Creation or Evolution: The Statistics!!!

Creation or evolution?

  • Creation

    Votes: 20 43.5%

  • Evolution

    Votes: 26 56.5%
  • Total voters
    46
juantoo3 said:
I watched a rather interesting program last night detailing the Coelacanth. Seems these fish have changed very little in 250 to 300 million years. The program showed a live fish in action and how the lobe fins operate. I did notice a number of things though, like:

This fish lives in deep water. While it has been suggested that it or its direct relatives may be (are! from the more "devout") the predecessor to tetrapods, the coelacanth cannot live in shallow water for more than a few hours. So much for crawling out onto land...

The coelacanth has a hollow spine, unlike other fish and certainly other tetrapodal creatures with spines. A hollow spine would not be practical in a land based environment.

While it was originally proposed that the lobed fins may be used by the fish much like limbs on the seabed, the film of the real fish showed no such use.

There were other peculiarities about the anatomy of the coelacanth, which escape me for the moment. What I do find intriguing is the living fossil element to the whole story, much like sharks, crocodiles and turtles.

Much of what is known about coelacanths comes from a handful of specimens taken from the Commorros Islands off of the East coast of Africa. The program noted that a new and separate colony of coelacanths has been found in Indonesia in the late 1990's.
Click to expand...

Hi Juantoo3,

You wouldn't be trying to confuse us with facts now, would you? :D

OK, so just because this very ancient species of fish has not changed in 250 million years it does not refute the theory of evolution in any way. If it is well adapted to its deep waters and in effect is isolated from much environmental change, its continued existence unchanged would by predicted by the theory of descent with modification and natural selection.

cheers,
lunamoth
 
Kindest Regards, Vaj!
Vajradhara said:
my dear Juan,

have you so soon forgotten my list of observed speciation?

i'll post it for your review tomorrow :)
Click to expand...

Please do post it again, it will save looking it back up. I had thought it posted to this thread as well, but it seems I was mistaken.

Having it handy will go far towards showing quite well what it is I have been saying over these last few posts. That is, evidence of sub-speciation, but not true speciation. Particularly concerning not breeding with the parent stock. ;)
 
juantoo3 said:
Kindest Regards, lunamoth!


Who? Me? ;) :D

Of course, I can't help but think the Apologetics are beginning to show... :D
Click to expand...

It's called the scientific method. Apologetics are down the hall in Religion and Philosophy. :D

luna
 
Thought I'd save the trouble Vaj, I needed the info to further my point anyway.

Here we have Vaj's list I referred to earlier:

Speciation

1. M Nei and J Zhang, Evolution: molecular origin of species. Science 282: 1428-1429, Nov. 20, 1998. Primary article is: CT Ting, SC Tsaur, ML We, and CE Wu, A rapidly evolving homeobox at the site of a hybrid sterility gene. Science 282: 1501-1504, Nov. 20, 1998. As the title implies, has found the genes that actually change during reproductive isolation.

2. M Turelli, The causes of Haldane's rule. Science 282: 889-891, Oct.30, 1998. Haldane's rule describes a phase every population goes thru during speciation: production of inviable and sterile hybrids. Haldane's rule states "When in the F1 [first generation] offspring of two different animal races one sex is absent, rare, or sterile, that sex is the heterozygous [heterogemetic; XY, XO, or ZW] sex."Two leading explanations are fast-male and dominance. Both get supported. X-linked incompatibilities would affect heterozygous gender more because only one gene."

3. Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.

4. Baum, D. 1992. Phylogenetic species concepts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 7:1-3.

5. Rice, W. R. 1985. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evolution of reproductive isolation: an exploratory experiment. Evolution. 39:645-646.

6. Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.

7. Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.

8. Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.

9. Cracraft, J. 1989. Speciation and its ontology: the empirical consequences of alternative species concepts for understanding patterns and processes of differentiation. In Otte, E. and J. A. Endler [eds.] Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 28-59.

10. Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American BiologyTeacher. 49:3436.

Speciation in Insects

1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. Got new species of fruit flies in the lab after 5 years on different diets and temperatures. Also confirmation of natural selection in the process. Lots of references to other studies that saw speciation.

2. JM Thoday, Disruptive selection. Proc. Royal Soc. London B. 182: 109-143, 1972. Lots of references in this one to other speciation.

