Creation or Evolution: The Statistics!!!

[Tao_Equus]

Likewise, considering research done by Glen Morton, I do not think the Genesis flood was global. But there are signs of flood in places, and a littany of cultural myths regarding the matter to suggest there was some type of wide scale flood calamity that did strike very late in pre-historic or very early in historic times. The question regards how much over where. Whether or not this would include the Grand Canyon is open to question.[/QUOTE]

The time frame reference for the Grand Canyon to have been a possible exit point from which an inland sea drained is some 65 million years ago. (Begs further questions on was the relatively nearby impact of the meteorite widely regarded for the death of dinosaurs an influence) Any localised flooding events that happened in more recent times, such as the flooding of the black sea, can be directly attributed to the effects of the receding ice sheets at the end of the last glaciation period some 10,000 years ago. These flooding events coincide nicely with creationist ideas but are none the less a very powerful argument against them.

[juantoo3]

bobx- Sometimes, giving sterile hybrids however. But there is a recorded case of a speciation through interbreeding of cabbage and turnip (also in the Brassicaceae family I think): the fertilized ovum went through a polyploidy (copying all the chromosomes without splitting the cell) so that each descendant cell had two copies of all the cabbage chromosomes and two of all the turnip chromosomes, and thus the new plant could breed with itself, but not with either cabbage or turnip. Unfortunately this species has a root like a cabbage and foliage like a turnip!

juantoo3- I recall reading of this. A researcher in Russia performed this in the lab in the middle of the 20th century. Turnip, as I recall from the paper, is *not* in the brassica family, which made the experiment rather remarkable. Ah, I believe my memory is tricking me, so I must correct myself. Turnip is brassica, so the cross was with a radish as I recall. Root of cabbage, leaves of radish.

I found a reference to this on the talkorigins page bob referenced:

5.1.1.4 Raphanobrassica

The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage.

[juantoo3]

lunamoth- Perhaps a more familiar example is the Brassica family of plants, broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower, mustard, brussel sprouts. All derived from a little wild mustard plant.

18Then Jesus asked, "What is the kingdom of God like? What shall I compare it to? 19It is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his garden. It grew and became a tree, and the birds of the air perched in its branches." (Luke 13, NIV)

So what do you think, Juan. Is mustard a brussel sprout?

Found this, although I am not certain just which cole crops are being referred to:

5.1.1.6 Madia citrigracilis

Along similar lines, Clausen et al. (1945) hypothesized that Madia citrigracilis was a hexaploid hybrid of M. gracilis and M. citriodora As evidence they noted that the species have gametic chromosome numbers of n = 24, 16 and 8 respectively. Crossing M. gracilis and M. citriodora resulted in a highly sterile triploid with n = 24. The chromosomes formed almost no bivalents during meiosis. Artificially doubling the chromosome number using colchecine produced a hexaploid hybrid which closely resembled M. citrigracilis and was fertile.
5.1.1.7 Brassica

Frandsen (1943, 1947) was able to do this same sort of recreation of species in the genus Brassica (cabbage, etc.). His experiments showed that B. carinata (n = 17) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra (n = 8) and B. oleracea, B. juncea (n = 18) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra and B. campestris (n = 10), and B. napus (n = 19) may be recreated by hybridizing B. oleracea and B. campestris.

Note that this is not speciation in the sense of a new species, but in showing the relationships of existing species to each other.

[lunamoth]

Hi Juantoo3,

I did find something about being able to rescue embryos from a tomato-potato cross to get a viable plant, and also something about the radish-cabbage (or something, now I can't remember, dang) flop. So I agree that some members of these families are still so closely related that the barriers to reproduction can be overcome. There is also the problem of genes drifting from recombinant crops into wild relatives growing nearby, so I am aware that this can happen. But, as Bobx pointed out, the further away you go from the progenitor/parent line, the less likely you can get a fertile offspring from the hybrid, and if the the progeny is not fertile, well, end of line. Not a successful reproduction.

I didn't want to ignore your follow-up posts, but I also must admit that I would rather leave this thread before my interest in it turns to exasperation. Really, I did not mean to play the game who is most clever or can dig up the most facts and I apologize if my previous post came off that way. You and I are on different wavelengths on this one, and we will have to agree to disagree on your thesis that science is actually a dogmatic religion. I think that characterization creates more confusion than understanding.

peace,
lunamoth

[Tao_Equus]

This thread seems to have become bogged down in semantics over speciation and I am not quite sure that I understand what the creationist argument is. The imperatives that drive evolution are always enviromental and the number of mutations limited by population density and a given species ability to adapt to changes in the enviroment. It is in the interest of any species to be able to breed with any sub-species for as long as possible as this increases its chances of successful reproduction. Without the aid of genetic manipulation through intensive breeding programs or more directly using modern gene technologies this process is slow and unobservable in a human lifetime.

