Allow to me to present http://creation.com/changing-chromosome-numbers. Not a peer reviewed journal. It is, instead, a page from the website that you plagiarized in your first post in this debate, so presumably you think they have some kind of reliability as a source. Lets take a peak at what they have to say on the issue.
Now, it appears from what you provided, that organisms with differing chromosome numbers, but of the same kind, can interbreed and have offspring, but how is this evidence for evolution? does losing a chromosome or fusing chromosomes produce new structures? You admitted that chromosome fusion wouldn't turn an ape into a human, so your basically saying somehow it magically happened, how scientific. :roll:
Provide a definition of a new morphological structure otherwise you will keep moving the goalposts. Make it unambiguous and concise please.
I'd like to stick with this subject, as it is the most important subject, in my opinion, regarding evolution. This isn't too hard of a concept, and I'm going to assume that you are smart enough to know what I'm looking for. For a reptile to evolve into a bird, it would have to acquire wings, obviously. This could not occur due to changes in shape and size. A new morphological structure is a structure that is entirely new, not changing the shape of an already existing structure, how would changing the shape of an already existing structure create a new one, and explain how it got there to begin with? Can changing the shape of a bacteria, cause it to evolve into a mammal? If you can't show me where even a single new structure new to the species has occured, how do you expect me to even begin to believe in evolution? I'm sorry I'm not crazy enough to believe such a thing. The fossil "record" shows no such events ever occured, and most evolutionists admit that the fossil record is one giant gap, so they invented puncuated equilibrium, which as you should know, states that evolution happened in great jumps very quickly. So they are saying since there is no evidence that evolution occured slowly, that is evidence that is happened quickly! They will never even ponder the thought, that maybe it didn't happen at all. Here's a question I'd like for you to answer. I'm assuming you believe that evolution is a slow gradual process. Here's a question, how do you know it happens slowly? The reason you say it happens slowly, is because we don't observe it happening.
Now, since you didn't answer my question, I'll ask it again. What is the mechanism for permanent morphological change? And what observable evidence do you have that supports it? We have never observed a permanent morphological structure arise, so why should I put my faith in the idea that is happened long ago and far away? I know exactly why you do, it's because your running away from the thought that creeps into your head on a daily basis, which is that God created life. You claim that I'm shifting the goalposts, which is absurd. You are claiming that all phylum of life are related, and I'm asking for one such example that we observe. Showing me a chart of how you think something happened, is not science. You can't even invent some magical mechanism for this permanent morphological change that you say happened long ago and far away.