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?

[otseng]

ou 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...

Moderator warning.

Both of these would be considered a personal comment and not be considered respectful.

[xcept]

Isn't it ironic... that everything you've stated as a fact is all before recorded human history? Mathematics 37000 yrs ago? The suns formation, thed big bang, dark matter, etc... you see my point? Well maybe you don't. It all takes a mountain of fath to believe that junk. None of it are reasons you became atheists.

I was never really anything but an atheist, rejecting Christian doctrine at the age of eight. My atheism is compelled by the counter-evidence to Christian and other religious claims.

Your argument from incredulity is your own problem.

You continually refuse to accept the many pieces of evidence offered to you in this thread, with no real rebuttal other than "na-ah".

When you have something tangible to present, by all means do so. Until then, your continued refusal to accept the evidence presented to you is an indication you will not accept anything counter to your preferred religion's claims.

I've already stated it. The three examples were forced creations of supposed evolution in a lab, not in nature. Therein lies the difference. If you can show any examples of this happening in nature, then be my guest

[Goat]

Isn't it ironic... that everything you've stated as a fact is all before recorded human history? Mathematics 37000 yrs ago? The suns formation, thed big bang, dark matter, etc... you see my point? Well maybe you don't. It all takes a mountain of fath to believe that junk. None of it are reasons you became atheists.

I was never really anything but an atheist, rejecting Christian doctrine at the age of eight. My atheism is compelled by the counter-evidence to Christian and other religious claims.

Your argument from incredulity is your own problem.

You continually refuse to accept the many pieces of evidence offered to you in this thread, with no real rebuttal other than "na-ah".

When you have something tangible to present, by all means do so. Until then, your continued refusal to accept the evidence presented to you is an indication you will not accept anything counter to your preferred religion's claims.

I've already stated it. The three examples were forced creations of supposed evolution in a lab, not in nature. Therein lies the difference. If you can show any examples of this happening in nature, then be my guest

Except of course, you were shown examples that have occurred in nature, yet, for some reason, you fail to want to address them. How about addressing the issue of ring species.

[JoeyKnothead]

Isn't it ironic... that everything you've stated as a fact is all before recorded human history? Mathematics 37000 yrs ago? The suns formation, thed big bang, dark matter, etc... you see my point? Well maybe you don't. It all takes a mountain of fath to believe that junk. None of it are reasons you became atheists.

I was never really anything but an atheist, rejecting Christian doctrine at the age of eight. My atheism is compelled by the counter-evidence to Christian and other religious claims.

Your argument from incredulity is your own problem.

You continually refuse to accept the many pieces of evidence offered to you in this thread, with no real rebuttal other than "na-ah".

When you have something tangible to present, by all means do so. Until then, your continued refusal to accept the evidence presented to you is an indication you will not accept anything counter to your preferred religion's claims.

I've already stated it. The three examples were forced creations of supposed evolution in a lab, not in nature. Therein lies the difference. If you can show any examples of this happening in nature, then be my guest

Change.

It doesn't matter if such change occurs in a lab, in a pasture, or in the heart of the rain forest. It is the change in genetic material, and not so much the environment under which such occurs that creates new species. Of course the environment has its role, but without the change the environment has no role.

Your insistence here that change in a lab doesn't constitute change is noted, and rejected on the grounds of change is change, regardless of where it occurs.

[Grumpy]

xcept

I've already stated it. The three examples were forced creations of supposed evolution in a lab, not in nature. Therein lies the difference. If you can show any examples of this happening in nature, then be my guest

"In 1975 a team of Japanese scientists discovered a strain of Flavobacterium living in ponds containing waste water from a factory producing nylon that was capable of digesting certain byproducts of nylon 6 manufacture, such as the linear dimer of 6-aminohexanoate, even though those substances are not known to have existed before the invention of nylon in 1935. Further study revealed that the three enzymes the bacteria were using to digest the byproducts were significantly different from any other enzymes produced by other Flavobacterium strains (or any other bacteria for that matter), and not effective on any material other than the manmade nylon byproducts."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria

There you go.

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.

[xcept]

In 1975, Japanese scientists reported the discovery of bacteria that could break down nylon the material used to make pantyhose and parachutes. This bacteria could live on the waste products of nylon manufacture as their only source of carbon and nitrogen. Bacteria are known to ingest all sorts of things, everything from crude oil to sulfur, so the discovery of one tha could eat nylon would not have been very remarkable if not for one small detail: nylon is synthetic; it didnt exist anywhere in nature until 1935, when it was invented by an organic chemist at the chemical company Dupont. {Kinoshita, S., Kageyama, S., Iba, K., Yamada, Y. and Okada, H., Utilization of a cyclic dimer and linear oligomers of -aminocapronoic acid by Achromobacter guttatus K172, Agric. Biol. Chem. 39(6):1219"1223, 1975. Note: A. guttatus K172 syn. Flavobacterium sp. K172} syn. Flavobacterium sp. K172} The two species that were identified as able degrade nylon compounds were the Flavobacterium sp. K172 and Pseudomonas sp. NK87 S. Much research has flowed from this discovery to elucidate the mechanism for the apparently novel ability of these bacteria{Negoro, S., Biodegradation of nylon oligomers [review], Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 54:461"466, 2000.} Three enzymes are involved in Flavobacterium K172: F-EI, F-EII and F-EIII, and two in Pseudomonas NK87: P-EI and P-EII. None of these have been found to have any catalytic activity towards naturally occurring amide compounds, suggesting that the enzymes are completely new, not just modified existing enzymes. Indeed no homology has been found with known enzymes. But an insightful fact is that the genes for these enzymes are ALL located on plasmids: 3 plasmid pOAD2 in the Flavobacterium and on two plasmids, pNAD2 and pNAD6, in the Pseudomonas

