I'm a catholic for an involuntary action performed on me as a baby?
Why your Religion is False?
-
-
i drove past a kkk convention once, does that make me a klansmen
-
Yes, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
-
you're going to be the first one i hang
-
Didn't really want to get into a large discussion, but I thought I should respond in turn.
[hide]@Jakarta:
Oh so your using the tired "well he was doing it wrong so he's not one" angle.
No, If anything I'm using the "he wasn't doing it at all so what's the point in bringing this up" angle.
Nobody was talking about how good or bad of a christian he was, which is the only context in which what you're attempting would work.
All I questioned was your comment about how he didn't abandon that "faith" later on in life. While I am also indirectly supporting the secularist example (Hitler), it really isn't my intention here. In any case, you have to define your terms, else this just becomes a semantics debate. The term Christian, first appearing in the book of Acts, came from the Greek transcription "christianos". Etymology aside, it comes down to "follower of Christ". Hitler was not this.
A belief system isn't a matter of genetics.
I'm not suggesting he was born Christian. That's preposterous. I'm just saying his public words on the matter do not make him whatever he says he is. I've done some experiments with my brother, who is a Microbiologist, and I love science. Can I call myself a scientist? If I did, would that make it so?
Cite these "stuffs".
Everything would come from the same source. Since you dismiss it, I am at a loss of further "stuffs" to cite. Though it was also confirmed by Speer, it remains second- and third hand information, leaving it in the air as anything credible. Though again, I really don't know that much on this matter, and am merely recalling information from a research paper I did back in high school. Supported by a small amount of (additional) research to refresh my memory, of course.
Even therein how can we tell those are anti-christian and not just anti-organized religion? Look at the way it has him talking about Jesus.
Again, we would need to define terms here. That aside, Hitler accuses the Apostle Paul of being the reason Jesus is falsified in the Bible, in addition to believing Jesus is not a Jew. If he denies such a large and imperative portion of the Bible, which would then include the prophesies of Jesus as the Messiah, how then can he even begin to claim he is a Christian? In fact, without that section of the Bible, Christianity wouldn't even work, let alone exist. Statements such as "my Lord and Savior" are moot.
He even refers to Judaism as Christianity in this, as in prior to Jesus.
Well, it isn't. If we are discussing this from a Christian perspective, which we should as the content is in regards to Hitler's faith, then Jesus' ancestry comes from Mary alone (a Jew), who is descendant from King David and the tribe of Judah. The Jewish leaders at the time were accused of being hypocrites and thieves by Jesus, who was indirectly claiming to be the Messiah, so of course they hated him. They were expecting the Messiah to be a great leader, much like Hitler himself believes Jesus to be, and were outraged by his teachings and actions. Jesus broke all bonds, fulfilled all prophesy, and essentially destroyed the religious practices of the Jews. Judaism is not Christianity. (Again, not exactly something I consider myself to be an expert on).
So going back to the beginning, he might claim one thing openly and publicly, but that does not make him so. Since his words from a book written in prison cannot exactly be trusted, his actions should be a more clear and determining factor here. Though I must reiterate that I do not know enough on the matter (nor am I attempting) to make the claim that he is a secularist, I simply do not see how it is possible for him to be anything close to a Christian.
Hitler was as Christian as any other so called believer.
Going to church every week does not make you a Christian. Praying does not make you a Christian. Saying you are a Christian does not make you a Christian. A friend of mine claims to be a Christian, but absolutely nothing in his life reflects such a proclamation. Clearly anyone would refute or disregard his claim if they knew this. In fact, they do, and they do. He might be Christian in name, meaning he claims to be one, but he is not, in fact, a Christian. Again, defining terms here, 'follower of Christ'.
If your evidence against it is that he has a different perspective of the Bible than what you or many others well that is just too bad, and no justification at all.
It's not simply different perspective; he denies large portions of scripture, his actions are not based on anything Biblical, and most of the evidence supporting the claim that he is Christian comes from his earlier years where it could simply be propaganda to a largely Christian/Catholic nation. Though, much like Hitler, most could very likely only be Christian in name.
