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]

I would like to focus on just one statement from a_Pirates_pride2000 that he has carefully avoided referring to since he made it:

As for the source of my information: a college-level biology book. Fully up-to-date and unbiased.

I believe this to be a falsehood.

If aPP can't or won't post the title, author or editor, publisher, city of publication, and date of publication, along with the page numbers where his claims are backed up, I say the accusation is proven and that aPP was lying.

Which, in my opinion, should effectively end this thread; aPP will have proven that his position is so untenable that he has to support it with lies.

[Cathar1950]

I was reading Time about how the environment can change genes.
I like change better then mutation even if there are mutation they are still change while I am not sure all change is a mutation in the sense it is somehow bad.
How can change or mutation be thought to be bad when change is what we see all around us? Everything changes.

I recall my early college years when I was studying biology, wildlife and fisheries when I wondered if there were some mechanisms we had not yet understood where our genes were related to our environment that speed up the process to achieve a better fit.

Maybe it is off topic but it is better then hearing more preaching.

[a_Pirates_pride2000]

Just to clear this up: my biology book is titled 2nd Edition Biology. I am also heading to the library today to pick up books on evolution, molecular biology, and the fossil record. I do my homework.

goat: You say that creationist websites give false evidence. This is not so. I have used real and logical evidence to combat evolution.

I take Genesis literally, but there is much debate about that in the Christian community. To me, it seems dangerous to believe that God was not involved in each and every stage of creation. That belief does one thing quite often: erode faith in God. I have met strong Christians who take do not take Genesis quite literally. But this is a fairly rare case.

You continue asking me to "back up my claim that the Bible is true." I have backed it up, several times. I have had one person tell me that "modern science is not compatible with the writings of ignorant desert dwellers." In the Old Testament, check the book of Leviticus. There are regulations regarding sanitary living (such as washing hands, clothes, removing mold, etc) that were not discovered by other civilizations for a long time. These people were not ignorant. And Paul, a Roman citizen, wrote many of the books in the New Testament. Again, Paul was a Roman citizen. The Romans and Greeks were the most educated society in the world at that time. Also, Scripture is not written by men; it is inspired by God and writted down by men. There is a difference. "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness." You also ask me to "back up my claim that God is real." I have given evidence of God's existence, both from science and from the Bible. But no one can prove with hard numbers that God exists; it's a matter of faith. He's there whether you believe in Him or not, but no one can force you to believe.

I bring up the fact that creation is not taught in schools for a reason. America is supposed to be a free country where all beliefs are welcomed and none are forbidden. So why is it illegal to even mention that some people don't believe in evolution in public schools? Also, how are children to judge for themselves if they only hear one side of the story? They don't get evidence from both sides. In journalism, this would be a crime.

Your fossils are still in the class with Archaeopteryx. They have the bone structure, lung structure, wing structure, and brain of a bird, with a few slightly reptilian features. Again, this would be only a late transitional stage. I am asking for solid evidence of earlier transitional stages. Rather than birds with reptilian features, reptiles with birdlike features. And fewer of those. That link is missing, even with a large fossil record.

I also note than NO ONE is able to show me the grandparent of a monkey. This would exist if evolution were true. There would have to be many stages between a chemical reaction and a chimpanzee.

You accuse me of refusing to answer your claims. But you have never answered my monkey question or my genetic code question. No one who believes in evolution, not even Richard Dawkins, has been able to show people one example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process that is clearly seen to increase genetic information. And people have asked Richard Dawkins to answer that question. He can't, because there is no answer.

You continually attack all my claims, which I am willing to defend. Yet, though you have no problem questioning every word I say, I have yet to see you give firm, solid evidence of your claims. Evolution has not yet been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. I'd say it's been proven wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Praying,

~Mix

[Scotracer]

Just to clear this up: my biology book is titled 2nd Edition Biology. I am also heading to the library today to pick up books on evolution, molecular biology, and the fossil record. I do my homework.

You were also asked for the author and ISBN number.

goat: You say that creationist websites give false evidence. This is not so. I have used real and logical evidence to combat evolution.

