hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
Gallery of Plants
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Mailing Lists
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

Unauthorized use of a plant doesn't invalidate it's patent

RSS story archive

Re: Hybrids

> May a strange discussion, maybe somewhat philosophical I did not know but
> now I feel that I must secrete some thoughts maybe you think some
> diarrhoe...
> 1.) In my opinion there is no perfect plan or master plan or whatever
> existing.
> 2.) In my opinion evolution is a chaotical process with coming and going
> new combinations of genes whatever they produce some with more succes some
> with less.
> 3.) In my opinion the human species is only a part of the evolution and
> what human kind make or will do is than also only a part of the game and
> could not be separated.

I think you're making the error of thinking in terms of "physical"
separation versus what I meant to say, and that is "contextual separation".
Of course, as long as things are happening and developing and dying on our
little planet, we could say that it is all part of nature and cannot be
"taken out" or is always part of the causality chain of things happening on
earth. But you can perfectly separate phenomena in your mind, classify them
and make statements specifically about them, in a way isolated from all
other things happening around us. THAT is what I was proposing for the
nomenclature of cultivated plants. The context is human civilisation and the
goal is to make statements about the classification of man-made plant groups
(e.g. cultivars) in relation to the needs of humans for these
special-purpose plant groups. I can do that by separating cultivars from the
context of plants living in the wild. I am not bound to consider the latter
because they are not part of the problem (context) I am addressing.

> Because evolution for me means try and error as long till it fits for the
> environment where the "game is played". For example Anth. dressleri is
> "perfect" in his natural habitat now at the moment untill the environment
> changes(affected by whatever).
> Or another example. Many species of the Australian fauna where "perfect"
> untill humans import rabbits, so the new species is somewhat more perfect
> for the Australian environment and as a result all other affected species
> which have no place to live will die.
> Or the young oak tree without chlorophyll it is not perfect in that
> environment but when you do the same maybe in a laboratory it will work
> it lives than it would be perfect. (don?t say it is not natural it is only
> somewhat different environment created by a species which is part of the
> nature the same what Ants do when they grow funghi).

You've missed the point obviously. The point is that when we do
maintain/perpetuate that chlorophyll-like oak in competition-free
circumstances, pamper it etc., do we want to talk about it as, say Quercus
robur and do we include these plants in the life-history of Quercus robur?
No, we include this plant in the life history of mankind and say that we
artificially maintained that particular clone and hence give it a name to
SEPARATE it from ordinary Quercus robus, e.g. as Q. robur 'White Surprise'.
In doing this we implicitly change the status of that mutated plant from a
"natural" object, to a "special purpose" object. And "special purpose" is
something unique to humans.

> Or is a Banana plant not perfect while it did?nt grow on north pole only
> a tropical environment?
> And who knows maybe in some million years all plants are without
> and grow in some other way when nature made uncountable experiments and
> of them will work and produce as a result a new species which is more
> "perfect"  and displace the now existing green plants.

I don't think it is anywhere realistic to base ideas on "Who knows what lies
ahead". That is ad hoc and has no place in debates about the world around
us. Even though scientists may always think "Who knows, maybe in the future
I'll be proven wrong", they won't stop expressing their ideas as they are
based on current observations.

> That is in my eyes the other problem with evolution and perfectness. Our
> lives are to short that we could registrate the evolution of new species,
> only registrate the dying of old species by fast changes of
> affected by human kind). So maybe the game will go on and human kind has
> changed the environment so dramtically that it will die itself but is that
> the end of evolution? Sure not some million years later we will surely
> thousands of new species and they will be again "perfect" adapt to the
> environment existing at that time.

Sure, that may be, but what does it prove? That we can never make statements
about what we see today? Not hypothesize about it?

> Also now by making hybrids or transgentic lifeforms we are giving the
> great input for new combinations of genes whatever the results are, nature
> will be affected but never destroyed only environment changes.

But isn't it hard for you to accept then, that so many people want to STOP
the "leaking" of transgenic genomic combinations into nature!! Isn't that
the perfect example of what I have been saying all the time? Obviously many
of us are intrinsically feeling that what we do is beyond nature. I am not
advocating that view right away, but it gives foundation for a view that
separates our intentional actions from the random stuff that nature seems to
be doing.

> So for me is every lifeform which lives now at the moment on earth perfect
> in its very own way and also in my opinion we haven?t the right to judge
> over a lifeform if it is perfect or not.

That I agree with.

 The evolution will make this
> decision.
> So Dewey is right when he says that he is perfect and it is no joke.

Come again.......?


> > Only one question to Neil and Wilbert which both wrote that nature is
> > perfect.
> > What is not perfect in Nature?
> > Please only one example I found nothing or am I blind?
> > Thanks in advance
> > Thomas
> >
> >
> >
> I will give you one example but first I think everyone would agree that
> word 'perfect' is a term of perception and everyone's perception is
> different.
> One plant example:  ocassionally I see an oak seedling sprout which has no
> chloraphyll. it only lives as long as the acorn's starch holds out.
> this is not perfect.
> Unless you consider it part of the 'perfect plan' to have imperfections.
> As I said, it is impossible to argue the meaning and application of a word
> such as 'perfect'.
> Neil

 © 1995-2015 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index