Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. 04 Aug '11 21:36
    I found this small debate it and tell me what you think.. *wants learn from you guys so include resources * and please dont bring me into this cuz im gonna listen on this thread.
  2. 04 Aug '11 23:56
    Where is the link?
  3. 05 Aug '11 02:44
    haha sorry im an idiot lol -_-
  4. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    05 Aug '11 03:39
    Originally posted by longken
    haha sorry im an idiot lol -_-
    That guy in 1905 seems to be making grand conclusions based on 3 generations of plants? 106 years ago? Why is this even considered to be scientific after all that time, considering DNA wasn't even a pipe dream 100 years ago. Compare that to cars of the day. What did people drive in 1905? Come on, how can you present that as some kind of argument?
  5. 05 Aug '11 04:23
    I'm not an expert in the field of genetics so I looked up polyploidy to learn what it means. I didn't find anything conclusive in regards to Bill's claim though.

    I recall that Kazetnagorra posted a link on that evolution thread that claimed new species were observed and I simply didn't see the proof in that link. It looked like what I think Bill was referring to as micro-evolution.
    I'm still unsure as to what the criteria is for a new species evolving. If I could ask Bill a question I would ask him if he considers dogs a different species than wolves. Since there is pretty good DNA evidence that dogs used to be wolves I would present that as evidence of evolution. The selective breeding of the silver fox re-enforces this claim. I learned about it on a PBS program. I think it was Nova.

    Here is a link explaining the different animal hybrids. It provides terms like interspecific hybrids,intra-specific hybrid and intergeneric hybrids. You can research these and find out for yourself if you find any of these different hybrids convincing evidence of evolution if that is what you are trying to determine.

    It is hard to tell what Bill considers macro-evolution from the link. If I knew it would give me a lot more to go on. Until then, I hope some of the information I've provided helps you out. If not, let me know what you are looking for.
  6. 05 Aug '11 04:57
    Originally posted by longken
    haha sorry im an idiot lol -_-
    I'm not sure what they are getting at exactly.

    They are referring to polyploid organisms, so more than two sets of chromosomes. Theoretically, species with only one set of chromosomes (haploid) will evolve faster than a species with two or more sets of chromosomes because if there is a mutation, there is a 100% chance it will be carried on. That is why bacteria (prokarya) can mutate so quickly.