Ver Mensaje Individual
  #758 (permalink)  
Antiguo 25-oct-2009, 22:45
Avatar de babaluba
babaluba babaluba está desconectado
Decorador estilista
 
Fecha de Ingreso: 04-septiembre-2009
Mensajes: 474
Gracias: 861
135 Agradecimientos de 59 mensajes
Cita:
Iniciado por Hipo, the Caos Ver Mensaje
Si os vais a poner quisquillosos tengo más. Podéis replicarlos todos.

A ver, si está muy bien que pegues cosas y tal, pero por favor, compruébalas antes.

¿No ves que los darwinistas quedan como unos mentirosos?

Hazlo por ellos, hombre. Comprueba los datos antes de ponerlos.

Mira, uno de los ejemplos que pegas ahora es éste:
(ya se sabe desde 1943 que no es una especie nueva)

Cita:
5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

Cita:
With respect to O. gigas, today there are well over a hundred recognised species6 of Oenothera, but Oenothera gigas is not one of them.

De Vries had assumed that tetraploid Oenethera plants would ‘breed true’, forming a distinct species. However, the tetraploid specimens of Oenothera that de Vries and other botanists cultivated did not form their own self-perpetuating populations, requiring constant special care and consistently generating a range of chromosome sets (diploid, triploid, tetraploid, etc.) in their offspring. In his zeal to provide evidence for evolution, de Vries had presumptuously proclaimed tetraploid Oenotheras to be a new species, but this was in spite of direct evidence to the contrary, including from his own breeding efforts. The idea that these plants constituted an example of speciation is wrong, and this was realized at least as long ago as 1943,7 more than six decades ago.
Evolution by fiat and faith

La nota 7 que pongo en azul es ésta:

Cita:
Davis, B.M., An amphidiploid in the F1 generation from the cross Oenothera franciscana x Oenothera biennis, and its progeny, Genetics 28(4):275–285, July 1943, . On page 278 Davis writes:

In summary it should be emphasized that this amphidiploid did not present a settled behaviour of all pairing on the part of the chromosomes at diakinesis. On the contrary, there was much irregularity in the process of chromosome segregation during meiosis. Accounts of amphidiploids have frequently assumed that these plants even from hybrids would breed true because the double set of chromosomes would permit a regular pairing between homologues. It will be noted that here is an amphidiploid Oenothera hybrid in which the pairing is far from regular with the result that the plant does not breed true, as will appear in the accounts of later generations.

Amphidiploid is a synonym of allopolyploid. These have chromosomes from different species. See also Batten, D., Eat your Brussels sprouts!, Creation 28(3):36–40, 2006. Return to Text

Por favor, comprueba antes lo que pongas.

Gracias por adelantado.


Responder Citando