The transitional stinkweed

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley


And you guys accuse ME of withholding information?!?!? Here's the link to the article:

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/public/News/flower.htm

Oh, come on! Even YOU have to admit that's the lamest excuse for a transitional anyone could possibly propose. They're QUESTIONING the possibility of it even being RELATED to a flowering plant.

Nick, I see clearly where they are are QUESTIONING the possibility that angiosperms originated underwater, but I don't see anywhere in this article where anyone is QUESTIONING whether the fossil in question is an angiosperm...

from the article:
This fossil represents the first evidence of an angiosperm that is basal to all other angiosperms, yet that does not fit within any modern taxonomic group of angiosperms - this makes it one of, if not the most important fossil flowering plant ever reported.”

The fossil was found in China by local farmers who gave it to one of the paper’s coauthors. It is much more complete than one found at a nearby site four years ago, which Dilcher also studied, and suggests origins in water that refreshed the dinosaurs, said Dilcher, a graduate research professor at the Florida Museum of Natural History on the UF campus.

“After having only a fragment and trying to imagine what the whole plant was like, it was a great surprise to find leaves typical of a plant that lived underwater with characteristics very unique to flowering plants at such an early age in their history,” he said.

What distinguishes the fossil as an aquatic plant are its dissected leaves, Dilcher said. Some of the leaves at the base are quite branched, typical of underwater plants. This raises the question of whether flowering plant evolution happened on water or on land, he said.

Going on, if I can catch up with those goalposts...

They don't even know for sure if this so-called transitional lived above or below water!!

and from the article again...

What distinguishes the fossil as an aquatic plant are its dissected leaves, Dilcher said. Some of the leaves at the base are quite branched, typical of underwater plants. This raises the question of whether flowering plant evolution happened on water or on land, he said.

Further proof of the flower’s watery existence comes in the form of fish fossils found together mixed in with the fossil plants, he said.

So perhaps there is the question of whether this underwater group was actually ancestral to the angiosperms, or whether one of its (possibly terrestrial) relatives was instead. That does not mean there is much uncertainty about this being an aquatic plant, and, we are left with no uncertainty about whether it is a transitional form (having had no petals, having lived before the diversification of angiosperms, etc.)

That's like saying "here's a fossil of some animal that MIGHT have lived underwater. Since it has eyes, and it lived, it shared features with eyed and non-eyed animals, so it is clearly a transitional."

Or its like saying here is a plant with some characteristics unique to the angiosperms, yet lacking some of the characteristics that are common to all angiosperms. Huh.

And dont give me any goalpost baloney.

Leave them alone, and count the point, and no one will have anything to say about where you put them.

You didn't even meet the minimum standards of my original request. Where's the evidence that this so-called single transitional is not a polyploid? Did the artist's drawing say "this is not a polyploid, honest" somewhere in pastel?

Oh, so we were to be able to prove that there was no polyploidy involved, not just refrain from relying on it as evidence? Cool... Did you have a reason for that, or are you just seeing if we will still play your game even after you have left the stadium with the goalposts?

So, on the one hand some guy finds a couple molecules of oil in a rock, and because this oil is also present in some flowering plants, they conclude that this is evidence that there were flowering plants 250 million years ago.

... an oil that is not produced organically by any other known process...

Now you find a picture of some plant that MAY or MAY NOT have been an underwater plant,

Was with fair certainty an underwater plant, as if it would matter to you...

that MAY OR MAY NOT be related to flowering plants,

But definitely had characteristics unique to the flowering plants, while lacking characteristics common to them, so therefore is definitely a transitional form..

and it MAY have lived 125 million years later,

than the earliest plants to produce an oil that angiosperms uniquely produce...

and there's NO WAY TO KNOW if it or any of its nearest neighbors in the ancestral line were polyploids.

Which matters to what - nobody? or just you?...

And THIS is your transitional that answers my request?!?

This is the transitional that would answer a request made by someone who actually cared about knowing something about the evolution of the angiosperms, or the evolution of one "kind" of plant" into another "kind" of plant (for instance: gymnosperms or other non-angiosperms to angiosperms)...

You mean to tell me you can't are AT LEAST find some sequence of non-polyploids that are as closely related as those skulls? Really?

