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.
Genesis 1 is much more friendly to the idea of plant evolution than it is animal/human evolution. God said "Let THE EARTH bring forth....(three main plant types in order of ascending complexity)". When the animals are created it says God MADE them, then it says He Created man. It seems like there was far less involvement in plants than people.
Kinda like Cliff Claven's Beetabaga.
Thanks for the ping!
Genesis 1 is much more friendly to the idea of plant evolution than it is animal/human evolution. God said "Let THE EARTH bring forth....(three main plant types in order of ascending complexity)". When the animals are created it says God MADE them, then it says He Created man. It seems like there was far less involvement in plants than people.Really? Interesting. Immediately I think of how early man would know, from seeing directly, how baby animals come directly from older animals. But he wouldn't necessarily realize that baby plants come from seeds which came from older plants. Well, once agriculture got started, I guess it would be common knowledge. But before then, during the hunter-gatherer stage, I bet most people assumed that plants just arose spontaneously from dirt.
Of course, there are a number of small-minded folks on these threads who cannot accept the existence of such theistic evolutionists. That's their problem.
I beleive that agriculture was already well established prior to the composition of Genesis. Of course you are looking at it as a myth from Chaldean folklore or something. I am looking at it as Divinely inspired. You are thus attempting to reconcile it to your perceptions of what human knowledge was like circa 2000 BC while I am attempting to reconcile it with human knowledge of today ("fact?").
IMHO the main difference between Creationists and God believing Evolutionists is a disagreement on the length of God's day. Who says God's day can't be 50 million years earth time?
Say what? Evolutionists "mostly ignore" this, because they mostly don't think it's so. The official tree of life makes plants and animals out to be close kissing cousins, being both of the multi-cellular pursuasion. And, incidently, in that their basic reproductive machinery is virtually the same, and a radical departure from their closest cousins: look up miosis and mitosis.
He did not. He suggested plants preceeded animals in emerging from the sea onto the land.
Here's an analogy according to the logic you employed: "Most people today think popcorn is made by machines in a factory."
"Most people today think popcorn is made by machines in a factory."
George Beadle is probably laughing in his grave (my apologies, George, whereever you are, if I have put you 6 feet under prematurely)
"Unfortunately, the new species had the root of a cabbage and the leaf of a radish, and therefore had no commercial value."
Luckily, Lysenko showed how its cultivation range could be expanded indefinitely. ;')
Making Christians look stupid placemarker
Either way the Irish would love it.
'Yeah, but you still can't make a chicken out of an aardvark.'
Although data doesn't impress the creationists/ID, this little experiment is a slick demonstration of science at work.
note to self
btt for me
again
and again
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.