Posted on 02/26/2005 3:20:33 PM PST by furball4paws
In 1927, Karpechenko made a hybrid of the common radish, Raphanus sativus, and cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Each parent has a diploid chromosome number of 2N=18. The hybrid also had 18 chromosomes, but because normal sperm and eggs could not be formed, the hybrid was sterile, as is common in such cases.
However, some of the "sterile" hybrids produced a few viable seeds. These seeds were produced when the chromosome number spontaneously doubled. The doubling permitted the pairing of partner chromosomes and the formation of gametes with 1N=18.
Karpechenko witnessed the birth of a new species in the passage of only 3 plant generations. He named the new species Raphanobrassica. It was fully fertile and could not cross with either parent. Unfortunately, the new species had the root of a cabbage and the leaf of a radish, and therefore had no commercial value.
This process of autopolyploidy is responsible for many commercial crop plants (tobacco, for one). It is estimated by botanists that 25-50% of existing plant species arose through a mechanism of autopolyploidy.
References. 1. Niklas, KJ. 1997, The Evolutionary Biology of Plants. University of Chicago Press 2. Karpechenko, GD. 1927. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus X Brassica oleracea. Zeit. Ind. Abst. Vererbungslehre 48:1-58.
Evolution ping
Let's get these out of the way now.
1. It's only a hybrid (BS!)
2. It's a Russian - you can't trust them.
3. It's a communist, atheist scientist plot to undermine America. (BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!)
4. When I see a fish giving birth to a dog, I'll believe it.
5. It's all Bush's fault.
Creationoids have been ignoring this one for 80 years. How much longer will they continue to "walk in the darkness of ignorance"?
I'm not fully convinced it would be much better the other way around.
I agree, but you never know. The radish part may have been milder and the cabbage part more, um, "tasty".
Thank you for posting this conclusive proof that evolution can only bring deterioration to what was previously good.
ONCE AGAIN CREATION IS PROVEN TRUE!!!
;-)
Ho, ho, ho.
Right now I'm reading "Practical Electronics for Inventors" by Paul Scherz.
Who needs to get a life more? :o{
Voila, Rabbage!!!
Let's see now. As a creationoid, I would be more impressed by (1) The re-animation of a DEAD person/animal or (2) The creation of life from some soup (primordial or otherwise). Just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean He doesn't exist. One day one of us will be proven wrong.
I'll bet the Chinese have a recipe for it.
You should never assume a person's beliefs without evidence.
|
You can't meaningfully participate in the science threads unless you can show that you've bought a ticket. The ticket is some basic understanding of what's going on here; and the price you have to pay for it is the effort needed to bring yourself up to speed. No ticket, no credibility.
The Theory of Evolution. (Excellent introductory encyclopedia article.)
The scientific method. You must know what science is (hint: it's not a cult).
What's a Scientific Theory? Encyclopedia article. Yes, evolution is a theory. That's a good thing.
Evolution as Fact and Theory by Stephen Jay Gould. Very useful article.
The List-O-Links. Direct link to the right part of my homepage.
If you're so easily impressed, why don't you go hang out in a big city emergency room and ask around. They reanimate dead people there almost every night.. ;^)
Which is curiously omitted in Coyne and Orr's Speciation (Published 2004).
I previously mentioned this book here
ML/NJ
I do appreciate the efforts of EMTs and our hospital staff and I do thank you for the invitation to go to a big city hospital. I do not like big cities and usually avoid them if possible. I have not heard of them bringing a dead person back to life that has been in the grave for three days though.
Often plant evolution is given the short end of the stick. Even on these threads, people often yawn over plants. Niklas in his book says (to the effect) that space only allows him to give one example of this type of speciation and he and uses the above example. There are so many.
Do a search here on FR for an earlier thread of mine on the sunflower Helianthus. It is also a great example. But the overwhelming interest of most creationists aw well as many evoids is animal and Man evolution posts.
The great thing about my 2 plant posts is that is shows how rapid and explosive plant evolution can be, allowing plants to invade environments not previously occupied.
Since plants arrived on land before animals, this invasion was extremely important and even looks something like an "explosion".
Just so you know, Speciation does briefly discuss some radishes and their flowers in work done a few years ago. It's not like it ignores plants.
The ones who ignore plants are the evolutionists who seem to mostly ignore that completely different mechanisms would be needed for the inception and evolution of plants as opposed to animals. E.g. you suggest that plants came first. But if plants need insects to pollinate to reproduce, isn't this a problem?
ML/NJ
"Just so you know, Speciation does briefly discuss some radishes and their flowers in work done a few years ago. It's not like it ignores plants.
The ones who ignore plants are the evolutionists who seem to mostly ignore that completely different mechanisms would be needed for the inception and evolution of plants as opposed to animals. E.g. you suggest that plants came first. But if plants need insects to pollinate to reproduce, isn't this a problem?"
How much of the biosphere is plants? Now you see why I say short end of the stick.
That plants were the first to invade dry land is an inescapable fact from fossil evidence. BUT - those early plants were not seed plants (they came much later), so pollination was not a problem. Even today many angiosperms and gymnosperms reproduce without the aid of living pollinators - the wind or water is sufficient, or the male and female parts of the plants are right next to each other.
not all plants need bugs to sexually reproduce.
IIRC, the fossil record indicates that primitive flowering plants (angiosperms?) hit the scene @150million years ago... in the late JURASSIC.
by contrast: that same fossil record indicates that large and complex land and sea plants were the dominant form of life in the Carboniferous era 300-odd million years ago.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.