chromosome counts

Then where do new Nephillum come from? How do they mate with each other without producing diploid individuals?

Assuming that there was a condition where a haploid human could survive - a human with only one copy of each chromosome - then Adam's gametes would form in such a way (I imagine) that half of his sperm would have all his chromosomes and the other half would have none at all. In other words you could probably make it work by changing meiosis at a crucial step.I guess. The problem is that, as far as I know, you can't have haploid mammals - certainly not haploid primates. (Maybe there are some exeptional mammals that allow haploidy?)

That's not possible. When haploid individuals mate, the result is diploid.You can't give a child half of a chromosome. Therefore any child of Adam and Eve will have Adam's 23 chromosomes and Eve's 23 chromosomes, making it diploid. The opposite of a physical thing, like a chromosome, can't be another thing. The opposite of a thing is the absence of that thing. There can be no such thing as "antithetical chromosomes."

Our ape ancestor was diploid. We're diploid. You can change the organization of the genes by fusing or cleaving chromosomes, but the amount of genes hasn't changed between our ape ancestor and us now.The situation Like God is describing actually involves a reduced number of genes.

What's unnatural about it? How do you think that you could "partially fuse" something? It's either one piece, or it's two.I'm no geneticist, so I imagine I don't have the answers you're looking for - assuming you're looking and not taking potshots. But I imagine the human chromosomal pattern came to dominate the human genome when humans experienced that big bottleneck 80k years ago, or whatever.Mice regularly have variable chromosome numbers, from what I read. Obviously their interfertility is not severely impacted. I don't see why a chromosome fusion would result in immediate nonfertility with non-fused peers.It's not the chromosome number that makes the human, it's the genes, don't you think?