You really want to declare my quoting the scriptures as silly?
If Evolution
- Thread starter CherubRam
- Start date
You really want to declare my quoting the scriptures as silly?
Another mutation is the seedless navel orange. Best information is that it first occurred in Brazil in the 1820s.
iouae
Well-known member
We tend to think that grasses have been around forever.
But in the geologic column, grasses only came along after the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago.
Mammals are suited to eating grass, which is quite hard on the teeth, so mammals have those big grinding molars, and some have rumens.
And most grasses use a C3 pathway for photosynthesis, while some grasses use a C4 pathway for photosynthesis which is less energy efficient, but more water efficient.
So if one lives in dry climates, C4 grasses are good, but if one lives in a wet area, C3 grasses are more efficient.
I personally marvel at the way God thinks up new and better and more efficient chemical pathways, allowing new generations of plants to be perfectly suited to changes of climate over time.
There is quite a nice article on this at ...
https://creation.com/c4-photosynthesis-evolution-or-design
But in the geologic column, grasses only came along after the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago.
Mammals are suited to eating grass, which is quite hard on the teeth, so mammals have those big grinding molars, and some have rumens.
And most grasses use a C3 pathway for photosynthesis, while some grasses use a C4 pathway for photosynthesis which is less energy efficient, but more water efficient.
So if one lives in dry climates, C4 grasses are good, but if one lives in a wet area, C3 grasses are more efficient.
I personally marvel at the way God thinks up new and better and more efficient chemical pathways, allowing new generations of plants to be perfectly suited to changes of climate over time.
There is quite a nice article on this at ...
https://creation.com/c4-photosynthesis-evolution-or-design
I wonder about how dodo bird ended up on the island of Mauritius and nowhere else.
One theory I heard attributed to young earth creationists is that a volcano blew them there from the Middle East after the flood.
No, the first 11 chapters of Genesis are not literal history.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
By humans.
Where you gettin' your info?
Domestication or modern genetics tampering?
Greg Jennings
New member
Do you really think that wheat/corn/potatoes/crops in general produced MORE food than they did after people transformed them?
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Greg Jennings
New member
Perhaps I misunderstood
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
An early shattering head that the wind could carry would tend to make a bigger stand year after year.
When you figure that original einkorn wheat fell off in a clump and molded.
And emmer wheat drilled it's seed in the ground right next to itself.
Barb is holding that humans early domestic practices caused a mutation.
He's wrong.
Archeologists have tested early grain and found no such mutation and have concluded that the mutation now found in wheat has occurred in recent practices.
Greg Jennings
New member
Do you maybe have the article where archaeologists have said that?
I know this: maize is the plant that modern corn crops come from. It looks nothing like corn. It has such tiny kernels that it looks like a wheat plant. It didn't naturally start out as a good source of food.
But humans cultivated it, and used intuition to discover that plants with a higher food yield should be bred with others that have high yields, and by doing so over long periods of time (relatively short in geological terms, however) they modified maize into corn
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440310001287
Abstract
The development of agriculture is closely associated with the domestication of wheat, one of the earliest crop species. During domestication key genes underlying traits important to Neolithic agriculture were targeted by selection. One gene believed to be such a domestication gene is NAM-B1, affecting both nutritional quality and yield but with opposite effects. A null mutation, first arisen in emmer wheat, decreases the nutritional quality but delays maturity and increases grain size; previously the ancestral allele was believed lost during the domestication of durum and bread wheat by indirect selection for larger grain. By genotyping 63 historical seed samples originating from the 1862 International Exhibition in London, we found that the ancestral allele was present in two spelt wheat and two bread wheat cultivars widely cultivated at the time. This suggests that fixation of the mutated allele of NAM-B1 in bread wheat, if at all, occurred during modern crop improvement rather than during domestication. We also discuss the value of using archaeological and historical plant material to further the understanding of the development of agriculture.
Greg Jennings
New member
Thank you!
I wish the whole article was available (they never are). But that definitely supports what you said
Greg Jennings
New member
You know why. Because the science, in no way/shape/form, supports an Earth younger than 4 billion years
But maybe you could find some interesting, challenging articles like 1Mind did?
Yep. We can be a selective force, just like anything else.
Barbarian observes:
The earliest wheat that shattered had smaller heads and less nutrition, not more.
American Society of Plant Biologists
http://www.plantcell.org/content/22/4/993
On the other hand, the development of high-lysine corn was an engineered process:
http://academicsreview.org/reviewed...ne-corn-shown-to-be-superior-to-conventional/
It's used for animal feed, and greatly improves the efficiency of meat production, requiring less grain.
They flew in. But as is common with birds on oceanic islands lacking mammals, there really wasn't any need to be able to fly. Like the Kakapo parrot or Kiwi of New Zealand, they became large and flightless.
The introduction of mammals drove dodos to extinction, and may do in the Kakapo as well. Kiwis are mean little suckers and have been known to kick cats to death, so they seem to be doing O.K.
No, you're wrong. The mutation just happened. Mutations are not induced by need; they arrive randomly. Probably happened before, but of course, uncultivated wheat that failed to shatter was at a huge disadvantage. On the other hand, when humans noticed it, they started planting that instead of the normal wheat.
Nope. Threshing would be unnecessary with wheat that shatters. How long have humans been threshing?
Best estimate is around 9500 B.C.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/p...ler_Allaby_Seed_Dispersal___domestication.pdf
6days
New member
6days does like it.Greg Jennings said:
Selection eliminates (pre-existing) genetic variation in the gene pool. Speciation almost always pushes the new 'species' one step closer to ectinction. Highly adapted organisms (ie island and coral populations) often have lost so much genetic info that they are unable to survive environmental change.
Greg Jennings
New member
6days does like it.
Selection eliminates (pre-existing) genetic variation in the gene pool. Speciation almost always pushes the new 'species' one step closer to ectinction. Highly adapted organisms (ie island and coral populations) often have lost so much genetic info that they are unable to survive environmental change.
Highly adapted organisms have indeed lost much. But those that are not specialized do not follow your theory.
Specialization can lead to weakness in the face of change. That's why organisms that are highly adaptable to different environments (humans being the A+ example) rarely go extinct.
Another fantastic example is sharks. They've been around since before the dinosaurs, and have changed relatively little in that time (really it's just size of pelagic sharks that has changed dramatically). And that's because open ocean sharks (pelagic) aren't really specialists at much except smelling. They just troll the open ocean looking for roadkill. That's why they'll probably be here long after we're gone even
6days
New member
Better estimate from scripture is a little less than 6,000 years. First Adam to Last Adam is about 4000 years.
Greg Jennings
New member
Again, 6, archaeology disputes your theory