Veritas God and/or Evolution Event at Rudder Thursday(2/20) 7pm

8,901 Views | 195 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by DD88
Infection_Ag11
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cavscout96 • 1:15p, 2/27/20
AG
cavscout96 said:
Infection_Ag11 said:
cavscout96 said:
Which you have failed to attempt other and deride any viewpoint other than your own.


As a physician, perhaps the most difficult part of my job is explaining incredibly advanced scientific/medical concepts to people entirely ill equipped to understand them. See, I've spent nearly 15 years acquiring the knowledge and skills needed to really understand this in a formal academic setting, and my job is to convey that in 15 minutes in a way someone without that training will understand.

It's no different in any other hard science field. It is impossible for someone without the formal academic background in a given hard science field to fully grasp the concepts in that field. At best they can attain a superficial level of understanding and ultimately acknowledge the experts generally know what they're talking about.

The point here is we cannot tell you anything on this board that will provide you with some big epiphany. The nuance of the discussion will be lost on you and you'll fall back on simple, easy to grasp creationist talking points.
So... I'm too stupid to get it.


No, you lack the formal educational background in this specific field to grasp the nuance needed to overcome your bias against evolution.

Nobody said you're stupid
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
1
cavscout96
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to schmendeler • 1:39p, 2/27/20
AG
schmendeler said:
tHe OddS arE ToO AsTROnomIcAL!!!
that's what the science of math says.....
Reply Quote
schmendeler
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cavscout96 • 1:44p, 2/27/20
AG
cavscout96 said:
schmendeler said:
tHe OddS arE ToO AsTROnomIcAL!!!
that's what the science of math says.....
and yet, here we are.
Reply Quote
cavscout96
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Infection_Ag11 • 1:48p, 2/27/20
AG
Infection_Ag11 said:
cavscout96 said:
Infection_Ag11 said:
cavscout96 said:
Which you have failed to attempt other and deride any viewpoint other than your own.


As a physician, perhaps the most difficult part of my job is explaining incredibly advanced scientific/medical concepts to people entirely ill equipped to understand them. See, I've spent nearly 15 years acquiring the knowledge and skills needed to really understand this in a formal academic setting, and my job is to convey that in 15 minutes in a way someone without that training will understand.

It's no different in any other hard science field. It is impossible for someone without the formal academic background in a given hard science field to fully grasp the concepts in that field. At best they can attain a superficial level of understanding and ultimately acknowledge the experts generally know what they're talking about.

The point here is we cannot tell you anything on this board that will provide you with some big epiphany. The nuance of the discussion will be lost on you and you'll fall back on simple, easy to grasp creationist talking points.
So... I'm too stupid to get it.


No, you lack the formal educational background in this specific field to grasp the nuance needed to overcome your bias against evolution.

Nobody said you're stupid
Entirely ill equipped then? You might be surprised what I'm equipped to understand. Could it be, instead, that your study of advanced scientific/medical concepts has made you arrogant to the fact that other folks, who don't have medical degrees, are actually capable of understanding complex concepts and reason?

I've yet to see anyone on this thread take the time to lay out their position point by point or to refute any of the speakers claims other than to essentially label them as simpletons blinded by their faith in an ancient myth.

All I've stated is that the statistical probability that man evolved into his current for due to a random mutation is, essentially, zero. There are too many variables, with infinitely slim tolerances, for the math to work.
Reply Quote
cavscout96
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to schmendeler • 1:48p, 2/27/20
AG
schmendeler said:
cavscout96 said:
schmendeler said:
tHe OddS arE ToO AsTROnomIcAL!!!
that's what the science of math says.....
and yet, here we are.
yes... almost as if by design.......
Reply Quote
1
schmendeler
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cavscout96 • 1:53p, 2/27/20
AG
cavscout96 said:
schmendeler said:
cavscout96 said:
schmendeler said:
tHe OddS arE ToO AsTROnomIcAL!!!
that's what the science of math says.....
and yet, here we are.
yes... almost as if by design.......
and yet none of the evidence gives credence to that assumption. unless you count myths.
Reply Quote
schmendeler
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cavscout96 • 1:59p, 2/27/20
AG
cavscout96 said:
Infection_Ag11 said:
cavscout96 said:
Infection_Ag11 said:
cavscout96 said:
Which you have failed to attempt other and deride any viewpoint other than your own.