Oh this is very much the case. The creationist websites have been shown to lie so often that it's taken for granted that they will. Creationism is an inherently dishonest position.

I take Genesis literally, but there is much debate about that in the Christian community. To me, it seems dangerous to believe that God was not involved in each and every stage of creation. That belief does one thing quite often: erode faith in God. I have met strong Christians who take do not take Genesis quite literally. But this is a fairly rare case.

I hope you don't mind me taking your opinion on the matter very lightly given that you're inferring magic into the creation of the world. You seem to not be able to look at this argument from another side: the reality of the world would erode ones religious beliefs from a literal reading because that god doesn't exist.

You take a book that was written by very ignorant and biased men a few thousands years ago when they knew next to nothing about the world they lived in and made up stories to pretend like they did. And that isn't a dangerous belief? There are older creation myths than the Judeo-Christian one, I might add.

You continue asking me to "back up my claim that the Bible is true." I have backed it up, several times. I have had one person tell me that "modern science is not compatible with the writings of ignorant desert dwellers." In the Old Testament, check the book of Leviticus. There are regulations regarding sanitary living (such as washing hands, clothes, removing mold, etc) that were not discovered by other civilizations for a long time. These people were not ignorant. And Paul, a Roman citizen, wrote many of the books in the New Testament. Again, Paul was a Roman citizen. The Romans and Greeks were the most educated society in the world at that time. Also, Scripture is not written by men; it is inspired by God and writted down by men. There is a difference. "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness." You also ask me to "back up my claim that God is real." I have given evidence of God's existence, both from science and from the Bible. But no one can prove with hard numbers that God exists; it's a matter of faith. He's there whether you believe in Him or not, but no one can force you to believe.

Since this is referring to my statement I'll build on that argument. Read Genesis 1: it tells the story of a flat circle earth with a crystal dome over the top (the "firmament") which the stars/planets are set in. And when it rains windows are opened in this dome to allow the waters above the heavens to fall. And these people weren't ignorant?! They may have known some things about food hygiene but seeing as humans have been preparing food like that for up to 70,000 years it should come as no surprise. But that doesn't take away from the fact they knew almost nothing about the universe they lived in.

I bring up the fact that creation is not taught in schools for a reason. America is supposed to be a free country where all beliefs are welcomed and none are forbidden. So why is it illegal to even mention that some people don't believe in evolution in public schools? Also, how are children to judge for themselves if they only hear one side of the story? They don't get evidence from both sides. In journalism, this would be a crime.

Because something can't be taught as science when it isn't science. Creationism isn't falsifiable (well a literal reading of Genesis is falsifiable and it was thoroughly refuted centuries ago). Teach your creation stories in religious classes all you wish but if you want it to be put forward as science...it has to at least be science. That should be a minimum, doncha think?

And again, there is no demonstrable evidence that supports magical creation over naturalistic evolution. If you can give me one piece of verifiable evidence that is positive evidence for creation I'd give you a medal. Just giving me something evolutionary theory hasn't explained yet is not evidence for creation - that is a false-dichotomy that creationists love to spread (that's just one of their lies).

Your fossils are still in the class with Archaeopteryx. They have the bone structure, lung structure, wing structure, and brain of a bird, with a few slightly reptilian features. Again, this would be only a late transitional stage. I am asking for solid evidence of earlier transitional stages. Rather than birds with reptilian features, reptiles with birdlike features. And fewer of those. That link is missing, even with a large fossil record.

Moving the goalposts, I see. You can be presented with hundreds of transitional species...but that just isn't enough for you, is it?

I also note than NO ONE is able to show me the grandparent of a monkey. This would exist if evolution were true. There would have to be many stages between a chemical reaction and a chimpanzee.

What on earth are you talking about?

You accuse me of refusing to answer your claims. But you have never answered my monkey question or my genetic code question. No one who believes in evolution, not even Richard Dawkins, has been able to show people one example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process that is clearly seen to increase genetic information. And people have asked Richard Dawkins to answer that question. He can't, because there is no answer.

Define "genetic information" then I'll answer your request.