3. KF Koopman, Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution 4: 135-148, 1950. Using artificial mixed poulations of D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis, it has been possible to show,over a period of several generations, a very rapid increase in the amount of reproductive isolation between the species as a result of natural selection.

4. LE Hurd and RM Eisenberg, Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. American Naturalist 109: 353-358, 1975.

5. Coyne, Jerry A. Orr, H. Allen. Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evolution. V43. P362(20) March, 1989.

6. Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky, 1957 An incipient species of Drosophila, Nature 23: 289- 292.

7. Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.

8. 10. Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species. Nature. 346:558-560.

9. Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach. Evolution. 32:465-474.

10. Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392. 37. Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). Columbia University Press, New York.

11. Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.

12. Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.

13. Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311.

14. de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II. Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44:123-130.15. 29. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.

15. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.

16. del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.

17. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

18. V Morell, Earth's unbounded beetlemania explained. Science 281:501-503, July 24, 1998. Evolution explains the 330,000 odd beetlespecies. Exploitation of newly evolved flowering plants.

19. B Wuethrich, Speciation: Mexican pairs show geography's role. Science 285: 1190, Aug. 20, 1999. Discusses allopatric speciation. Debate with ecological speciation on which is most prevalent.

Speciation in Plants
1. Speciation in action Science 72:700-701, 1996 A great laboratory study of the evolution of a hybrid plant species. Scientists did it in the lab, but the genetic data says it happened the same way in nature.

2. Hybrid speciation in peonies http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/061288698v1#B1

3. http://www.holysmoke.org/new-species.htm new species of groundsel by hybridization.

4. Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.

5. Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.

6. Toxic Tailings and Tolerant Grass by RE Cook in Natural History, 90(3): 28-38, 1981 discusses selection pressure of grasses growing on mine tailings that are rich in toxic heavy metals. "When wind borne pollen carrying nontolerant genes crosses the border [between prairie and tailings] and fertilizes the gametes of tolerant females, the resultant offspring show a range of tolerances. The movement of genes from the pasture to the mine would, therefore, tend to dilute the tolerance level of seedlings. Only fully tolerant individuals survive to reproduce, however. This selective mortality, which eliminates variants, counteracts the dilution and molds a toatally tolerant population. The pasture and mine populations evolve distinctive adaptations because selective factors are dominant over the homogenizing influence of foreign genes."

7. Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174.

8. Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants (2nd edition). The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.

9. P. H. Raven, R. F. Evert, S. E. Eichorn, Biology of Plants (Worth, New York,ed. 6, 1999).

10. M. Ownbey, Am. J. Bot. 37, 487 (1950).

11. M. Ownbey and G. D. McCollum, Am. J. Bot. 40, 788 (1953).

12. S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 78, 1586 (1991).

13. P. S. Soltis, G. M. Plunkett, S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 82,1329 (1995).

14. Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.

15. Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499.

16. Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.

Speciation in microorganisms
1. Canine parovirus, a lethal disease of dogs, evolved from feline parovirus in the 1970s.

2. Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.

3. Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.

4. Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.

5. Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.

6. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.

7. Boraas, M. E. The speciation of algal clusters by flagellate predation. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.

8. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Speciation, usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.

9. Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits in a bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial Ecology. 20:75-84.

New Genus
1. Muntzig, A, Triticale Results and Problems, Parey, Berlin, 1979. Describes whole new *genus* of plants, Triticosecale, of several species, formed by artificial selection. These plants are important in agriculture.

Invertebrate not insect
1. ME Heliberg, DP Balch, K Roy, Climate-driven range expansion and morphological evolution in a marine gastropod. Science 292: 1707-1710, June1, 2001. Documents mrorphological change due to disruptive selection over time. Northerna and southern populations of A spirata off California from Pleistocene to present.

2. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event with a polychaete worm. . Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

Vertebrate Speciation
1. N Barton Ecology: the rapid origin of reproductive isolation Science 290:462-463, Oct. 20, 2000. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5491/462 Natural selection of reproductive isolation observed in two cases. Full papers are: AP Hendry, JK Wenburg, P Bentzen, EC Volk, TP Quinn, Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon. Science 290: 516-519, Oct. 20, 2000. and M Higgie, S Chenoweth, MWBlows, Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science290: 519-521, Oct. 20, 2000.

