Evidence for the Cucurbit family as a kind?

Apparently, a cantelope and a cucumber have crossed for a new Cucurbit. Is this evidence the Cucurbit family is one kind? shortened linkNote for admins: This is posted for interest as much as debate. Obviously, evos say this is evidence of a common ancestor. That is what YECers say too, except they say the common ancestor is a kind.It's interesting that such different shapes and texture can be produced from different vegetables (or is this a fruit?).Also, note: This reverting back is interesting. That strikes me as a conservative, anti-evo mechanism or process that hinders new species developing. Maybe JAD is right, and that once species contained the inherent ability to breed many different forms, but that they have run their course. Certainly, we see here the ability initially to breed a whole new fruit?, but the process tends to revert backwards.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by AdminJar, : shorten link

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Both cucumbers and cantelopes are fruit, containing as they do seeds. In polyploid organisms? What, they never did Purnett squares in your high school biology?It's not that weird. It's not an emerging "anti-evo mechanism." It's a natural consequence of organisms having multiple copies of each of their chromosomes - a fact known since Mendel's time.

Hmm. It strikes me as a classic bit of Mendelian genetics.And I just can't see pickling a canteloupe and eating it on my hamburger, anyway.

I thought they were all up into melon pickles and stuff down in Texas.

Yea, which is why a scientist like JAD and his sources say that Mendelian genetics demonstrates that DNA cannot be the source of evolutionary development outside of producing varities.

His sources don't actually say that, despite what he says. He's out on his own in regards to his position - there's no experimental or observational support whatsoever.DNA is no obstacle to evolution. Sexual reproduction in diploid organisms is no obstacle to reproduction. The reversion to wild-type effect you find so significant is fairly easily overcome by simple selection in the F2 generations. Reversion doesn't affect all individuals, which is trivially demonstrated in Mendelian genetics.

Well, no one refuted him. That suggests to me his sources do say what he says.

Well, anytime someone trys to ask him specific questions about his hypothesis, he gets defesnive and evades, or goes into a rant against someone.It is hard to refute someone who doesn't actually PRESENT anything.

He's published his ideas. He presents as much as other evos do, imo. He shows the inadequacy of current evo models and hypothesizes that previous creatures originally had the capacity for much greater variety and could produce different species via normal reproduction via chromosomal rearrangements.But this thread is not really the one to discuss it. I just noted that he went nearly unchallenged by evos. That fact was quite informative.

This has drifted way off topic. This is not the place to discuss JAD's hypothesis.Any comments on this warning should be in the moderation thread.

---

deletedEdited by crashfrog, : Off-topic.

Because we already refuted it, almost 3 years ago. Here's the thread: EvC Forum: What is Salty's 'semi-meiotic hypothesis'I don't understand why you think we're required to reinvent the wheel just because you didn't see us do it the first time. If there's anything in that thread you feel was missed then I invite you to petition that it be opened (or open it yourself, I guess.)