- 1. "While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. Oenothera 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 Oenothera lamarckiana. He named this new species Oenothera gigas."
2. "Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and Primula floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named Primula kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of Primula verticillata and Primula floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926."
3. "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."
source
Three examples of macroevolution
Moderator: Moderators
-
Miles
- Savant
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
- Has thanked: 434 times
- Been thanked: 1618 times
Three examples of macroevolution
Post #1In answer to a previous question about macroevolution (evolution at the species level or higher), I posted the following examples in another thread; however, on thinking about it I decided they deserve a better exposure---macroevolution is hotly contested by creationists.
Post #11
otseng wrote:Let me get this straight. You bring up evidence of plants that cannot breed and this proves macroevolution?
What proves macro-evolution is the fossil record. Once we convince you the flood model is a hopeless case, then you'll be on board with this too.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn
-
handofnergal
- Apprentice
- Posts: 190
- Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 9:38 pm
- Location: Mount Vernon, NY
Post #12
Even if you completely got rid of the fossils and ignored georgaphical dipersion
we still have genome research that proves a common descent!
and then there's ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny, but creationists get real butt hurt about that because some knucklehead altered some photos for science textbooks.
we still have genome research that proves a common descent!
and then there's ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny, but creationists get real butt hurt about that because some knucklehead altered some photos for science textbooks.
-
Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Post #13
Actually, ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny is not universal, and it was someone exaggerating that claim that caused that issue. The theory has been discredited.handofnergal wrote:Even if you completely got rid of the fossils and ignored georgaphical dipersion
we still have genome research that proves a common descent!
and then there's ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny, but creationists get real butt hurt about that because some knucklehead altered some photos for science textbooks.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
-
handofnergal
- Apprentice
- Posts: 190
- Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 9:38 pm
- Location: Mount Vernon, NY
Post #14
It's well known and more or less commonly accepted. Yes, when I said that the pictures were altered, I meant that some were exaggerated. The theory has been severely marginalized but not completely discredited. Scientists just don't like it because it has a shameful past but it still has alot of merit and carries alot of weight.goat wrote:Actually, ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny is not universal, and it was someone exaggerating that claim that caused that issue. The theory has been discredited.handofnergal wrote:Even if you completely got rid of the fossils and ignored georgaphical dipersion
we still have genome research that proves a common descent!
and then there's ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny, but creationists get real butt hurt about that because some knucklehead altered some photos for science textbooks.
-
otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20984
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 218 times
- Been thanked: 393 times
- Contact:
Post #15
OK, if not, then what you are asserting in this thread?Miles wrote:NO.otseng wrote:Let me get this straight. You bring up evidence of plants that cannot breed and this proves macroevolution?
Not unless I can convince you all otherwise.micatala wrote:Once we convince you the flood model is a hopeless case, then you'll be on board with this too.
-
Miles
- Savant
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
- Has thanked: 434 times
- Been thanked: 1618 times
Post #16
Sorry, I was in a bit of a hurry and not thinking properly when I wrote, "No." It should have been, "Yes, I am bring up evidence of plants that cannot breed and this proves macroevolution"---to put it in shorthand.otseng wrote:OK, if not, then what you are asserting in this thread?Miles wrote:NO.otseng wrote:Let me get this straight. You bring up evidence of plants that cannot breed and this proves macroevolution?
One of the commonly used criteria for defining a species is its inability to interbreed with other species. And with a new variant it is its inability to interbreed (it is not interfertile) with its parent species. . . . and other species, of course.
Re: Three examples of macroevolution
Post #17They're all plants...Miles wrote:In answer to a previous question about macroevolution (evolution at the species level or higher), I posted the following examples in another thread; however, on thinking about it I decided they deserve a better exposure---macroevolution is hotly contested by creationists.
So, can we finally close the book on the creationist's contention that macroevolution is but a fantasy of science?
- 1. "While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. Oenothera 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 Oenothera lamarckiana. He named this new species Oenothera gigas."
2. "Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and Primula floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named Primula kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of Primula verticillata and Primula floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926."
3. "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."
source
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha macro what? Ha ha ha jha ha ha seriously....
-
handofnergal
- Apprentice
- Posts: 190
- Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 9:38 pm
- Location: Mount Vernon, NY
Re: Three examples of macroevolution
Post #18First of all, if you don't have anything meaningful to post please refrain - your trolling is obnoxiousxcept wrote:They're all plants...Miles wrote:In answer to a previous question about macro-evolution (evolution at the species level or higher), I posted the following examples in another thread; however, on thinking about it I decided they deserve a better exposure---macroevolution is hotly contested by creationists.
So, can we finally close the book on the creationist's contention that macroevolution is but a fantasy of science?
- 1. "While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. Oenothera 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 Oenothera lamarckiana. He named this new species Oenothera gigas."
2. "Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and Primula floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named Primula kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of Primula verticillata and Primula floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926."
3. "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."
source
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha macro what? Ha ha ha jha ha ha seriously....
Secondly, a Species is the one of the simplest taxonomic distinctions.
Kings = Kingdom
Play = Phylum
Chess = Class
On = Order
Funny = Family
Green = Genus
Stools = Species
An exaple of a Kingdom is plant, another is animal. There are subdivisions in Kingdoms, but asside from something being either a plant or animal what else can it be? A mineral?
