Automaton

That's the whole point. To change from infertile to fertile would require mutations. Thus you are right, it was slow in the past, but it was classified as another species: Spartina x townsendii. Now, are you going to stop grasping at straws or are you going to accept this as an observed speciation event?
The traits it acquired along with the two extra chromosomes did. I suggest you do a little research on plant taxonomy.

unworthyone

So the chromosomes make something reproduce quicker/more efficiently?

Valentine Pontifex

That is NOT what I was saying. I was not saying you have to personally do the experiment. I was refering to how you do your citations.

It means that when you cite your source, that you actually cite your source.

When you say that [whoever] wrote in [whatever journal] [vol][page number] as saying "[the quote]" you are outright claiming that you have actually looked at [whatever journal] [vol][page number]. This is what a citation means.

If you want to use use a quote, you have one of two choices: 1) find the original in the library, online, whatever and verify the quote as being accurate and in-context or 2) tell us where you actually got the quote from.

This is extremely basic standard of honest academic debate.

For example: grabbing a book and taking a quote at random:

Say I decided to quote Patton and Young about gophers and gene flow but I have not read the article. The following is wrong:

The reason why it is wrong is that I did not get the quote from the Evolution article but from a book by Ernst Mayr. By failing to cite Mayr I would be dishonest in that I am plagiarizing the work that he did. Furthermore, if Mayr made a mistake or quoted out-of-context I will get the blame.

The following is more honest and unlike the above actually says where I really got the quote:

I will repeat that this is not optional: a reference must say where you got the quote.

You are warned. If you copy a quote from a creationist source without tell us that you have done so, you will be held morally responsible for the accuracy of the quote in both its words and its context. In other words, if you repeat one of the many out-of-context quotes that one can find in the creationist literature and you don't indicate in your citation that you got it from another writer, you risk being accused of dishonesty or sloppy scholarship.

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: LordValentine ]</p>

Automaton

Uh, not exactly. A chromosome is just a segment of genetic code.

unworthyone

And what justification do you have in taking other scientists word? I don't care about who said it. Somebody believes it, otherwise they wouldn't write it. You on the otherhand can do the same thing regarding evolution without doing the work yourself so how could that not be subjecting yourself to sloppiness as well?

It's a redundant argument, and makes no difference to me.

unworthyone

Well it seems you were using the reproduction quickness was a reason it was macro-evolution.

Could it not be that these two species were closely resembled by chance and one just so happened to start reproducing a little faster then the other 30 years later?

And besides, these are simple plants. I want to see some real evidence of animal macro-evolution.

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: unworthyone ]</p>

Valentine Pontifex

This is dishonest. In the start of this thread, you quoted someone. You cared then or else you would not quoted him. Are you saying that you are willing to give up common creationist tactic of quote mining? If so, I don't want to see any more quotes from you. But as it stands, you have provided a quote. The question was were did you get that quote?

Most of the time this is true. But not always.
Consider Jan Peczkis. He writes as a
Darwinian evolutionist under his real name but is a young-earth creationist when writing under his John Woodmorappe pen name.
This is an outright distortion of what I said.
I did NOT say you had to do the work yourself. There is no possible way for someone to do the entire range of science oneself. What I am saying is that if you quote someone (something YOU have done), you must correctly say where you got the quote from.

You see, science recognizes that one can't do everything yourself. That is one of the reasons why citations were invented. A citation says were you got the information. It is of vital importance that citations be correct.

The question remains: where did you get that quote from?

Translation: don't bother me with the facts.

Where you, me, or anyone else get our "fact" is important.

unworthyone

I am not in the position to prove anything. Dishonest as it may be to you, it makes no relevance in my desire for understanding. I'm not using it as leverage but merely a quote to what I've read. Which it worked quite well and I learned very much thank you.

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: unworthyone ]</p>

Automaton

No, the unlikeliness of this is on the order of 3*10^81 (that's 3 with 81 zeros after it). My calculations don't factor in that some things will be common for life, plants, and cordgrass in particular, but this gives you a rough idea on how improbable such a thing is.
It's not to do with speed. It's to do with fertility. The infertile variety only spreads by growing outwards, it does not reproduce. Anglica does in fact reproduce. It isn't possible for the species to suddenly become fertile (not to mention it is hardier as well) without some fairly large mutationary changes... meaning speciation.
Now you are just being evasive (are you conceding defeat, or are just trying to worm your way out a debate you're not going to win?) Anyway, I would hardly consider these plants "simple". There are animals that are less complex than plants, such as certain plankton.

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: Automaton ]</p>

unworthyone

No not defeat as I am in no competition. Just a debate with no winners. But what is the probability of man(or living organisms) evolving from non-living matter, just as a comparison?

Or how about the eye? What is the probabilty of evolution of the eye to its current state?

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: unworthyone ]</p>