Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MrDarwin · 03-17-2002, 01:05 PM

Have a look at the silverswords:

<a href="http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/silversword.htm" target="_blank">http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/silversword.htm</a> (all subsequent links are from this one page)

The silverswords are a group of very bizarre plants found only on Hawaii:

Yet evolutionary biologists have long understood that they are closely related to two other Hawaiian groups that look completely different: <a href="http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/images/darb.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/images/darb.jpg</a>
<a href="http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/images/whob_cal.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/images/whob_cal.jpg</a>

These genera are so unlike any other plants in the world that until recently their affinities were completely unknown.

Despite their radically different appearances, species of all three of these genera hybridize freely, both between species within each genus, and between species of different genera: <a href="http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/images/crossing_habit1.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/images/crossing_habit1.jpg</a>

Molecular studies recently suggested that these Hawaiian genera, in turn, are closely related to a couple of genera from California, which look completely different from the Hawaiian guys: <a href="http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/carlquistia.htm" target="_blank">http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/carlquistia.htm</a>
<a href="http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/images/mad_bol_hab.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/images/mad_bol_hab.jpg</a>

Based on the results of his molecular study--now this is the really cool part--the researcher tried to make some hybrids between the Hawaiian and California genera. And as it turns out, these California genera, so completely different from any of the Hawaiian guys, will hybridize with at least one of the Hawaiian genera!
<a href="http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/images/dub_rai_photo.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/images/dub_rai_photo.jpg</a>
<a href="http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/images/dub_mad_photo.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/images/dub_mad_photo.jpg</a>

And these hybrids are fertile!

The fairly simple evolutionary explanation is that the Hawaiian species originated from a single colonization event of one of these California genera (or perhaps their common ancestor) to Hawaii, with a subsequent radiation into three genera and several dozen species with highly divergent morphologies: <a href="http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/origin.htm" target="_blank">http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/origin.htm</a>

So here are my questions:

How did these plants get to Hawaii, and when?

Are all of these plants descended from a common ancestor?

If no, do we have any reason to believe they are not?

If yes, can we make and test hypotheses about how they are related, and hope to discover their true genealogical history?

If yes, how long did it take for the differences between them to arise?

In a nutshell, what I am asking is, have the botanists who have studied this group made reasonable and testable hypotheses about the relationships of these plants, and can we say with a high degree of confidence that these hypotheses are correct, with one additional question:

Are the morphological differences between these plants examples of microevolution or macroevolution?

[ March 17, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]

tgamble · 03-17-2002, 01:13 PM

>How did these plants get to Hawaii, and when?

God put em there. When he felt like it.

>Are all of these plants descended from a common ancestor?

Of course, but they are still plants. You don't see plants turning into dogs which is what evolutionists claim happen!

>If no, do we have any reason to believe they are not?

Only if it indicates evolution. Which the WORD OF GOD says is impossible.

>If yes, can we make and test hypotheses about how they are related, and hope to discover their true genealogical history?

We can test any claim of stupid atheists evolutionists by comparing their claims to the HOLY BIBLE!

>If yes, how long did it take for the differences between them to arise?

probably only within the 4000 years since Noah's flood.

>In a nutshell, what I am asking is, have the botanists who have studied this group made reasonable and testable hypotheses about the relationships of these plants, and can we say with a high degree of confidence that these hypotheses are correct, with one additional question:

>Are the morphological differences between these plants examples of microevolution or macroevolution?

Micro of course, macro is an impossible myth dreamed up by stupid atheist scum to deny their responsibility to god so they can make up their own rules.

note: the above response is a mockery of cretinist stupidity. They are not my actual opinions!

MrDarwin · 03-17-2002, 01:16 PM

I had hoped for at least one or two postings with some serious comments before the jokes or creationist-bashing

RufusAtticus · 03-17-2002, 01:24 PM

That's a pretty amazing Botanatical story.

A a pretty funny responce. I like the thing about no plant evolving into a dog.

LOL

-RvFvS

tgamble · 03-17-2002, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus:
That's a pretty amazing Botanatical story.

A a pretty funny responce. I like the thing about no plant evolving into a dog.

LOL

-RvFvS

thanks!

Nic Tamzek · 03-17-2002, 08:42 PM

POTM! POTM!

Oh wait, this isn't talk.origins...

nic

MrDarwin · 03-18-2002, 05:04 AM

Not a single response from a creationist or IDist?

This is what it's all about, folks. This is how evolutionary theory works in the real world. These are real data, from somebody's actual research. Any objections to evolutionary theory have to address the things we actually discover.

I will give everybody the benefit of the doubt and assume you are all in the middle of composing long, well-thought responses. But in the meantime, let me add another question since it seems to be at the heart of objections to evolution:

Is it possible, or even likely, that the differences arising during the radiation and diversification of these plants in the Hawaiian islands since their ancestor(s) arrived there were caused by random mutation and natural selection?

mturner · 03-18-2002, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrDarwin:
Not a single response from a creationist or IDist?

This is what it's all about, folks. This is how evolutionary theory works in the real world. These are real data, from somebody's actual research. Any objections to evolutionary theory have to address the things we actually discover.

I will give everybody the benefit of the doubt and assume you are all in the middle of composing long, well-thought responses. But in the meantime, let me add another question since it seems to be at the heart of objections to evolution:

Is it possible, or even likely, that the differences arising during the radiation and diversification of these plants in the Hawaiian islands since their ancestor(s) arrived there were caused by random mutation and natural selection?