Perhaps the five or six of us, none botanists, that post on this forum cannot. Perhaps no one can... It is clear at least that your challenge was answered with only the simplest search on Google. I'm sure that a several creationist web sites will now add a page with the meta tags "flower" "fossil" "evolution" to make it more difficult to find this article using Google.

For anyone interested (no, Nick, not you..) Here is an intersting article on the diversification of angiosperms:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast17apr_1.htm

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
Oh, come on! Even YOU have to admit that's the lamest excuse for a transitional anyone could possibly propose. They're QUESTIONING the possibility of it even being RELATED to a flowering plant. They don't even know for sure if this so-called transitional lived above or below water!!

That's irrelevant. It's not deemed a transitional because of where it lived. It is transitional because of its form.

That's like saying "here's a fossil of some animal that MIGHT have lived underwater. Since it has eyes, and it lived, it shared features with eyed and non-eyed animals, so it is clearly a transitional." Wow -- now that's an all time low even for evolutionists.

Whether or not it lived underwater is irrelevant.

Like I said, you can show me pretty pictures of drawings of an artist's idea of how skull fossils supposedly represent the evolution of a reptile to mammal. Surely you shouldn't have to resort to a SINGLE drawing of an ISOLATED species of a plant THAT MIGHT HAVE LIVED underwater and MAY POSSIBLY BE RELATED to flowering plants -- no prior or later transitions to indicate there's any ancestry above or below water at all, just a "cool we found something" article.

Look at those goalposts go!

And dont give me any goalpost baloney. You didn't even meet the minimum standards of my original request. Where's the evidence that this so-called single transitional is not a polyploid? Did the artist's drawing say "this is not a polyploid, honest" somewhere in pastel?

I agree that there's no way to tell. However I fail to see what that is relevant to the transitional nature of the species.

Oh, and here's the part I love the most. I guess it was due to some creationist conspiracy that this article lists this as pre-dating flowering plants, yet this article seems to think the oldest was probably 125 million years EARLIER. (You know, the stuff I deliberately left out of the last quote to...well, to accomplish something underhanded, I just can't be sure what my motive was until you tell me.)

Oh my gosh! Not all scientists agree! I don't believe it!

You mean to tell me you can't are AT LEAST find some sequence of non-polyploids that are as closely related as those skulls?

You didn't ask for a sequence. You asked for SOME. I gave one. Why don't you spend another 10 seconds with Google and find some of your own?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus

Polyploids are the result of the doubling of the entire genome. It has been extremely important in the evolution of plants and somewhat less so in animals.

C'mon you can do better than that. Why is it less so in animals? Or, put another way, why is it considered important in plants? How does one generally get polypolids in plants? It might be helpful to us if you put some numbers on that -- what percentage of plants do you think are polyploid? What percentage of vertebrates are polyploid? Of the percentage of polyploids in plants, how would you break down the percentages according to the various method of gene duplication that occurs? You are studying this stuff, right?

Originally posted by RufusAtticus

I never said you changed definitions, just that you contradicted yourself. After you said that punctuated equilibrium is "basically the same" as hopeful monster, I said you were erroneously equating the two, posting an essay from Gould which supported my statement. You then said that you were not saying that they were 100% equal, which had no bearing on my statement, since I never accused you of doing so.

Whatever. We were clearly talking across each other. Let's not do it now, ok? Can you understand what it is I'm asking? What the goalposts are? Really? Are you going to miss the stadium and say it's my fault because I've shifted the posts, or are you actually going to own up to the challenge and try to score a goal?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Would you care to explain why polyploidy, a kind of mutation, must have been absent in order for this transitional between gymno- and angio-sperms to be an example of a transitional fossil between two plant "kinds"?

Polyploidy, by the way is more common in plants than in mammals, because for reasons that I'm sure Rufus understands better than I, polyploidy more often makes animals unviable or sterile than it does plants. That is, if I understand it correctly. And no, I don't understand exactly why this is the case, and no, I don't have the statistics on how often it happens in animals and how often in plants. On the other hand, I have anecdotal knowledge of Drosophila that survive polyploidy, and other animal species that can survive gene duplication. Could you please, please, please, explain why this is important to you?

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Just to show how easy this is Nick, here's a whole page devoted to Progymnosperms:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/IB181/VPL/Osp/Osp2.html

From the page itself:

Progymnosperms, as the name implies, are plants that share important derived features with seed plants but are still free-sporing themselves.

