Three examples of macroevolution

[Miles]

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.

• 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

So, can we finally close the book on the creationist's contention that macroevolution is but a fantasy of science?

[Goat]

This has nothing to do with evolution. The fact that each human formed from an egg has more evidence for creation than evo. Its unfortunate that you fail to recognize or accept what a beautiful thing special creation is. Its further proof of a Creator. A loving Creator at that. I hope someday you are able to see this.

How is this any kind of proof except for the logical fallacy of 'Argument from personal belief'?

Do you have anything other than 'random statement' that is evidence of god?

And what makes you think that people who don't accept your particular religious beliefs don't find awe and beauty in the universe?

[Fisherking]

Its not a routine, its called logic. You firstly pulled an "appeal to authority" by using a non-authorative source. You then tried to side step this by saying we cant attack the source. If you are using a source, its must be a PROPER authority. Otherwise, whats to stop me from citing joe blow from down the street who thinks you are wrong?

In other words Xept, the source you cite must be one that believes in evolutionism ("a PROPER authority"). If you quote anything from this "PROPER authority", don't cite any data from the "PROPER authority" that contradicts or discredits evolutionism because that is "quote mining". You will be able to avoid the "quote mine" charge by simply ignoring the data and citing the evolutionist's opinion or belief that the data supports evolutionism. Easy peasy, evolutionism is a fact!!

[Goat]

Its not a routine, its called logic. You firstly pulled an "appeal to authority" by using a non-authorative source. You then tried to side step this by saying we cant attack the source. If you are using a source, its must be a PROPER authority. Otherwise, whats to stop me from citing joe blow from down the street who thinks you are wrong?

In other words Xept, the source you cite must be one that believes in evolutionism ("a PROPER authority"). If you quote anything from this "PROPER authority", don't cite any data from the "PROPER authority" that contradicts or discredits evolutionism because that is "quote mining". You will be able to avoid the "quote mine" charge by simply ignoring the data and citing the evolutionist's opinion or belief that the data supports evolutionism. Easy peasy, evolutionism is a fact!!

I will note that through out your entire vendetta against evolution, you have ever actually addressed the evidence. I have seen appeals to authority, and cut/pastes from religiously oriented web sites with claims that have been entirely refuted , but I have yet to see you address the evidence.

Perhaps you can pull your magic cut/paste from discovery.org or ICR, and discuss any of the three macro-evolution examples?

[micatala]

This has nothing to do with evolution. The fact that each human formed from an egg has more evidence for creation than evo. Its unfortunate that you fail to recognize or accept what a beautiful thing special creation is. Its further proof of a Creator. A loving Creator at that. I hope someday you are able to see this.

You are mischaracterizing the issue. The issue is not God versus atheism.

I am a Christian and believe in a loving creator. I am awed by His creation. The fact that the evidence strongly indicates evolution was part of the creative process is not, for me, a cause for concern, but yet more evidence of God's infinite and unfathomable wisdom.

I also see you failed to address the choices I presented.

Evolution is very strongly supported by the fossil record. When digging down through the layers we never humans except in recent layers. We never find trilobites except in lower layers. We never find dinosaurs with either trilobities or humans.

THe above is a given. It is reality. Even such hard core creationists as Duane Gish typically acknowledge this.

Now, it seems we have a couple of choices in considering what our ancestors were like.

1) Our ancestors going back to the beginning of life were like us, but somehow they left absolutely no trace of their existence except over the last 200,000 years or, even if you don't accept the absolute dating, the last small fraction of time over which life existed.

2) Our ancestors did leave a record, and since there are not species like us during the time of the dinosaurs, our ancestors from the time of the dinosaurs must have been something like one of the species we find fossils for from that time.

If you pick 1), you need to explain how all trace of humans disappeared from the geological strata or why they are there but we haven't found them.

[Grumpy]

xcept

This has nothing to do with evolution. The fact that each human formed from an egg has more evidence for creation than evo.

The human embrio goes through a whole gamut of changes that repeat the evolutionary history of humans, including single cell, multiple cell blastula, gills just like a fish, etc.

Parallel evolution?? Wha wha what?

Argument from personal ignorance of the topic.

The duck and platapus have similar appearing bills because they both eat the same things. But where the duck's bill is simply a hard pair of "lips", the platipus is a fleshy covering over bone that includes special sensing ducts to locate prey the ducks just don't have. The outer resemblence hides large differences in structure.

Yes, there are over fourty different instances of eyes developing seperately in most animals on Earth. The fact is, our eyes are far from the best "design". Octopuses have almost identical eyes in the major structures, but their retinas are not upside down, like ours is. It actually sees with more than twice the definition. And our last common ancestor lived in the Cambrian!

Its unfortunate that you fail to recognize or accept what a beautiful thing special creation is. Its further proof of a Creator. A loving Creator at that. I hope someday you are able to see this.

It's unfortunate that you fail to recognize or accept what hocum special creation is. I hope one day you will be able to see reality for what it is.

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.

[Miles]

Nice that you can take two words and then take their meaning literally then because they are slightly changed to you,

No, they're changed to everyone.

then the organiztion is a lie.

At the very least the author is, and because the organization is responsible for what it prints, it too is just as much at fault.

Unfortunately evolution articles do it much more and I do not believe that ICR is lying.