As a physician, perhaps the most difficult part of my job is explaining incredibly advanced scientific/medical concepts to people entirely ill equipped to understand them. See, I've spent nearly 15 years acquiring the knowledge and skills needed to really understand this in a formal academic setting, and my job is to convey that in 15 minutes in a way someone without that training will understand.

It's no different in any other hard science field. It is impossible for someone without the formal academic background in a given hard science field to fully grasp the concepts in that field. At best they can attain a superficial level of understanding and ultimately acknowledge the experts generally know what they're talking about.

The point here is we cannot tell you anything on this board that will provide you with some big epiphany. The nuance of the discussion will be lost on you and you'll fall back on simple, easy to grasp creationist talking points.
So... I'm too stupid to get it.


No, you lack the formal educational background in this specific field to grasp the nuance needed to overcome your bias against evolution.

Nobody said you're stupid
Entirely ill equipped then? You might be surprised what I'm equipped to understand. Could it be, instead, that your study of advanced scientific/medical concepts has made you arrogant to the fact that other folks, who don't have medical degrees, are actually capable of understanding complex concepts and reason?

I've yet to see anyone on this thread take the time to lay out their position point by point or to refute any of the speakers claims other than to essentially label them as simpletons blinded by their faith in an ancient myth.

All I've stated is that the statistical probability that man evolved into his current for due to a random mutation is, essentially, zero. There are too many variables, with infinitely slim tolerances, for the math to work.
do you know what the odds are for a particular ordering of a deck of cards is based on a thorough shuffle?
there are 80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636,856,403,766,975,289,505,440,883,277,824,000,000,000,000 different ways to shuffle a deck of cards.

If all the approximately 6 billion people on Earth began shuffling a deck of playing cards one time per second for the next 100 billion years we would not even come close to fulfilling all possible card combinations.

and yet, despite those odds, the exact order of the cards you shuffled exists. do you claim that it couldn't have happened because of the slim odds?

http://brainskewer.com/shuffled-deck-cards-unique/
Reply Quote
Post removed:
by user
In reply to Infection_Ag11 • 1:59p, 2/27/20
cavscout96
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to schmendeler • 2:01p, 2/27/20
AG
schmendeler said:
cavscout96 said:
schmendeler said:
cavscout96 said:
schmendeler said:
tHe OddS arE ToO AsTROnomIcAL!!!
that's what the science of math says.....
and yet, here we are.
yes... almost as if by design.......
and yet none of the evidence gives credence to that assumption. unless you count myths
So your science is better than mine I guess; sort of a my dad can beat up your dad argument?

That's all you've got? Your willing to believe the science you want to believe, but not believe the science you don't want to believe. How does that work?

Reply Quote
Post removed:
by user
In reply to cavscout96 • 2:03p, 2/27/20
cavscout96
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to schmendeler • 2:08p, 2/27/20
AG
once. now reshuffle that same deck and transpose just one card, on the very first attempt. Now, do that same thing however many time it takes to change from a non-man to a man. using your own example with just 52 variables, the chances are so statistically improbable that they do not bear mention in a rational, reasonable argument.
Reply Quote
1
Post removed:
by user
In reply to cavscout96 • 2:15p, 2/27/20
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cavscout96 • 2:17p, 2/27/20
AG
Reply Quote
2 edits
cavscout96
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to [removed post] • 2:18p, 2/27/20
AG
inadequate as to the conditions required to sustain human life at any one point in time. I am not saying the variables existed just to make humanity. I'm stating that the variables did and do exist in which humanity does exist. This is a balance with a very slim tolerance across multiple variables.

non sequitur as it relates to the statistic probability that one organism can randomly mutate into another, altogether different thing. The fact that the environmental conditions exist separate and apart from the organisms that may, or may not live in them are related, but not essentially connected.

The unlikelihood of the random mutation argument stands on its own, the precise conditions required to sustain human existence are a corollary that, when combined with the original argument further discredits the random chance argument.
Reply Quote
1 edit
schmendeler
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cavscout96 • 2:19p, 2/27/20
AG
cavscout96 said:
schmendeler said:
cavscout96 said:
schmendeler said:
cavscout96 said:
schmendeler said:
tHe OddS arE ToO AsTROnomIcAL!!!
that's what the science of math says.....
and yet, here we are.
yes... almost as if by design.......
and yet none of the evidence gives credence to that assumption. unless you count myths
So your science is better than mine I guess; sort of a my dad can beat up your dad argument?

