Spirituality
15 Sep 05
17 Sep 05
Originally posted by HalitoseSince noone has disputed my figure of 0.01 % for (2), I'm moving on.
(2) is a little tricky.
"The probabilities that a mutation will survive or eventually spread in the course of evolution tend to vary inversely with the extent of its somatic effects. Most mutations with large effects are lethal at an early stage for the individual in which they occur and hence have zero probability of spreading. Mutations with small ef ...[text shortened]... d., Essays in Evolution and Genetics (1970), p. 80.
Edit1: would a random figure of 0.01% do.
I've rounded (1) off to a mutation rate of 10^-10 as bacteria exibit a substantially higher rate of mutation compared to say animals. I'll also yield on the notion that mutations add information to the genome.
For (3) I'm going to use 500 steps proposed by the late G.Lebyard Stebbins*.
*Stebbins, 1966
17 Sep 05
Originally posted by HalitoseOk, the centre of divesity and wild range (origin) of t dicococcum is in the fertle crescent. The genotypes of domesticated wheat are mirrored in the wild types found in SE turkey.
Isn't it just amasing with how much you can get away with when you use the words [b]is thought to.[/b]
17 Sep 05
Originally posted by HalitoseIm trying to figure what basis you're using , since some of it is leaning toward LaMarckian and some toward random mutation.
Since noone has disputed my figure of 0.01 % for (2), I'm moving on.
I've rounded (1) off to a mutation rate of 10^-10 as bacteria exibit a substantially higher rate of mutation compared to say animals. I'll also yield on the notion that mutations add information to the genome.
For (3) I'm going to use 500 steps proposed by the late G.Lebyard Stebbins*.
*Stebbins, 1966
The test you're using , tends to indicate a LaMarckian process and the method you're using is for Random mutation.
17 Sep 05
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeEvidence? you drink beer made from one and eat bread made from the other
It is statistically possible because it has happenned.
Hordeum vulgare has speciated out of Hordeum spontaneum within the last 10000yrs
Triticum aesticum has speciated out of a three way hybridisation / polyploidation within the last 8000years.
Evidence? you drink beer made from one and eat bread made from the other
You've obviously been drinking way too much Hordeum vulgare that it makes your reasoning vulgare... 10000yrs? Elegant, yet misguided - we don't have that much recorded history. Speculation by some inebriated evolutionist I say!
17 Sep 05
Originally posted by frogstompUse the basis of REASON and LOGIC - stop hopping around your front lawn after a rainstorm and think a little! Time+matter+energy does not equal bigger and better. It always - I repeat - ALWAYS falls to dust and destruction, if not guided by an intelligent and controlled process (and don't cr@p out some photosynthesis jargon - scientist are still baffled about that ones design)...
Im trying to figure what basis you're using , since some of it is leaning toward LaMarckian and some toward random mutation.
The test you're using , tends to indicate a LaMarckian process and the method you're using is for Random mutation.
Elementary my dear frogstomper.
17 Sep 05
Originally posted by RatXWe have that much archaeology, which is where the evidence cited comes from.
[b]Evidence? you drink beer made from one and eat bread made from the other
You've obviously been drinking way too much Hordeum vulgare that it makes your reasoning vulgare... 10000yrs? Elegant, yet misguided - we don't have that much recorded history. Speculation by some inebriated evolutionist I say![/b]
When did I last drink alcohol?
17 Sep 05
Originally posted by RatXstay off the hallucinatory drugs , butthead
Use the basis of REASON and LOGIC - stop hopping around your front lawn after a rainstorm and think a little! Time+matter+energy does not equal bigger and better. It always - I repeat - ALWAYS falls to dust and destruction, if not guided by an intelligent and controlled process (and don't cr@p out some photosynthesis jargon - scientist are still baffled about that ones design)...
Elementary my dear frogstomper.
17 Sep 05
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeWe have that much archaeology, which is where the evidence cited comes from.
We have that much archaeology, which is where the evidence cited comes from.
When did I last drink alcohol?
Nice... How on earth did they date those marvelous specimens (to your beautifully rounded-off tenthousandyears?
When did I last drink alcohol?
To the great misfortune of this conversation, I'm not familiar with your happy hamlet and their imbibing habits...
17 Sep 05
Originally posted by frogstompI'm going for the random mutations because it seems more in line with mainstream evolution.
Im trying to figure what basis you're using , since some of it is leaning toward LaMarckian and some toward random mutation.
The test you're using , tends to indicate a LaMarckian process and the method you're using is for Random mutation.
17 Sep 05
Originally posted by RatXdendrology and carbon dating overlaid with classic archaeological chronologies and references to later histories. (ie, the usual way)
[b]We have that much archaeology, which is where the evidence cited comes from.
Nice... How on earth did they date those marvelous specimens (to your beautifully rounded-off tenthousandyears?
When did I last drink alcohol?
To the great misfortune of this conversation, I'm not familiar with your happy hamlet and their imbibing habits...[/b]