Some claimed that this new enzyme arose from a frame shift mutation. But today scientists are doubting the claim that this is an example of random mutations and natural selection generating new enzymes because their are five transposable elements on the pOAD2 plasmid Transposase enzymes are responsible for cleavage of dsDNA (Double-stranded DNA) Transposase recognize specific sequence of nucleotides and these transposons/jumping genes nserts into DNA molecule. This insertion creates direct repeats on each side of transposons known as insertion sequences. When activated, transposase enzymes coded therein cause genetic recombination. Externally imposed stress such as high temperature, exposure to a poison, or starvation can activate transposases. {Ohno, S., Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the preexisted, internally repetitious coding sequence Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 81:2421"2425, 1984.} The presence of the transposases in such numbers on the plasmid suggests that the plasmid is "pre-designed to adapt" when the bacterium is under stress. {Truman, R., Protein mutational context dependence: a challenge to neo-Darwinism theory: part 1, TJ 17(1):117"127; Truman, R. and Heisig, M., Protein families: chance or design? TJ 15(3):115"127.}

This was taken from the site evolutionfacts.org., and the wikipedia article. Although I strongly distrust an editable encyclopedia as a good source.

[Scotracer]

In 1975, Japanese scientists reported the discovery of bacteria that could break down nylon the material used to make pantyhose and parachutes. This bacteria could live on the waste products of nylon manufacture as their only source of carbon and nitrogen. Bacteria are known to ingest all sorts of things, everything from crude oil to sulfur, so the discovery of one tha could eat nylon would not have been very remarkable if not for one small detail: nylon is synthetic; it didnt exist anywhere in nature until 1935, when it was invented by an organic chemist at the chemical company Dupont. {Kinoshita, S., Kageyama, S., Iba, K., Yamada, Y. and Okada, H., Utilization of a cyclic dimer and linear oligomers of -aminocapronoic acid by Achromobacter guttatus K172, Agric. Biol. Chem. 39(6):1219"1223, 1975. Note: A. guttatus K172 syn. Flavobacterium sp. K172} syn. Flavobacterium sp. K172} The two species that were identified as able degrade nylon compounds were the Flavobacterium sp. K172 and Pseudomonas sp. NK87 S. Much research has flowed from this discovery to elucidate the mechanism for the apparently novel ability of these bacteria{Negoro, S., Biodegradation of nylon oligomers [review], Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 54:461"466, 2000.} Three enzymes are involved in Flavobacterium K172: F-EI, F-EII and F-EIII, and two in Pseudomonas NK87: P-EI and P-EII. None of these have been found to have any catalytic activity towards naturally occurring amide compounds, suggesting that the enzymes are completely new, not just modified existing enzymes. Indeed no homology has been found with known enzymes. But an insightful fact is that the genes for these enzymes are ALL located on plasmids: 3 plasmid pOAD2 in the Flavobacterium and on two plasmids, pNAD2 and pNAD6, in the Pseudomonas

Some claimed that this new enzyme arose from a frame shift mutation. But today scientists are doubting the claim that this is an example of random mutations and natural selection generating new enzymes because their are five transposable elements on the pOAD2 plasmid Transposase enzymes are responsible for cleavage of dsDNA (Double-stranded DNA) Transposase recognize specific sequence of nucleotides and these transposons/jumping genes nserts into DNA molecule. This insertion creates direct repeats on each side of transposons known as insertion sequences. When activated, transposase enzymes coded therein cause genetic recombination. Externally imposed stress such as high temperature, exposure to a poison, or starvation can activate transposases. {Ohno, S., Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the preexisted, internally repetitious coding sequence Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 81:2421"2425, 1984.} The presence of the transposases in such numbers on the plasmid suggests that the plasmid is "pre-designed to adapt" when the bacterium is under stress. {Truman, R., Protein mutational context dependence: a challenge to neo-Darwinism theory: part 1, TJ 17(1):117"127; Truman, R. and Heisig, M., Protein families: chance or design? TJ 15(3):115"127.}

This was taken from the site evolutionfacts.org., and the wikipedia article. Although I strongly distrust an editable encyclopedia as a good source.

"Some scientists". These sorts of claims are always dubious because they lack accountability. WHO said this?

We have mapped the genome of the two bacterium therefore we can show, empirically, what caused this bacteria to consume the nylon. We know where in the genome the frame-shift happened and what it created.

I've already done a piece explaining it on here. But for the life of me I can't remember where I did it. If someone can point me towards it perhaps, if they remember or I'll just have to go huntin' through 1300 posts. Fun.