That's all you've got? Your willing to believe the science you want to believe, but not believe the science you don't want to believe. How does that work?

what is it that you are calling "your" science?
Reply Quote
Post removed:
by user
In reply to cavscout96 • 2:22p, 2/27/20
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:22p, 2/27/20
AG
Show me your math. Apparently most every biologist in the first world missed it. We've literally watched what you say is impossible happen. This reminds me of the argument I heard that a bumblebee mathematically couldn't fly. Well you should check your math cuz that ****er is in the air.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Post removed:
by user
In reply to Aggrad08 • 2:32p, 2/27/20
cavscout96
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggrad08 • 2:34p, 2/27/20
AG
Aggrad08 said:
Show me your math. Apparently most every biologist in the first world missed it. We've literally watched what you say is impossible happen. This reminds me of the argument I heard that a bumblebee mathematically couldn't fly. Well you should check your math cuz that ****er is in the air.
We've watched random mutations change an organism from one thing into another? I must have missed that. I would have figured it would be front page news and on every television scroll. And here I was always told the process took billions of years and thousands of generations to happen. That the genomic changes were likely so subtle that we'd not even recognize them from one generation to the next. Yet, your telling me we've actually watched it happen! Please point me to this so I can be more enlightened.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
cavscout96
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to [removed post] • 2:36p, 2/27/20
AG
AstroAg17 said:
On the subject of whether we've observed evolution in a lab, these people think in terms of morphology and structure, not genetics. They don't want to hear about homeotic gene regulation, they want a time lapse of a fish growing a foot.
nice....
Reply Quote
Post removed:
by user
In reply to cavscout96 • 2:38p, 2/27/20
cavscout96
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:39p, 2/27/20
AG
OK boys and girls... it's been fun, but the animus is rising too high for me and I have pressing matters to attend.

Good Day
Reply Quote
schmendeler
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:43p, 2/27/20
AG
the point is that your "mathematical impossibility" just isn't very compelling when the thing that you are saying didn't happen is fait accompli and all of the evidence shows that it went pretty much as evolution predicted.

in order to find your side compelling you have to discard all of the findings of the last 150+ years and say, nah, it's just not possible, had to be magic. and then show no evidence to back it up. it's a wonderful unassailable position, if not very robust.
Reply Quote
1
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cavscout96 • 2:49p, 2/27/20
AG
cavscout96 said:
Aggrad08 said:
Show me your math. Apparently most every biologist in the first world missed it. We've literally watched what you say is impossible happen. This reminds me of the argument I heard that a bumblebee mathematically couldn't fly. Well you should check your math cuz that ****er is in the air.
We've watched random mutations change an organism from one thing into another? I must have missed that. I would have figured it would be front page news and on every television scroll. And here I was always told the process took billions of years and thousands of generations to happen. That the genomic changes were likely so subtle that we'd not even recognize them from one generation to the next. Yet, your telling me we've actually watched it happen! Please point me to this so I can be more enlightened.


Ah yes. We've literally seen speciation and novel adaptation. It's not front page because the rest of the learned world already believed in evolution before we saw these things because the rest of the evidence is so overwhelming
Reply Quote
Infection_Ag11
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cavscout96 • 5:18p, 2/27/20
AG
cavscout96 said:
Infection_Ag11 said:
cavscout96 said:
Infection_Ag11 said:
cavscout96 said:
Which you have failed to attempt other and deride any viewpoint other than your own.


As a physician, perhaps the most difficult part of my job is explaining incredibly advanced scientific/medical concepts to people entirely ill equipped to understand them. See, I've spent nearly 15 years acquiring the knowledge and skills needed to really understand this in a formal academic setting, and my job is to convey that in 15 minutes in a way someone without that training will understand.

It's no different in any other hard science field. It is impossible for someone without the formal academic background in a given hard science field to fully grasp the concepts in that field. At best they can attain a superficial level of understanding and ultimately acknowledge the experts generally know what they're talking about.

The point here is we cannot tell you anything on this board that will provide you with some big epiphany. The nuance of the discussion will be lost on you and you'll fall back on simple, easy to grasp creationist talking points.
So... I'm too stupid to get it.


No, you lack the formal educational background in this specific field to grasp the nuance needed to overcome your bias against evolution.