So there you go -- a whole family of transitional species.

This is just one page from a rather excellent paleobotany site:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/IB181/VPL/Dir.html

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
Look at those goalposts go!

How would you know? You couldn't see them with the Hubble from where you are. I've quoted my original post, and nobody has even come close to answering my challenge. Don't lie and say I've moved the goalposts.

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
I agree that there's no way to tell. However I fail to see what that is relevant to the transitional nature of the species.[/B]

Regardless of what YOU think is relevant, it was a condition of the challenge. We can argue the relevence elsewhere or later. But it was an original location of the goalpost. Remember?

I realize evolutionists seem to think nothing of adjusting the evidence to fit their conclusions, but I didn't realize you were so brazen as to pretend the posts appeared in a different order just so you could claim I've moved the goalposts.

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
You didn't ask for a sequence. You asked for SOME. I gave one. Why don't you spend another 10 seconds with Google and find some of your own?

You're right. I mistakenly thought that you need to examine more than one in a series of transitionals to figure out the most likely genetic mechanism of ancestry from one in the series to the next.

I'll tell you what. I won't even ask for a well deserved apology for being falsely accused of moving the goalposts. Instead, I'll move the goalposts TOWARD YOU. Forget about SOME. Provide just ONE transitional fossil and prove that it is not itself a polyploid fossil and that its ancestors are not polyploids. BLUE ALERT: ORIGINAL GOALPOST AHEAD: "that supposedly evolved by mutation (read: not polyploids". And what do we mean by evolved? BLUE ALERT: ORIGINAL GOALPOST AHEAD: "the evolution of one one kind of plant into a significantly different plant"

If you can do that with only one fossil, then by all means, please ignore my original goalposts and provide just one transitional fossil. Okay?

And before YOU start moving goalposts, the "supposedly" is there because I do not believe evolution of this type occurs, not because you're allowed to post an artist's conception of a plant we know nothing about and call it evidence.

 

[Jerry Smith]

dad-blastit. I suppose that there wasn't any polyploidy involved in the plants that we have found transitional between the gymno- and angio-sperms discussed in this article. I further suppose that its evolution involved some mutations.

This isn't a plant we know nothing about. It is one that is remarkably well preserved in its fossil form:

from the original article:
Although it had no petals, there is no question it was a flowering plant because of the presence of seeds enclosed in an immature fruit, a trait separating flowering plants from all other seed plants, he said.

...

These are the earliest most complete remains of flowering plants yet discovered,” Dilcher said. “What’s spectacular about these fossils is that all parts of the plant are present, including the roots, leaves and reproductive organs..."

So we don't know for certain that it evolved by mutation and that none of that mutation involved any chromosome duplication events. Maybe it evolved by Lamarkian inheritance of acquired traits. But we suppose that it evolved by mutation. And I suppose that there was no polyploidy involved (as if that matters)... Now, what's your beef with this fossil specimen?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

This isn't a plant we know nothing about.

So we don't know for certain that it evolved by mutation and that none of that mutation involved any chromosome duplication events. Maybe it evolved by Lamarkian inheritance of acquired traits. But we suppose that it evolved by mutation. And I suppose that there was no polyploidy involved (as if that matters)...

Yup. You know enough to draw a picture that might look something like the original.

As for the rest, you maybe and suppose a lot of stuff. That's evolution.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley


Yup. You know enough to draw a picture that might look something like the original.

As for the rest, you maybe and suppose a lot of stuff. That's evolution.

<Grabs dodging Nick by shirt collar, drags back to the "challenge" he issued. Forcibly removes goalposts from Nick's fingers and plants them back where they were at the start of the thread>

Now, what's your beef with this fossil specimen?

Now, what's your beef with this fossil specimen, Nick? Or are you going to attempt another dodge????

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
BLUE ALERT: ORIGINAL GOALPOST AHEAD: "that supposedly evolved by mutation (read: not polyploids".

"Supposedly evolved by mutation" is a rather low bar to jump over. I think it is rather safe to suppose that some part of the plant's evolutionary history involved mutations other than polyploidy.

And what do we mean by evolved? BLUE ALERT: ORIGINAL GOALPOST AHEAD: "the evolution of one one kind of plant into a significantly different plant"

Last I checked, flowering plants were significantly different than non-flowering plants.