You continually attack all my claims, which I am willing to defend. Yet, though you have no problem questioning every word I say, I have yet to see you give firm, solid evidence of your claims. Evolution has not yet been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. I'd say it's been proven wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Praying,

~Mix

Well maybe you should submit your findings to the biological community and get yourself a nobel prize and make yourself world-famous for disproving one of the most important theories in science.

[cnorman18]

Just to clear this up: my biology book is titled 2nd Edition Biology.

Just Googled it. I find no book with that title. No book.

How about the publisher, date, city, ISBN number, author or editor's name, and like that? I can make up a book title too, and you have given us no reason to trust your word.

[a_Pirates_pride2000]

Scotracer: You say that I believe in "magic". Have I ever once mentioned magic? I believe in God; there's a difference. Magic is taking the supernatural and using it (often satanically) on earth. Big difference between that and God. You deny my arguments on the claim that "God does not exist". Yes, He does. You say you argue from science, but simply denying God is not science.

You need to reread Genesis 1. I'll post it here for you, since you've obviously forgotten a few things or been fed utter lies.


1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning"the first day.

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning"the second day.

9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning"the third day.

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights"the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning"the fourth day.

20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning"the fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground"everything that has the breath of life in it"I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning"the sixth day.

I see nothing there whatsoever about windows in the sky or declaring that the earth is flat.

You state that Christianity is not science. Please define science. God and the universe are closely linked. You also say that there is no evidence supporting God over creation. I believe I've given you several examples. It's not that evolution hasn't explained something, it can't explain it. I see you haven't either.

I am not moving the goalposts. This has been what I have said since the start. There are many, many examples of "late transitional forms," but no one can show me an earlier transitional form. I can't say this enough times: With all the fossils we have found, we should have found at least one which shows an earlier transitional form. We have not.

You've obviously missed something. Between the chemical reaction and the chimpanzee, there had to be some sort of "grandparent" of a monkey, thousands of stages between a simple puddle of chemicals and microscopic organisms and a mammal. I have seen none.

Genetic information: A DNA sequence or genetic sequence is a succession of letters representing the primary structure of a real or hypothetical DNA molecule or strand, with the capacity to carry information as described by the central dogma of molecular biology. I believe that's the book definition. Also, the genome. Can you answer the question? Honestly?

Congragulations on your expert use of sarcasm. By the way, sarcasm isn't the lowest form of wit. It's not wit at all.

Praying,

~Mix

[JoeyKnothead]

I feel certain the average observer has sufficient information to make their minds up regarding this Pirate's claims.

At this point I see no need to continue this farce.

[micatala]

First of all, lactose tolerance is not a mutation...this is lactose INtolerance, which is caused by mutation resulting in the lack of a certain enzyme.

Evolution never left the stage of being a hypothesis, as there IS NO SOLID EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP!!!!!!!!!

Yes there is.

Consider that we have millions of fossil specimens for one. Consider that there are no fossil specimens of flowering plants, for example, in layers dated older than about 140 million years. consider, for example, that there are no fossil homo sapiens past about 200,000 years ago.


Why are there no fossils of flowering plants in the lower layers? Why no humans?

It seems to me you have a couple of choices.

1) Humans have existed since the beginning of life on earth, but for some reason, left absolutely no trace of their existence except from very, very recent times.

2) Humans have not necessarily existed from the beginning of time, but since organisms in our experience always have ancestors, their ancestors existed in the past and were not human.

2) is supported by the fact that, as we go back in time, we do have fossils of organisms that are similar to us, but not exactly like us. The further back we go, the less similar we are.

If we say that these similar organisms are not our ancestors or anything like them we have to ask "where is the evidence for our ancestors." If our ancestors were all human all the way back, where is the evidence?

Thus, if you pick 1), you have to explain how evidence for humans somehow completely disappeared from the fossil record except in the top fraction of 1% of the record. Your explanation would have to account for why somewhat similar organisms (australopithecines for example) have left evidence.



Then you would have to repeat this for every modern species for which there is no evidence in the distant past. Flowering plants, apes, elephants, dogs, cats, birds, etc. etc.

