I am not espousing the broader scope of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) as some sort of truth, but your argument is not well formed.
We aren't descendents of chimps they have 24 chromosomes
Evolution doesn't say we are the descendants of chimpanzees. It says that chimpanzees and humans have a most recent common ancestor (MRCA). In addition, the ploidy number (number of chromosomes) is irrelevant. It could easily be that the MRCA of both chimps and humans had 23, or 24, or 120 chromosomes (unlikely, even within the theory, but not impossible). The theory of evolution relies on changes in ploidy number in successive generations.
Indeed, hybridization between different ploidy numbers happens all the time. "Speciation," on the ToE's Tree of Life is a divergent node; whereby I mean, some species is a node, and the branches are it's children (or great-great, etc. grandchildren). Hybridization on the other hand, would be a convergent node on the tree of life (two branches come together). This hybridization process, which is almost completely ignored in the ToE (though exploited in plant biology on a daily basis) is a far greater challenge to the theory than your specific DNA focused protests (which again, are not well formed. Indeed, none is an actual problem at all within the theory). Hybridization is the real monkey wrench (so to speak) in the ToE.
It could very well be that all of the "missing links" we've found (where there are fossils that have similar features to supposed "descendants") could all be convergent nodes, instead of the divergent nodes the ToE espouses.
A worse problem imo for the ToE is the LUCA problem, where LUCA stands for the Last Universal Common Ancestor. You can't start the process without a cell, and we have no idea how the first cell could have possibly come about, even in theory.
The worst problem imo for the ToE is that we have exactly zero good solid direct evidence of speciation (there is some evidence of created "speciation" in fruit flies in a lab through induced genetic damage, though it is a fairly large stretch to use the word "speciation" for the results). There is a metric fuckton of evidence of genetic adaptation (think of it as "evolution light") and some fossil evidence of "missing links" (though most of it is far weaker than espoused, some is not), but we have never seen a species split into two different species, much less a different family. And of course we haven't, because in the ToE that takes millions of years, making it impossible within the theory to ever have direct evidence to support it..
Of note, we have seen different species and indeed, different families have hybrid offspring however, and that is never discussed in the ToE.
Also interesting to note, Darwin's finches gained their adaptation not through genetic differences, but through epigenetic differences (a code that lays on top of the DNA code). That is another wrench in the theory that is never talked about, though it isn't particularly damning by itself, just interesting.
I am not espousing the broader scope of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) as some sort of truth, but your argument is not well formed.
We aren't descendents of chimps they have 24 chromosomes
Evolution doesn't say we are the descendants of chimpanzees. It says that chimpanzees and humans have a most recent common ancestor (MRCA). In addition, the ploidy number (number of chromosomes) is irrelevant. It could easily be that the MRCA of both chimps and humans had 23, or 24, or 120 chromosomes (unlikely, even within the theory, but not impossible). The theory of evolution relies on changes in ploidy number in successive generations.
Indeed, hybridization between different ploidy numbers happens all the time. "Speciation," on the ToE's Tree of Life is a divergent node; whereby I mean, some species is a node, and the branches are it's children (or great-great, etc. grandchildren). Hybridization on the other hand, would be a convergent node on the tree of life (two branches come together). This hybridization process, which is almost completely ignored in the ToE (though exploited in plant biology on a daily basis) is a far greater challenge to the theory than your specific DNA focused protests (which again, are not well formed. Indeed, none is an actual problem at all within the theory). Hybridization is the real monkey wrench (so to speak) in the ToE.
It could very well be that all of the "missing links" we've found (where there are fossils that have similar features to supposed "descendants") could all be convergent nodes, instead of the divergent nodes the ToE espouses.
A worse problem imo for the ToE is the LUCA problem, where LUCA stands for the Last Universal Common Ancestor. You can't start the process without a cell, and we have no idea how the first cell could have possibly come about, even in theory.
The worst problem imo for the ToE is that we have exactly zero good solid direct evidence of speciation (there is some evidence of created "speciation" in fruit flies in a lab through induced genetic damage, though it is a fairly large stretch to use the word "speciation" for the results). There is a metric fuckton of evidence of genetic adaptation (think of it as "evolution light") and some fossil evidence of "missing links" (though most of it is far weaker than espoused, some is not), but we have never seen a species split into two different species, much less a different family. And of course we haven't, because in the ToE that takes millions of years.
Of note, we have seen different species and indeed, different families have hybrid offspring however, and that is never discussed in the ToE.
Also interesting to note, Darwin's finches gained their adaptation not through genetic differences, but through epigenetic differences (a code that lays on top of the DNA code). That is another wrench in the theory that is never talked about, though it isn't particularly damning by itself, just interesting.
I am not espousing the broader scope of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) as some sort of truth, but your argument is not well formed.
We aren't descendents of chimps they have 24 chromosomes
Evolution doesn't say we are the descendants of chimpanzees. It says that chimpanzees and humans have a most recent common ancestor (MRCA). In addition, the ploidy number (number of chromosomes) is irrelevant. It could easily be that the MRCA of both chimps and humans had 23, or 24, or 120 chromosomes (unlikely, even within the theory, but not impossible). The theory of evolution relies on changes in ploidy number in successive generations.
Indeed, hybridization between different ploidy numbers happens all the time. "Speciation," on the ToE's Tree of Life is a divergent node; whereby I mean, some species is a node, and the branches are it's children (or great-great, etc. grandchildren). Hybridization on the other hand, would be a convergent node on the tree of life (two branches come together). This hybridization process, which is almost completely ignored in the ToE (though exploited in plant biology on a daily basis) is a far greater challenge to the theory than your specific DNA focused protests (which again, are not well formed. Indeed, none is an actual problem at all within the theory). Hybridization is the real monkey wrench (so to speak) in the ToE.
It could very well be that all of the "missing links" we've found (where there are fossils that have similar features supposed "descendants") could all be convergent nodes, instead of the divergent nodes the ToE espouses.
A worse problem imo for the ToE is the LUCA problem, where LUCA stands for the Last Universal Common Ancestor. You can't start the process without a cell, and we have no idea how the first cell could have possibly come about, even in theory.
The worst problem imo for the ToE is that we have exactly zero good solid direct evidence of speciation (there is some evidence of created "speciation" in fruit flies in a lab through induced genetic damage, though it is a fairly large stretch to use the word "speciation" for the results). There is a metric fuckton of evidence of genetic adaptation (think of it as "evolution light") and some fossil evidence of "missing links" (though most of it is far weaker than espoused, some is not), but we have never seen a species split into two different species, much less a different family. And of course we haven't, because in the ToE that takes millions of years.
Of note, we have seen different species and indeed, different families have hybrid offspring however, and that is never discussed in the ToE.
Also interesting to note, Darwin's finches gained their adaptation not through genetic differences, but through epigenetic differences (a code that lays on top of the DNA code). That is another wrench in the theory that is never talked about, though it isn't particularly damning by itself, just interesting.