I assume you probably claim to be Christian based on your defense and I bet I could find any number of things that would disqualify you or anyone else as a good Christian in some groups eyes.
While this is irrelevant, yes, I am a Christian. "Good" is a relative term though. As a human, I am not without fault. As a Christian, I am not without fault. Despite this, while I am in no way perfect, my words do match my actions.
[hide]The entire thing is subjective and changes from region to region from time to time. If your evidence is that he said bad things about Christianity well so did Mother Teresa and she is on the fast track to sainthood. It just goes to my point that it is entirely subjective and if we accept anyone who says that they are Christian as Christian than we must accept the fact the Hitler was Christian. If you want cites I will provide them but I was running long and didn't want to hurt your preconceived notions to much as I do respect your posts on one piece lore.[/hide]
Define "we" and define "Christian". As I have already defined "Christian", I will define "we" as referring to said group. "We" Christians do no "accept" anyone who says that they are Christian. Note that I am not saying that actions determine who and what you are, I am only saying that a single statement does not determine who and what you are.
@Gon:
Although he did a poor job of illustrating it I think the point brennen.exe is trying to make here is that what a person claims to believe isn't necessarily what he truly believes. Hitler may have claimed to be a Christian but that may have just been a ploy for him to justify his actions and manipulate others.
Wait, how did I do a poor job illustrating it when your 'clearing things up' is pretty much what I just said…? "Just because someone claims they are something, doesn't make it so." and "Simply put, he was using the Bible and the religious practices of the nation to fuel his own belief's and actions."
@Gon:
Of course there is no real way of proving this because all we have to go on are his own claims but it's still something to consider.
Of course. It can be suggested though, and with good reason.
We only really know Hitler through Mien Kampf and through his speeches, and neither of these are one hundred percent credible because they were both done for a giant propaganda campaign. As you say Mien Kampf does contain elements that suggest Hitler was Christian but you have to remember that it was created to better help the German people understand him for the 1928 election. I.E it was full of propaganda and thus cannot be completely trusted as a reference source into Hitler's head.
Exactly. Not to mention he was under the influence of his stay in prison, as well as the years that led up to that imprisonment.[/hide]
-
A bit off topic but I'm just gonna mention that I dont believe in this "born with a religion" bullshit. Everyone who has ever lived was born agnostic and then decides what they want to follow depending on thier own experiences. There is nothing to suggest otherwise.
I didn't mean that Hitler literally started worshipping Jesus Christ as soon as he popped out of his mom's vagina. I was just trying to say that he was raised as a Christian.
I'm sorry if that brought up confusion.
-
God and his associates determine who is Christian and who is not in the afterlife. Even if you don't go to church but are open to Jesus and his Gospel, you might be Christian.
Presenting, a story of Hitler in Hell
[hide]
So Hitler, like all evil-doers, claims he is Christian, but once he crosses the portal to Heaven, he finds himself in his reign again, and again he is losing, and his subordinates are incompetent.He dies, and then he awakes to find that he is the dictator of Germany, he is fighting the war, and he is losing, and his subordinates are absolutely retarded, also no one likes his paintings.
Then he dies, and comes back, and finds that he has dominatrices for concubines, he is der Führer, he is losing, his subordinates ridicule him like cretins. At least people like his paintings; they like to compare them to their own young children's first crayon or finger paint drawings.
He dies, and then awakes to find that he is married to a harem, of burly hairy obese homosexual men (some of them have vaginas, but they are still fat hairy gross and ugly). He has no subordinates, only monkeys that fling poop at him. His paintings are used as floor matting, napkins, and cheap toilet paper.
He dies, and awakes to find that he has no arms or legs, and his mouth is an anus. He lives as an exhibit in a freak show, until some idiots threw him into a pit of mutant spiked tentacle monsters.
He awakes, and finds that he is lichen on a rock that is near a horribly polluted river with noxious gas. He slowly dies, over a thousand years.