If you "just don't accept belief in God," then why are you debating? Whether you personally accept something or not does not make it true or false. Let's say I don't believe that trucks drive on the road, so I walk out on the middle of the highway and get hit. Whether I believe it trucks or not, THEY ARE THERE.

Just for the record, I DO believe in God and even believe in God as an ultimate creator. I also accept the evidence overwhelmingly supports that evolution of life on earth has occurred. It is a false dichotomy to suggest that one must reject evolution to believe in God or be a Christian.

Tell me, WHY did a giraffe develop a long neck, if it had to develop many other features in order to accomodate it? It didn't have to eat from the tops of trees; it could have "evolved" to any food source it chose, according to your words.

If God created a giraffe with a long neck, please explain why he made its recurrent laryngeal nerve 20 feet long, going from the brain down into the chest, looping around some ligaments, and then back up the neck to the larynx.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/magazine/20WWLN.html

The fossil record shows no real missing links.

Repeating a false assertion does not make it true. We have many examples of transitional forms. We do not have a "movie" of evolution it is true, but we do have millions of "snapshots"

Following your logic, if I have a photo of my son when he was 3 and another when he was 6, I should assume he did not exist between the two photos and somehow I had two sons, the first of whom no longer exists.

Your claim of change in genetic codes is utterly false. Changes in genetic codes, while the code remains generally the same, only changing within bounds, gives no room for the evolution of millions of organisms. In order for a bacteria to become a human, information must be added and increased. A bacteria cell has DNA contained in the nucleus, while a human has 46 chromosomes, each containint DNA. For this to have happened, genes must have been added to the genetic code!

Instances of duplication of genes or sections of DNA are well-documented. The mechanisms by which information has been added to genomes is not a complete mystery.

Who knows? You are risking a lot on this theory. Spontaneous generation, I believe, has been proven false. People keep a version of it (abiogenesis) which is that in some (unknown) period of time, some (unknown) organism was, in an (unknown) fashion able to spontaneously generate. Evolutionists so want to hold onto this theory, they keep pushing it back into regions they know little about. Spontaneous generation has been proven false throughout the ages.

You are engaging in what is called equivocation here. Spontaneous generation of whole, modern animals does not occur. However, neither evolution nor any theory of abiogenesis suggests this. Scientists suggest that the first life was very small and very primitive, not like modern life. TO suggest that abiogenesis is the same as spontaneous generation is completely fallacious.

Yes, it is sonar, not radar. I admit to that mistake. However, I note that you have not answered the question. If the most brilliant minds could not make anything close to a bat's sonar, how could it have come about through random chance and evolution? By the way, that was not in my book...it was something I called up through memory so don't blame the book.

A bat's sonar is approx. 1,000,000,000 times more accurate than anything designed by man.

That is crude and unneccessary. Answer the question seriously or don't answer at all.

The fact, assuming it is true, that bat sonar is better than man designed sonar simply suggests evolution is a very powerful mechanism for producing "designs" that work well. It doesn't show that evolution is false.

Consider that even human produced designs typically evolve. The cars we have today are a lot more powerful, safer, etc. than the first cars. Experience helps.

Evolution does the same thing, albeit in a natural way.

[cnorman18]

I see that no further information is forthcoming from aPp regarding his phony claim of using a "college-level biology text, up-to-date and unbiased."

Conclusion is obvious. He lied. There is no such book, or at least none to which he dares to give a true reference.

Case closed. I'm done here, too.

[nygreenguy]

I was reading Time about how the environment can change genes.
I like change better then mutation even if there are mutation they are still change while I am not sure all change is a mutation in the sense it is somehow bad.
How can change or mutation be thought to be bad when change is what we see all around us? Everything changes.

I recall my early college years when I was studying biology, wildlife and fisheries when I wondered if there were some mechanisms we had not yet understood where our genes were related to our environment that speed up the process to achieve a better fit.

Maybe it is off topic but it is better then hearing more preaching.

It is rare that the environment actually changes genes (change meaning an alteration in bases) but the environment is always working on gene transcription.

When you get startled, the genes for adrenalin in the adrenal glands are turned on and transcribed at a higher rate.

Our transcription rates are frequently influenced by the environment.