Where does everyone stand in regards to...

[TheAlphaWolf]

usually

 

[Treaqum]

Well I do not agree that hybrids are nessicarily a new species. But in a quasy way they will be labeled here Since most hybrids do not look like either parent. I have to dissagree about the mice being a new species but will agree with the plant. Animal hybrids are hard to make fertile. The offspring are not "unfit" but odd. Plants work differently. Many hybrids of plants are fertile. Animals hybrids probibly are not fertile because so many have different numbers of chromosomes, A human-monkey hybrid could not be made because of this. Plants on the other hand can hybridize (as many of our garden plants, and cps are). Through hybridization which creates diploids and so on and hybridixatin with many other plants you can get a new species. Not because it can hybridize but because it looks and is different form all known species. If this was not true all Sarracenia would be one species. Plants like flava and oreophila probibly broke off from each other sooner then leucophylla and minor. If someone over a hundred years or so hybridised hybrids of Sarrs all into one plant with noclear orgins and spread it in the wild and claimed to have "discovered" it the plant could become a new species. It would still be able to hybridize but the ancestory would be very very hard to determine. Usually only natural creatures are called new species rather then the man made hybrids. Man cannot reproduce what evolution has made over centuries but man can reproduce what man has made.

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

Quote[/b] ]Italy show that natural selection will produce alleles that bar interracial matings if the resulting offspring are unfit hybrids. This is an important exception to the general rule that intermixing races will not tend to become separate species because the constant sharing of genes minimizes the genetic diversity requisite for speciation

I'm I the only one who interprets that as "if the resulting offspring are hybrids (which are unfit)"?

 

[herenorthere]

How are Sarracenias not all one species?

 

[Treaqum]

Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Jan. 18 2005,7:37)]

Quote[/b] ]Italy show that natural selection will produce alleles that bar interracial matings if the resulting offspring are unfit hybrids. This is an important exception to the general rule that intermixing races will not tend to become separate species because the constant sharing of genes minimizes the genetic diversity requisite for speciation

I'm I the only one who interprets that as "if the resulting offspring are hybrids (which are unfit)"?

First off why does new always appear in red bold.
Secondly what do you mean Alphawolf your question needs a few more words.
Thirdly What does "Italy show" (see quote). Does that mean Italy shows or it shows?

 

[Amateur_Expert]

Quote[/b] (herenorthere @ Jan. 18 2005,7:42)]How are Sarracenias not all one species?

Uhhh.. because they vary genetically enough so that they are categorized?

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

Quote[/b] ]First off why does new always appear in red bold.
Secondly what do you mean Alphawolf your question needs a few more words.
Thirdly What does "Italy show" (see quote). Does that mean Italy shows or it shows?

first of I don't know what red bold "new" you're talking about
the itally shows means that in itally that happens.
now... if you ask me, the source of the confusion is this sentence
"Italy show that natural selection will produce alleles that bar interracial matings if the resulting offspring are unfit hybrids. "
to me, that sentence says:
"In Itally, natural selection will produce alleles that don't let one race mate with another race if the resulting babies are hybrids (because the hybrids are unfit...)"
I guess "unfit" could mean that they're deformed (the hybrids) or that they can't have offspring (like mules)

 

[Amateur_Expert]

Quote[/b] (Treaqum @ Jan. 18 2005,7:44)]Italy show that natural selection will produce alleles that bar interracial matings if the resulting offspring are unfit hybrids. This is an important exception to the general rule that intermixing races will not tend to become separate species because the constant sharing of genes minimizes the genetic diversity requisite for speciation

That makes NO sense to me at all.

 

[Treaqum]

I agree with Alphawolf

 

[Finch]

many plants dont exactly fit the defenition of a species in a conventional sence, they are more like very geneticly distinct subpobulations in this regard. Frusterating as it is to taxonomosts and people who like order in the plant family, the name species is just a convenince when talking of ganra such as oaks or rowan. in others, sutch as the maples and sunflowers, speciation is pretty straightforeawrd

 

[ktulu]

i think we need to forget the mice due to the fact that the way it is worded leaves the conclusion open for interpretation, which like i said could also be interpreted as meaning that they can and do produce some offspring that is hybridized

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

true... but that conclusion wouldn't go along with what the article is about.. after all, he's trying to show speciation events.
so let's forget the mice Why try to catch this fish when there's an easier one to catch?

 

[Amateur_Expert]

In the "real" world asside from the holy books, scriptures and texts, we live in a world that's obviously void of a god (whomever or whatever god might be will differ in terms of your religion). With the matter of trying to see if something is real i think science and religion is confusing things.Here's a very simple question. Human to human, science and religion aside.


Be logical. Where's god?

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

my philosophy is that if there is a god, it is not any god humans say it is (as a religion), but he/she/it/them just set the universe in motion.

 

[Finch]

*pickes up A_E and throws him out a window*

bunch a help that provocative comments gonna do us

 

[Amateur_Expert]

Quote[/b] (Finch @ Jan. 18 2005,10:18)]*pickes up A_E and throws him out a window*

bunch a help that provocative comments gonna do us

Finch, I'm desperately fighting an ignorant battle.

In the next few posts i'll be bombarded with metaphors claiming god is everywhere around.

 

[ktulu]

ignorant? are you saying anyone who believes in religion is ignorant? are you call the majority of people on the planet ignorant? im sorry A_E i hope you dont take this the wrong way but you need to open your mind to the possiblity that first you may be wrong, and secondly that just because someone has a differnt belief than you doesnt make them wrong/ignorant.

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

*quietly leaves room*

 

[Amateur_Expert]

Quote[/b] (ktulu @ Jan. 18 2005,10:34)]ignorant? are you saying anyone who believes in religion is ignorant? are you call the majority of people on the planet ignorant? im sorry A_E i hope you dont take this the wrong way but you need to open your mind to the possiblity that first you may be wrong, and secondly that just because someone has a differnt belief than you doesnt make them wrong/ignorant.

I didn't say whos side was ignorant did it. I didn't specify.
I meant ignorant in the sense that both sides are not understanding each other.

It's funny how an unimportant comment to someone else gets the attention while the stressed question gets totally ignored.


ktulu, i wasn't calling anyone ignorant.

 

[Amateur_Expert]

Quote[/b] (ktulu @ Jan. 18 2005,10:34)]first you may be wrong, and secondly that just because someone has a differnt belief than you doesnt make them wrong/ignorant.

Never said any of the two.

To the evolutionists:
Sorry for turning it into a religious thread all of a sudden but you can't have creationism without religion, and i know you can agree.