As a result of reading this thread I was astounded to come across so many Creationist sites full of blatant missinterpretations of facts. From the the formation of the first building blocks of life thru to the evolution of Homo sapiens there is a plethora of statistical nonsense, unproveable speculation and outright lies. I do not for one second entertain the thought that we have a complete and incontrovertable theory of evolution but the body of empirical evidence to support most of the basic principles is compelling. For me discovering so many sites promalgating this kind of disinformation is a worry and yet more proof of the increasing secularisation in our global society into dangerously insular communities. I would have hoped that in todays age of Information we would start moving toward a more hopeful path. Instead we seem to be heading into a new Dark Age.

Reading many threads here my heart is warmed by the many people who have Spiritual values and who ooze compassion and love for humanity in thier every word. I hope for my children and my childrens children that evolution see's your like prevail.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

This thread seems to have become bogged down in semantics over speciation and I am not quite sure that I understand what the creationist argument is. The imperatives that drive evolution are always enviromental and the number of mutations limited by population density and a given species ability to adapt to changes in the enviroment. It is in the interest of any species to be able to breed with any sub-species for as long as possible as this increases its chances of successful reproduction. Without the aid of genetic manipulation through intensive breeding programs or more directly using modern gene technologies this process is slow and unobservable in a human lifetime.

As a result of reading this thread I was astounded to come across so many Creationist sites full of blatant missinterpretations of facts. From the the formation of the first building blocks of life thru to the evolution of Homo sapiens there is a plethora of statistical nonsense, unproveable speculation and outright lies. I do not for one second entertain the thought that we have a complete and incontrovertable theory of evolution but the body of empirical evidence to support most of the basic principles is compelling. For me discovering so many sites promalgating this kind of disinformation is a worry and yet more proof of the increasing secularisation in our global society into dangerously insular communities. I would have hoped that in todays age of Information we would start moving toward a more hopeful path. Instead we seem to be heading into a new Dark Age.

Reading many threads here my heart is warmed by the many people who have Spiritual values and who ooze compassion and love for humanity in thier every word. I hope for my children and my childrens children that evolution see's your like prevail.

Where is your proof? (not you personally) I would like to see hard evidence to show that evolution is in fact all there is, or that what is has at least a 50/50 chance of accuracy. So far, I'm not impressed with the evolutionists' argument over life either.

Too much psycho babble on the part of scientists, and too much hocus pocus on the far religious right.

Here is a good start: Explain why over 85% of human isn't human at all. Same goes for every other animal on earth. I mean 70% is water, 5% is bacteria, 10% is minerals, salts and other inorganics, and 15% is actual human material. That ain't much...

v/r

Q

[bob x]

I see, since I remarked I do not have the time to do someone else's homework, the onus falls on me.

You think the "onus" is on us to re-type the full text of a hundred journal articles so you can read them without leaving your bedroom? Aside from the copyright-law issues, why is your time so much more valuable than ours?
It is like you are disputing that Jupiter has any moons, although this question was thoroughly settled a long long time ago. You say all the astronomers are part of an evil conspiracy to deny the Bible, so all the pictures are fake. We tell you you could look through a telescope yourself, but you say a telescope is too expensive. We tell you the university runs an astronomy club that meets every Saturday, but you could not possible leave the house on Saturday because that is laundry day.

Over the last year and a half I have printed out and studied enough material to compose an encyclopedia, albeit a small one, to add to my already long interest in this subject. So I think your snide comment is a bit below the belt, don't you think?

No, I don't. There are people who dedicate their whole lives to figuring out these matters, but you denigrate their work without being willing to look at it. What you cut and paste seems to be derived mostly from people who have not done one lick of work in the field.

And to think, I'm just having a little fun!

The efforts of creationists to demonize science in the minds of youngsters is dangerously destructive. No, I do not look at this as a game.

Clausen et al. (1945) hypothesized that Madia citrigracilis was a hexaploid hybrid of M. gracilis and M. citriodora... Frandsen (1943, 1947) was able to do this same sort of recreation of species in the genus Brassica (cabbage, etc.)....
Note that this is not speciation in the sense of a new species, but in showing the relationships of existing species to each other.

It is demonstrating how the existing species evolved. Those species were "new" species, quite recently.