[T-mash]

In 1975, Japanese scientists reported the discovery of bacteria that could break down nylon the material used to make pantyhose and parachutes. This bacteria could live on the waste products of nylon manufacture as their only source of carbon and nitrogen. Bacteria are known to ingest all sorts of things, everything from crude oil to sulfur, so the discovery of one tha could eat nylon would not have been very remarkable if not for one small detail: nylon is synthetic; it didnt exist anywhere in nature until 1935, when it was invented by an organic chemist at the chemical company Dupont. {Kinoshita, S., Kageyama, S., Iba, K., Yamada, Y. and Okada, H., Utilization of a cyclic dimer and linear oligomers of -aminocapronoic acid by Achromobacter guttatus K172, Agric. Biol. Chem. 39(6):1219"1223, 1975. Note: A. guttatus K172 syn. Flavobacterium sp. K172} syn. Flavobacterium sp. K172} The two species that were identified as able degrade nylon compounds were the Flavobacterium sp. K172 and Pseudomonas sp. NK87 S. Much research has flowed from this discovery to elucidate the mechanism for the apparently novel ability of these bacteria{Negoro, S., Biodegradation of nylon oligomers [review], Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 54:461"466, 2000.} Three enzymes are involved in Flavobacterium K172: F-EI, F-EII and F-EIII, and two in Pseudomonas NK87: P-EI and P-EII. None of these have been found to have any catalytic activity towards naturally occurring amide compounds, suggesting that the enzymes are completely new, not just modified existing enzymes. Indeed no homology has been found with known enzymes. But an insightful fact is that the genes for these enzymes are ALL located on plasmids: 3 plasmid pOAD2 in the Flavobacterium and on two plasmids, pNAD2 and pNAD6, in the Pseudomonas

Some claimed that this new enzyme arose from a frame shift mutation. But today scientists are doubting the claim that this is an example of random mutations and natural selection generating new enzymes because their are five transposable elements on the pOAD2 plasmid Transposase enzymes are responsible for cleavage of dsDNA (Double-stranded DNA) Transposase recognize specific sequence of nucleotides and these transposons/jumping genes nserts into DNA molecule. This insertion creates direct repeats on each side of transposons known as insertion sequences. When activated, transposase enzymes coded therein cause genetic recombination. Externally imposed stress such as high temperature, exposure to a poison, or starvation can activate transposases. {Ohno, S., Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the preexisted, internally repetitious coding sequence Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 81:2421"2425, 1984.} The presence of the transposases in such numbers on the plasmid suggests that the plasmid is "pre-designed to adapt" when the bacterium is under stress. {Truman, R., Protein mutational context dependence: a challenge to neo-Darwinism theory: part 1, TJ 17(1):117"127; Truman, R. and Heisig, M., Protein families: chance or design? TJ 15(3):115"127.}

This was taken from the site evolutionfacts.org., and the wikipedia article. Although I strongly distrust an editable encyclopedia as a good source.

*yawn*

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.

[Grumpy]

xcept

The "Nylon Bug" evolved to eat a substance that has only existed since 1938, the enzyme it uses to do this does nothing else and it evolved to do this in nature. Therefore your claim is completely falsified.

That was SOOOO easy.

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.

[a_Pirates_pride2000]

Let's start with Darwin's finches. When Charles Darwin was in the Galapogos Islands, he found three types of finches, each with a different type of beak. Yes, I believe it is possible that those finches developed different types of beaks for different purposes. What is impossible is that the finches could sprout longer wings, change their bone structure, entirely rearrange their genetic code, develop hooked beaks, keener eyesight, and become eagles.

I have heard arguments saying that evolution is not coincidence, that species found the need to develop different things in order to survive. Let us examine the giraffe. Because of the giraffe's long neck, blood vessels must work extra-hard to pump blood to the giraffe's brain. The blood gains pressure with all that pumping, and if the giraffe put its head down or raised it suddenly, that blood would hit the brain with so much force it would instantly kill the giraffe. So Mr. Giraffe is lying there, dying, and thinking "Oh gee, I need to evolve!" But by now it is too late; Mr. Giraffe is dead, and his children go make the same mistake!

I have also heard that evolution took place through mutation. Mutation HAS NEVER ADDED GENETIC INFORMATION to a genetic code. A mutation harms or destroys a genetic code; it has never improved a genetic code. Example of a mutation: in the miniature horse, a mutation may take place which causes the foal to be a dwarf. This results in deformity, illness, and most often death. Nothing is ever improved.

As for the argument listed several times "Three examples of macroevolution" this is false. The resulting organisms could not reproduce, one of the basic criteria for life. Thus, they are not alive. Plus: MACROEVOLUTION is a change so dramatic that it creates entirely new species. Darwin effectively proved incorrect the idea of the immutability of species: the idea that all breeds and species have been created since the beginning of time and can never change. Microevolution takes place; there are thousands of different breeds of dogs, thousands of different breeds of cats, thousands of different fish, thousands of different horses. Many of these species came through natural or man-made selection. But a horse has never become an elephant, or viseversa.

Thank you for reading!
~Mix