new species of Senecio from York, England, is described and named as Senecio eboracensis. Evidence is reviewed that this fully fertile, tetraploid species (2n = 40), which was first discovered in 1979, is a hybrid
product of S.[enecio] vulgaris (2n = 40) and S.[enecio] squalidus (2n = 20), and is distinct from another tetraploid hybrid product, the stabilized introgressant, S. vulgaris var. hibernicus, and also from the hexaploid hybrid product, S. cambrensis. Other studies [??????]have shown that S.[enecio] eboracensis is reproductively isolated from its parents due toa high level of selfing, phenological separation, sterility of products of back crosses to S. squalidus and
reduced fertility of products of back-crosses to S. vulgaris. The morphological similarity of S. eboracensis to partially fertile, intermediate hybrid plants collected from other locations in the British Isles is discussed, and would indicate that it could arise polytopically following hybridisation between the two parent species. However, other such intermediate hybrid products do not appear to have persisted at their site of origin.
Thank you for useful post, GarzaUK! I have to admit that I made wrong statements and I must make two major corrections in my statements induced by the facts of your post.
First of all I was wrong when I said
‘Would it be possible for a fanatical evolutionist to publish such an article, theoretically yes, there are less than a few which call the observation evolution, while it is clear that there is no evolution, I found them in evolution only devoted publications. They are absolutely exclusion.”
I must say now:
Would it be possible for a fanatical evolutionist to publish such an article, yes, of course, there are quite a few which call an observation evolution, while it is clear that there is no evolution, I found them in evolution only devoted publications. But they are quite an exclusion.”
I will get to the second correction…
‘’taking the overall we consider York radiate groundsel should be described as a new specie’’…. and give it name
‘’Senecio eboracensis’’ instead of York radiate groundsel
OK. The article is devoted only to the defense of the opinion of the authors to call York radiate groundsel ‘’Senecio eboracensis’’ and a new spicie. Nobody has thought about that before, science need evolutionists to make an article.
Let’s take a look at what is going on:
‘’hybernicus and ‘York radiate groundsel’’ generate highly sterile progeny with S.squalidus.’’ [its parent]
Let me understand, - it does generate progeny or it does not. Do I understand English correctly - A genetic descendant or offspring [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progeny]Progeny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] ?. Somebody has to explain it to me. It is sterile or it is highly sterile?
‘’The second generation offspring of crosses between York radiate groundsel and Senecio vulgarus exhibit a significant reduction in seed set. ''
You just said that York radiate groundsel does not cross with S. vulgarus. Now you say it does. Somebody pinch me – it does or it does not?. Somebody has to explain it to me
York radiate groundsel is a hybrid, the parents are hybrids and their names are S.squalidus and S. vulgaris. And the article talks about
the second generation offspring of crosses between York radiate groundsel and S. vulgarus, and says they do not produce offspring on the same page.
Even if to take that I don’t understand English, the article proves that evolutionists don’t understand what is an experiment and observation in science. Taking a limited sample from the wild and putting it under the condition that wouldn’t allow it to breed, rather than under all possible conditions, and claim that it does not breed is not how experiments are conducted. Besides of that physiology of plants is very different from physiology of life. I don’t have a pdf converter to quote easy but differences in phenology mentioned are like a woman has certain periods when it cannot get pregnant from a man and limiting experiment to this period and claiming that women do not get pregnant from men is not quite scientific.
It would be a must for a real researcher to attempt to cross the Yorker with other Senecios and show that the offspring do not occur and do not cross with his parents, that things do not come on their circle. From the descriptions in the article it is clear that it is not a case, but the opposite is true. Thus, even if the article was not totally bogus claiming totally opposite things on the same page, we see that Senecios are divided into different species by authors totally frivolously, that in all of we have one and only one specie Senecio with different strains and the Yorker quite easily and joyfully mates with other Senecios. Anyone with common sense would see that Senecios are remaining to be Senecios, all of them.