Then he dies, and is Satan's bitch. He is fed Satan's caustic vomit and breathes his putrid toxic breath. He has a frail human body, and any movement in his body is agonizingly painful. His own heartbeats give sharp pain. All body parts have cancerous edema with pockets of acid that burst randomly, and they are regenerating.
After a while, his soul is wrenched out of punishment for a momentary apology to God. Then God decides whether he gets a second chance, albeit a really crappy one, at life to atone for his sins, or he gets put back into torment.
This time, the torment is not bodily at all. It's a cosmic limbo of all painful feelings and sensations circulating through him. They pour endlessly from all Black Holes.[/hide]
-
Wait, how did I do a poor job illustrating it when your 'clearing things up' is pretty much what I just said…? "Just because someone claims they are something, doesn't make it so." and "Simply put, he was using the Bible and the religious practices of the nation to fuel his own belief's and actions."
Nothing personal but I just thought the examples you gave made it seem like you were referring to Hitler's hypocrisy (which wouldn't necessarily indicate his beliefs) canceling out his Christian status or something and that's the aspect of your post people were focusing on.
-
I'm a catholic for an involuntary action performed on me as a baby?
And, if you're REALLY good, the mormons will involuntarily convert you to their side after death! Also, if you're black, they'll convert you to white.
-
Religious people, drop it.
Incontrovertable proof that no gods exist was just found.
-
Religious people, drop it.
Incontrovertable proof that no gods exist was just found.
Actually, that just proves that God is sadistic. I have the feeling he created sentient life forms only to have them struggle for ages until they die a fiery death.
-
Except for those he finds hilarious, who get to hang with him for eternity.
-
Except for those he finds hilarious, who get to hang with him for eternity.
Naw. He drops them when he's bored. They can only have so much creative thinking power. The jokes on them.
-
BUT, just to mess with us, he takes random people out of Hell, leads them along to let them think they're getting a second chance, and then kicks them back in.
-
@Gon:
Nothing personal but I just thought the examples you gave made it seem like you were referring to Hitler's hypocrisy (which wouldn't necessarily indicate his beliefs) canceling out his Christian status or something and that's the aspect of your post people were focusing on.
Ahh, no worries, I didn't take it personal. I just thought maybe you misunderstood what I was saying. I have to admit the way you phrased was much more clear. Ultimately though, that's what I meant.
-
No, If anything I'm using the "he wasn't doing it at all so what's the point in bringing this up" angle.
Doing what? Not going to church on sunday? Not praying toward Mecca?
All I questioned was your comment about how he didn't abandon that "faith" later on in life. While I am also indirectly supporting the secularist example (Hitler), it really isn't my intention here. In any case, you have to define your terms, else this just becomes a semantics debate. The term Christian, first appearing in the book of Acts, came from the Greek transcription "christianos". Etymology aside, it comes down to "follower of Christ". Hitler was not this.
Which you have yet to demonstrate in any way shape or form. Even the questionable book has him goofily angling Jesus into being some anti-jew aryan hero.
I'm not suggesting he was born Christian. That's preposterous. I'm just saying his public words on the matter do not make him whatever he says he is. I've done some experiments with my brother, who is a Microbiologist, and I love science. Can I call myself a scientist? If I did, would that make it so?
If anything his public words are the thing not on your side. Table Talk was private words (allegedly).
gain, we would need to define terms here. That aside, Hitler accuses the Apostle Paul of being the reason Jesus is falsified in the Bible, in addition to believing Jesus is not a Jew.
This does not make him not a follower of christ anymore then does say the Mormon version of Christianity.
If he denies such a large and imperative portion of the Bible, which would then include the prophesies of Jesus as the Messiah, how then can he even begin to claim he is a Christian?
He argued the bible is skewed (jewed?), not that it's entirely a lie.