2. G Vogel, African elephant species splits in two. Science 293: 1414, Aug. 24, 2001. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/293/5534/1414

3. C Vila` , P Savolainen, JE. Maldonado, IR. Amorim, JE. Rice, RL. Honeycutt, KA. Crandall, JLundeberg, RK. Wayne, Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog Science 276: 1687-1689, 13 JUNE 1997. Dogs no longer one species but 4 according to the genetics. http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm

4. Barrowclough, George F.. Speciation and Geographic Variation in Black-tailed Gnatcatchers. (book reviews) The Condor. V94. P555(2) May, 1992.

5. Kluger, Jeffrey. Go fish. Rapid fish speciation in African lakes. Discover. V13. P18(1) March, 1992.
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration.) See also Mayr, E., 1970. _Populations, Species, and Evolution_, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348.

6. Genus _Rattus_ currently consists of 137 species [1,2] and is known to haveoriginally developed in Indonesia and Malaysia during and prior to the Middle Ages[3].
[1] T. Yosida. Cytogenetics of the Black Rat. University Park Press, Baltimore, 1980.
[2] D. Morris. The Mammals. Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1965.
[3] G. H. H. Tate. "Some Muridae of the Indo-Australian region," Bull. Amer. Museum Nat. Hist. 72: 501-728, 1963.

7. Stanley, S., 1979. _Macroevolution: Pattern and Process_, San Francisco,
W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
Click to expand...
 
Kindest Regards, lunamoth!
lunamoth said:
It's called the scientific method. Apologetics are down the hall in Religion and Philosophy. :D
Click to expand...

Ah, the campus has grown so much smaller, seems the subjects are beginning to blurr... :p
 
Speciation

1. M Nei and J Zhang, Evolution: molecular origin of species. Science 282: 1428-1429, Nov. 20, 1998. Primary article is: CT Ting, SC Tsaur, ML We, and CE Wu, A rapidly evolving homeobox at the site of a hybrid sterility gene. Science 282: 1501-1504, Nov. 20, 1998. As the title implies, has found the genes that actually change during reproductive isolation.

2. M Turelli, The causes of Haldane's rule. Science 282: 889-891, Oct.30, 1998. Haldane's rule describes a phase every population goes thru during speciation: production of inviable and sterile hybrids. Haldane's rule states "When in the F1 [first generation] offspring of two different animal races one sex is absent, rare, or sterile, that sex is the heterozygous [heterogemetic; XY, XO, or ZW] sex."Two leading explanations are fast-male and dominance. Both get supported. X-linked incompatibilities would affect heterozygous gender more because only one gene."

3. Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.

4. Baum, D. 1992. Phylogenetic species concepts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 7:1-3.

5. Rice, W. R. 1985. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evolution of reproductive isolation: an exploratory experiment. Evolution. 39:645-646.

6. Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.

7. Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.

8. Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.

9. Cracraft, J. 1989. Speciation and its ontology: the empirical consequences of alternative species concepts for understanding patterns and processes of differentiation. In Otte, E. and J. A. Endler [eds.] Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 28-59.

10. Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American BiologyTeacher. 49:3436.

(Without ready access to these first ten “claims,” they might as well be someone quoting scripture at me from a religious book I have only heard of. There is no evidence here I can confirm or deny…)

Speciation in Insects

1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. Got new species of fruit flies in the lab after 5 years on different diets and temperatures. Also confirmation of natural selection in the process. Lots of references to other studies that saw speciation.

2. JM Thoday, Disruptive selection. Proc. Royal Soc. London B. 182: 109-143, 1972. Lots of references in this one to other speciation.

3. KF Koopman, Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution 4: 135-148, 1950. Using artificial mixed poulations of D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis, it has been possible to show,over a period of several generations, a very rapid increase in the amount of reproductive isolation between the species as a result of natural selection.

4. LE Hurd and RM Eisenberg, Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. American Naturalist 109: 353-358, 1975.

5. Coyne, Jerry A. Orr, H. Allen. Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evolution. V43. P362(20) March, 1989.

6. Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky, 1957 An incipient species of Drosophila, Nature 23: 289- 292.

7. Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.

8. 10. Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species. Nature. 346:558-560.

9. Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach. Evolution. 32:465-474.

10. Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392. 37. Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). Columbia University Press, New York.


11. Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.

12. Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.

13. Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311.

14. de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II. Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44:123-130.15. 29. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.
(1 through 14 above: fruit flies are still fruit flies)

15. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.

16. del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.

17. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

18. V Morell, Earth's unbounded beetlemania explained. Science 281:501-503, July 24, 1998. Evolution explains the 330,000 odd beetlespecies. Exploitation of newly evolved flowering plants.

19. B Wuethrich, Speciation: Mexican pairs show geography's role. Science 285: 1190, Aug. 20, 1999. Discusses allopatric speciation. Debate with ecological speciation on which is most prevalent.

Speciation in Plants
1. Speciation in action Science 72:700-701, 1996 A great laboratory study of the evolution of a hybrid plant species. Scientists did it in the lab, but the genetic data says it happened the same way in nature.

(more that I cannot confirm or deny, no links or ready access to the material)

2. Hybrid speciation in peonies http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/061288698v1#B1

Ah! I remember looking into this one months ago. The peonies are still peonies.

3. http://www.holysmoke.org/new-species.htm new species of groundsel by hybridization.

(Here we have something that conceivably could satisfy my request: )
the York groundsel is a natural hybrid between the common groundsel and the Oxford ragwort, which was introduced to Britain from Sicily 300 years ago. Hybrids are normally sterile, and cannot breed and die out.

But Dr Abbott’s research, published in the journal of the Botanical Society of the British Isles, shows that the York Groundsel is a genetic mutant that can breed, but not with any other species, including its parent species. It thus fits the scientific definition of a separate species.
Click to expand...

4. Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.

5. Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.

(These two are meaningless to me)

6. Toxic Tailings and Tolerant Grass by RE Cook in Natural History, 90(3): 28-38, 1981 discusses selection pressure of grasses growing on mine tailings that are rich in toxic heavy metals. "When wind borne pollen carrying nontolerant genes crosses the border [between prairie and tailings] and fertilizes the gametes of tolerant females, the resultant offspring show a range of tolerances. The movement of genes from the pasture to the mine would, therefore, tend to dilute the tolerance level of seedlings. Only fully tolerant individuals survive to reproduce, however. This selective mortality, which eliminates variants, counteracts the dilution and molds a toatally tolerant population. The pasture and mine populations evolve distinctive adaptations because selective factors are dominant over the homogenizing influence of foreign genes."
(this describes adaptation, not a new species)

From here I will simply have to weed out those “evidences” that I cannot prove or disprove for lack of access. I will not blindly accept them as truth without confirmation.

Vertebrate Speciation
1. N Barton Ecology: the rapid origin of reproductive isolation Science 290:462-463, Oct. 20, 2000. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5491/462 Natural selection of reproductive isolation observed in two cases. Full papers are: AP Hendry, JK Wenburg, P Bentzen, EC Volk, TP Quinn, Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon. Science 290: 516-519, Oct. 20, 2000. and M Higgie, S Chenoweth, MWBlows, Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science290: 519-521, Oct. 20, 2000.
Cannot confirm reference

2. G Vogel, African elephant species splits in two. Science 293: 1414, Aug. 24, 2001. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte...l/293/5534/1414

Again, cannot confirm reference, but I suspect it is not true speciation.

3. C Vila` , P Savolainen, JE. Maldonado, IR. Amorim, JE. Rice, RL. Honeycutt, KA. Crandall, JLundeberg, RK. Wayne, Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog Science 276: 1687-1689, 13 JUNE 1997. Dogs no longer one species but 4 according to the genetics. http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm

Oh yes! The wonderful reference to domestic canine ancestry I have already mentioned at length. Need I say more here now?

Pretty much the whole list must be taken as “gospel.” There is so little reference that can be verified. Those references that could be verified in all but possibly one instance prove my point, sub-speciation, * not * true speciation.
 
Hi Juantoo3, Perhaps you do feel that Vaj's list is inaccessible to you, and I admit that such a list is intimidating.

Perhaps a more familiar example is the Brassica family of plants, broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower, mustard, brussel sprouts. All derived from a little wild mustard plant.

18Then Jesus asked, "What is the kingdom of God like? What shall I compare it to? 19It is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his garden. It grew and became a tree, and the birds of the air perched in its branches." (Luke 13, NIV)

So what do you think, Juan. Is mustard a brussel sprout?

