18 Oct 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe small changes wrought by environment have never produced a change in species, even if we deem to re-classify.
The small changes wrought by environment have never produced a change in species, even if we deem to re-classify. The lines between say, dog and cat have never been crossed; can never be crossed. Characteristics within genes cannot be shown to leap (even ever so slowly) from one species to another.
Not to be harshly critical, but your sentences are fu ...[text shortened]... her (you). In supposed random mutations of information found within nature, who are the agents?
Yes they have.
While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Here's another source for the same event:
4) SYMPATRIC SPECIATION IN PLANTS: AUTOPOLYPLOIDY
•Doubling of chromosome number in germline cell à tetraploid gametes
•Interbreeding between tetraploid gametes in species à self-fertile tetraploid progeny
•Barrier to gene flow can be established in single generation
•Can result from mitotic nondisjunction or meiotic nondisjunction
•E.g.: evening primroses Oenothera gigas (2N = 28), parental species O. lamarckiana (2N = 14); commercial tobacco, horticultutal strains of snapdragon
http://www.mun.ca/biology/tmiller/courses/b2900/lec6.htm
The lines between say, dog and cat have never been crossed; can never be crossed. Characteristics within genes cannot be shown to leap (even ever so slowly) from one species to another.
I don't understand what you mean by this.
In supposed random mutations of information found within nature, who are the agents?
Nor do I understand this. DNA is not a means of communication between two intelligences. It's a molecule which is involved in the synthesis of proteins and other biochemical reactions.
18 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungOenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants.
The small changes wrought by environment have never produced a change in species, even if we deem to re-classify.
Yes they have.
While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromo 's a molecule which is involved in the synthesis of proteins and other biochemical reactions.[/b]
I see. So de Vries found a plant that became... a plant. Congratulations. Nobel, anyone?
DNA is not a means of communication between two intelligences.
Exactly. And yet, miraculously, genetic information is somehow able to transfer information (random, mutated and corrupt information) on to a receiver who is able to get the intended meaning, despite all errors.
18 Oct 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHActually he found that a new species had emerged. Exactly what you asked for. Or are you now going to claim you meant something else (like say plants turning into lizards)?
I see. So de Vries found a plant that became... a plant. Congratulations. Nobel, anyone?
18 Oct 06
Originally posted by XanthosNZI am now claiming what I was then claiming, i.e., no new speices was detected. Type within type is not a new speices, and (as pointed out previously) not a new path capable of reproduction.
Actually he found that a new species had emerged. Exactly what you asked for. Or are you now going to claim you meant something else (like say plants turning into lizards)?
18 Oct 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHLook, there are 6 and a half billion versions of the human genome - most as equally fit as each other. How can you claim that most mutations are deleterious?
The small changes wrought by environment have never produced a change in species, even if we deem to re-classify. The lines between say, dog and cat have never been crossed; can never be crossed. Characteristics within genes cannot be shown to leap (even ever so slowly) from one species to another.
Not to be harshly critical, but your sentences are fu ...[text shortened]... her (you). In supposed random mutations of information found within nature, who are the agents?
What don't you understand?
Do you deny mutation?
Do you deny that some animals are bigger and stronger than others?
Do you, perhaps, deny that stronger animals, which are better predators will live longer and have more offspring perhaps?
Do you deny the earth is 4 billion years old?
Do you deny that small changes can lead to big changes over time (obviously not, or your example in the OP would not fit with your worldview)?
What is it Freaky? What problem is there?
18 Oct 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt was a new species though. It was unable to breed with its forebearers.
I am now claiming what I was then claiming, i.e., no new speices was detected. Type within type is not a new speices, and (as pointed out previously) not a new path capable of reproduction.
19 Oct 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzActually, the link you provided only stated that the variant was unable to reproduce with its atecedants. No mention was made of its ability to reproduce in kind.
But a mule is sterile. The plant was not.
That notwithstanding, there is no indication of taxa-related speciation, simply a moving of the goalposts to fit the desired results. The site you offered goes to great lengths in discussing the controversy regarding what constitutes a species, without conclusive findings.
19 Oct 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt wasn't me which offerred that link, although I agree with it.
Actually, the link you provided only stated that the variant was unable to reproduce with its atecedants. No mention was made of its ability to reproduce in kind.
That notwithstanding, there is no indication of taxa-related speciation, simply a moving of the goalposts to fit the desired results. The site you offered goes to great lengths in discussing the controversy regarding what constitutes a species, without conclusive findings.
There are about a dozen different definitions of what a species is, all required for different groups. For example the whole "ability to breed successfully and produce viable offspring" doesn't work in fungal taxa with 13 different sexes, or in bacteria which don't require sex to reproduce (although they do occassionally undergo conjugation).
19 Oct 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHow ignorant can you be? Seriously.
Here's a query for consideration. Can random mutation result in coherent and intelligble information?
The following was a coherent sentence (shown below), 100 mutations before its current state:
lbVrOiV5UkHXTU6EGADWe0t9duuhLSze6Pa5NnT6gwttdueudpha
Here is the same string, randomly mutated from its current position,
1000 times, to see if intelli ...[text shortened]... ens and the earth.
To try it for yourself, visit:
http://www.randommutation.com/index.php