Well, it isn't. If we are discussing this from a Christian perspective, which we should as the content is in regards to Hitler's faith, then Jesus' ancestry comes from Mary alone (a Jew), who is descendant from King David and the tribe of Judah. The Jewish leaders at the time were accused of being hypocrites and thieves by Jesus, who was indirectly claiming to be the Messiah, so of course they hated him. They were expecting the Messiah to be a great leader, much like Hitler himself believes Jesus to be, and were outraged by his teachings and actions. Jesus broke all bonds, fulfilled all prophesy, and essentially destroyed the religious practices of the Jews. Judaism is not Christianity. (Again, not exactly something I consider myself to be an expert on).
I'm just saying when Hitler is throwing the term around in Table Talk, it would be foolish to take the word at basic meaning. Especially given the way he twists everything into fitting his world view.
So going back to the beginning, he might claim one thing openly and publicly, but that does not make him so. Since his words from a book written in prison cannot exactly be trusted, his actions should be a more clear and determining factor here.
His actions are not unlike some of the popes throughout history, yet they were certainly christian.
-
I'm a catholic for an involuntary action performed on me as a baby?
Well there isn't much to your background that you have control over.
-
on my next state test im putting "catholic" down as my ethnicity
-
Name is a better comparison.
-
Religious people, drop it.
Incontrovertable proof that no gods exist was just found.
Little is know about the title but Chocobos are confirmed for the game.
…That is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever read in my life.
Congratulations Greg, you just destroyed my soul.
-
Ok, I'm going to come right out and ask, why is online FF14 with Chocobos automatically a bad thing? Admittedly, this is coming from a FF12 fan who wouldn't get along with real Final Fantatics.
-
Ok, I'm going to come right out and ask, why is online FF14 with Chocobos automatically a bad thing?
I'm not saying having Chocobos in it makes it stupid, I'm saying reporting that fact is fucking stupid because chocobos have been in every single Final Fantasy game in the last 20 years.
It's like saying GTA 5, coming out in 2010. There will be guns in it.
-
So this "proof against the existance of a (merciful) god" isn't directed at the developers, but that website?
-
I wasn't the one who said that…
-
I know. That last post was directed at Greg anyway.
-
Little is know about the title but Chocobos are confirmed for the game.
That was sarcasm.
Now all that's left for Square-Enix is to gorge themselves to death on the luxurious use of their fame to gain money.
By the way, God made the universe for both beneficent and malignant reasons. If sentient beings conquer nature and the universe, God makes friends and a fine legacy. If they fail, God gets to laugh hard.
-
By the way, God made the universe for both beneficent and malignant reasons. If sentient beings conquer nature and the universe, God makes friends and a fine legacy. If they fail, God gets to laugh hard.
So, no matter what happens, God is an asshole, right?
-
- Why can't religion know when and where to keep its nose out of things? Specifically, science and the operation of the state.
A shame. Finally something shows up in this thread that I agree with, and nobody else talks about it.
By all means, keep on trying to convince each other why Hitler was an evil person.
-
So the religion tries to control the state? Do you have examples taken from the bible where it was stated? I think you want to say some religious people are trying to do that. Not the religion itself.
-
A shame. Finally something shows up in this thread that I agree with, and nobody else talks about it.
Yeah, what were we thinking not discussing whatever you agree with.
Sorry random asshole. -
Nope, never said it'll "control" the state.
I was mostly referring to the discussion of religion interfering with science through creationism and it's disinformation. Like I said, probably a more productive topic of discussion compared to "Hitler was evil because blank".
-
Nope, never said it'll "control" the state.
I was mostly referring to the discussion of religion interfering with science through creationism and it's disinformation. Like I said, probably a more productive topic of discussion compared to "Hitler was evil because blank".
creationism cracks me up
[dddduuuhh] a watch has a designer so the universe must have one too [/dddduuuhh]
-
creationism cracks me up
[dddduuuhh] a watch has a designer so the universe must have one too [/dddduuuhh]
In retrospect, evolution is just as retarded.
DURRR HURH URR LOOKIT DEH FISHIE BECAIM A MONKEY BECAIM A MAAN DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUR AND DATY LIZARD BECAIM A BIRDIE DID WEEEE??
