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?

[cnorman18]

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!

That was a perfect example of the patterns in your posts to which others object. It was entirely nonresponsive to any point that has been made, it was an ad hominem, and it was preaching, all at once. No evidence, no counterarguments, nothing - just "I'm right, so there." More foot-stamping.

If declaring that your debate opponents are "lost," as in going to Hell, and then sneering at them with a sarcastic "great job!" isn't "gloating," what would "gloating" look like?

Can you actually respond to these arguments? You said you would work on your "rebuttals." When will we see some?

You are pretending that you are "winning" this debate. From what I've seen, you haven't even participated in it, only postured and posed and preached.

[micatala]

Moderator Intervention

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!

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!

OK everyone. I certainly don't object to levity. However, this whole sequence of "cheerleading posts" is really against the rule for one-liners.

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).

Let's get back to substantive debate.

[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.

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!

Sigh.. I'll try again.
It is not about you winning or us losing. Here is what you have to do if you want to "win" here and get a scientific consensus. You would have to show that (1) Creationism is supported by observable and verifiable evidence and (2) that all the evidence that supports evolution points towards creationism. Part (2) is what most creationists don't understand. Evolution is evidenced by observations we make. These observations points towards evolution. Even if evolution would be a lie like you claim, this does not change the observations that support it. Just shouting "Evolution is wrong!" won't get you anywhere. You would also have to explain how all evidence instead points towards creationism or how all of it is false. If you assume the existence of a young earth, not a single fossil would be found. Just saying evolution is a hoax so my viewpoint is correct wont cut it. Explain how the world works through creationism.

Show us how fossils point towards creationism. Show us how rudimentary organs point towards Creationism. Show us how the entire world and the entire universe and any observation we have ever made makes perfect sense by applying creationism. The fused Chromosome in our genome that supports decent from a common ape ancestor is a fact. Show us how you can draw another conclusion from this that supports creationism. Micro-evolution is observed all the time. Tell us how micro-evolution makes sense if something was perfectly designed. Apart from the fact that micro-evolution is based on faulty copying of DNA-sequences (mutations), which in itself makes no sense if you consider intelligent design by a God, why would species ever evolve in the first place if they were intelligently designed to begin with? What happened to dinosaurs if you try to explain it with creationism? How do you explain the amount of sediment in the ocean when.. wait.. never mind that one!
How do you explain the findings we have that support evolution from the following fields: Genetics Research, Palaeontology, Comparative Anatomy, Geography, Embryology, Geographical Distribution, Comparative Physiology and Biochemistry, Medicine and the list goes on and on.

[Bio-logical]

I would also like to point out that evolution is a concept much older than 150. The concept has been around since antiquity as people could see that animals were similarly grouped and seemed to share characteristics. There have been many theories and explanations to this including the allegory of the cave and Lemarck's theory of evolution by adaptation and the cumulation of acquired traits.

The modern theory of evolution is not a new idea, it is a new explanation combining the work of Darwin with the advances made in genetics, geology, chemistry... every form of science. What Darwin did is discover the mechanism y which evolution works and every new piece of evidence we have found has helped us expand upon and elaborate his theory. While it is true that Darwin was not always right in every thing he proposed, the general format of his theory is what is upheld today in what is known as Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution.

The terms "micro-evolution" and macro-evolution" are categorical, not parts of differing theories but instead used to illustrate levels of evolution. As defined, evolution means nothing more than "The change of gene frequency within a given population. Organisms do not evolve, populations do.

[Cathar1950]

Evolution is much more then just biological change as in the last 100 years we understand all of the universe as evolving and being shaped by forces and relationships. While the sciences and other related fields of study are moving on to a more dynamic (quantum, relativity, evolution and relationship or even organic (Whitehead and Hartshorne) the populist (see Mark A. Noll, also American, Bible Believer, Evangelical, popular, TV, apocalyptic) conceptions these people were even left behind theologically where they identify their Spiritual experiences and beliefs with God Himself.

It is to bad this thread got dragged down to some preaching, if often does happen when dealing with the zealous believer whose main purpose it to witness their faith.

But I think part of debate is to educate and not just win.
Everyone should want to be right, but not if you are wrong.

I also regret that often we are accused of insulting their God or actually insulting God when in fact it is their ideas or beliefs we wish to insult because they are insulting. .

I think the idea of fallen man is repugnant and arrogant as we have not fallen; we grow, learn and evolve. It looks back to something we have never been and rejects anything we could be.

I am done preaching!

[xcept]

Wow what a roadblock... I attempted to get to a computer at the fedex, but for some reason this page wouldn't pull up. So I won't be able to offer as comprehensive a rebuttal as I wished.

