Nexus - 0904 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

ancestor with seven chromosomes to their current 42—an "created" by the earliest farmers all around the world. Put an expansion by a factor of six. Sugar cane was expanded from a 10- equal sign after those four factors and it definitely does not add up chromosome ancestor to the 80-chromosome monster it is to any kind of Darwinian model. today—a factor of eight. The chromosomes of others, like Botanists know they have a serious problem here, but all they bananas and apples, were only multiplied by factors of two or _ can suggest is that it simply had to have occurred by natural three, while peanuts, potatoes, tobacco and cotton, among others, means because no other intervention—by God or You Know were expanded by factors of four. This is not as astounding as it | What—can be considered under any circumstances. That sounds, because many wild flowering plants and trees have unwavering stance is maintained by all scientists, not just multiple chromosome sets. botanists, to exclude overwhelming evidence such as the fact that But that brings up what Charles Darwin himself called the in 1837 the Botanical Garden in St Petersburg, Russia, began "abominable mystery" of flowering plants. The first ones appear concerted attempts to cultivate wild rye into a new form of in the fossil record between 150 and 130 million years ago, domestication. They are still trying, because their rye has lost primed to multiply into over 200,000 known species. But no one none of its wild traits, especially the fragility of its stalk and its can explain their presence because there is no connective link to small grain. Therein lies the most embarrassing conundrum any form of plants that preceded them. It is as if...dare I say _ botanists face. it?...they were brought to Earth by something akin to You Know To domesticate a wild grass like rye or any wild grain or cereal What. If so, then it could well be that they were delivered with a (which was done time and again by our Neolithic forebears), two built-in capacity to develop multiple chromosome sets, and some- imposing hurdles must be cleared. These are the problems of how our Neolithic forebears cracked the codes for the ones most "rachises" and "glumes", which I discuss in my book, Everything advantageous to humans. You Know Is Wrong — Book One: Human Origins (pp. 283-285) However the codes were cracked, the great expansion of | (Adamu Press, 1998). Glumes are botany's name for husks, the genetic material in each cell of the domestic varieties caused them thin covers of seeds and grains that must be removed before to grow much larger than their wild umans can digest them. Rachises are ancestors. As they grew, their seeds the tiny stems that attach seeds and and grains became large enough to be grains to their stalks. easily seen and picked up and While growing, glumes and rachises anipulated by human fi Ss. 8 are Ss a d so rai ' Simultaneously, the weeds and grains But that brings up what knock the seeds and grains off thei softened to a degree where they could Charles Darwin himself called stalks. At maturity, they become so be milled, cooked and consumed. And 9 brittle that a b ill shatter th at ‘the. same ‘time ‘their cellular the "abominable mystery" and release their cargo to propagate, chemistry was altered enough to begin of flowering plants. Such a high degree of brittleness providing nourishment to humans who makes it impossible to harvest wild ate them. The only word that remotely plants because every grain or seed equates with that achievement is: would be knocked loose during the miracle. harvesting process. Of course, "miracle" implies that there So, in addition to enlarging, was actually a chance that such complex manipulations of nature softening and nutritionally altering the seeds and grains of dozens could be carried out by primitive yeomen in eight geographical of wild plants, the earliest farmers also had to figure out how to areas over 5,000 years. This strains credulity because, in each _ finely adjust the brittleness of every plant's glumes and rachises. case, " each area, someone acmaty had to look at ani progeni- hk That a Hustment was “a extremely daunting complexity. per. tor and imagine what it could become, or should become, or aps more complex than the transformational process itself. The would become. Then they somehow had to ensure that their —_rachises had to be toughened enough to hold seeds and grains to vision would be carried forward through countless generations their stalks during harvesting, yet remain brittle enough to be col- that had to remain committed to planting, harvesting, culling and —_lected easily by human effort during what has come to be known crossbreeding wild plants that put no food on their tables during as "threshing". Likewise, the glumes had to be made tough their lifetimes, but which might feed their descendants in some __ enough to withstand harvesting after full ripeness was achieved, remotely distant future. yet still be brittle enough to shatter during the threshing process. It is difficult to try to concoct a more unlikely, more absurd, And—here's the kicker—each wild plant's glumes and rachises scenario, yet to modern-day botanists it is a gospel they believe required completely different degrees of adjustment, and the final with a fervour that puts many "six day" Creationists to shame. amount of each adjustment had to be perfectly precise! In short, Why? Because to confront its towering absurdity would force there is not a snowball's chance that this happened as botanists them to turn to You Know What for a more logical and plausible _claim it did. explanation. To domesticate a wild plant without using artificial (i.e., . THE EMERGENCE OF DOMESTICATED ANIMALS genetic) manipulation, it must be modified by directed As with plants, animal domestication followed a pattern of crossbreeding, which is only possible through the efforts of | development that extended 10,000 to 5,000 years ago. It also humans. So the equation is simple. Firstly, wild ancestors for started in the Fertile Crescent, with the "big four" of cattle, sheep, many (but not all) domestic plants do seem apparent. Secondly, goats and pigs, among other animals. Later, in the Far East, came most domesticated versions did appear from 10,000 to 5,000 years ducks, chickens and water buffalo, among others. Later still, in ago. Thirdly, the humans alive at that time were primitive — the New World, came llamas and vicuna. This process was not barbarians. Fourthly, in the past 5,000 years, no plants have been simplified by expanding the number of chromosomes. All domesticated that are nearly as valuable as the dozens that were — animals—wild and domesticated—are diploid, which means they the "abominable mystery" of flowering plants. THE EMERGENCE OF DOMESTICATED ANIMALS As with plants, animal domestication followed a pattern of development that extended 10,000 to 5,000 years ago. It also started in the Fertile Crescent, with the "big four" of cattle, sheep, goats and pigs, among other animals. Later, in the Far East, came ducks, chickens and water buffalo, among others. Later still, in the New World, came Ilamas and vicuna. This process was not simplified by expanding the number of chromosomes. All animals—wild and domesticated—are diploid, which means they 56 ¢ NEXUS JUNE - JULY 2002 www.nexusmagazine.com