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?

[Fallibleone]

sure... the Bible is tthe only book with fulfilled prophecy in it.

[Fallibleone]

Moderator Formal Warning: xcept, unproductive one-liners are against forum rules. Normally you would not get a formal warning, but I have seen several one-liners from you by now, and I count three in this thread alone. This is a debate site, where you are expected to argue points, not just make unsubstantiated assertions. The last post of yours which I have quoted below is also off-topic. Please restrict your replies to comments regarding the theory of evolution. Overall, please consider modifying your posting style if you wish to remain here.

To other members - please be advised that this thread deals with evolution. Other topics should be dealt with in an appropriate thread. In general, please do not allow things to deteriorate by joining in with one-liners or personal remarks. Thank you.

Actually no... the theory of evolution has not contributed anything positive to science or medicine.

You are mistaken. Nothing is true in the theory of evolution that hasn't been observed.

sure... the Bible is tthe only book with fulfilled prophecy in it.

4. Stay on the topic of debate. If a topic brings up another issue, start another thread.

5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.

9. No unconstructive one-liners posts are allowed in debates (Do not simply say "Ditto" or "I disagree" in a post. Such posts add little value to debates).

[xcept]

Moderator Formal Warning: xcept, unproductive one-liners are against forum rules.

wow it took forever to find those quote brackets on my phonepad. So no online responses then? Ok got it. It is a bit more difficult to respond when I'm merely using my celphone and most the time I'm on a very busy schedule but like to try to respond adequately. Seems I cannot find information from websites and post things I agree with that answer the question as well. Also seems like many people in here discredit any christian reference or pro christian website. Probably including the Bible as well.

Normally you would not get a formal warning, but I have seen several one-liners from you by now, and I count three in this thread alone. This is a debate site, where you are expected to argue points, not just make unsubstantiated assertions.

I think this becomes a matter of opinion. As you cannot appease everyone and someone is always going to disagree with what you've given as a proper answer. Given a Christian can sate something from the Bible and someone can say they saw some article about evolution that makes that information in the Bible false. Then they insist on more evidenced to the supernatural that can be measured by natural means. Only you cannot measure the supernatural with the natural. Its impossible.

The last post of yours which I have quoted below is also off-topic. Please restrict your replies to comments regarding the theory of evolution. Overall, please consider modifying your posting style if you wish to remain here.

are you pro evolution? And yes I will work on modifying my posting style. It can be a bit difficult with my phone.

To other members - please be advised that this thread deals with evolution. Other topics should be dealt with in an appropriate thread. In general, please do not allow things to deteriorate by joining in with one-liners or personal remarks. Thank you.

Actually no... the theory of evolution has not contributed anything positive to science or medicine.

You are mistaken. Nothing is true in the theory of evolution that hasn't been observed.

sure... the Bible is tthe only book with fulfilled prophecy in it.

4. Stay on the topic of debate. If a topic brings up another issue, start another thread.

5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.

9. No unconstructive one-liners posts are allowed in debates (Do not simply say "Ditto" or "I disagree" in a post. Such posts add little value to debates).

I have found that more often than not threads start out with good intentions and then can become several threads from the original and oftentimes involve a large degree of sarcasm and then just become a personal attack by the end of the day. What I consider a personal attack would be anything that states God or especially Jesus is false and that a christian is a fool for believing in such. Anytime someone attacks the Hope that Christ provides to all mankind they make themselves a fool and an enemy in the eyes of the Christian. So I propose that anytime I feel this personal attack in a thread I will start my response with the (personal attack) then give my rebuttal. This way the poster can know I as offended. It will allow me to not stoop to the same level of also returning a personal attack and stay on topic.

[nygreenguy]

wow it took forever to find those quote brackets on my phonepad. So no online responses then? Ok got it. It is a bit more difficult to respond when I'm merely using my celphone and most the time I'm on a very busy schedule but like to try to respond adequately. Seems I cannot find information from websites and post things I agree with that answer the question as well.