If you can do that with only one fossil, then by all means, please ignore my original goalposts and provide just one transitional fossil. Okay?

OK. Already done.

And before YOU start moving goalposts, the "supposedly" is there because I do not believe evolution of this type occurs,

Yes, we all know that. Your mind is apparently so clouded by religious faith that you view all scientists as stupid lying conspirators. Why would we expect you to believe what they say?

Look, if you're going to insist on that polyploidy bit, then an answer to your question is impossible. Without DNA samples we have no idea whether a given plant species was polyploid or not. You might as well be asking for evidence that dinosaurs smelled like chocolate.

Now are you interested in transitional plant species or are you just interested in more silly semantic games?

 

[randman]

Nick, it's a waste of time pointing out the obvious to some here. The blinders are on so thick, and the meaningless responses so prepared, you might as well supply their responses for them.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by randman
Nick, it's a waste of time pointing out the obvious to some here. The blinders are on so thick, and the meaningless responses so prepared, you might as well supply their responses for them.

You're right, of course. I mean, look at this...

Are there any evolutionsts out there who can conjure up some transitionals in the fossil record to account for the evolution of one one kind of plant into a significantly different plant? I'm looking for transitional fossils of plants that supposedly evolved by mutation (read: not polyploids)?

Does that seem at all unclear, complicated, lengthy or confusing to you? If I had to do it over again, I would add a couple more qualifications, but criminy! Their idea of an answer is one drawing of single fossil of a plant they don't even know enough about to know if it lived above or below water? I toss out a FEW simple criteria, and THAT is the best they can offer? This fails to meet TWO of THREE simple criteria I asked for, and it only qualifies for one based on speculation about a drawing. Then they accuse ME of having moved the goalposts!

So what do I get next? Something that ALMOST qualifies as a set of transitionals, although it fails to meet ONE of the THREE criteria. But let's see what we really have here. It all starts with such scientific evidence as this artist's conception...

of this...

Which so obviously "evolved" into this artist's conception...

of this "Archaeopteris"...

When did all this remarkable series of transitions take place? The first drawing, which is described with such definitive language as "Portion of sterile shoot showing ultimate branches that have been interpreted as "leaves". is dated from the middle to late Devonian. After this, it supposedly evolved into the drawing of the Archaeopteris Christmas tree, which is dated from...huh? The late devonian!

Now what happens next? This highly evolved and successful Archaeopteris that evolved from a spore twig into a seed bearing Christmas tree between the late devonian and the late devonian then proceeded -- much later on, say, oh, in the late devonian -- to immediately become extinct.

But wait, there's more. The language used in this series really bolsters our confidence in these conclusions!

W.A. DiMichele and colleagues (1989) proposed that the seed habit could evolve directly from a homosporous ancestor like Aneurophyton by speeding up sexual maturation of the megagametophyte such that archegonia and eggs were produced before spores were dispersed. This hypothesis bypassed the free-sporing heterosporous ancestor.

Translation: hopeful monster.

They also argued that the ecology of free-sporing heterospory -- typically plants growing in standing-water swamps -- was unlikely to have given rise to early seed plants, which were thought to have pioneered in well-drained upland habitats.

Translation: Or maybe there's no connection at all.

At the moment, both hypotheses remain widely discussed.

Translation: We ain't got a clue.

Future fossil discoveries and more detailed phylogenetic analyses of the plants critical to seed plant evolution may help clarify the picture.

Translation: Someday our fossils will come!

Of course, we've been looking for these clarifying transitionals for over 100 years. I think the only way we'll find them is if they fly out of evolutionist's butts. But, hey, it's probably just that we haven't found enough plant fossils yet. Dang, plant life only accounts for a tiny percentage of the fossil record, right?

And then, if that wasn't enough to slam the lid on evolution, Mr. Population Evolution Expert either hasn't learned enough about his own specialization to imagine why one would want to eliminate polyploids from this challenge. Or, nah, it couldn't possibly be that he is KNOWINGLY pretending ignorance to avoid the issue.

You know, if I didn't know any better I'd have to say the bulk of evolutionists who defend their positions on boards like these are pathological liars, insane, or simply so defensive that they wouldn't admit to their own names if it weakened their case for evolution.

