MrDarwin

Differences between the niches are in temperature and available moisture, among other environmental factors.

I have my doubts that genetic drift could account for a single species radiating into a number of specialized niches in a very small land area, but either way, you still have to address the origin of the variation in the first place. What I'm fishing for is whether anybody has any explanations that can account for the results of this research, other than standard evolutionary models--it appears that nobody does, at least not the creationists and IDists who have been posting here.

Bilboe

Mr.Darwin,

I guess one could always say that God designed each different plant species. I'm an OEC, though, and I'm willing to allow a great deal of explanatory power to the Standard Evolutionary Model, especially in this case. However, since mturner hasn't asked it in this thread, I guess I will: Can we be sure at this point that all or even most mutations are random with respect to fitness? Are we sure we can rule out some inherent ability within these plants, for example, to mutate advantageously? This is just a question. I'm not a scientist, so I don't know the answer.

mturner

**

Hi Bilbo;

Got your message, but couldn't find the guy and couldn't figure out how to get back to you. We could talk about it at Sir Richi's roondyshe tybal, if you like.

pax,

m.

mturner

**

I suspect that you remember that I have an hypothesis re adaptation that does not fit the S.E.M. I began to formulate it here, on these boards, some nine months ago, and labelled it Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis. I believe you took some part in the debate.

Not speaking of yourself, the level of vituperation, inult, and incessant flaming on this board was too much for me, and so I took my notions to ARN, for the more civilized and intellectual ambiance. If I revive them here I will only have that original sorry experience all over again, and I just don't need the aggravation.
pax,

mturner

Quetzal

mturner: I am a recent addict to II. Could you post a link to the thread(s) on your theory - I would like to read about it, whether or not you wish to resurrect it. After all, you brought it up...

mturner

**
Sorry, morpho, I didn't keep any records. You'll have to search the archives under my name, between May and July of last year. Most of the defining was done later, at ARN, which is currently off-line.

pax,

mturner

MrDarwin

Yes, I do recall, although not the details. I would rather not go into all that.

My main concern is whether critics of evolution object to the hypothesis of common descent in this case with the degree of morphological divergence from a single common ancestor, and whether the observed radiation, diversification, and morphological divergence qualify as "macroevolution". I also wonder if YECs really believe this kind of diversification can occur in 6,000 years (actually considerably less, if it's post-Flood)--if so, they are proposing a much more rapid rate of evolution than does any evolutionary biologist. But when I ask these kinds of questions in the context of real research data, nobody seems to want to touch them.

mturner

**
Since I am not a critic of evolution, but rather a critic of the hypothetical Neo-Darwinian mechanism for evolution, I may not be the one to ask. Without more detail on the morphology of these plants, I certainly couldn't say whether or not the radiation, etc., constituted true evolution, or merely variation. From what you have indicated, some of the species may evidence genuine novelty, and not just variation within hereditary parameters. That would constitute macro-evolution, i.e., true evolution. It would not, of course, confirm RM&NS as the mechanism for that evolution.

pax,

mturner

Bilboe

mturner: ". From what you have indicated, some of the species may evidence genuine novelty, and not just variation within hereditary parameters. That would constitute macro-evolution, i.e., true evolution. It would not, of course, confirm RM&NS as the mechanism for that evolution."

Me: MrDarwin:
I tend to agree with m. I don't have the same repulsion to RM&NS as he does, though. However, isn't there accumulating evidence, at least among eubacteria and archaea, that there is some kind of self-directed mutation going on, at times? Are we sure that something like this doesn't happen in eukarya and multi-cellular organisms? If so, then the mutation rate may, at times, fluctuate. I'm not a YEC, but if I were, I might use something like this for a defense. How would you respond?

[ March 19, 2002: Message edited by: Bilboe ]</p>

Douglas J. Bender

MrDarwin,


You said:
No, they do not qualify as "macroevolution", since the various plants are able to interbreed. Looking very different is not sufficient to imply "macroevolution". Great Danes "look very different" from, say, Bulldogs or Chihuahuas or Dachsunds or Old English Sheepdogs, but they are all of one "kind", and they have all apparently originated within the last 3000 or 4000 years.

(First, if it's "post-Flood", that would mean the diversification had occurred in roughly 4000 years. Just FYI.) I believe the kind of "diversification" which the plants you describe show is of the same degree as the kind of "diversification" that the different breeds of dogs show ("dogs show" - a pun [wow, I'm good]). Perhaps you have "real research data" that could show just how much "genetic difference" there is between the various plants you described, and also some data which show how much "genetic difference" there is between various dog species - this would at least perhaps be a starting point for a comparison.


In Christ,

Douglas