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]

From Post 267:

WIN!

Pointing out errors is kinda the point of debate. Is it any one group's fault they respond?

I try to read every post, and I learn from those on "my side", as well as from my "opponents". To say one group is ganging up on an individual kinda misses the mark. There is something to be said about an argument from popularity - especially when the consensus is pointing to fact.

I do find it interesting theists are under-represented in this sub-forum, compared to the others. Could it be the "missing" theists realize the weakness of arguing science through religious texts?

I wonder what would happen if I went into the theology sub-forum and hollered about God not existing. I'd dare say I'd have some 'splainin' to do.

Well, I can speak only for myself, but I suspect that there are other theists who don't see anything to talk about. As in, what's the problem? I have no problem with science, including evolution. Neither do most modern Jews and most liberal Christians.

Science and religion, from the Jewish point of view, are both about the same thing. The word in Hebrew is emet - "truth."

[zepper899]

Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage."

That is to bad. Now if they could get a root of a radish and the foliage of a cabbage we could have a pretty good harvest.
I hope they don't stop trying.

Interestingly (and unrelatedly) enough, the geneticist in question was actually working for the soviets to create just such a crop, in which both the root and the leaf could be useful. It kinda flipped backwards on him, so none of it was useful. He was later executed by the soviet government.

[Flashpoint]

Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage."

That is to bad. Now if they could get a root of a radish and the foliage of a cabbage we could have a pretty good harvest.
I hope they don't stop trying.

Interestingly (and unrelatedly) enough, the geneticist in question was actually working for the soviets to create just such a crop, in which both the root and the leaf could be useful. It kinda flipped backwards on him, so none of it was useful. He was later executed by the soviet government.

The Soviets had a bad habit of killing everyone of use.

[Veritas4God]

I apologize profusely if this may sound a little dense, but I don't see how vegetables and soviets came into this conversation. I think I missed something....Can someone explain how this transition came about?
Cathar, I'm sorry I never answered all your posts regarding the last post I made. I did not intend to place myself in the position of Jesus, and I'm afraid I did sound somewhat like a martyr. Sorry about that. Newbie syndrome, I suppose. My point was simply that, while several people seemed to be concerned about the unbiased text Pirate was quoting from, Nobody really gets any of their info from unbiased sources. Worldview will affect the opinion of everyone, making it impossible for anyone to be truly "unbiased".

[Wyvern]

I apologize profusely if this may sound a little dense, but I don't see how vegetables and soviets came into this conversation. I think I missed something....Can someone explain how this transition came about?

The references to vegetables and soviets came straight from the OP.

[Veritas4God]

Perhaps, but how? What brought these topics up in a forum marked "three examples of macroevolution? I'm still not seeing the connection.......

[Goat]

Perhaps, but how? What brought these topics up in a forum marked "three examples of macroevolution? I'm still not seeing the connection.......

Number 3 was

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."


Someone later pointed out that this particular Russian was later executed by the Soviets.

[Dr.Physics]

Here is the evidence for biological evolution:

-Paleontology (fossil record)
-Genetics (comparative sequence analysis, phylogenetic reconstruction)
-Comparative anatomy (common morphology, and living examples)
-geographical distribution (Continental distribution, Island biogeography, Endemism of species, Adaptive radiations)
-Comparative physiology and biochemistry (Universal biochemical organisation and molecular variance patterns)
-Observed natural selection (E.Coli in the lab, lactose intolerance in humans, Nylon eating bacteria ect... )
-Observed speciation (examples: Blackclap, Drosophila melanogaster, Polar bear, ect...)
-Artificial selection (dog breeding, ect...)

in summation, evolution is one of, if not the most sound scientific fact that exists, because of the extensive reasons listed above. checkmate, now lets move on

[Veritas4God]

I can't address all of these, But if you'll pick one I'll do my best to reply. Are you, by any chance, in college?