non-coding region) of the gene (see illustration). Transcription factors are proteins that bind to regulatory sites in and around genes to control their function, acting like switches. The DDX11L2 gene has three of these areas, one of which is encoded in the alleged fusion site.( source )

http://creation.com/...some-2-fusion-1

46 chromosomes- Significance of Number of chromosomes ?!

According to darwinism, human has a microbe-like grandfather, he kept reproducing till we found an imaginary common ancestor for human and chimp.

This tale was confronted by the fact that human has 46 chromosomes while apes have 48 !
Looks more or less similar ?!
In fact, the number of chromosomes doesn't hold much importance. What really counts is the genetic information itself.

Let's have a look at other creatures that have the same number of chromosomes-just like human !

- Black rat (Rattus rattus)




- Merriam’s ground squirrel (Spermophilus canus)


- Southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis)

- Grevy’s zebra (Equus grevyi)

- Mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa)

- Muntjacs (Muntiacus reevesi)


- Beach vole (Microtus breweri)

- Nilgai (Boselaphus tragocamelus)

- Kirk’s dik-dik (Rhynchotragus/Madoqua kirkii )

- Grey/common vole (Microtus arvalis)


- Large bentwing bat (miniopterus schreibersi)

- Bolivian Tuco-tuco (Ctenomys boliviensis)


- Crowned Lemur (Lemur mongoz coronatus)

- Red Titi (Callicebus cupreus)


Sable antelope  (Kafue, Zambia)
 

http://zyxo.wordpress.com/2009/06/27/list-of-animal-species-with-46-chromosomes/

On the other hand these species also have 48 chromosomes, just like chimpanzee.

- European hare/jackrabbit (Lepus europeus)




potatoes


tobacco





It's obvious that none is a supposed relative neither for human nor chimpanzee !

Mutations, Mechanism Of Evolution ?

The reasons why mutations cannot support evolutionist claims may be summarized under these main headings:          

1. Mutations are mostly harmful.
Since they occur at random, they always damage living things. Logically, any unconscious intervention in a perfect and complex structure will damage it, rather than causing it to develop.
Darwinists maintain that species emerge from one another through structures and organs appearing as a result of countless fictitious and beneficial mutations.
The American geneticist B.G. Ranganathan explains:

'Most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.'

The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver said the following about a report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, set up to examine the mutations arising as a result of nuclear weapons in the wake of the Second World War:

'Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effect - evolution to higher forms of life - result from mutations, practically all of which are harmful?'

These photographs show some of the damaging effects of mutation on the human body.

A process that cripples individuals or leaves them ill cannot, of course, give rise to any progress.

In a scientific paper, David Demick, an American pathologist, wrote this to say about mutations:

'Literally thousands of human diseases associated with genetic mutations have been
catalogued in recent years, with more being described continually. A recent reference book of medical genetics listed some 4,500 different genetic diseases. Some of the inherited syndromes characterized clinically in the days before molecular genetic analysis (such as Marfan's syndrome) are now being shown to be heterogeneous; that is, associated with many different mutations.

With this array of human diseases that are caused by mutations, what of positive effects? With thousands of examples of harmful mutations readily available, surely it should be possible to describe some positive mutations if macroevolution is true. These would be needed not only for evolution to greater complexity, but also to offset the downward pull of the many harmful mutations. But, when it comes to identifying positive mutations, evolutionary scientists are strangely silent.'(David Demick, "The Blind Gunman," Impact, No. 308, February 1999)

DNA Repair

Research has revealed that there are protective elements in the cell that prevent genetic errors arising.

God has designed a number of DNA repair systems and proofreaders (enzymes), each to take on different repair problems. For example, there are enzymes involved with mismatch excision repair (MMR) that recognize wrongly paired bases, and nucleotide excision repair (NER), which is a universal "cut and patch" repair mechanism. NER operates to remove the mistake — called a lesion — and fill in the gap with new DNA. One may liken this to a dentist drilling out decay and replacing the hole with a filling (the "filling" in DNA repair is a functional nucleotide). There are also tiny molecular motors (see "Origins Issues," Acts & Facts, April 2004) called helicases (e.g., DnaB helicase and other multimeric motors) that literally unwind DNA from the normal double-stranded state into two single strands. Helicases accomplish this by rapidly breaking
hydrogen bonds between the nucleotides (the "ladder rungs" portion of the molecule) in a manner somewhat like the way inchworms move. Other specially designed enzymes must immediately keep the two single strands apart once they are separated. From there, efficient repair of the DNA continues. Occasionally this amazing repair mechanism fails — as all of our systems eventually do — and a permanent alteration or change in that portion of the DNA results. This is called a mutation. Of course, mutations in critical areas can be deadly to an organism.(Sherwin, F. 2004. Mending Mistakes—The Amazing Ability of Repair. Acts & Facts. 33 (6).)


Pierre Paul Grassé, who spent 30 years as professor of evolution at the Sorbonne, wrote this on the subject:

'The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Dürer’s “Melancholia” is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy errors in the DNA molecules leading to the formation of the eye.'

2. No new genetic information can be added to DNA as a result of mutation.

The components of the genetic information are removed and dismantled, damaged or carried to other locations in the DNA. Yet mutations can never cause a living thing to acquire a new organ or attribute.

It is therefore impossible for a brand new organ or characteristic that did not exist before to appear by chance as the result of mutations. Mutations have no power to bestow new information on a life form that does not belong to it, or to turn it into a different organism.

3. For a mutation to be transmitted to a subsequent generation, it must take place in the
reproductive germ cells or their precursors.

No change arising in any other cell of the body can be passed along to later generations. For example, an embryo's eye may depart from its original form by being subjected to radiation and other similar effects, but this mutation will not manifest itself in subsequent generations.


4. The Infinite Amount of Time Needed for Hypothetical Beneficial Mutations

Even if we assume that mutations were effective and beneficial in complex organs and structures requiring more than one mutation to occur at the same time, mathematicians still say the problem of time is an acute dilemma for Darwinists.

The evolutionist George G. Simpson has performed another calculation regarding the mutation claim in question.

He admitted that in a community of 100 million individuals we assume to produce a new generation every day, a positive outcome from mutations would only take place once every 274 billion years. That number is many times greater the age of the Earth, estimated at 4.5 billion years. (Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense Evidence Against Evolution, Master Books, 2001, p. 81)

5. Pleiotropic effect:

Pleiotropy occurs when one gene influences multiple phenotypic traits. Consequently, a mutation in a pleiotropic gene may have an effect on some or all traits simultaneously. This can become a problem when selection on one trait favours one specific version of the gene (allele), while the selection on the other trait favors another allele. The underlying mechanism of pleiotropy in most cases is the effect of a gene on metabolic pathways which contribute toward different phenotypes. 

http://evolutiondece...inary_Mechanism
http://evolutiondece..._is_a_falsehood