I can relate. I often post from my ipod touch, which can be troublesome. If you cant respond properly, sometimes I find it better to just wait until later.

Also seems like many people in here discredit any christian reference or pro christian website. Probably including the Bible as well.

Most of our posts with you are about science. Many of the folks from the "pro-christian" sites hid their lies and untruths under the veil of science. This is why none of them can ever get published in a real peer-reviewed journal.

I think this becomes a matter of opinion. As you cannot appease everyone and someone is always going to disagree with what you've given as a proper answer.

But you give us nothing. Notta. Zilch. All you ever give us is your opinion. If you want to make claims, you need to provide SOME evidence.

Then they insist on more evidenced to the supernatural that can be measured by natural means.

Not necessarily true. If someone wants to say the flood was a pure supernatual even, not observable or tested by natural means or what not then there is no issue. However, when the poster claims there is some physical evidence for an even, then it is they who bring the "supernatural" into the realm of science. What this essentially does is puts all your claims out of the realm of criticism and an idea which cant be criticized isnt one worth having.

What I consider a personal attack would be anything that states God or especially Jesus is false and that a christian is a fool for believing in such.

If you find the fact I reject god and jesus, than thats your issue not ours. This is what debate is about. You can expect your ideas to be vigorously challenged. If this offends you, then perhaps this isnt the place for you.

Being called a fool, however, is a problem and shouldnt happen.

[micatala]

Moderator Formal Warning

Moderator Formal Warning: xcept, unproductive one-liners are against forum rules.

wow it took forever to find those quote brackets on my phonepad. So no online responses then? Ok got it. It is a bit more difficult to respond when I'm merely using my celphone and most the time I'm on a very busy schedule but like to try to respond adequately. Seems I cannot find information from websites and post things I agree with that answer the question as well. Also seems like many people in here discredit any christian reference or pro christian website. Probably including the Bible as well.

xcept needs to consult the rules.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6

Any challenges to moderator actions should be made via PM.

9. No unconstructive one-liners posts are allowed in debates (Do not simply say "Ditto" or "I disagree" in a post. Such posts add little value to debates).

I have found that more often than not threads start out with good intentions and then can become several threads from the original and oftentimes involve a large degree of sarcasm and then just become a personal attack by the end of the day. What I consider a personal attack would be anything that states God or especially Jesus is false and that a christian is a fool for believing in such. Anytime someone attacks the Hope that Christ provides to all mankind they make themselves a fool and an enemy in the eyes of the Christian. So I propose that anytime I feel this personal attack in a thread I will start my response with the (personal attack) then give my rebuttal. This way the poster can know I as offended. It will allow me to not stoop to the same level of also returning a personal attack and stay on topic.[/quote]


From the moderators standpoint, there is a difference between attacks on a religion or a religious figure and a personal attack on a member of the forum.

The latter are against the rules.

The former are not considered personal attacks and are not necessarily against the rules. Occasionally the moderators may feel a comment is inflammatory and intervene. However, you must let the moderators decide what is inflammatory. Someone making a negative comment about your religion does not give you license to make personal attacks.

[Bio-logical]

I would like clarification on one detail:

Is the bible (or other religious texts) allowed as evidence as long as it is supported by particular quotes and not general statements (i.e. bible is the word of God, so therefore infallible and you are wrong!)

In my experience it has been allowed on many occasions and I feel it is only appropriate given the nature of the site, but I am not sure Xcept is understanding that something considered "religious truth" or taken from scripture is allowed as evidence of a particular viewpoint. It must be made clear however that evidence must be presented, not just alluded to.

On another note, it is absurd to come to a religious debate site and be offended by somebody stating that God or Jesus "is false". It is acceptable to be offended by being called a fool for believing in such, but I don't see that happen too often here.