If you compare the genomes of tobacco, petunia, tomato, potato and peppers you can see large chunks of the genomes that have maintained roughly the same genes and gene orders, even though divergence of these species have left them with differing numbers of chromosomes and they are unable to cross-pollinate.

Is tobacco a potato?

cheers,
lunamoth
 
Kindest Regards, lunamoth!
lunamoth said:
Perhaps you do feel that Vaj's list is inaccessible to you, and I admit that such a list is intimidating.
Click to expand...
Ummm, no, not really. I would love to have access to the material. But I am not shelling out mega money for a subscription to a science journal. And I don't have the luxury of time to go chasing after this stuff all over the internet. Been there, done that, and by the time I finished researching the conversation had moved way down the road. I looked into this stuff over a year ago when it was brought up then, I'm just giving Vaj a little bit of a hard time because this time I have my homework "in hand" (more like "in head").

Perhaps a more familiar example is the Brassica family of plants, broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower, mustard, brussel sprouts. All derived from a little wild mustard plant.

18Then Jesus asked, "What is the kingdom of God like? What shall I compare it to? 19It is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his garden. It grew and became a tree, and the birds of the air perched in its branches." (Luke 13, NIV)

So what do you think, Juan. Is mustard a brussel sprout?
Click to expand...
Good show! I brought up this very example, minus the Bible verse, the first time around. Let's see, since they can all interbreed, what do you think? Indeed, broccoli is a deliberate cross breed.

If you compare the genomes of tobacco, petunia, tomato, potato and peppers you can see large chunks of the genomes that have maintained roughly the same genes and gene orders, even though divergence of these species have left them with differing numbers of chromosomes and they are unable to cross-pollinate.

Is tobacco a potato?
Click to expand...
Another interesting example. Didn't know about petunia, but I see you neglected eggplant and nightshade. One of the seed houses some years back had a plant that grew tomatoes above and potatoes below ground. What do you consider that? It is a trouble among gardeners trying to keep true seed, that of keeping plants from interbreeding. Not as great a problem with tomato / potato because few people let potato go to seed. But tomato / eggplant is another story. And all cultivated nightshades are susceptible to tobacco mosaic virus, which kills about everything in the family except tobacco. Hmmm, kinda like the monkey virus that became AIDS in humans, now that I think about it.

A couple of other interesting plant families to consider:

Umbellifers (carrots, queen anne's lace, poison hemlock), and

Rosacea (rose, apples, pears, plums)

Cross breeding, intentional and inadvertant, are problems with these for gardeners as well. There are plenty more. :)
 
juantoo3 said:
Kindest Regards, lunamoth!

Good show! I brought up this very example, minus the Bible verse, the first time around. Let's see, since they can all interbreed, what do you think? Indeed, broccoli is a deliberate cross breed.
Click to expand...

Broccoli and mustard are not going to "interbreed." Where do you get this idea?

Another interesting example. Didn't know about petunia, but I see you neglected eggplant and nightshade. One of the seed houses some years back had a plant that grew tomatoes above and potatoes below ground. What do you consider that? It is a trouble among gardeners trying to keep true seed, that of keeping plants from interbreeding. Not as great a problem with tomato / potato because few people let potato go to seed. But tomato / eggplant is another story. And all cultivated nightshades are susceptible to tobacco mosaic virus, which kills about everything in the family except tobacco. Hmmm, kinda like the monkey virus that became AIDS in humans, now that I think about it.
Click to expand...

Likewise, where do you get the idea that these plants interbreed? I would say your tomato-potato was a graft or yet another new species--do you have the reference? The problems with "true seed" are not going to come from cross pollination between different species in the same family, be it solanacea or brassica or what ever, but with the normal recombinations that take place when a hybrid self-pollinates or non-hybrids cross-fertilize. Cross-susceptibility to the same viruses merely shows how similar these plants are genetically and physiologically, supporting their divergence from a common ancestor species. Yes, just like with viruses jumping hosts in animals.

A couple of other interesting plant families to consider:

Umbellifers (carrots, queen anne's lace, poison hemlock), and

Rosacea (rose, apples, pears, plums)

Cross breeding, intentional and inadvertant, are problems with these for gardeners as well. There are plenty more. :)
Click to expand...