If this weren't so slapstick funny to watch evolution fall on its face over and over again, it would be a total waste of time.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Of course, we've been looking for these clarifying transitionals for over 100 years.

"WE"??? hardly. Scientists have, and have found some, but they don't matter to you because there might have been some polyploidy somewhere in their ancestry.

I think the only way we'll find them is if they fly out of evolutionist's butts. But, hey, it's probably just that we haven't found enough plant fossils yet.

To the best of my knowledge they haven't found any tulips, oak trees, wheat, roses, hyanciths, water lillies, water lotus, or rice, in the devonian... They have found quite a few plant fossils that far back though... thing is none of them are clearly angiosperms (although some have primitive angiosperm traits as pointed out in this thread), and they have found only a few from then that have been discovered living on earth today at all (notable exceptions being members of the Cycad family). I wonder, these transitionals that are pointed out, since they aren't transitional fossils between two plant groups like Nick wanted to see, and since they clearly do not support an evolutionary theory of the advent of modern plants, why did the modern plants wait 300 million years to start getting fossilized??

And then, if that wasn't enough to slam the lid on evolution,

DANG!!! I fell off my chair!!!!

edited, because my blood pressure is up. I hope Rufus won't mind me stepping in while he is off-line:

Mr. Population Evolution Expert either hasn't learned enough about his own specialization to imagine why one would want to eliminate polyploids from this challenge. Or, nah, it couldn't possibly be that he is KNOWINGLY pretending ignorance to avoid the issue.

Mr. Poplulation Evolution Know-It-All - who gains his education in evolution by the harrassing those who have bothered to take notes in lecture until they break down and spell it out for him - cannot be bothered to explain why his challenge requires that we prove there was no polyploidy involved in the lineage of a transitional fossil. Or, nah, it couldn't be possible that he DOESN'T HAVE THE VAGUEST NOTION why that would be a reasonable crieterion for his challenge, has some vague ideas about plant reproduction that he has deduced from his little knowledge of animal reproduction, and is now trying to bait Rufus by making pretensions claims like "it couldn't possibly be that he is KNOWINGLY pretending ignorance to avoid the issue..." so that Rufus will (as usual) spell it out for him in language a third grade student could understand. Ironically, after this happens, he will drop the WHOLE DISCUSSION like a hot rock and NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, under ANY circumstances, or under pleading from a burning bush, EVER, come back to this thread and say "hey, sorry about that mess with the polyploidy guys.. I was wrong on that", because that would be like TORTURE for him.

Unless, unless? Unless he can find some point in Rufus' explanation of what polyploidy means, why we would need more information than is available to determine whehter it happened in the particular group of transitions that led from gymno- to angio-sperms, and why it doesn't matter ---- some point that he can "Nick-Pick", and howl that evolutionists are sooo stupid/liars/insane/dishonest/ that one of them said that polyploidy was duplication of an entire genome and another one said that polyploidy was a genome-duplication event, so why can't they get their stories straight???!!???

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. Nick Petreley, in the span of a few minutes, completely devastated the entire field of paleobotany. And all this without any education or field training in the subject.

We should be thankful to have someone of your obvious genius participating on this board.

 

[Jerry Smith]

And he presumes to "translate" a language he doesn't even speak...

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by npetreley
I have no idea why you can't see why this is the most laughable example of a transitional anyone could imagine.

Probably because you're only a computer programmer, and haven't made much of a case against it. Describing it as laughable, ain't going to cut it.

but surely you're not going to outright LIE and say I moved my goalposts are you? (Oh, yeah, you already did.) Or cannot Rufus T. Firefly even count, and does he not remember the condition HE noticed first?

Wow, when you put "lie" in big letters you must be right. Were you or were you not claiming that the specimen in question is not a transitional fossil? Furthermore, stooping so low as to refer to me as "Rufus T. Firefly," does not signal that you have much of an argument to stand on.

let alone present hard evidence that the transitionals weren't polyploids.

How does an organism being polyploid make it not a transitional?

Moving goalposts! You didn't even show up in the country where the stadium is located.

Actually, we have little clue as to what game you would like us to play. You have left the rules so vague and refused to clarify them that when we show up to play baseball like you ask, you go change and then say we were supposed to play cricket all along.

Why is it less so in animals? Or, put another way, why is it considered important in plants?

