According to the morphological evidence there is evidence to suggest you are correct, but there is other evidence that strongly suggest that whales and camels do not share a recent common ancestor. So, this may be another strike for cyto-c comparisons with reasons why they should be similar by creation and no reason why they should be similar if they have different common ancestors.
"Researchers who learn how living animals are related by studying their DNA have tended to group cetaceans ... with even-toed ungulates, or artiodactyls. By some analyses, hippos are the closest living whale relatives. But to paleontologists, who study fossils, that conclusion has long been anathema. Instead they contend that cetaceans descended from an extinct hyena-like mammals called "mesonychians" [which were NOT artiodactyls]."
Mesonychids are the sister group of artiodactyls.
Whales originated from aquaticartiodactyls in the Eocene epoch of India J. G. M. Thewissen
"...Thewissen thinks the morphological evidence, although mixed, opens the door to some kind of relation between the whales and the ungulates. He adds that there is now "considerable doubt" that cetaceans are closely related to mesonychians. That conclusion got a thumbs up from paleontologists at the meeting. For example, John Allroy of the National Museum of National History in Washington, D.C, says pulling the mesonychians out of the picture makes a closer cetacean-artiodactyl link plausible. But O'Leary says "it's [still] difficult to connect hippos with whales in the fossil record." The molecular camp, for its part, viewed Thewissen's conclusion as just a first step toward ultimate vindication. As Norihiro Okada, a molecular biologist at Tokyo Institute of Technology, put it: "I think paleontologists may discover more [features common to early cetaceans and early hippos] in the near future."(Normile D., "New Views of the Origins of Mammals," Science, Vol 281, 7 August 1998, pp.774-775)
, Lisa Noelle Cooper1,2, Mark T. Clementz3, Sunil Bajpai4 & B. N. Tiwari5
"Although the first ten million years of whale evolution are documented by a remarkable series of fossil skeletons, the link to the ancestor of cetaceans has been missing. It was known that whales are related to even-toed ungulates (artiodactyls), but until now no artiodactyls were morphologically close to early whales. Here we show that the Eocene south Asian raoellidartiodactyls are the sister group to whales.
The raoellid Indohyus is similar to whales, and unlike other artiodactyls, in the structure of its ears and premolars, in the density of its limb bones and in the stable-oxygen-isotope composition of its teeth.We also show that a major dietary change occurred during the transition from artiodactyls to whales and that raoellids wereaquatic waders. This indicates that aquatic life in this lineage occurred before the origin of the order Cetacea."
This is from 2007. What a difference 9 years makes.
The differences include:
1) Curved fingers and toes for brachiation
2) No nasal ridge.
3) Semicircular canals that balance during knuckle walking.
4) Opposable toes for grasping.
5) Longer arms than legs.
6) A baculum.
7) Shoulder blades that fully rotate for reaching over the head without pivoting the arm.(Pectoral Girdle)
8) Nuchal crests.
9) No chin.
10) Spread out iliac blades of the pelvis.
1) Toes are not used in brachiation. There is some evidence that the curvature results from physiological stresses.
2) There are human populations with flattened nasal ridges.
3) This appears to be a common YEC-website classic, but it is premised on faulty information/misinterpretation. The work of Fred Spoor is most commonly cited among creationists when this issue comes up, and Spoor himself wrote:
"It is concluded that any link between the characteristic dimensions of the human canals and locomotion will be more complex than a simple association with the broad categories of quadrupedal vs. bipedal behavior." (Spoor and Zonneveld 1998)"
4) They are toes nonetheless.
7) Here primate shoulder blades (scapulae):
Perhaps you can tell which is which? Our pectoral girdle allows one to reach over one's head without "pivoting" the arm as well. Not sure where you got that one from.
8) The nuchal crest is a common structure in non-bipeds. It reflects the greater stresses put on the occipital bone by the neck extensors. It is a physiological response, not a genetic one. Juvenile and infant chimps, for example, do not have nuchal crests.
9) 'Chin' is a rather ambiguous term.
10) I think you mean that the ilia lie in a different plane, yes they do.
Apes share all of the above characters in common and I'm sure there are more than that.
I'm sure of it. I am also sure that an even longer list can be made laying out the traits that humans and the other apes share
You assume that we once had 48 chromosomes. What evidence, other than the fact that it "must have happened" because we are supposedly the progeny of apes, do you have for that fact?
I'm sure you're aware that humans have a fused chromosome, meaning we once had 48 as well ...
Here is some very good evidence:
Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion
J W IJdo, A Baldini, D C Ward, S T Reeders, and R A Wells
Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06510.
We have identified two allelic genomic cosmids from human chromosome 2, c8.1 and c29B, each containing two inverted arrays of the vertebrate telomeric repeat in a head-to-head arrangement, 5'(TTAGGG)n-(CCCTAA)m3'. Sequences flanking this telomeric repeat are characteristic of present-day human pretelomeres. BAL-31 nuclease experiments with yeast artificial chromosome clones of human telomeres and fluorescence in situ hybridization reveal that sequences flanking these inverted repeats hybridize both to band 2q13 and to different, but overlapping, subsets of human chromosome ends. We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2.
