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?

[T-mash]

Now that I've stirred the pot a bit to see what wafts up from the bottom I can address the real issues at hand.

Every Christian who believes the Bible also believes in Evolution as currently observed and stated with your examples. You would have to be a maroon not to. Observed speciation.

However the bump in the road comes from the massive millions of assumed years. Also the string of evolution is tied to what at the end? We know the front doesn't have an end. But how about a beginning? What started it? When? Why? Do you even try to figure that out?

People often ask... who made God? Where are Gods parents? So... when did evolution start?

Oh and to reply to your examples: each of them are within the created kinds. A loss of information in the DNA keeps the species from having offspring once bred. Such as Ligers, tigons, zorses, zonkeys etc. This also applies to plants.

Camels and giraffes are also related. Just as the ocean has a border, so do all familys and orders of animals. You cannot Show me any jump in these higher designations. Checkmate.

So let me get this straight...
Your point is that because we never observed a chicken giving birth to an elephant evolution is wrong?.....
Sorry, it's not a checkmate when you knock over the game-board because you don't understand how the game is played.

First off. Same kind? What's a kind? I've never heard of a "kind" in taxonomy. Species, Genus, Family, Order, Class, Phylum, Kingdom, Domain. Which of these do you label as kind? If with kind you mean species... could you give us the definition of species? or kind if you prefer? I doubt that you can give us a clear definition of what a "kind" or a "species" is.

If you fail to do this, you quite obviously have no right to discuss about macro-evolution, because you can't even tell species apart.


about your Liger etc part... a mule?

Second off. How did evolution start? Who cares in this thread. It's not relevant.

[nygreenguy]

However the bump in the road comes from the massive millions of assumed years. Also the string of evolution is tied to what at the end? We know the front doesn't have an end. But how about a beginning? What started it? When? Why? Do you even try to figure that out?

the big bang, ~16 billion years ago, irrelevant, we already have.

People often ask... who made God? Where are Gods parents? So... when did evolution start?

Sometime between 4-6 billion years ago.

Oh and to reply to your examples: each of them are within the created kinds. A loss of information in the DNA keeps the species from having offspring once bred. Such as Ligers, tigons, zorses, zonkeys etc. This also applies to plants.

Wrong, 100% factually incorrect.

Camels and giraffes are also related. Just as the ocean has a border, so do all familys and orders of animals. You cannot Show me any jump in these higher designations. Checkmate.

True. There is a point where the genetic differences become so great, things can no longer interbreed. We have observed this, and there re a great many, many examples in the wild. Once again, your lack of knowledge on the subject is rearing its ugly head.

Also, for the LAST time, STOP making so many accusations without SOME sort of evidence.

[Cathar1950]

Every Christian who believes the Bible also believes in Evolution as currently observed and stated with your examples. You would have to be a maroon not to. Observed speciation.

However the bump in the road comes from the massive millions of assumed years. Also the string of evolution is tied to what at the end? We know the front doesn't have an end. But how about a beginning? What started it? When? Why? Do you even try to figure that out?

People often ask... who made God? Where are Gods parents? So... when did evolution start?

Oh and to reply to your examples: each of them are within the created kinds. A loss of information in the DNA keeps the species from having offspring once bred. Such as Ligers, tigons, zorses, zonkeys etc. This also applies to plants.

Camels and giraffes are also related. Just as the ocean has a border, so do all familys and orders of animals. You cannot Show me any jump in these higher designations. Checkmate.

You have not even put your chess pieces on the board and you claim checkmate?
So after you have been playing "maroon" now you want to change the subject to when evolution started?

[micatala]

Moderator Warning

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?

They're all plants...
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha macro what? Ha ha ha jha ha ha seriously....

This counts as an unproductive one-liner. Please attempt to make a substantive point with your posts. I don't see one here.

[Miles]

Now that I've stirred the pot a bit to see what wafts up from the bottom I can address the real issues at hand.

And with ignorance no less. Interesting to see what people favor as tools of conversation.

Every Christian who believes the Bible also believes in Evolution as currently observed and stated with your examples.

And more pot stirring. Does your inability to seriously address an issue have no end?

You would have to be a maroon not to. Observed speciation.

Isn't calling your fellow Christians "maroons" kind of a no-no?

However the bump in the road comes from the massive millions of assumed years. Also the string of evolution is tied to what at the end? We know the front doesn't have an end. But how about a beginning? What started it? When? Why? Do you even try to figure that out?