Starting with the original post on the evolution of plants. You have to notice all of the examples were created in a lab. These things cannot overcome genus or phylum. A rose can be altered. However you cannot breed a rose with an oak tree. There are limits that can never be crossed. And forced evolution isn't really evolution. We can mend pig haeart valves with a human but doesn't make that person evolved just because they take. On the biblical level, anything that can happen, God foreknew would happen. He foreknew we would need to use pig heartvalves etc. (This is merely an example) I haven't researched whether its actually being done.

Evoluttion doesn't deal with beginnings, sure. It certainly assumes much however.

As a Christian there actually is a good amount of physical evidence then you just require a small amount of faith (faith of a mustard seed). In atheism you must construct an entirely new worldview. Such as where did the universe come from, how did it become ordered, where and how did life start, how di it become ordered, on and on to the unexplainable and ridiculous. These things if not addressed in ones mind can cause an internal and subconscious conflict. One that begs to be dealt with. Just as a persons brow wrinkles when they lie, or their eyes wander, because of the very laws written upon their hearts that its wrong to lie. Why is that? Where does morality come from? The origin of logic, of mathematics. How can an atheist construct such a worldview without it crumbling?

Oh and I read the wikipedia link you guys gave for the hypothetical oort cloud. Lol wow. You really need a lot of faith for that one. As its never been observed, never will be, and its sole purpose is to provide comets to explain away creationism and a young earth. Quite funny actually.

I will certainly rebut more once I get to a comp. Maybe tomorrow.

[Grumpy]

xcept

I will certainly rebut more once I get to a comp. Maybe tomorrow.

You call sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "No, no, no...!" is a rebuttal? If so, don't bother, you have already lost this debate.

As to your latest pathetic post...

Starting with the original post on the evolution of plants. You have to notice all of the examples were created in a lab.

It is the same principle of evolution, just observed under controlled conditions. That's what science is. You had claimed that evolution has never been observed, then when provided with actual scientifically observed examples which completely falsified your claim, now you want to claim that evolution doesn't occur when you actually observe it? Don't strain your back moving those goal posts around.

Evoluttion doesn't deal with beginnings, sure. It certainly assumes much however.

No, it only assumes there was a beginning. The study of abiogenesis is concerned with how thw chemistry of ancient Earth produced the first life around 3.7 billion years ago.

As a Christian there actually is a good amount of physical evidence then you just require a small amount of faith (faith of a mustard seed).

Evidence requires NO faith, if it requires faith it is not evidence.

In atheism you must construct an entirely new worldview.

"Reality, what a concept." Robin Williams

Such as where did the universe come from, how did it become ordered

The Big Bang and the laws of the Universe, respectively.

where and how did life start, how di it become ordered

Earth, chemistry and evolution, respectively.

on and on to the unexplainable and ridiculous.

What is unexplainable and ridiculous if not all the superstitions and unevidenced supernatural claims throughout history? All of them cannot be true, none of them have any more evidence than any other. And you are an atheist for all but one, we just take it a single small step further. Unexplainable, ridiculous? Yeah.

Where does morality come from?

Our need to live in a social setting, that's why those without morals are called sociopaths.

The origin of logic, of mathematics.

Knowledge, mind, not superstition or dogma.

How can an atheist construct such a worldview without it crumbling?

Science is a wonderful thing, you should try it some time.

Oh and I read the wikipedia link you guys gave for the hypothetical oort cloud. Lol wow. You really need a lot of faith for that one. As its never been observed, never will be, and its sole purpose is to provide comets to explain away creationism and a young earth. Quite funny actually.

"its sole purpose is to provide comets to explain away creationism and a young earth." Sorry, your particular delusions are just not that important to the real world. Creationism and a young Earth can't stand up to even the slightest scientific scrutiny, we don't need to lie to falsify that garbage.

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.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 194:

Starting with the original post on the evolution of plants. You have to notice all of the examples were created in a lab. These things cannot overcome genus or phylum. A rose can be altered. However you cannot breed a rose with an oak tree. There are limits that can never be crossed.

Fair 'nuff. This is actually showing that these two are too far apart genetically to mate. As it relates to the ToE, I'd say the theory predicts this, in there being too much change for these species to mate.

And forced evolution isn't really evolution. We can mend pig haeart valves with a human but doesn't make that person evolved just because they take.

Notice though, generally, the closer the species the easier it is. Here the example is one mammal to another. In another example it could be one ape to another. Notice there's little research in using say reptillian hearts for such.

On the biblical level, anything that can happen, God foreknew would happen. He foreknew we would need to use pig heartvalves etc. (This is merely an example) I haven't researched whether its actually being done.