Here is some more:
Chromosome Res. 1994 Sep;2(5):405-10.
The origin of human chromosome 2 analyzed by comparative chromosome mapping with a DNA microlibrary.
Wienberg J, Jauch A, LÃƒÂ¼decke HJ, Senger G, Horsthemke B, Claussen U, Cremer T, Arnold N, Lengauer C.
Institut fÃƒÂ¼r Anthropologie und Humangenetik, UniversitÃƒÂ¤t MÃƒÂ¼nchen, Munich, Germany.
Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) of microlibraries established from distinct chromosome subregions can test the evolutionary conservation of chromosome bands as well as chromosomal rearrangements that occurred during primate evolution and will help to clarify phylogenetic relationships. We used a DNA library established by microdissection and microcloning from the entire long arm of human chromosome 2 for fluorescence in situ hybridization and comparative mapping of the chromosomes of human, great apes (Pan troglodytes, Pan paniscus, Gorilla gorilla, Pongo pygmaeus) and Old World monkeys (Macaca fuscata and Cercopithecus aethiops). Inversions were found in the pericentric region of the primate chromosome 2p homologs in great apes, and the hybridization pattern demonstrates the known phylogenetically derived telomere fusion in the line that leads to human chromosome 2. The hybridization of the 2q microlibrary to chromosomes of Old World monkeys gave a different pattern from that in the gorilla and the orang-utan, but a pattern similar to that of chimpanzees. This suggests convergence of chromosomal rearrangements in different phylogenetic lines.
FEBS Lett. 2000 Jun 23;475(3):167-9.
Newly identified repeat sequences, derived from human chromosome 21qter, are also localized in the subtelomeric region of particular chromosomes and 2q13, and are conserved in the chimpanzee genome.
Park HS, Nogami M, Okumura K, Hattori M, Sakaki Y, Fujiyama A.
RIKEN Genomic Sciences Center, c/o Kitasato University, Sagamihara, Kanagawa 228-8555, Japan.
Subtelomeric regions have been a target of structural and functional studies of human chromosomes. Markers having a defined structure are especially useful to such studies. Here, we report 93 bp tandem repeat sequences found in the subtelomeric region of human chromosome 21q. They were also detected in the telomeric region of several other chromosomes. Interestingly, the repeat was also found in the 2q13 region which is known to be a position of chromosomal fusion, a major difference between the human and chimpanzee karyotypes. To the best of our knowledge, this repetitive sequence is a new member of human subtelomeric interspersed repeats.
Chromosome Res. 2000;8(8):727-35.
Comparative FISH mapping of the ancestral fusion point of human chromosome 2.
Kasai F, Takahashi E, Koyama K, Terao K, Suto Y, Tokunaga K, Nakamura Y, Hirai M.
Department of Biological Sciences, Graduate School of Science, University of Tokyo, Japan.
It is known that human chromosome 2 originated from the fusion of two ancestral primate chromosomes. This has been confirmed by chromosome banding and fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH) with human chromosome-2-specific DNA libraries. In this study, the order of 38 cosmid clones derived from the human chromosome region 2q12-q14 was exactly determined by high-resolution FISH in human chromosome 2 and its homologous chromosomes in chimpanzees (Pan trogrodydes, 2n=48) and cynomolgus monkeys (Macacafascicularis, 2n = 42). This region includes the telomere-to-telomere fusion point of two ancestral ape-type chromosomes. As a result of comparative mapping, human chromosome region 2q12-q14 was found to correspond to the short arms of chimpanzee chromosomes 12 and 13 and cynomolgus monkey chromosomes 9 and 15. It is noted that no difference was detected in the relative order of the cosmid clones between human and chimpanzee chromosomes. This suggests that two ancestral ape-type chromosomes fused tandemly at telomeres to form human chromosome 2, and the genomic organization of this region is thought to be considerably conserved. In the cynomolgus monkey, however, the order of clones in each homologue was inverted. In addition to cosmid mapping, two chromosome-2-specific yeast artificial chromosome (YAC) clones containing the fusion point were identified by FISH.
There is lots more, but I wouldn't want to be accused of "elephant hurling."
And how do you suggest such fusion occured without turning the creature who suffered from it into a disabled freak, unfit by any definition?
And how do you suggest such fusion would necessitate the production of a 'disabled freak'?
So you're saying that DIFFERENT chromosome number means that humans should be INCLUDED with the apes?
just like orangutans, chimpanzees and gorillas. I believe I asked why the humans should be EXCLUDED from the primate group, not reasons why they should be grouped together
Different karyotyopes are not as important as many seem to think. There are mammal species that maintain differing karyotypes in their populations. There are mammal species that can form fertile hybrids with related species of different karyotypes. The gene content is probably more important than mere chromosome number.