Nobody said you're stupid
Entirely ill equipped then? You might be surprised what I'm equipped to understand. Could it be, instead, that your study of advanced scientific/medical concepts has made you arrogant to the fact that other folks, who don't have medical degrees, are actually capable of understanding complex concepts and reason?

I've yet to see anyone on this thread take the time to lay out their position point by point or to refute any of the speakers claims other than to essentially label them as simpletons blinded by their faith in an ancient myth.

All I've stated is that the statistical probability that man evolved into his current for due to a random mutation is, essentially, zero. There are too many variables, with infinitely slim tolerances, for the math to work.


But that's my point, such an endeavor really isn't feasible within the confines of a message board thread. Multiple semesters of graduate level biology courses barely scratch the surface of the topic, and you want me to teach you all that in this thread?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
1
RangerAg87
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:18p, 2/27/20
AG
Yes, we've seen adaption, or evolution, but we have not seen a new species from from another species, which is what had to happen to have evolution of all "things" from one "thing".

And, when that "miracle" happened, it had to happen twice, in the first "miracle's" lifespan; except this new "miracle" had to be exactly the same, other than the sex. Because, if that didn't happen, then there would be no offspring to further that "new" species. Of course, for mono-sexual "things", that would not be the case. If you go with cross-species germination...well, then there would not be all the separate canines, felines, etc. And, that is just not how this works, anyway.

I think it's much more believable/possible that we were created, and have adapted (evolved, for some) since that time.
Reply Quote
2
Infection_Ag11
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cavscout96 • 5:23p, 2/27/20
AG
cavscout96 said:
Aggrad08 said:
Show me your math. Apparently most every biologist in the first world missed it. We've literally watched what you say is impossible happen. This reminds me of the argument I heard that a bumblebee mathematically couldn't fly. Well you should check your math cuz that ****er is in the air.
We've watched random mutations change an organism from one thing into another? I must have missed that. I would have figured it would be front page news and on every television scroll. And here I was always told the process took billions of years and thousands of generations to happen. That the genomic changes were likely so subtle that we'd not even recognize them from one generation to the next. Yet, your telling me we've actually watched it happen! Please point me to this so I can be more enlightened.


It's not front page news for the same reason it's no longer big news when a space shuttle launches. Most of the world has long since accepted and understood the reality of space travel.

But we've absolutely observed speciation with numerous examples.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
Infection_Ag11
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to RangerAg87 • 5:27p, 2/27/20
AG
RangerAg87 said:
Yes, we've seen adaption, or evolution, but we have not seen a new species from from another species, which is what had to happen to have evolution of all "things" from one "thing".


That's simply not true. Here's just one very recent and very interesting example:

https://www.pnas.org/content/114/23/6074

Quote:
And, when that "miracle" happened, it had to happen twice, in the first "miracle's" lifespan; except this new "miracle" had to be exactly the same, other than the sex. Because, if that didn't happen, then there would be no offspring to further that "new" species. Of course, for mono-sexual "things", that would not be the case. If you go with cross-species germination...well, then there would not be all the separate canines, felines, etc. And, that is just not how this works, anyway.


No offense, but this is nonsensical from a scientific perspective. All it does is illustrate a fundamental lack of understanding regarding evolutionary biology.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
4
Post removed:
by user
In reply to RangerAg87 • 8:11p, 2/27/20
RangerAg87
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:45a, 2/28/20
AG
Ok, so where did we, and everything else come from?

Since my family has ranched, and I still do, for centuries, we kind of "know" how this works. And, you can't have cross-species breeding. So, when the first of a species was suddenly "here", there had to be a corresponding male/female to mate to, or the new being would die out without any offspring to sustain that newly formed species.

Reply Quote
2
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to RangerAg87 • 10:49a, 2/28/20
AG
So we are moving the goalposts now, that's good, that means you've realized you were wrong on speciation or novel traits ( you should look up the bacteria that evolved to eat nylon it's pretty cool.

Sexual reproduction itself evolved:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction

So then you question will have to get pushed back further and further.

See evolution actually accounts for these things quite beautifully. You will have to push back toward abiogenesis. And at that point it's no longer evolution. We don't claim to have an answer to how the very first organism formed but people are working on it. And whether it was gods chance or aliens the process from that point onward was one of evolution.