-
Nope, never said it'll "control" the state.
I was mostly referring to the discussion of religion interfering with science through creationism and it's disinformation. Like I said, probably a more productive topic of discussion compared to "Hitler was evil because blank".
This would be a super point if that was what we were talking about.
-
In retrospect, evolution is just as retarded.
DURRR HURH URR LOOKIT DEH FISHIE BECAIM A MONKEY BECAIM A MAAN DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUR AND DATY LIZARD BECAIM A BIRDIE DID WEEEE??
This post is actually stupid enough to make me defend Herakles.
Do you realize how bad that makes it? -
In retrospect, evolution is just as retarded.
DURRR HURH URR LOOKIT DEH FISHIE BECAIM A MONKEY BECAIM A MAAN DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUR AND DATY LIZARD BECAIM A BIRDIE DID WEEEE??
yeah thats exactly what happens and it happens in 2 second intervals and stuff. I see you know a lot about this topic.
-
yeah it happens in 2 second intervals and stuff. I see you know a lot about this topic.
I don't know what made you come crawling back, maybe a bigger meaner animal on your side (MB.) gave you totally unwarranted courage?
-
conspiracynut pissed me off
-
yeah thats exactly what happens and it happens in 2 second intervals and stuff. I see you know a lot about this topic.
Well, every single article on evolution I have read essentially said that we came from either monkeys, fish, bacteria, or all three. You can't honestly say that sounds logical.
This post is actually stupid enough to make me defend Herakles.
Do you realize how bad that makes it?Hey, it's just as bad as the actual concept of evolution.
-
Well, every single article on evolution I have read essentially said that we came from either monkeys, fish, bacteria, or all three. You can't honestly say that sounds logical.
You have no idea what logic is, involves, or concerns. Stop posting about it.
Hey, it's just as bad as the actual concept of evolution.
Physical adaptation over time?!??? GIGGLE SNORT GUFFAW
-
So this "proof against the existance of a (merciful) god" isn't directed at the developers, but that website?
Developers.
Well, every single article on evolution I have read essentially said that we came from either monkeys, fish, bacteria, or all three. You can't honestly say that sounds logical.
Hold up.
I call myself Christian despite not believing in the titular figure or anything he supposedly did.
That is why I rush in like a furious harpy on the rag whenever someone badmouthes religion just because they read some PUTRID SHIT online or heard some PUTRID SHIT on television and think it's fact and that all people of a religion have EXACTLY the same ideas.
However, I don't tolerate the reverse either.
Evolution makes perfect fucking sense.
You don't even have to believe in it to simply agree that it makes sense.
There are volumes of [batshit insane] fundametalist texts that try to refute the evidence of evolution but it's really like pissing into the wind. The deeper they dig, the dumber they look from the aspect of science.
I simply cannot comprehend how anyone can believe we were created just like that but refute the idea that we changed slowly over HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS DURING WHICH TIME THE FACE OF THE EARTH ACTUALLY CHANGED WHILE MOVING AT THE RATE YOUR FINGERNAILS GROW IN A YEAR.
I personally think it's fucking CRAZY to believe Old Testament stuff BUT
If you want to believe it…that's your thing. However, at the very least, don't go calling other people's ideas illogical when they are the definition of logical. At least more so than a higher being willed us into existence.
Now, logical has balls to do with it if you're a fundamentalist and...I guess I respect that so I can't very well insult you as long as you're not injuring others with your beliefs, and that's not to say it's wrong, it just requires faith. Faith that I certainly don't have. Not like I'm some super being that's been around for millions of years to comment on what I've seen, but the real evidence for the progression of life as we know it through evolution is OVERWHELMING.
-
You have no idea what logic is, involves, or concerns. Stop posting about it.
Neither do you, but that's not stopping you.
Physical adaptation over time?!??? GIGGLE SNORT GUFFAW
We're talking about a fish, with a complete system of body parts necessary to be a fish, gradually morphing into a human being, with a complete system of body parts necessary to be a fish + an intellect? Are you serious?