We actually aren’t quite sure why plants can tolerate it better than animals. Polyploidy ends up doubling (tetraploids), tripling, (hexaploids), etc. the amount of gene products. Animals apparently have certain genes that when increased like this end up causing the death of the organism. It is considered important in plants because we observe it happening all the time. Almost all of our farm crops are the result of polyploid events and hybridizations. We have also been able to look at the genomes of extant plant species and tell that polyploid events have taken place in the past. It appears to be almost ubiquitous in plant evolutionary history. It also appears that a polyploid event was important in the early history of vertebrate evolution.

How does one generally get polypolids in plants?

Polyploids are the result of the failure of chromosomes to split during cell division. This can occur many ways.

• A gamete is produced by mitosis instead of meiosis.
• A gamete is derived from somatic cells which went through an S-phase (DNA replication) without going through a corresponding cellular division.
• Failure of chromosomes to separate in the anaphase of meiosis.

This occasionally happens naturally, and in plants it usually produces more vigorous individuals, which are prized in agriculture. It can also be produced by treating plants with certain chemicals that destroy the spindle fibers which separate homologous chromosomes.

It might be helpful to us if you put some numbers on that -- what percentage of plants do you think are polyploid? What percentage of vertebrates are polyploid? Of the percentage of polyploids in plants, how would you break down the percentages according to the various method of gene duplication that occurs? You are studying this stuff, right?

Because no comprehensive study has been done, botanists can’t agree how many species of modern angiosperms have been produced by polyploid events. Estimates range from around 30% to 70%. The numbers are much lower in animals. Off the top of my head, I can only think of some species of frogs that have been generated by polyploid events. There is one really cool triploid (3n) toad species, in which the eggs are all (2n) and the sperm are all (1n).

More information:
http://www.ultranet.com/~jkimball/BiologyPages/P/Polyploidy.html
http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e12/12.htm
http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e37/love.htm
http://gened.emc.maricopa.edu/bio/bio181/BIOBK/BioBookEVOLII.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

And then, if that wasn't enough to slam the lid on evolution, Mr. Population Evolution Expert either hasn't learned enough about his own specialization to imagine why one would want to eliminate polyploids from this challenge. Or, nah, it couldn't possibly be that he is KNOWINGLY pretending ignorance to avoid the issue.

Or it couldn’t possibly be that Nick actually knows nothing about the significance of polyploid events in the natural history of plants, but pretends to know more than someone who actually studies genetics. I suspect that it is because he knows that there are well know speciation events involving polyploidy, but wants to construct his challenge in such a way that they can’t be used and won’t defend this restriction. His challenge amounts to asking one to show the evolution of tetrapods without using animals with four legs. I find it rather funny that a computer programmer is trying to assert that he knows more about genetics than a geneticist.

Now if I am mistaken, and it is so plainly obvious, then it wouldn’t be that hard for you to explain why lineages that involve polyploidy are not allowed in your challenge.

In other words, put up or shut up.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Mr. Poplulation Evolution Know-It-All - who gains his education in evolution by the harrassing those who have bothered to take notes in lecture until they break down and spell it out for him - cannot be bothered to explain why his challenge requires that we prove there was no polyploidy involved in the lineage of a transitional fossil. Or, nah, it couldn't be possible that he DOESN'T HAVE THE VAGUEST NOTION why that would be a reasonable crieterion for his challenge, has some vague ideas about plant reproduction that he has deduced from his little knowledge of animal reproduction, and is now trying to bait Rufus by making pretensions claims like "it couldn't possibly be that he is KNOWINGLY pretending ignorance to avoid the issue..." so that Rufus will (as usual) spell it out for him in language a third grade student could understand. Ironically, after this happens, he will drop the WHOLE DISCUSSION like a hot rock and NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, under ANY circumstances, or under pleading from a burning bush, EVER, come back to this thread and say "hey, sorry about that mess with the polyploidy guys.. I was wrong on that", because that would be like TORTURE for him.

Rufus, it looks like you have fulfilled the first part of my prophecy. Now we can wait and see whether the second part will be falsified.....

 

[Jerry Smith]

*whistles tunelessly*

*waits patiently for explanation of why polyploids must not only not be postulated, but must provably be absent from a transitional series*

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Jerry! Stop that infernal whistling! You're driving me crazy!

Twiddle your thumbs or something silent like that.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Is it me, or am I hearing crickets?