Believe whatever you want, and knowing you would never make anything up I also know you'd be delighted to furnish us with examples of evolutionists lying. Not just your opinion of course, but verifiable instances of lying for evolution.

They are stating then animal is in fact exactly the same.

We know that. It's why I said Brian Thomas and the site he represents are lying. *Sheesh*

Firstly, the body is structurally sound and has not changed in 400 mya. 400 mya? Only slight changes according to an evolutionist claim? Of course! An evolutionist would be hanging themselves to say anything was exactly the same over 400 mya. And if the body were "the same" for that long, it is very unlikely that the eyes would've changed. See the mantis shrimp has one of the fastest movements in the animal kingdom and its eyes are integral to its survival.

I would call strawman on your rebuttal but that is only what the proevo's use on creationists.

So you keep your word. I don't need it. Say what you like about ICR, but you aren't a peer reviews scientist either.

You cannot offer any proof that the mantis shrimps eyes changed or stayed the same from the fossil record therefore you are grasping at straws and my nail into the coffin of the state established religion of evolution still stands. I would take this evidence as strong against the theory having any merit whatsoever.

I give up. You and your mom and dad have a happy holiday.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 70:

In other words Xept, the source you cite must be one that believes in evolutionism ("a PROPER authority").

A proper source is not one that starts with the following assumptions, as the ICR does:

The physical universe of space, time, matter, and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.

The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator.

Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to "horizontal" changes (variations) within the kinds, or "downward" changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).

The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the "spiritual" nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life.

Etc....

When you start off declaring a god is behind it all, (with the attendant lack of evidence for this point), you quit being science-based and start becoming religious based.

When you declare a god has done all this creating, a position based on "faith", you must comport your evidence to this view, rather than change the view to comport to the evidence.

This is what so many find uncompelling, and useless about ICR's work.

[nygreenguy]

In other words Xept, the source you cite must be one that believes in evolutionism ("a PROPER authority").

Yes, its generally good to use a source which believes in facts.

If you quote anything from this "PROPER authority", don't cite any data from the "PROPER authority" that contradicts or discredits evolutionism because that is "quote mining". You will be able to avoid the "quote mine" charge by simply ignoring the data and citing the evolutionist's opinion or belief that the data supports evolutionism. Easy peasy, evolutionism is a fact!!

Its a great attempt at a strawman.

See, heres the issue, not everyone is an expert at things like biology and geology and such. So, we must rely on expert opinion. Now, what type of experts do we believe in? Which ones do we trust? In todays academia we have set up a system of peer-review where the scientists are forced to be honest because they are being watched. We have set up a system of checks and balances to ensure that the science that is published meet rigorous standards of ethics, professionalism and accuracy. Now, creationist "research" has none of these. They have purposely excluded themselves from mainstream academia? Why is this?

Well, there are 2 major possibilities. They are totally right. God made it all, and Noahs flood was real. This is a possibility. But how realistic is this? What would this mean if this were real?

For one, it would invalidate decades, even centuries of work in many scientific fields. It would mean that all the papers published are either fraudulent, or wrong. If its a fraud, then a great deal of theists are in on it as well and there are a great deal of old-earth, evolution loving christian scientists out there. (not to mention the jews). This means millions of researchers are in on this. This would be the greatest fraud ever committed.

Now, if they are wrong, then we have the biggest group of idiots ever. It would mean all the reviewers and everyone involved must be wrong as well.

So, if its fraud OR if its wrong, how does everything still work? How do all the predictions still fit?

So, out other option is the creationists are wrong? What does this mean? Well, it means a small minority of individual are either being fraudulent or are ignorant. However, the consequences of this are irrelevant as nothing they have ever produces has ever had an impact on our life.

Now, its up to you to choose which scenario is more likely.

[xcept]

Yes, they are all wrong. The world has a system it is opposite of God. This has been shown throughout history.
The entire earth perished in Noahs day save his family. All turned away from God.

Sodom everyone in the town were wreched and didn't believe upon God all save a few.

He canaanites all turned away from God and were wiped out their land was given to Gods chosen people.

Jesus said it would be as Noahs day when He returns. The majority of people will turn from God.

Yes the majority is usually in the wrong. That's also shown many times in the Bible as well as in courtrooms.

Unfortunately you are in that majority. I feel sorry for that and hope you come to know the truth of Gods love and plan for you.

[Goat]

Yes, they are all wrong. The world has a system it is opposite of God. This has been shown throughout history.
The entire earth perished in Noahs day save his family. All turned away from God.

That is a fine claim. What tangible evidence do you have of this besides a story written in a book?

Sodom everyone in the town were wreched and didn't believe upon God all save a few.

Please support your claim with evidence, rather than just repeating a claim out of
scripture. What physical evidence do you have?

He canaanites all turned away from God and were wiped out their land was given to Gods chosen people.

Jesus said it would be as Noahs day when He returns. The majority of people will turn from God.

Yes the majority is usually in the wrong. That's also shown many times in the Bible as well as in courtrooms.

Unfortunately you are in that majority. I feel sorry for that and hope you come to know the truth of Gods love and plan for you.

You keep on making claims.. yet, the evidence for those claims seem to be sadly lacking, even scriptural evidence. Want to back up your beliefs?>