First off, a fish has no reason to become a human being. As long as there is water and food in the water, why should it bother with being anything other than a fish?
Second, look at the respiratory and propulsion systems of a fish. If a fish was supposed to "crawl onto land", like the evolutionists say that they did, they would most likely die because there is no water to strain oxygen out of. However, if there was the ridiculously slim chance that a fish could breathe on land, take a good look at a fish's fins. Definitely not fit for locomotion on land. They wouldn't be able to catch anything edible, and would die of starvation.
Third, when the hell is a fish supposed to develop an intellect? It's physically impossible for a fish's brain to "gradually adapt" into something that can suddenly develop thoughts. There's no proof of it or evolution anywhere. There's no bloody proof. The theory of evolution will always remain just that - a theory, with no evidence to back it up.
-
Neither do you, but that's not stopping you.
So by saying "neither" you admit to not knowing, but then precede to say that I don't, regardless of the fact that you just took away your credibility to say whether you know if I do or not.
We're talking about a fish, with a complete system of body parts necessary to be a fish, gradually morphing into a human being, with a complete system of body parts necessary to be a fish + an intellect? Are you serious?
If "thats silly!!" is your rationale for not buying a theory then I rest my case about you stopping the talking thing.
First off, a fish has no reason to become a human being.
"derpa derpa derpa why cant i seem to grasp this theory?"
As long as there is water and food in the water, why should it bother with being anything other than a fish?
Let me get this straight, you think evolution is a conscious choice?
Second, look at the respiratory and propulsion systems of a fish. If a fish was supposed to "crawl onto land", like the evolutionists say that they did, they would most likely die because there is no water to strain oxygen out of.
However, if there was the ridiculously slim chance that a fish could breathe on land, take a good look at a fish's fins. Definitely not fit for locomotion on land. They wouldn't be able to catch anything edible, and would die of starvation.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_fish
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik_roseaeI like how you think plain fish just plopped onto land without adapting towards that ability in the first place.
Remind me why you're still talking about this subject you know nothing about?Third, when the hell is a fish supposed to develop an intellect?
Why the hell are you talking about fish developing intellect? What do you even mean by intellect?
It's physically impossible for a fish's brain to "gradually adapt" into something that can suddenly develop thoughts.
By the scientific standard of "cuz i said so" or the classic "thats just silly!"?
There's no proof of it or evolution anywhere. There's no bloody proof. The theory of evolution will always remain just that - a theory, with no evidence to back it up.
Evolution inarguably exists. You've just drawn a line in the sand in regards to speciation or macro-evolution, which has been observed in plants already.
If you have no clue what your going on about, save us from your half-understood flailing.
-
Captain Hypersock revealed that he absolutely doesn't know what evolution is!
-
Captain Hypersock revealed that he absolutely doesn't know what evolution is!
You can't know anything about that which does not exist. If evolution exists, please prove it. With undeniable evidence. And while you're at it, please educate me on the wonderful theory of fish men.
And Jakarta, thanks for the laughs you gave me.
-
You can't know anything about that which does not exist.
Oh my god you dumb bastard, are you even paying attention.
If evolution exists, please prove it. With undeniable evidence.
Are you denying adaptation, oh my fucking god. Are you home-schooled.
I mean your not even asking for macro-evolution or anything. You're straight up "DRR PROVE GENETIC CHANGES OCCUR FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION". That's some superhuman buffoonery.
Here's the plant speciation data.
! 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.
5.1.1.2 Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)
! Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.
5.1.1.3 Tragopogon
! Owenby (1950) demonstrated that two species in this genus were produced by polyploidization from hybrids. He showed that Tragopogon miscellus found in a colony in Moscow, Idaho was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. pratensis. He also showed that T. mirus found in a colony near Pullman, Washington was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. porrifolius. Evidence from chloroplast DNA suggests that T. mirus has originated independently by hybridization in eastern Washington and western Idaho at least three times (Soltis and Soltis 1989). The same study also shows multiple origins for T. micellus.