But there are signs of flood in places, and a littany of cultural myths regarding the matter to suggest there was some type of wide scale flood calamity that did strike very late in pre-historic or very early in historic times.

Rather, MULTIPLE flood events, in different parts of the world, in the period ~6000-4000 BC as a result of ice-sheet breakup. This is well-understood.

Whether or not this would include the Grand Canyon is open to question.

No. It is not. Abrupt floodings and gradual erosions leave quite different results. The difference is naked-eye obvious.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Where is your proof? (not you personally) I would like to see hard evidence to show that evolution is in fact all there is, or that what is has at least a 50/50 chance of accuracy. So far, I'm not impressed with the evolutionists' argument over life either.

Too much psycho babble on the part of scientists, and too much hocus pocus on the far religious right.

Here is a good start: Explain why over 85% of human isn't human at all. Same goes for every other animal on earth. I mean 70% is water, 5% is bacteria, 10% is minerals, salts and other inorganics, and 15% is actual human material. That ain't much...

v/r

Q

When you look at a house do you call it a house or a collection of bricks, timber, gypsum and metals?

I doubt there is an evolutionary scientist anywhere, (at least not one without some other agenda), who would state that evolution theory is a complete and comprehensive picture of reality. Rather its a work in progress. There are many areas of research into evolution with countless 1000's of verifiable , peer reviewed and repeatable experiments carried out by people with no agenda other than pure research. To dismiss that so glibly smacks to me not so much as 'do not believe' as 'will not believe'.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Juan,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Vaj!

For a poet, this is acceptable. For scientific nomenclature, it is not.

why is this so?

What is a true Scotsman, or a true Christian?

a fallacy. why, what do you think they are?

Actually, those I could find on the 'net, I have. I haven't the time to travel 30 miles out of my way to peruse for many hours through science mags.

fair enough.

metta,

~v

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

When you look at a house do you call it a house or a collection of bricks, timber, gypsum and metals?

I doubt there is an evolutionary scientist anywhere, (at least not one without some other agenda), who would state that evolution theory is a complete and comprehensive picture of reality. Rather its a work in progress. There are many areas of research into evolution with countless 1000's of verifiable , peer reviewed and repeatable experiments carried out by people with no agenda other than pure research. To dismiss that so glibly smacks to me not so much as 'do not believe' as 'will not believe'.

Gee, sounds a bit like the fundementalists. and their way of thinking. And you fool yourself if you think there are not groups out there not intent on capturing the general concensus as to what really is...
they have all the answers (lol).

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, bobx!

You make this too easy. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

What’s the matter, did I rattle the parrot cage? Did I take out the sniper perched in the ivory tower? I live for snipe hunting…HooRah!

You think the "onus" is on us to re-type the full text of a hundred journal articles so you can read them without leaving your bedroom? Aside from the copyright-law issues, why is your time so much more valuable than ours?

Apparently you are unfamiliar with proper reference protocol. In what references of mine you can find, throughout this site, I typically take a germane quote and cite the source and usually provide a link, so the reader at least has opportunity to look at the material themselves to see if my interpretation is justifiable. Which, I might add, is perfectly within the copyright guidelines, when used for non-commercial educational purposes. So, if one must reference, it is only right and proper to allow the reader opportunity to examine the evidence for themselves, or at the very least a germane quote. The internet makes this opportunity considerably easier than sending someone on a wild goose chase. Rather it seems, correctly or not, that unverifiable references are included on the supposition that the student will acquiesce and accept the presenter at their word. I, on the other hand, do not play that game. I encourage open discussion, even disagreement, as long as the other person has a thoughtful and considerate contribution.

It is like you are disputing that Jupiter has any moons, although this question was thoroughly settled a long long time ago. You say all the astronomers are part of an evil conspiracy to deny the Bible, so all the pictures are fake. We tell you you could look through a telescope yourself, but you say a telescope is too expensive. We tell you the university runs an astronomy club that meets every Saturday, but you could not possible leave the house on Saturday because that is laundry day.

Or maybe that you still think the earth is flat, and I am trying to convince you it might actually be round?

Yours is a rather bold faced accusation, don’t you think? Show me, anyplace on this site, where your implied accusation is correct. All of my 1200+ posts here are readily accessible, I use no second avatar here. So please show me where this is so. In fact, I will point you to several treasure troves: the Evolution Conflict, Morality in Evolution, and (the earth was of ?) One Language threads, on the Belief and Spirituality forum and the Philosophy forum. There are many more, but these are the most concentrated sources of references I have made on this site. Just for fun, you might try the “juantoo3 quote from prove God’s non-existence” or Religion as a Meme threads, I had a blast with those two.