I may be mistaken, but I doubt anyone here cares to take on the project of educating you in the basics of evolution.

Oh and to reply to your examples: each of them are within the created kinds.

And just what is a "kind"? If you have a decent definition you can apply to the Academy of Creationists for "Outstanding Achievement in Creation 'Science' for 2009," because so far such a definition has eluded them.

Camels and giraffes are also related. Just as the ocean has a border, so do all familys and orders of animals. You cannot Show me any jump in these higher designations. Checkmate.

You really don't understand taxonomy do you. There's a book on the market called This is not a Weasel by Philip Mortenson, which has two introductory chapters that succinctly and very clearly explain taxonomy. I suggest you make use of it.

[Miles]

The lion and the tiger are also very close, they can still interbreed, but the liger is also sterile. In the wild, the two will not willingly interbreed so, scientifically, they already are two distinct species.

Just a quick clarification. If a hybrid is incapable of successfully mating with its own kind, in this case another liger, or even with one of its parent species (very rare exceptions have occurred) it does not qualify as a new species, although for identification purposes it may be listed as one: panthera leo x Panthera tigris, or Equus caballus x Equus asinus in the case of the mule

[nygreenguy]

The lion and the tiger are also very close, they can still interbreed, but the liger is also sterile. In the wild, the two will not willingly interbreed so, scientifically, they already are two distinct species.

Just a quick clarification. If a hybrid is incapable of successfully mating with its own kind, in this case another liger, or even with one of its parent species (very rare exceptions have occurred) it does not qualify as a new species, although for identification purposes it may be listed as one: panthera leo x Panthera tigris, or Equus caballus x Equus asinus in the case of the mule

And some are just Genus x new name for combo.

What is odd are orchids. They can produce some cross GENUS hybrids.

[xcept]

However the bump in the road comes from the massive millions of assumed years. Also the string of evolution is tied to what at the end? We know the front doesn't have an end. But how about a beginning? What started it? When? Why? Do you even try to figure that out?

the big bang, ~16 billion years ago, irrelevant, we already have.

People often ask... who made God? Where are Gods parents? So... when did evolution start?

Sometime between 4-6 billion years ago. ANY PROOF FOR THIS ANYTHING THAT'S IRRIFUTABLE? WE ALL HAVE THE SAME EVIDENCE, WE JUST COME TO DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS UPON THIS DATA AND MATERIAL. ROCKS ARE DATED BY INDEX FOSSILS AND FOSSILS ARE DATED BY THE ROCKS THEY'RE FOUND IN. A BIT CIRCULAR TO ME. THE BIBLE BELIEVING CHRISTIANS OR CREATIONISTS AS YOU COIN THEM HAVE THE WRITTEN RECORD IN THE BIBLE THEY FOLLOW AND ACCEPT BECAUSE IT IS INSPIRED BY A LOVING GOD THAT TAKES CARE OF THEM AND ENSURES THEM ETERNAL LIFE WITH THEIR LOVING CREATOR. ATHEISTS HAVE MANY OUTLETS FOR INFORMATION WHICH CAN CHANGE ACCORDING TO THEIR VIEWS TO FIT THEIR CURRENT WORLDVIEW. WHETHER ITS RANDOM CHANCE, OR GUIDED EVOLUTION OR EVEN PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM. PERHAPS THE CHRISTIANS CHOICES FOR TRUTH IS TOO NARROW FOR THE ATHEIST AND THIS CAUSES DISSENTION BETWEEN THE TWO VIEWS. SINCE THE ATHEIST SEES THEMSELVES AS CONTINUALLY GROWING IN KNOWLEDGE AND WITH SUCH A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE BIBLE PROBABLY THINK A CHRISTIAN WOULD BE BORED FROM STUDYING THE BIBLE. I MEAN IT IS BUT ONE BOOK AFTERALL. THIS COULDN'T BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH HOWEVER. A MAN WHO FULLY UNDERSTANDS THE BIBLE IS THE WISEST MAN UPON THE FACE OF THE EARTH.
IN THE BIBLE READING IT AND UNDERSTANDING WHAT IS WRITTEN GIVES TO A TIMELINE OF THE EARTH IS THE MOST SIMPLISTIC MEANS. AGES OF PEOPLES LIVES FROM THE VERY FIRST MAN, INCLUDED ARE THE REASONS THE EARTH IS THE WAY IT IS AND WHAT HAPPENED TO BRING THINGS TO THE WAY THEY ARE. FROM ORIGINAL CREATION TO THE FIRST SIN AND THE EFFECTS OF THE CURSE UPON THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE TO THE SPREAD OF EVIL UPON THE EARTH TO THE FLOOD TO BABEL TO JACOB AND HIS LINEAGE INTO EGYPT TO THE EXODUS OUT INTO THE PROMISED LAND AND TO THE BIRTH OF CHRIST. CHRIST DYING UPON THE CROSS FOR ALL MANKIND TO RECEIVE HIM. TO HIS EVENTUAL AND SURE RETURN TO US AND HEAVEN ESTABLISHED UPON THE EARTH FOR ETERNITY.