And speciation isn't instant, there isn't one generation that can't breed with its parent generation, there is one generation that can't breed with a split group under different selective pressures. Again we've literally seen this happen.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
RangerAg87
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:17a, 2/28/20
AG
Moving the goalpost? No, just "proving" that evolution - or, how it works without HUGE issues, isn't even close to being proven. And, yet, you keep saying it is. Therefore, why can't creation or at least ID be taught as an alternative?
Your last point is invalid, or at least impossibleyou can breed different "breeds" within a species, but you haven't changed the species. You can't have them "breed into" another species.
Again, yes to an adaption, or evolution within a species. But, no chance to millions of "new" species.
And, the argument y'all used that there are certain traits passed along, which helps "prove" evolution could be argued either way. I would submit it actually helps "prove" creation or design since, an engineer usually keep qualities from one entity, while making a similar entity. Why start from scratch every time?
Reply Quote
Quad Dog
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to RangerAg87 • 11:53a, 2/28/20
AG
RangerAg87 said:
Moving the goalpost? No, just "proving" that evolution - or, how it works without HUGE issues, isn't even close to being proven. And, yet, you keep saying it is. Therefore, why can't creation or at least ID be taught as an alternative?
Intelligent Design at best is pseudoscience and therefore shouldn't be in a science textbook or classroom. To qualify as a science you have to be testable, falsifiable, and refutable, among other things.
This was covered earlier when Kitzmiller v. Dover was quoted.

Quote:
After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. ... It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.
Reply Quote
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to RangerAg87 • 12:51p, 2/28/20
AG
RangerAg87 said:
Moving the goalpost? No, just "proving" that evolution - or, how it works without HUGE issues, isn't even close to being proven.

Everything you've argued is untrue and comes from a position of extreme lack of familiarity with the subject. Seriously google for 10 minutes and you'd have tons of examples of speciation.


Quote:
And, yet, you keep saying it is.
With reason, we've documented exactly what you are saying can't happen.

Quote:
Therefore, why can't creation or at least ID be taught as an alternative?
It's not science and it doesn't have evidentiary support.

Quote:
Your last point is invalid, or at least impossibleyou can breed different "breeds" within a species, but you haven't changed the species. You can't have them "breed into" another species.
GOOGLE SOMETHING. I'm literally amazed you've had people telling you we've literally seen this happen and haven't even the curiosity to check that you might be wrong about a subject you've never studied. Explain that to me I'm really curious about how that happens.

Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).


Gottlieb (1973) documented the speciation of Stephanomeira malheurensis. He found a single small population (< 250 plants) among a much larger population (> 25,000 plants) of S. exigua in Harney Co., Oregon. Both species are diploid and have the same number of chromosomes (N = 8). S. exigua is an obligate outcrosser exhibiting sporophytic self-incompatibility. S. malheurensis exhibits no self-incompatibility and self-pollinates. Though the two species look very similar, Gottlieb was able to document morphological differences in five characters plus chromosomal differences. F1 hybrids between the species produces only 50% of the seeds and 24% of the pollen that conspecific crosses produced. F2 hybrids showed various developmental abnormalities.

At reasonably low concentrations, copper is toxic to many plant species. Several plants have been seen to develop a tolerance to this metal (Macnair 1981). Macnair and Christie (1983) used this to examine the genetic basis of a postmating isolating mechanism in yellow monkey flower. When they crossed plants from the copper tolerant "Copperopolis" population with plants from the nontolerant "Cerig" population, they found that many of the hybrids were inviable. During early growth, just after the four leaf stage, the leaves of many of the hybrids turned yellow and became necrotic. Death followed this. This was seen only in hybrids between the two populations. Through mapping studies, the authors were able to show that the copper tolerance gene and the gene responsible for hybrid inviability were either the same gene or were very tightly linked. These results suggest that reproductive isolation may require changes in only a small number of genes.

Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.

Quote:
And, the argument y'all used that there are certain traits passed along, which helps "prove" evolution could be argued either way. I would submit it actually helps "prove" creation or design since, an engineer usually keep qualities from one entity, while making a similar entity. Why start from scratch every time?
An engineer wouldn't keep the bad, and he wouldn't modify unnecessarily. Our chromosome #2 is a great example. You can see where it merged from our ape anscestors. There is no reason a designer wouldn't build a normal chromosome rather than have vestigial merger points.
Reply Quote
4
2 edits
Post removed:
by user
In reply to RangerAg87 • 1:27p, 2/28/20
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.