The protein families I have researched do not support your assertion. The trees are very inconsistent. The reality is that this could be due to variation in mutational constraint or different starting points so Richards argument can be countered.
Where common descent fails is that gene families and chromosome pairs do not follow the tree. Chromosome matching is critical for mitosis. This appears to be a design to insure isolation of species.
My understanding is that an inaugural lecture is delivered by someone who has just been appointed as a full professor and is intended to introduce and discuss his work in a manner accessible to a general audience.
Apparently, including propaganda for oneâs personal favorite anti-science religious foundation is permitted but optional.
âResearched,â he says.
Like I said: youâre the target audience, and since you already believe quite a few false âfactsâ in line with Buggs, youâre the low-hanging fruit here. I am astonished at the sheer naivety of your belief that chromosome count is a strong argument for your position, and would try to disabuse you of that bizarre notion, but of course everyone here knows that you donât learn and that wonât happen, so what would be the point?
You have no idea what youâre talking about. Itâs meiosis, not mitosis, that requires chromosome matching. And simple chromosome count is not whatâs relevant. Itâs the matching of homologous parts. If a chromosome splits in two or two chromosomes fuse, that changes chromosome number but doesnât prevent matching up. Chromosome number, in other words, can be polymorphic within populations and can change during evolution by well-known mechanisms. You might as well classify species alphabetically as by simple chromosome number.
This is unusually clueless, even for you.
OTOH, I have to wonder how many in the audience are not misinformed in the way that @colewd and @Eddie already are as a result of creationist propaganda, but are, instead, simply uninformed regarding a subject they might be hearing about for the first time from Buggs. That would be troubling.
Buggs insinuates quite a few things he doesnât say. For example, he implies that the result from the Soltisâs analysis, that dicots are paraphyletic to monocots, is not correct. But he never gets around to actually saying so, or providing an alternative, or providing any evidence.
@Eddie obviously picked up on those insinuations, as I am sure would anyone else sympathetic to the neo-creationist cause. Other people, however, will see some professor wearing a mortar board saying that Richard Dawkins, worldâs most famous evolutionist, is wrong about common ancestry and maybe that means common ancestry isnât true. They are not likely to realize that Buggs is lying.
Chromosome matching is not important in mitosis? I do agree that mules are infertile do to not being able to produce sperm and eggs. Do you have an explanation of how you get reliable cell division with mismatched chromosomes?
Where is the model that explains this huge divergence in chromosome counts? Where is the nested hierarchy?
Troubling, yes. But not surprising, after years of this sort of thing. It is a routine thing to find that creationists and creationist sympathizers do almost no reading of actual biology. They are therefore easily surprised by things which are common knowledge.
Thatâs right. You really know nothing. Are you perhaps confusing mitosis with meiosis?
The model is simple: chromosomal mutations of various sorts, including fission, fusion, and of course polyploidy. The nested hierarchy is in the actual sequences and mutations, not the raw counts, which are not very informative. Again, you might as well sort species alphabetically.
The model is not simple at all as chromosome changes effect fertility.
Like the Howe diagram you are sweeping very contradictory evidence under the carpet. There is no model that can explain how the chromosome patterns originated except by intentional design.
Where is the nested pattern when you look at chromosome counts? Why is it violated in such an extreme fashion?
If that were true, we wouldnât expect to find many populations with polymorphic chromosome counts. And yet we do.
Like the Howe diagram you have no idea what youâre talking about. But are you claiming here that horses and donkeys must have been separately created?
Where is the nested pattern in alphabetical sorting of species? Evidence, I suppose, that because apples and antelopes begin with A, but bananas and bison begin with B, they must be separate kinds.
This may seem intuitively true, and at one time I would have agreed. However, there is plenty of evidence that this is not so. One case is raccoon dogs.
Raccoon dogs extent in Japan have differing chromosome numbers from Asian populations, but are otherwise essentially the same animal. While these populations have not mixed in modern times, both sire further generations without impediment. Would you suggest this is by intentional design?
The Chinese raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides procyonoides , 2n =54+2â3 B) and Japanese raccoon dog (Nyctereutes p. viverrinus , 2n =38+3â4 B) are two subspecies of the same species.
HI Ron
.8 Robertsonian translocation becoming fixed in a population 
These are separate designs. There is an Indian deer with 7 chromosomes where red deer have 68.
Comparative analysis of the distribution patterns of conserved segments defined by dog paints in the genomes of the Chinese and Japanese raccoon dogs demonstrates that their differences in the karyotypes of these two subspecies could have resulted from eight Robertsonian translocations. The large difference in chromosome number between the Chinese and Japanese raccoon dogs suggests that they should be considered as two distinct species.
At what point does contradictory data cause you to abandon a theory? This is not good for sciences reputation IMO. Why are these issues not discussed honestly?
I have gone to the Dawkins talk. Listen to this bit, starting around 8:40 and running to about 11:29, and tell me the most natural interpretation of the repeated phrase âthe sameâ:
It might be if you didnât have the clarification from the printed quote that Buggs used.
That is strained, and you will find very few who agree. Especially, you would not be supported in that assertion by YEC special creation advocates at AiG or CMI, such as Pendragon or Jeanson, who are quite adamant that their putative dog kind, including the myriad species of foxes, and wolves, living and extinct, are of common descent, and that such chromosomal re-arrangements are common.
Here is the AiG treatment concerning the cattle kind.
Karyotype Variability within the Cattle Monobaramin
The Genesis account states that God created all living things according to their kinds. Cattle, bison, and buffalo are identified as being derived from a single created kind (i.e., they belong to a monobaramin). Karyotype variability is examined within this monobaramin. I conclude that chromosomal rearrangements, particularly centric fusions, have played an important role in developing the chromosomal patterns that are seen in these animals today. Furthermore, it appears that these rearrangements are dependent on numerous mechanisms (to repair breaks, deactivate a centromere, and restructure heterochromatin) that allow for such changes while maintaining the viability of the animal. Since different fusions have become fixed in different populations, it is proposed that these changes are likely beneficial.
I will let this question speak for itself.
Of course. All of a sudden, âEddieâ holds the view that the way to determine someoneâs position on a subject is to watch a Youtube video.
Say no moreâŚ
To clarify, I was not claiming that I had found either of the two positions (there are massive contradictions among trees, and there are no discrepancies at all among trees) in technical articles or books; I was claiming to have heard these positions on the internet in places where culture-warriors clash on origins questions.
However, itâs very clear that apparent incongruencies between trees are frequently discussed in the literature, and here is a passage from the abstract of one article that has some of the same phrases I used:
âAll characters and trait systems in an organism share a common evolutionary history that can be estimated using phylogenetic methods. However, differential rates of change and the evolutionary mechanisms driving those rates result in pervasive phylogenetic conflict. These drivers need to be uncovered because mismatches between evolutionary processes and phylogenetic models can lead to high confidence in incorrect hypotheses. Incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses, and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species.â
The full article can be found at Understanding phylogenetic incongruence: lessons from phyllostomid bats - PMC
âApparentâ is an addition to your claim, and one I applaud and you should notice. Some differences are real, and others are artifacts of improper methodology. Your quote seems to be talking about the latter. Have you read that article?