Back on topic here, I see that you entirely ignored my post explaining speciation mechanisms and how a person that accepts micro-evolution as fact must rationally follow through that acceptance into macro-evolution when separation and time are included. The purpose of the original poster was to provide evidence of 3 particular events of speciation that are explicitly verifiable and instantaneous events.

Remember once again that these are only examples of 1 kind of 1 type (sympatric) of speciation event. There are 3 (or 4) mechanisms of natural speciation:
Allopatric, parapatric and sympatric (peripatric is the "4th kind, but it is essentially the same as allopatric)

Allopatric speciation:
one population is separated by some sort of physical boundary where organisms cannot physically pass between each population and therefore become genetically isolated fro one another. given enough time, micro-evolution changes each population in its own way including both natural selection and genetic drift (random neutral changes) that eventually create distinct species unable to interbreed even if they meet again.

Parapatric speciation:
One population is sufficiently large to cover an area that effectively isolates one section from another or covers multiple climates/ecosystems (think deer or rabbits) and as multiple niches will be covered, populations sufficiently distant fro each other are effectively isolated even though they are technically the same population and could theoretically still interbreed given enough migration. Once again, as each area has its own selective forces and genetic information is not flowing completely between the subpopulations, therefore they become distinct from one another given enough time.

Sympatric speciation:
This would be the type the OP gave examples of. The idea with sympatric is that one population emerges within another one, usually due to a mutation that makes it impossible to interbreed instantly, be it polyploidy, a change in fertility cycles, physical barriers to mating (such as a possum's forked penis not developing correctly), behavioral barriers to mating (different courtships or mate selection) or anything else that might inhibit mating within a population. In most cases, these die out.

The biggest thing that people, namely creationists, but otherwise the general public seems to have an issue understanding is that we did not come from apes. We share an ancestor with them. Then at one point, several million years ago, our ancestors underwent a speciation event that caused them to diverge from one another, creating the lineage that led to humans (and our hominid brethren) and the lineage that led to modern apes. This divergence would have occurred after the one that caused primates to diverge from the rest of the mammals a significant time before, and that after mammals diverged from reptiles, but before reptiles diverged from birds.

We come from apes no more than you came from your most distant relative you know at the family reunion. That person did not give rise to you, but you are linked through yur common ancestor, albeit in that case it is likely a much more chronologically adjacent one. I know you have that black sheep in the family that you like to pretend you have no relationship to, everybody does. Luckily you can take heart in knowing that you only share a portion of your genes with that person that you would not share with any other person. Now think of that and all a few million generation in between.

[xcept]

Here's a recent article discussing something along the lines of what you bring up. As referenced here in an ICR article.

This article writes about the "darwin's fishes" as they are called and the amazing electrolocation ability that they have.
http://www.icr.org/article/5109/
"In electrolocation, there is a specialized electric organ in their tail which discharges electrical pulses. Its intricacies deserve attention. Each discharge builds up an electrica field around the fish, which is sensed by cutaneous electroreceptor organs that are distributed over most of the body surface of the fish. Nearby objects distort this electrica field and cause a local alteration in current flow in those electroreceptors that are closest to the object. By constantly monitoring the responses of its electroreceptor organs, a fish can detect, localize, and identify environmental objects. The integrated features for electrolocation are so ingeniously constructed that researchers plan to mimic its capabilities Finding electrolocation in various unrelated life forms, including the platypus, would be expected if creatures were purposefully outfitted to live successfully in particular habitats. It can be concluded that the currents in the Congo affected certain re-programmable variations and within the elephant fish and other fishes, like cichlids However, it takes a great"and unfounded"faith in nature to maintain that such subtle variations have anything to do with ultimate origins, or that remarkably specified sensory organs emerged naturally at multiple times and in different organisms"

Connected by MOTOBLUR on T-Mobile

A few points to note in this paper is the fact that these supposed isolated species mentioned were supposed to have evolved this electrolocation separately. The elephant fish and the fresh water eel. Takes a great deal of faith to accept something like that as factual.
I would like to know your take on this. Please refrain from calling ICR known liars. And address the article on its points directly.

