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?

[micatala]

Moderator INtervention

Losing is merely giving up. I am not prepared to do such.

No, losing is being wrong...and you're certainly that.

These types of one liners add little to the debate.

Making substantive points by pointing out where another poster is wrong or has ignored arguments is certainly fine. Even "keeping score" by noting how many unanswered questions, unsubstantiated assertions, etc. a poster makes is also appropriate if done civilly. The mods usually ask people to avoid "declaring victory" however.

Things as they spread out do not become more organized. As evilution claims.

Pejorative word play is not in line with civil debate and could be considered inflammatory.

[xcept]

Yes thank you for that moderator. The evilutgion was a typo. I'm using my thumbs and the I is next to the o. I will keep an I out next time...pun intended.

I will work on my rebuttals as well.

[firechild]

Peer reviewed reference to the problems with evolution.
This rare admission is from the evolutionist journal Nature: "Darwin anticipated that microevolution would be a process of continuous and gradual change ... One type of gap relates to the existence of 'organs of extreme perfection', such as the eye, or morphological innovations, such as wings, both of which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of how they evolved."

The funny thing is, the eye is a common issue for creationists when it in fact discredits the theory of creation. The human eye is inferior to many other eye designs in so many ways. There is evidence to support the development from primitive flatworm eyes to mammalian eyes. There are also examples of eyes with both different and superior characteristics than us.

As for wings, there is evidence to show that wings have evolved more than once by different modes. Bats are a good example and there is 2 separate points of origin to explain the evolution of wings. Macro and micro bats evolved wings at different times but because flight is a huge evolutionary advantage there is no reason that it should not have evolved more than once, even within the mammalian lineage. Flighted mammalians still have a pentadactyl limb which has evolved into the wing, however if there was a creator, surely he would have made these animals a little more suited to flight, as he has done with birds. Porous bones would have been a good start.

Xcept,
You also have not addressed my last point (post 147) regarding the evolution of Stomatopods over the past 400 million years. You seemed to think that the percieved lack of evolution of this group of animals in this time had dedunked the arguement for evolution but now that you realise that evolution had not been at a standstill over this time you just ignore the whole idea. This is typical creationist attitude, if you don't acknowledge it happened then it is not evidence against your beliefs. There is always a logical explanation for the things we see in nature, we may not always be able to give a definitive answer immediately but we will gather the evidence to find the most reasonable explanation and at this point, an invisible man that lives in the sky is not reasonable.

[T-mash]

Losing is merely giving up. I am not prepared to do such.

You've already lost when you started replying to our posts on this subject. Most of us here are not biologists, or maybe not even scientists, yet we have to keep correcting you on ridiculous claims that show a severe lack of knowledge about basic biology and science. Even if you'd be able to "win", you'd achieve nothing. The validity of evolution is not dependant on whether or not you won a debate on it. The validity of evolution is based on evidence and scientific discovery. If you really think evolution is wrong and that you, someone who is probably not part of the scientific community, have somehow gotten your hands on evidence against evolution you are sorely mistaken. If evolution was "a lie" we would have tossed it aside years ago. It's not out fault that the entire observable world, universe even, points towards evolution. If you think it doesn't you are welcome to think so but go and read this thread back if you please. This is not a debate. It is not you bringing forth evidence and us bringing forth evidence and both sides defending their own evidence and discrediting the other. It is you making statements, us commenting on why your statement is wrong and you ignoring our responses to that and instead just throw around some more statements. For example you proposed that evolution is wrong because the earth needs to be 4,6 billion years old which it obviously isn't because of the amount of sediment in the ocean. Now I find that highly interesting and would love to know how the amount of sediment in the ocean disproves evolution. We called you on it, you ignored it. Like pretty much each thing in this thread.

[nygreenguy]

You've already lost when you started replying to our posts on this subject. Most of us here are not biologists, or maybe not even scientists,

Hey, speak for yourself!

[T-mash]

You've already lost when you started replying to our posts on this subject. Most of us here are not biologists, or maybe not even scientists,

Hey, speak for yourself!

Oh you tree-hugger you

[Bio-logical]

You've already lost when you started replying to our posts on this subject. Most of us here are not biologists, or maybe not even scientists,

Hey, speak for yourself!

I second that!

[nygreenguy]

You've already lost when you started replying to our posts on this subject. Most of us here are not biologists, or maybe not even scientists,

Hey, speak for yourself!

I second that!

Biologists rule!

[xcept]

Losing is merely giving up. I am not prepared to do such.

You've already lost when you started replying to our posts on this subject. Most of us here are not biologists, or maybe not even scientists, yet we have to keep correcting you on ridiculous claims that show a severe lack of knowledge about basic biology and science. Even if you'd be able to "win", you'd achieve nothing. The validity of evolution is not dependant on whether or not you won a debate on it. The validity of evolution is based on evidence and scientific discovery. If you really think evolution is wrong and that you, someone who is probably not part of the scientific community, have somehow gotten your hands on evidence against evolution you are sorely mistaken. If evolution was "a lie" we would have tossed it aside years ago. It's not out fault that the entire observable world, universe even, points towards evolution. If you think it doesn't you are welcome to think so but go and read this thread back if you please. This is not a debate. It is not you bringing forth evidence and us bringing forth evidence and both sides defending their own evidence and discrediting the other. It is you making statements, us commenting on why your statement is wrong and you ignoring our responses to that and instead just throw around some more statements. For example you proposed that evolution is wrong because the earth needs to be 4,6 billion years old which it obviously isn't because of the amount of sediment in the ocean. Now I find that highly interesting and would love to know how the amount of sediment in the ocean disproves evolution. We called you on it, you ignored it. Like pretty much each thing in this thread.

pride comes before the fall. You believe I have lost, however I'm not the one who is lost. By the way, I love all the gloating.... great job!

[Scotracer]

You've already lost when you started replying to our posts on this subject. Most of us here are not biologists, or maybe not even scientists,

Hey, speak for yourself!

I second that!

Biologists rule!

They may but engineers own

We build ur worldz

In reality, I'm glad we have a wide variety of people from many scientific disciplines; biologists, geologists (although he doesn't post any more), engineers/physicists etc.