This is a good example how evolutionists often try to manipulate with the uncertain definition of species to fit it to their beliefs. It is not the first and it is not the last example it is very common. But as E.coli bacteria remain e.coli bacteria in all experiments in the same way Senecio remain Senecio in this bogus paper. And BTW the article says that the “’new specie” reproduces with its parents and cousins and brothers. Let me quote from the article:
‘’hybernicus and ‘York radiate groundsel’’[new spicie] generate … progeny with S.squalidus.’’[parent]
‘’The second generation offspring of crosses between York radiate groundsel [new spicie]
and Senecio vulgarus [parent]
exhibit’’You don’t believe me? Click on the link and read the article. I couldn’t believe my eyes, too.
The difficulties of coping pasting from pdf. make me stop at this there is more to quote but the above is sufficient.
Hybrids are known as a dead way, but not a way of evolution. Also it is known that the conclusion that hybrids cannot mate with their parents may be quite premature like the widely spread belief caused by limited representation in experiments:
‘’Several female mules have produced offspring when mated with a purebred horse or donkey.[7] Since 1527 there have been more than 60 documented cases of foals born to female mules around the world.
There are reports that a mule in China produced a foal in 1984.[8][9]
In Morocco, in early 2002, a mare mule produced a rare foal.[7]
In 2007 a mule named Kate gave birth to a mule son in Colorado.[10][11] Blood and hair samples were tested verifying that the mother was a mule and the colt was indeed her offspring.’’
I am sorry, scientists, you've really made me cry, but I am afraid to call this particular hybrid which is a product of other hybrids a new specie and evidence for evolution would be somewhat premature if not totally bogus.
The second correction is that I completely forgot about hybrids, and this article has reminded me how such a gap of memory can lead to major misrepresentation of theory of evolution in some of my statements.
This article tries to prove the major positions of evolution outlined in
The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication where Darwin polishes and expands his Origins and, – contrary to what I said wrongly, - puts evolution in practical use. This fundumantal 2 volume work of Darwin is the root from which the article takes its origins.
If to imagine that the plant has evolved into a new specie in the wild, by itslef, with no human intevention, no specially made enviroment within such a short period of time of a few decades due to hybridisation, then it is unarguably clear that the new hybridised specie will produce another new spicie hybrid under the human design and intelligently induced conditions within a few years. Thus evolutionists are the only scientists who can make the weed turn into a plant bringing nice jucy berries for free along the roads we walk, which is no different from statements of Obama’s compaign. This is the practical use of science of evolution I missed when I was stating that evolution had no practical use. The article proves that all evolutionists need is their own Obama from evolution or to sell these berries to Obama. This practical use of the article and the theory of evolution explained in
The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication has proven to be working:
Michurin was a Russian scientist who worked during the late-1800s to improve and create new varieties of plants and introduce them to areas of severe climate in Russia (Bakharev 6). His principle that “we cannot wait for favours from Nature” and that instead, “we must wrest them from her,” was based on his interpretation that Marxist dialectical materialism taught “how to actively influence Nature and how to change it” (Bakharev 6-8). The revival of his theories in the mid-1900s was tied to the fate of Trofim Denisovich Lysenko.
Lysenko claimed that plants could be 'educated' so that the changed germination time became heritable after several generations of vernalization…
Lysenko promised …that new strains of wheat and other crops with desirable traits could be produced within 3 years…
Lysenko was put in charge of the Academy of Agricultural Sciences of the Soviet Union and made responsible for ending the propagation of "harmful" ideas among Soviet scientists. Lysenko served this purpose by causing the expulsion, imprisonment, and death of hundreds of scientists and eliminating all study and research involving Mendelian genetics throughout the Soviet Union.
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Undergrowth-Science-Delusion-Self-Deception-Frailty/dp/0198507070]Amazon.com: The Undergrowth of Science: Delusion, Self-Deception and Human Frailty: Walter Gratzer: Books[/ame]
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Lysenko-Effect-Politics-Science/dp/1591022622]Amazon.com: The Lysenko Effect: The Politics Of Science: Nils Roll-Hansen: Books[/ame]
I remember I have 2 posts unanswered, I will, but first I had to make sure that it is clear to everyone that evolutionists are lying in their propaganda that speciation has been observed, as well as why do they have to do so.