[xcept]

Darwinism is inadequate to explain why life forms appear fully- equipped and unique. Life is too amazing to claim natural selection. Clearly creation is the true answer to this dilemma

This is an amazing article.
http://www.icr.org/article/5002/

Connected by MOTOBLUR on T-Mobile

About the shimp eye being so intricate and advanced it will inspire new dvd technology, but yet unchanged since the cambrian explosion about 400 million years. Definitely contrary to evolution.

[Miles]

Darwinism is inadequate to explain why life forms appear fully- equipped and unique. Life is too amazing to claim natural selection. Clearly creation is the true answer to this dilemma

This is an amazing article.
http://www.icr.org/article/5002/

So you think the linked article is pretty good, do you. Well let's take a look.

Consider the following taken from your linked article.

• "Some modern mantis shrimps are exactly the same as their ancestors that were fossilized in Devonian strata, which have been assigned an astounding age of 400 million years.⁴"

Interesting! "Some modern mantis shrimps are exactly the same as their ancestors."

Just to be sure what the author is saying here, I looked up the word "exactly."

• Exactly
  ex act ly Pronunciation [ig-zakt-lee]
  "adverb
  1. in an exact manner; precisely; accurately.
  2. in every respect;

Okay. So with that understood I visited the source from which the author got this bit of information: #4 which is an article titled "Whats Old Is New: 12 Living Fossils" on the Wired Science internet site.

Here we read

• "Neither a mantis nor a shrimp, the mantis shrimp has changed little in 400 million years."
  source

Errr, what was that!?! "The mantis shrimp has changed little in 400 million years." How can something change, even if just a little, and still remain "exactly the same"? By gum, it can't! So what's going on here? Nothing much but the old creationist ploy of misquoting to make a point, and listing its source knowing the reader will never bother to check it. And look how forthright it all appears; "Yes sir, creationists do rely on science. Just look at all the science sources it lists."


But we're not done. Here's another sweet creationist ploy.

Quote in link: "The odds of this creature remaining unchanged for that length of time are fantastically remote.⁵"

Hmm, is that so?

Well sure it is. It's based on science. Referenced source #5 in fact.

And going to source #5 we find an article written by Brian Thomas, M.S. . And who is this Brian Thomas, M.S.? He's none other than the author of the the article that says to look at source "5. Brian Thomas, M.S. is using Brian Thomas, M.S. as an authoritative source. Neat little deceit that's worthy of a carney barker selling tickets to see the amazing six footed man (who's only claim to fame is that he's six feet tall).

But you are right xcept when you characterized the article as "amazing." It's amazing that creationists are still resorting to telling lies, half truths, and outright deceit in order to buffalo in the unwary. But then again, what else can they do?

About the shimp eye being so intricate and advanced it will inspire new dvd technology, but yet unchanged since the cambrian explosion about 400 million years. Definitely contrary to evolution.

Boy, that one you have to explain. Who says the functional properties of the mantis shrimp eye have not changed? Considering that all we have from the Cambrian are fossils, fossils that cannot in the least tell us about such abilities, it's a pretty preposterous claim. So there is nothing at all here that can be said to be "contrary to evolution."

[nygreenguy]

Darwinism is inadequate to explain why life forms appear fully- equipped and unique. Life is too amazing to claim natural selection. Clearly creation is the true answer to this dilemma

Still going on with the arguments from ignorance.

I would like to know your take on this. Please refrain from calling ICR known liars. And address the article on its points directly.

Heres the thing, as we have shown, in lengthy detail ,in another thread attacking the source is legitimate if the source is not credible. How would you, as a non-expert validate the claims of either source? You (for the most part) cant. This is why we rely on the peer-review process to prevent us from being duped.