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?

[nygreenguy]

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

Not in this thread. You have fabricated facts and hand waved the evidence.

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.

Leviticus was written around 600bc. There was sanitation drainage systems as far back as 4000 bc.

Check actual scientific literature before believing what the bible tells you. I used to repeat the fancy little facts myself then I realized I was only fooling myself.
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.

And at one point, Iraq was the intellectual capital of the world, so should we believe everything in the koran?

America is supposed to be a free country where all beliefs are welcomed and none are forbidden.

Still wrong. All beliefs are allowed, but we have the freedom to reject them.

So why is it illegal to even mention that some people don't believe in evolution in public schools?

Why mention the fact some people have ridiculous beliefs?

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.

So should we have on people who say 9/11 was a conspiracy? Or people who think the earth is flat?

Not all ideas are created equal and deserve equal time.

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.

You are simply handwaving the evidence. You dont even understand basic biology, let alone comparative anatomy.

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.

Its because you are simply setting up a strawman.

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.

Its because you cant even define information, and every time this question is answered, the goalposts suddenly shift. Creationists are so utterly ignorant of science, they are unable to even form accurate scientific questions.

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.

You cant make judgments on that which you are naive.

[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.

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.

I was thinking of genes or DNA being turned off and on and how the changes last over generations. I recalled reading where worms and humans have eye genes. They are turned on in us while not in the worm.

[nygreenguy]

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.

I was thinking of genes or DNA being turned off and on and how the changes last over generations. I recalled reading where worms and humans have eye genes. They are turned on in us while not in the worm.[/quote]

A lot of this has to do with changes in the egg/womb. This is why so many animals look alike in early developmental stages. We have all the same basic genes, on at the same time, and then its just a matter of what gets kicked on when. Then there is the fact we just have some different genes.

[Veritas4God]

Ok, Scotracer and Cnorman, here's the info you wanted on the book. Before I begin, Cnorman, I would suggest you contact google immediately. You're account has ceased to function. The book mentioned by our friend, the pirate, is called Biology 2 edition. It was written by Dr. Jay L. Wile, a creation scientist of sorts, and is copyrighted 2005. It has 594 pages and is produced by Apologia Educational Ministries. If you all will kindly let our friend the pirate have a break and find some other creationist to gang up on(seriously, there's like 5 of you!!!) I'm sure everyone will be the better off for it. Thank you. Your friend, Veritas
P.S. Don't try to debate with me.Although I could, I'd much rather not right now.

[Cathar1950]

Ok, Scotracer and Cnorman, here's the info you wanted on the book. Before I begin, Cnorman, I would suggest you contact google immediately. You're account has ceased to function. The book mentioned by our friend, the pirate, is called Biology 2 edition. It was written by Dr. Jay L. Wile, a creation scientist of sorts, and is copyrighted 2005. It has 594 pages and is produced by Apologia Educational Ministries. If you all will kindly let our friend the pirate have a break and find some other creationist to gang up on(seriously, there's like 5 of you!!!) I'm sure everyone will be the better off for it. Thank you. Your friend, Veritas
P.S. Don't try to debate with me.Although I could, I'd much rather not right now.

If only one of us respond then it seems they think it is just one opinion but if a few of us explain then at least he might get the hint.
Maybe if he were not debating well beyond his skills he wouldn't feel ganged up upon. Besides I am betting we are not so much debating him as we are his poor sources. Besides cursing he really didn't have anything but what he took from others/

[Goat]

Ok, Scotracer and Cnorman, here's the info you wanted on the book. Before I begin, Cnorman, I would suggest you contact google immediately. You're account has ceased to function. The book mentioned by our friend, the pirate, is called Biology 2 edition. It was written by Dr. Jay L. Wile, a creation scientist of sorts, and is copyrighted 2005. It has 594 pages and is produced by Apologia Educational Ministries. If you all will kindly let our friend the pirate have a break and find some other creationist to gang up on(seriously, there's like 5 of you!!!) I'm sure everyone will be the better off for it. Thank you. Your friend, Veritas
P.S. Don't try to debate with me.Although I could, I'd much rather not right now.

And how is that a 'non-biased' college text book. If it is published by 'Apologia press', then it certainly is not 'non-biased'

I looked it up. It is not a college level book,as claimed by the pirate lady. It is for 'Christian home schooling'. Do you think a book designed for 'Christian home schooling' for 'college prep' is a non-biased source.

The claims was a 'non-biased college level text book'. The book you claim falls far short.

[Cathar1950]

Ok, Scotracer and Cnorman, here's the info you wanted on the book. Before I begin, Cnorman, I would suggest you contact google immediately. You're account has ceased to function. The book mentioned by our friend, the pirate, is called Biology 2 edition. It was written by Dr. Jay L. Wile, a creation scientist of sorts, and is copyrighted 2005. It has 594 pages and is produced by Apologia Educational Ministries. If you all will kindly let our friend the pirate have a break and find some other creationist to gang up on(seriously, there's like 5 of you!!!) I'm sure everyone will be the better off for it. Thank you. Your friend, Veritas
P.S. Don't try to debate with me.Although I could, I'd much rather not right now.

And how is that a 'non-biased' college text book. If it is published by 'Apologia press', then it certainly is not 'non-biased'

I looked it up. It is not a college level book,as claimed by the pirate lady. It is for 'Christian home schooling'. Do you think a book designed for 'Christian home schooling' for 'college prep' is a non-biased source.

The claims was a 'non-biased college level text book'. The book you claim falls far short.

Dishonesty and over their head.
I am reminded of American idol when they have someone on that is really bad and you wonder why someone didn't tell them before they got on TV and made a fool out of themselves. Like running out in traffic and complaining about all the cars that seem to be running them over.

[JoeyKnothead]

Ok, Scotracer and Cnorman, here's the info you wanted on the book. Before I begin, Cnorman, I would suggest you contact google immediately. You're account has ceased to function. The book mentioned by our friend, the pirate, is called Biology 2 edition. It was written by Dr. Jay L. Wile, a creation scientist of sorts, and is copyrighted 2005. It has 594 pages and is produced by Apologia Educational Ministries. If you all will kindly let our friend the pirate have a break and find some other creationist to gang up on(seriously, there's like 5 of you!!!) I'm sure everyone will be the better off for it. Thank you. Your friend, Veritas
P.S. Don't try to debate with me.Although I could, I'd much rather not right now.

"Please don't debate with me".

I understand that to mean...

Though I've taken the time to enter a debate site, I've suddenly found myself lacking the time to do so.

I'd dare say it matters not how many speak, but which are correct.

[cnorman18]

I am vindicated: the book was not "college-level," it was not "up-to-date," and it was most definitely not "unbiased." The lie is now proven.

[Cathar1950]

I am vindicated: the book was not "college-level," it was not "up-to-date," and it was most definitely not "unbiased." The lie is now proven.

And yet they see themselves as some kind of martyr that was ganged up on because they were playing preaching and playing Sunday school in a debate forum with bad sources. We might think they didn't know better except for fact they refused to give enough information on the book so we couldn't find out.

Of course I don't see this as Christian behavior but the acts of someone that seems immature .