"(This is merely an example) I haven't researched whether its actually being done."

Your lack of research shows in your responses.

On what evidence do you base your "foreknowledge" claim? "The Bible says so" is useless, in that it contains too many errors to be reliable in such matters as science.

Evoluttion doesn't deal with beginnings, sure. It certainly assumes much however.

What assumptions are you opposed to? Without your declaring these we have no way to answer except in the most general of terms.

As a Christian there actually is a good amount of physical evidence then you just require a small amount of faith (faith of a mustard seed).

Faith is the belief in something for which there is no evidence.

At least here we have evidence that mustard seeds exist.

What "good amount of physical evidence" are you referring to?

You seem to have all the time and ability to make claims, but then get bogged down in actually supporting them. Please, if all the time and ability you have is to make claims, just stop.

In atheism you must construct an entirely new worldview.

Christianity is an "entirely new worldview" compared to Judaism. Atheism, generally, is a response to a better understanding of the world in which we live.

Such as where did the universe come from, how did it become ordered, where and how did life start, how di it become ordered, on and on to the unexplainable and ridiculous.

You declare things "unexplainable and ridiculous" while ostensibly promoting a belief that some dude walked on water, hopped up after being dead for three days, and various and sundry other "unexplainable and ridiculous" claims.

These things if not addressed in ones mind can cause an internal and subconscious conflict.

Witnessed in the compartmentalizing and rationalizations of religious notions, texts, and conflicting claims.

One that begs to be dealt with. Just as a persons brow wrinkles when they lie, or their eyes wander, because of the very laws written upon their hearts that its wrong to lie. Why is that?

"laws written upon their hearts"?

Yet another claim for which you offer no evidence.

This seems to be a pattern with you.

Where does morality come from?

The need for a society of so many to coexist peacefully.

The origin of logic, of mathematics. How can an atheist construct such a worldview without it crumbling?

Easily. We look to what we know, and don't place a God upon what we don't know. What we don't know we keep seeking answers for, rather than toss our hands up and declare some god behind it.

Oh and I read the wikipedia link you guys gave for the hypothetical oort cloud. Lol wow. You really need a lot of faith for that one. As its never been observed, never will be, and its sole purpose is to provide comets to explain away creationism and a young earth. Quite funny actually.

At least there's a reference for such claims. The observer is then able to measure the merits of such.

Where's yours for a "law upon hearts"? "God said/did it" can't be shown to be true.

I will certainly rebut more once I get to a comp. Maybe tomorrow.

I'd prefer you quit "rebutting" and do more "referencing".

By now I think all are quite certain you reject (rebut) various claims, that's your right. However, without ever offering evidence for your own claims you offer no reasonable alternative to otherwise reasonable answers you seem to reject with little more than a wave of your hand.

[handofnergal]

Wow what a roadblock... I attempted to get to a computer at the fedex, but for some reason this page wouldn't pull up. So I won't be able to offer as comprehensive a rebuttal as I wished.

that sucks

Starting with the original post on the evolution of plants. You have to notice all of the examples were created in a lab. These things cannot overcome genus or phylum. A rose can be altered. However you cannot breed a rose with an oak tree. There are limits that can never be crossed.

You realize that that's because of genetic drift, which is a result of evolution, right? DNA shows this.

And forced evolution isn't really evolution.

Of course not, it's just an experiment to show deniers like you that it is plausible. Don't confuse a demonstration with a theory it describes.

We can mend pig heart valves with a human but doesn't make that person evolved just because they take.

Red Herring, no one ever claimed that, if that is the extent of your knowledge of mutation then no wonder you're confused.

Evolution doesn't deal with beginnings, sure. It certainly assumes much however.

the Bible assumes much, evolution only deals with descent with modification.

As a Christian there actually is a good amount of physical evidence then you just require a small amount of faith (faith of a mustard seed).

show me some

In atheism you must construct an entirely new worldview.

no we don't, you do actually

Such as where did the universe come from,

big bang

how did it become ordered,

universal constants, fundamental forces, laws of nature

where and how did life start,

abiogenesis

how di it become ordered,

evolution

on and on to the unexplainable and ridiculous.

I think the idea of a 2000 year old Jewish carpenter god is ridiculous

These things if not addressed in ones mind can cause an internal and subconscious conflict.

there is no conflict in my mind, what the hell are you talking about?

One that begs to be dealt with.

No, you are begging

Just as a persons brow wrinkles when they lie, or their eyes wander, because of the very laws written upon their hearts that its wrong to lie.

You are equating naturalism with lying? Thats quite an accusation

Why is that? Where does morality come from?