I have at no time claimed Creationism since I have been here. So, frankly, my views on God and the Bible are not even germane to this subject. Do YOUR homework. Quite the contrary sir, I have long called science “just another” religion here, implying that the scientific method is but another meme. Thank you for playing, you proved my point so very well, to me if not others.

There are people who dedicate their whole lives to figuring out these matters, but you denigrate their work without being willing to look at it. What you cut and paste seems to be derived mostly from people who have not done one lick of work in the field.emphasis mine

Oh, really?

To recap this thread alone, counting this post I have posted 25 times since engaging you. Of that 25, I have referenced you 5 times, for a total of 20%. Does that make you 20% liable towards “people who have not done one lick of work in the field?” I have also referenced quotes from the very same reference you did, TalkOrigins, twice. Are they too “people who have not done one lick of work in the field?” I have also referenced Glen Morton in passing, is he to be included in “people who have not done one lick of work in the field?” I also pulled a quote from one of the few references on Vaj’s list I could confirm, (that agreed with you!), is it to be considered among the “people who have not done one lick of work in the field?”

If you count “cut and paste” of people like yourself, then I suppose “people who have not done one lick of work in the field” is true. I invite you to examine any and all of my references on this site, and find just one that fits what you describe here. I lay down only two exceptions; quotes of other people (who may be quoting from sites as you suggest, and to which I am replying), and the handful of references I made on the Evolution Conflict thread somewhere in the middle to Carl Baugh’s foundation (a naïve mistake I made with another contributor). If you can find one reference outside of these only two exceptions anywhere on this site, I will be happy to rescind what I am about to say:

You are full of fertilizer.

Let’s see…false accusations in an effort to silence heresy, hmm. Sound familiar anyone?

Sounds to me like a witch burning in the making, with me as the roast du jour. Put on a white robe and a pointed hat and play Grand Inquisitor!

Come on in to the heretical fire, it’s nice this time of year! Come on over to the dark side, bob…

The efforts of creationists to demonize science in the minds of youngsters is dangerously destructive. No, I do not look at this as a game.

Good. I don’t look at belittling my friends as fun and games either. You are welcome to disagree with them anytime, day or night, as long as it is respectful and polite. But mount a high horse and look down your nose with a “holier than thou” attitude, and I don’t take it too kindly. If you must be condescending, at least do it with someone who has a fighting chance, like me.

Don’t pick on my friends.

Now, having said all of this, I really do enjoy your posts when you keep your holier than thou attitude in check. I find your posts, for the most part, thoughtful and thorough. You do make an important contribution to an overall and balanced look at matters when in combination with others. The scientific viewpoint is an important one and not to be dismissed lightly. It is only one perspective, by no means a complete and thorough one, but one well worth balancing with other perspectives.

*Lunamoth is correct, and it is time to let this thread cool. I have made both of my points.

While my conduct over the last few posts is unbecoming, I feel I was only giving back what was dished out. This does not excuse my actions, but I will not stand by and have someone trash my friends when I can do something about it. I do not wish to encourage the type of behavior I have displayed here recently. The purpose of this site is respectful and polite dialogue, *especially when there is disagreement.* I expect that of everybody. Otherwise CR will just turn into another trash talk site, and I think we all know we collectively are better than that. We have a genuine pearl here before us, there is no need for us to cast it to the swine.

Shalom

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vaj!

a fallacy. why, what do you think they are?

Thank you. You have answered my question.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

When you look at a house do you call it a house or a collection of bricks, timber, gypsum and metals?

I doubt there is an evolutionary scientist anywhere, (at least not one without some other agenda), who would state that evolution theory is a complete and comprehensive picture of reality. Rather its a work in progress. There are many areas of research into evolution with countless 1000's of verifiable , peer reviewed and repeatable experiments carried out by people with no agenda other than pure research. To dismiss that so glibly smacks to me not so much as 'do not believe' as 'will not believe'.

Yep, and that is the difference between science and scripture. One is a work in progress, and the other is set in stone...

You still haven't answered my question...

v/r

Q

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Yep, and that is the difference between science and scripture. One is a work in progress, and the other is set in stone...

You still haven't answered my question...

v/r

Q

Lol......I did answer your question and to my mind with some precision. Maybe you need to go back to it and piece it together brick by brick

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Lol......I did answer your question and to my mind with some precision. Maybe you need to go back to it and piece it together brick by brick

Yes, perhaps that is correct...engineers can be so stupid sometimes...