Oh and to reply to your examples: each of them are within the created kinds. A loss of information in the DNA keeps the species from having offspring once bred. Such as Ligers, tigons, zorses, zonkeys etc. This also applies to plants.

Wrong, 100% factually incorrect.

Camels and giraffes are also related. Just as the ocean has a border, so do all familys and orders of animals. You cannot Show me any jump in these higher designations. Checkmate.

True. There is a point where the genetic differences become so great, things can no longer interbreed. We have observed this, and there re a great many, many examples in the wild. Once again, your lack of knowledge on the subject is rearing its ugly head.

Also, for the LAST time, STOP making so many accusations without SOME sort of evidence.

What you have stated isn't true either. Polar bears can breed with other brown bears just because they are geographically isolated doesn't mean they cannot have fertile offspring. This is true and does in fact happen with birds, salamanders, bears, etc. Its means animal kinds are those that can successfully produce offspring. Whether those offspring can reproduce depends on how altered the alleles are. Very easy to see how God could've chosen superspecies with all the alleles neceaary to produce the variations we have today.

[xcept]

Evolution is a dying theory. It will go the way of flat earth theories and itself become extinct.

Only way its around this long is because the theory keeps evolving to take over other things that are observed.

Evolution cannot even account scientifically for its beginning, or any steps leading up to observed history.

Why would you even want to show such an allegience to this theory. It offers you nothing in return. A grant based paleontologist needs the theory in order to continue research. But a blogger has no benefit whatsoever in their daily lives. I have to say that any of the atheists I have met who speak ou against christianity online are the kind of people I would walk to the other side of the street to avoid. Yeah evolution has the last laugh with you.

Oh and I'm sure that since its ok to be attacked in here by atheists, whenever a christian bites back they probably get banned. Not that it would be a big loss. Just save the battery life of my dataphone.

[Goat]

Evolution is a dying theory. It will go the way of flat earth theories and itself become extinct.

I am sure that many creationists would like to see that happen. However, there is no evidence that it is a 'dying theory'. Claims of web sites appealing to the ignorant do not really count as evidence.

Only way its around this long is because the theory keeps evolving to take over other things that are observed.

You mean, it looks at the evidence, and make sure it matches what the evidence is.. Gasp. Amazing. That IS how science works you know. Otherwise, we might still be thinking that the earth is flat, that the sun circles the earth, and demons cause colds.

Evolution cannot even account scientifically for its beginning, or any steps leading up to observed history.

That sounds like 'Plumbing can't even account for the origin of water, so it's worthless'. Evolution does not address the origin of life, that is a different discipline. However, biologist have made great strides in how the chemistry of early earth would be condusive to boot strap life.

Why would you even want to show such an allegience to this theory. It offers you nothing in return. A grant based paleontologist needs the theory in order to continue research. But a blogger has no benefit whatsoever in their daily lives.

Except ., of course, medicine, vaccines, antibodics. and all sorts of things like that.
Plus, of course, we must not forget that is where the actual evidence points to. We must not forget the very important issue is that the evidence backs up it.

I have to say that any of the atheists I have met who speak ou against christianity online are the kind of people I would walk to the other side of the street to avoid. Yeah evolution has the last laugh with you.

And here you are conflating the Theory of Evolution with atheism. There are many religious Christians that accept evolution as the best explaination for the current form/diversity of life. To deny that is to lie to yourself

Oh and I'm sure that since its ok to be attacked in here by atheists, whenever a christian bites back they probably get banned. Not that it would be a big loss. Just save the battery life of my dataphone.

This site is run by a devote Christian, who just so happens to be a creationist. However, the most important principle in this board is civil discourse. People who do not follow proper etiquette get warned their behavior is not acceptable, and if they continue to violate the rules, do get banned. This is a rule for everyone, without regard to their professed religion (or lack there of).