5.1.1.4 Raphanobrassica
! The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage.
5.1.1.5 Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)
! A species of hemp nettle, Galeopsis tetrahit, was hypothesized to be the result of a natural hybridization of two other species, G. pubescens and G. speciosa (Muntzing 1932). The two species were crossed. The hybrids matched G. tetrahit in both visible features and chromosome morphology.
5.1.1.6 Madia citrigracilis
! Along similar lines, Clausen et al. (1945) hypothesized that Madia citrigracilis was a hexaploid hybrid of M. gracilis and M. citriodora As evidence they noted that the species have gametic chromosome numbers of n = 24, 16 and 8 respectively. Crossing M. gracilis and M. citriodora resulted in a highly sterile triploid with n = 24. The chromosomes formed almost no bivalents during meiosis. Artificially doubling the chromosome number using colchecine produced a hexaploid hybrid which closely resembled M. citrigracilis and was fertile.
5.1.1.7 Brassica
! Frandsen (1943, 1947) was able to do this same sort of recreation of species in the genus Brassica (cabbage, etc.). His experiments showed that B. carinata (n = 17) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra (n = 8) and B. oleracea, B. juncea (n = 18) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra and B. campestris (n = 10), and B. napus (n = 19) may be recreated by hybridizing B. oleracea and B. campestris.
5.1.1.8 Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)
! Rabe and Haufler (1992) found a naturally occurring diploid sporophyte of maidenhair fern which produced unreduced (2N) spores. These spores resulted from a failure of the paired chromosomes to dissociate during the first division of meiosis. The spores germinated normally and grew into diploid gametophytes. These did not appear to produce antheridia. Nonetheless, a subsequent generation of tetraploid sporophytes was produced. When grown in the lab, the tetraploid sporophytes appear to be less vigorous than the normal diploid sporophytes. The 4N individuals were found near Baldwin City, Kansas.
5.1.1.9 Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)
! Woodsia abbeae was described as a hybrid of W. cathcariana and W. ilvensis (Butters 1941). Plants of this hybrid normally produce abortive sporangia containing inviable spores. In 1944 Butters found a W. abbeae plant near Grand Portage, Minn. that had one fertile frond (Butters and Tryon 1948). The apical portion of this frond had fertile sporangia. Spores from this frond germinated and grew into prothallia. About six months after germination sporophytes were produced. They survived for about one year. Based on cytological evidence, Butters and Tryon concluded that the frond that produced the viable spores had gone tetraploid. They made no statement as to whether the sporophytes grown produced viable spores.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
And while you're at it, please educate me on the wonderful theory of fish men.
What are you talking about now?
And Jakarta, thanks for the laughs you gave me.
This is the text form of nervous laughter.
-
They're just breeding plants to make new species. That's not evolution. Show me data that proves a plant can "adapt" into a different type of plant that doesn't involve forced pollination courtesy of lulz-worthy scientists, and then maybe I might think there's some logic in your theory of evolution.
-
They're just breeding plants to make new species. That's not evolution. Show me data that proves a plant can "adapt" into a different type of plant that doesn't involve forced pollination courtesy of lulz-worthy scientists, and then maybe I might think there's some logic in your theory of evolution.
Are you saying organisms can't mutate?
-
Are you saying organisms can't mutate?
Sure, they can mutate. Everything mutates on occasion. Have you seen two-headed snakes? It's a mutation.
Mutations, however, are never beneficial. How is it beneficial for a cow to have 5 legs?
-
Sure, they can mutate. Everything mutates on occasion. Have you seen two-headed snakes? It's a mutation.
Mutations, however, are never beneficial. How is it beneficial for a cow to have 5 legs?
Do you even understand what mutation is? It's not just when you get some freak-show animal, it can be any kind of change in dna from generation to generation. If the change is beneficial, then the organism has a higher chance of living long enough to pass on its changes to the next generation, and so on. That's evolution.
You don't know enough to debate this subject.