Red Herring, has nothing to do with evolution

The origin of logic, of mathematics. How can an atheist construct such a worldview without it crumbling?

I don't know, but we do it somehow without the need of a Jeebus.

Oh and I read the wikipedia link you guys gave for the hypothetical oort cloud. Lol wow. You really need a lot of faith for that one.

yeah, it takes alot of faith to believe in a ring of icy rocks, but a 2000 year old Jewish carpenter god, and a talking snake, and a man living inside of a fish for three days, now, that's very plausible.

As its never been observed,

neither has your Jeebus, nor have the new extrasolar planets we've been discovering, but they can move stars in a wobble as they revolve, so they can be indirectly observed.

never will be,

you wanna bet? I bet you a hundred dollars we'll directly observe it in our lifetimes.

and its sole purpose is to provide comets to explain away creationism and a young earth. Quite funny actually.

hahahahahahaha, yes, you are quite funny actually

that is not the sole purpose of the Oort cloud, like you and the universe, it all has no purpose at all

I will certainly rebut more once I get to a comp. Maybe tomorrow.

hopefully never unless you do some serious research.

[xcept]

xcept

I will certainly rebut more once I get to a comp. Maybe tomorrow.

You call sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "No, no, no...!" is a rebuttal? If so, don't bother, you have already lost this debate.

As to your latest pathetic post...

Starting with the original post on the evolution of plants. You have to notice all of the examples were created in a lab.

It is the same principle of evolution, just observed under controlled conditions. That's what science is. You had claimed that evolution has never been observed, then when provided with actual scientifically observed examples which completely falsified your claim, now you want to claim that evolution doesn't occur when you actually observe it? Don't strain your back moving those goal posts around.

Evoluttion doesn't deal with beginnings, sure. It certainly assumes much however.

No, it only assumes there was a beginning. The study of abiogenesis is concerned with how thw chemistry of ancient Earth produced the first life around 3.7 billion years ago.

As a Christian there actually is a good amount of physical evidence then you just require a small amount of faith (faith of a mustard seed).

Evidence requires NO faith, if it requires faith it is not evidence.

In atheism you must construct an entirely new worldview.

"Reality, what a concept." Robin Williams

Such as where did the universe come from, how did it become ordered

The Big Bang and the laws of the Universe, respectively.

where and how did life start, how di it become ordered

Earth, chemistry and evolution, respectively.

on and on to the unexplainable and ridiculous.

What is unexplainable and ridiculous if not all the superstitions and unevidenced supernatural claims throughout history? All of them cannot be true, none of them have any more evidence than any other. And you are an atheist for all but one, we just take it a single small step further. Unexplainable, ridiculous? Yeah.

Where does morality come from?

Our need to live in a social setting, that's why those without morals are called sociopaths.

The origin of logic, of mathematics.

Knowledge, mind, not superstition or dogma.

How can an atheist construct such a worldview without it crumbling?

Science is a wonderful thing, you should try it some time.

Oh and I read the wikipedia link you guys gave for the hypothetical oort cloud. Lol wow. You really need a lot of faith for that one. As its never been observed, never will be, and its sole purpose is to provide comets to explain away creationism and a young earth. Quite funny actually.

"its sole purpose is to provide comets to explain away creationism and a young earth." Sorry, your particular delusions are just not that important to the real world. Creationism and a young Earth can't stand up to even the slightest scientific scrutiny, we don't need to lie to falsify that garbage.

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.

actually you have failed miserably to answer any of my questions. They are all rhetorical, for I know they cannot be adequately answered. You stating "the big bang" is just like me stating "godidit". Also your claim of life starting 3.7 billion years ago... so you have a margin of plus or minus 100,000,000,000 years? Yes a lot can certainly happen in that deciml point you gave. Oh and by the way... who was there to record this momentus event of life starting 3,700 million years ago? You accepting the crumbling theory of the Big Bang is COMPLETELY based upon faith, and no evidence whatsoever. Dark matter has been disproved. Hawking is working on a new thoery. The Big Bang didn't start itself. How did it start? And when have you ever seen an explosion make things ordered? For that you need purpose, direction and intelligence. The big bang offers none of those things. Hey did I mention I think you sare also a rude poster with a pompous aire about you? I gues you would have to be in order to continue talking to christians for at least 4 years in this forum now. You're 55! Maybe act like it and be more tolerant? Is atheism really full of elitist know-it-alls like you? Because attitude like that doesn't make anyone truly interested in your viewpoint. Oh and everything you used to answer what I wrote was just a generalization. I have heard it all before only without any proof for the claims. Only extreme faith. Since you view yourself as so much better than me, let's have those explainations.