Hi D.,

Anything's possible, but doesn't Sewall Wright's "Drift", rather than Darwin's NS, apply in this case? Just trying to get my standard Evolutionary Model straight.

pax,

mturner

MrDarwin · 03-18-2002, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mturner:

Anything's possible, but doesn't Sewall Wright's "Drift", rather than Darwin's NS, apply in this case?

Why do you think so? The species occupy different (and often highly specialized) ecological niches.

mturner · 03-18-2002, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrDarwin:


Why do you think so? The species occupy different (and often highly specialized) ecological niches.

**
Just asking. Are you saying that adaptation and natural selection are synonymous, and that genetic drift is non-adaptive? I'm just trying to get the terms straight. What is the difference between these specialized ecological niches that would exclude the related species?

pax,

mturner

03-17-2002, 01:05 PM	#1
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	Common descent, macroevolution, and "kinds" Have a look at the silverswords: <a href="http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/silversword.htm" target="_blank">http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/silversword.htm</a> (all subsequent links are from this one page) The silverswords are a group of very bizarre plants found only on Hawaii: Yet evolutionary biologists have long understood that they are closely related to two other Hawaiian groups that look completely different: <a href="http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/images/darb.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/images/darb.jpg</a> <a href="http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/images/whob_cal.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/images/whob_cal.jpg</a> These genera are so unlike any other plants in the world that until recently their affinities were completely unknown. Despite their radically different appearances, species of all three of these genera hybridize freely, both between species within each genus, and between species of different genera: <a href="http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/images/crossing_habit1.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/images/crossing_habit1.jpg</a> Molecular studies recently suggested that these Hawaiian genera, in turn, are closely related to a couple of genera from California, which look completely different from the Hawaiian guys: <a href="http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/carlquistia.htm" target="_blank">http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/carlquistia.htm</a> <a href="http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/images/mad_bol_hab.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/images/mad_bol_hab.jpg</a> Based on the results of his molecular study--now this is the really cool part--the researcher tried to make some hybrids between the Hawaiian and California genera. And as it turns out, these California genera, so completely different from any of the Hawaiian guys, will hybridize with at least one of the Hawaiian genera! <a href="http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/images/dub_rai_photo.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/images/dub_rai_photo.jpg</a> <a href="http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/images/dub_mad_photo.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/images/dub_mad_photo.jpg</a> And these hybrids are fertile! The fairly simple evolutionary explanation is that the Hawaiian species originated from a single colonization event of one of these California genera (or perhaps their common ancestor) to Hawaii, with a subsequent radiation into three genera and several dozen species with highly divergent morphologies: <a href="http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/origin.htm" target="_blank">http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/origin.htm</a> So here are my questions: How did these plants get to Hawaii, and when? Are all of these plants descended from a common ancestor? If no, do we have any reason to believe they are not? If yes, can we make and test hypotheses about how they are related, and hope to discover their true genealogical history? If yes, how long did it take for the differences between them to arise? In a nutshell, what I am asking is, have the botanists who have studied this group made reasonable and testable hypotheses about the relationships of these plants, and can we say with a high degree of confidence that these hypotheses are correct, with one additional question: Are the morphological differences between these plants examples of microevolution or macroevolution? [ March 17, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-17-2002, 01:13 PM	#2
tgamble Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: St. John's, Nfld. Canada Posts: 1,652	>How did these plants get to Hawaii, and when? God put em there. When he felt like it. >Are all of these plants descended from a common ancestor? Of course, but they are still plants. You don't see plants turning into dogs which is what evolutionists claim happen! >If no, do we have any reason to believe they are not? Only if it indicates evolution. Which the WORD OF GOD says is impossible. >If yes, can we make and test hypotheses about how they are related, and hope to discover their true genealogical history? We can test any claim of stupid atheists evolutionists by comparing their claims to the HOLY BIBLE! >If yes, how long did it take for the differences between them to arise? probably only within the 4000 years since Noah's flood. >In a nutshell, what I am asking is, have the botanists who have studied this group made reasonable and testable hypotheses about the relationships of these plants, and can we say with a high degree of confidence that these hypotheses are correct, with one additional question: >Are the morphological differences between these plants examples of microevolution or macroevolution? Micro of course, macro is an impossible myth dreamed up by stupid atheist scum to deny their responsibility to god so they can make up their own rules. note: the above response is a mockery of cretinist stupidity. They are not my actual opinions!

03-17-2002, 01:16 PM	#3
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	I had hoped for at least one or two postings with some serious comments before the jokes or creationist-bashing

03-17-2002, 01:24 PM	#4
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	That's a pretty amazing Botanatical story. A a pretty funny responce. I like the thing about no plant evolving into a dog. LOL -RvFvS

03-17-2002, 08:42 PM	#6
Nic Tamzek Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: California Posts: 646	POTM! POTM! Oh wait, this isn't talk.origins... nic

03-18-2002, 05:04 AM	#7
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	Not a single response from a creationist or IDist? This is what it's all about, folks. This is how evolutionary theory works in the real world. These are real data, from somebody's actual research. Any objections to evolutionary theory have to address the things we actually discover. I will give everybody the benefit of the doubt and assume you are all in the middle of composing long, well-thought responses. But in the meantime, let me add another question since it seems to be at the heart of objections to evolution: Is it possible, or even likely, that the differences arising during the radiation and diversification of these plants in the Hawaiian islands since their ancestor(s) arrived there were caused by random mutation and natural selection?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.