Rapid 'speciation' and chromosome loss don't support the theory of evolution
Excerpt: "The Red Muntjac has the lowest diploid chromosomal number in mammals (2n = 6 for females and 7 for males) whereas Reeves' Muntjac has 2n = 46 in both sexes (remarkably, these two species can produce viable F1 hybrids in captivity)."
My comment: Despite the huge difference in chromosome count (2n=6 and 2n=46), those two breeds of Muntjac are able to get viable offspring. Such interesting cases of hybridization can be observed in captivity, for example in zoos.
Chromosomes of the Red Muntjacs are tightly packaged because of huge areas of heterochromatin. Telomeres are also very strong indicating large areas of faulty genes.
I also found an interesting phenomenon regarding the number of chromosomes. Because shifting diet causes genetic mutations, the heavy loss of chromosomes has driven the Red Muntjac into omnivory. This finding needs a lot of further study to be confirmed.
There are no mechanisms for evolution. We can't even use the term 'micro evolution' because how come could anyone call information loss as evolution? Micro devolution is a better expression.
Organisms experience variation very rapidly. Five new Muntjac 'species' were 'discovered' in 1990's. My claim is that they were not only discovered, they were actually new variations of that kind. Rapid variation is a scientific fact:
My comment: Despite the huge difference in chromosome count (2n=6 and 2n=46), those two breeds of Muntjac are able to get viable offspring. Such interesting cases of hybridization can be observed in captivity, for example in zoos.
Chromosomes of the Red Muntjacs are tightly packaged because of huge areas of heterochromatin. Telomeres are also very strong indicating large areas of faulty genes.
