Chromosomal fusion can't be a random event. Fusion is going to require a lot of thing to happen at the same time in order to get right ends fused, to translate tertiary structure of a fused chromosome into a readable linear structure of a fused DNA; Show me as a minimum first that it is possible at all chromosomes can be fused and the ends of fused chromosomes are not going to affect structural genes, that are responsible for important functions
You're right. They're not random as in not any chromosome can fuse with another. It has to be at least one acrocentric chromosome to fuse with another chromosome for this to happen. And once again, you're absolutely right. Usually, fused chromosomes will mean the absence of some vital genes. Luckily, because acrocentric genes are the most to be used in fusions, the p regions of these chromosomes have genes for nucleolar structure and synthesis, and the good news is that we have plenty of acrocentric chromosomes, which means plenty of copies of the same gene. We also have studies that show that fusions of chromosomes happen many times, such as the famous Robertsonian translocation that predispose females to give birth to Down Syndrome babies, and the famous Philadelphia chromosomes that results in a new fusion gene BCR-ABL that occurs in many cancers, most commonly in CML. Interestingly enough, as it turns out, the chromosomes that were fused into the present chromosome 2 we have today were both acrocentric chromosomes. This confirms in a consistent manner the behavior of chromosomes in at least hominids.
How is one of the centromere supposed to be deactivated? Is it possible at all? And remember, this deactivation should happen in one event along the chromosomal fusion, so that 2 centromeres do not interfere with normal DNA functioning or otherwise show me that cells can maintain normal functioning with two centromeres;
To be honest, I don't know how a centromere can be deactivated. But I know there are ways to deactivate genes. Methylation may be one way. Another way is significant mutation of the gene. We also know that there are ways of deactivating randomly extra X chromosomes that is still yet to be fully understood, but it depends on the presence of another X chromosome it seems. So if anything, could the centromeric deactivation occur because another exists? That's a possibility to look at. Then you have the mystery of mitosis. How do centromeres simply just let go? I confess, I haven't delved into that area, and perhaps there's more research to be done there. But the fact is that somehow the "extra centromere" lost its function, and that's a fact proven by the fact that it has a centromeric sequence, but it doesn't function as a real centromere. Centromeric inactivation also occurs as I mentioned in other known chromosomal fusions, so this is not the only time centromeric inactivation was studied and known. Here's a paper I found online that might answer the question though, and it seems to be related various ways DNA sequence modification, as I had predicted earlier:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1015713/
As for the "bedtime story," I must say, what other explanation is there for two centromeric regions and three telomeric regions that make this chromosome so unique? I don't know, but the evidence of a telomeric center, and two centromeric regions, along with a chromosome that has an almost identical sequence as two chimp chromosomes has to really say something. This is the same technology we use to determine whether you're related to someone or not. But we don't call your relatives' consistency with the genetics a bedtime story unless the technology loses massive sensitivity or specificity of determination, which has never been the case thus far.
2) Let's look at this page. Here we see that American beaver has 40 chromosomes and Eurasian beaver has 48. Certainly these two species are much close two each other than chimpanzee and human. Following Millers logic their ancestors should have had 48 chromosomes which through the process of fusion (and not through loss of the chromosome(s), since loss of chromosome is detrimental) and centrosomal deactivation transformed 40 chromosomes. There should be thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, such examples. Have we shown that type of evidence in this (these) cases?
I don't know much about beavers, but that's interesting nevertheless. So I did a search online and I found this article that confirms your question:http://teora.hit.no/dspace/bitstream/2282/351/1/Wildlifebiology.pdf
The two extant species of the genus Castor, the Eurasian beaver C. fiber and the North American beaver C. canadensis, are similar both morphologically and behaviourally (e.g. Wilsson 1971, Patenaude 1984, Novak 1987) and were once classified as one species (Hill 1982). The two-species status was finally established after Lavrov & Orlov (1973) found that the diploid chromosome number is 48 in C. fiber and 40 in C. canadensis, following Robertsonian fusion of eight chromosome pairs in C. canadensis.
Very consistent indeed that the species within a genus that differ chromosomally may not even differ much in sequencing, but chromosomal arrangements. So thanks to Lavrov and Orlov, whose paper is unfortunately written in Russian, it seems to have been proven (in 1973 no less). I wonder though if this is a typo by the author or not, as I would assume the number is four pairs of fusion, not eight (that leads to eight chromosomal fusions nevertheless).
3) Now, most important thing which is characteristic of Darwinian gap logic. I say no, common ancestor in this case did not have 48 chromosome but 46. One of the chromosomes was much bigger, like ours, and it broke into 2 parts both of which acquired a little more telomeric regions and on of these parts acquired a centromere. How is this logic any different from Miller's logic? Why is this type of process not possible but the one described by Miller is possible? I can make many of this type of argument which has huge chasms in it like Miller's does.
Well, first off I'm a bit confused. You say you're anti-evolution, but then you also say you believe our common ancestor had 46, with one chromosome that later split into two and acquired centromeric and telomeric regions. Or maybe you're simply asking why is the ancestor 48 and not 46?
Well, I can say that it is highly unlikely that chromosomal splits occur. Chromosomal fusions occur more commonly, and more commonly with acrocentric chromosomes. Also, the development of a centromere after a split is very highly unlikely, as this would require that the chromosome mutate to an unfathomably high rate so as to achieve a certain stability for replication, not to mention the acquiring of telomeres is a process that needs time. If a chromosome splits and then acquires telomeres, that means that the ends of the chromosome degenerated, and we would have missing genes. In the case of chromosome 2, nothing really was missing in comparison to 2p and 2q in a chimp. Therefore, the evidence shows that there is a very high probability that the ancestors had to have had 24 pairs, not 23, and so far, we find that evidence to be consistent with the predicted findings of ancient hominid DNA when we're lucky to even find them.
I want answers on all of this questions. Do you think these questions do not deserve answers? Or do you think without at least having answers to this questions it is possible at all to call that argument scientific?
I think you asked some great questions, and that is what science does. After they find something out, they continue to ask more questions, and develop more research to answer these questions. The more questions asked that are answered, the more new questions that will be generated that will lead to more research, which makes science a very fascinating field to be engaged in.
God bless and I hope I sufficiently answered your questions without confusing you.