What exactly is the problem observed when your rose bush cross-breeds with your apple? Show me the data. :)

cheers,
lunamoth
 
juantoo3 said:
Kindest Regards, lunamoth!
Ummm, no, not really. I would love to have access to the material. But I am not shelling out mega money for a subscription to a science journal. And I don't have the luxury of time to go chasing after this stuff all over the internet. Been there, done that, and by the time I finished researching the conversation had moved way down the road. I looked into this stuff over a year ago when it was brought up then, I'm just giving Vaj a little bit of a hard time because this time I have my homework "in hand" (more like "in head").
Click to expand...

I see, not intimidated, but unimpressed. A small stream is also unimpressive as it meanders down a mountain, but give it 1.8 billion years and the mountain will be replaced by the Grand Canyon.

cheers,
and ya know I love ya! :)
lunamoth
 
Kindest Regards, lunamoth!
lunamoth said:
Broccoli and mustard are not going to "interbreed." Where do you get this idea?

Likewise, where do you get the idea that these plants interbreed? I would say your tomato-potato was a graft or yet another new species--do you have the reference? The problems with "true seed" are not going to come from cross pollination between different species in the same family, be it solanacea or brassica or what ever, but with the normal recombinations that take place when a hybrid self-pollinates or non-hybrids cross-fertilize. Cross-susceptibility to the same viruses merely shows how similar these plants are genetically and physiologically, supporting their divergence from a common ancestor species. Yes, just like with viruses jumping hosts in animals.

What exactly is the problem observed when your rose bush cross-breeds with your apple? Show me the data. :)
Click to expand...
Wait a minute, you are going to make me show proof of the gardener's dogma?

Tell you what, I will when the dogma from Vaj's list is proven first. Seems only fair... ;)

I mean this with nothing but love. :)
 
Kindest Regards, Luna, and love right back atcha!
lunamoth said:
I see, not intimidated, but unimpressed. A small stream is also unimpressive as it meanders down a mountain, but give it 1.8 billion years and the mountain will be replaced by the Grand Canyon.

cheers,
and ya know I love ya! :)
lunamoth
Click to expand...
True.

Of course, a massive flood that drains a small ocean in the neighborhood of the state of Kansas could carve the Grand Canyon in about one year. Equally true.
 
Of course, a massive flood that drains a small ocean in the neighborhood of the state of Kansas could carve the Grand Canyon in about one year. Equally true.[/QUOTE]


Can you supply any scientific data for such a proposition?
 
Kindest Regards, Tao Equus, and welcome to CR!
Tao_Equus said:
Of course, a massive flood that drains a small ocean in the neighborhood of the state of Kansas could carve the Grand Canyon in about one year. Equally true.
Can you supply any scientific data for such a proposition?
Click to expand...
Proof of what?, the erosional capability of massive amounts of water, or the proof of an inland ocean? Both of which I understood to be givens.

But since you are new, I will go out of sequence here and find the museum in Kansas that holds the 6 foot fossilized fish swallowing a 5 1/2 foot fossilized fish. Proof of an ocean in Kansas, OK?

First hit on google:
http://www.oceansofkansas.com/
 
juantoo3 said:
Kindest Regards, Tao Equus, and welcome to CR!

Proof of what?, the erosional capability of massive amounts of water, or the proof of an inland ocean? Both of which I understood to be givens.

But since you are new, I will go out of sequence here and find the museum in Kansas that holds the 6 foot fossilized fish swallowing a 5 1/2 foot fossilized fish. Proof of an ocean in Kansas, OK?

First hit on google:
http://www.oceansofkansas.com/
Click to expand...

My appologies I should have been more specific in my question. I did not doubt that a large body of water existed some time in the very recent geological past in the region you indicate. What I was really asking for was any evidence to support the idea that the grand canyon was carved out in around a year.
 
Tao_Equus said:
My appologies I should have been more specific in my question. I did not doubt that a large body of water existed some time in the very recent geological past in the region you indicate. What I was really asking for was any evidence to support the idea that the grand canyon was carved out in around a year.
Click to expand...
Just as much evidence as there is to say that a small stream over 1.8 billion years can do the trick; basic hydraulogy. Multiply "small" by 1.8 billion and cascade across through a funnel over the course of one year. The end result is the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top