Just because a plant is a plant and does not evolve into an altogether different form of life does not discredit evolution.
If macro-evolution is such a joke then why do whales have finger bones? Why do snakes have hips? Why does a first trimester human fetus have a tail and gill slits? Let me guess, God made it that way.
Post #19
xcept
Ok, here are a couple of speciating events that are happening now.
The horse and the donkey are two very closely related species. They can still interbreed, but the result, the mule(jenny)is sterile and cannot breed. In a very short time(in geological terms)the horse and donkey will not be able to breed at all(unless man interferes).
The lion and the tiger are also very close, they can still interbreed, but the liger is also sterile. In the wild, the two will not willingly interbreed so, scientifically, they already are two distinct species.
This is how speciation happens. Not like a crocoduck, as some idiots say. It's like the seperate branches of a bush, you don't see those seperate braches come together to produce a new branch, you see branches fork into two(or more) seperate branches that then go their own way. That's where the idea of a tree of life comes from. The seed is the first life, the root is all the one celled life that existed for over 3 billion years before the Cambrian and each branch that comes from that root had a start from that common seed(they can all trace their history back to that seed). But each branch then goes it's own way(one branch led to plants, one to animals, etc.). Some branches die off, some lead to other branches. The twig that is man is one of several that branch off of the limb of apes, the limb of apes is one of several that branch from the mammal fork, the mammal fork is one of several that branch from the vertibrate trunk, and so on until you get back to that first seed. Additionally, the tree still has the root, branches, etc. that did not die out, not everything needs to change, they get along just as they are unless conditions change to force that change.
Evolution is a fact, denying that fact is the equivalent of denying that the Earth orbits the sun(though some are stupid enough to even deny that).
Grumpy
____________________________________________________________________
"Fear of God is not the beginning of wisdom, but it''s end." Clarence Darrow
Nature is not constrained by your lack of imagination.
Poe''s Law-Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won''t mistake for the real thing.
Seriously? Are plants not alive? Did you not know that the first work in genetics was with the common pea plant?They're all plants...
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha macro what? Ha ha ha jha ha ha seriously....
Ok, here are a couple of speciating events that are happening now.
The horse and the donkey are two very closely related species. They can still interbreed, but the result, the mule(jenny)is sterile and cannot breed. In a very short time(in geological terms)the horse and donkey will not be able to breed at all(unless man interferes).
The lion and the tiger are also very close, they can still interbreed, but the liger is also sterile. In the wild, the two will not willingly interbreed so, scientifically, they already are two distinct species.
This is how speciation happens. Not like a crocoduck, as some idiots say. It's like the seperate branches of a bush, you don't see those seperate braches come together to produce a new branch, you see branches fork into two(or more) seperate branches that then go their own way. That's where the idea of a tree of life comes from. The seed is the first life, the root is all the one celled life that existed for over 3 billion years before the Cambrian and each branch that comes from that root had a start from that common seed(they can all trace their history back to that seed). But each branch then goes it's own way(one branch led to plants, one to animals, etc.). Some branches die off, some lead to other branches. The twig that is man is one of several that branch off of the limb of apes, the limb of apes is one of several that branch from the mammal fork, the mammal fork is one of several that branch from the vertibrate trunk, and so on until you get back to that first seed. Additionally, the tree still has the root, branches, etc. that did not die out, not everything needs to change, they get along just as they are unless conditions change to force that change.
Evolution is a fact, denying that fact is the equivalent of denying that the Earth orbits the sun(though some are stupid enough to even deny that).
Grumpy
____________________________________________________________________
"Fear of God is not the beginning of wisdom, but it''s end." Clarence Darrow
Nature is not constrained by your lack of imagination.
Poe''s Law-Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won''t mistake for the real thing.
Post #20
Now that I've stirred the pot a bit to see what wafts up from the bottom I can address the real issues at hand.
Every Christian who believes the Bible also believes in Evolution as currently observed and stated with your examples. You would have to be a maroon not to. Observed speciation.
However the bump in the road comes from the massive millions of assumed years. Also the string of evolution is tied to what at the end? We know the front doesn't have an end. But how about a beginning? What started it? When? Why? Do you even try to figure that out?
People often ask... who made God? Where are Gods parents? So... when did evolution start?
Oh and to reply to your examples: each of them are within the created kinds. A loss of information in the DNA keeps the species from having offspring once bred. Such as Ligers, tigons, zorses, zonkeys etc. This also applies to plants.
Camels and giraffes are also related. Just as the ocean has a border, so do all familys and orders of animals. You cannot Show me any jump in these higher designations. Checkmate.
Every Christian who believes the Bible also believes in Evolution as currently observed and stated with your examples. You would have to be a maroon not to. Observed speciation.
However the bump in the road comes from the massive millions of assumed years. Also the string of evolution is tied to what at the end? We know the front doesn't have an end. But how about a beginning? What started it? When? Why? Do you even try to figure that out?
People often ask... who made God? Where are Gods parents? So... when did evolution start?
Oh and to reply to your examples: each of them are within the created kinds. A loss of information in the DNA keeps the species from having offspring once bred. Such as Ligers, tigons, zorses, zonkeys etc. This also applies to plants.
Camels and giraffes are also related. Just as the ocean has a border, so do all familys and orders of animals. You cannot Show me any jump in these higher designations. Checkmate.
