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?

[Cathar1950]

I was amused reading this:

Man, I know how that feels. I just spent about 4 weeks debating evolution in another subforum, wore myself to dead exhaustion, and all the time I was the only Christian in the subforum. I was warned when I joined this website that atheists seemed to gang up on Christians, but I still think it's worth it

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 590#283590

I think a couple of Christians did come to her aid with less to offer then she had copied from some site. How did she get exhausted from copying?
I don't think she was so much ganged up on as there are a number in here that are knowledgeable and after claiming no one can answer her questions, something I doubt she ever asked, she complains because they did answer them.

[cnorman18]

I was amused reading this:

Man, I know how that feels. I just spent about 4 weeks debating evolution in another subforum, wore myself to dead exhaustion, and all the time I was the only Christian in the subforum. I was warned when I joined this website that atheists seemed to gang up on Christians, but I still think it's worth it

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 590#283590

I think a couple of Christians did come to her aid with less to offer then she had copied from some site. How did she get exhausted from copying?
I don't think she was so much ganged up on as there are a number in here that are knowledgeable and after claiming no one can answer her questions, something I doubt she ever asked, she complains because they did answer them.

Let's not forget that it's not just atheists "ganging up" on her, either. Hey, I'm here.

"Unanswered questions" are a favorite theme of conspiracy nuts everywhere, e.g. the 9/11 "Truthers." No matter how many times the "unanswered questions" are answered, on the record and with facts aplenty, they somehow remain "unanswered." The same pattern seems to hold for creationists. It's not that creationism is bad science; no, no. It's the secret conspiracy among (apparently) Satan-worshipping scientists who are trying to falsify and conceal the Truth of God for some nefarious reason. "Unanswered Questions" are a bad sign.

Enh, what am I talking about. I probably posted some for Holocaust deniers or somebody back there someplace. Anyway, even from me, it's a red flag.

[Cathar1950]

I was amused reading this:

Man, I know how that feels. I just spent about 4 weeks debating evolution in another subforum, wore myself to dead exhaustion, and all the time I was the only Christian in the subforum. I was warned when I joined this website that atheists seemed to gang up on Christians, but I still think it's worth it

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 590#283590

I think a couple of Christians did come to her aid with less to offer then she had copied from some site. How did she get exhausted from copying?
I don't think she was so much ganged up on as there are a number in here that are knowledgeable and after claiming no one can answer her questions, something I doubt she ever asked, she complains because they did answer them.

Let's not forget that it's not just atheists "ganging up" on her, either. Hey, I'm here.

"Unanswered questions" are a favorite theme of conspiracy nuts everywhere, e.g. the 9/11 "Truthers." No matter how many times the "unanswered questions" are answered, on the record and with facts aplenty, they somehow remain "unanswered." The same pattern seems to hold for creationists. It's not that creationism is bad science; no, no. It's the secret conspiracy among (apparently) Satan-worshipping scientists who are trying to falsify and conceal the Truth of God for some nefarious reason. "Unanswered Questions" are a bad sign.

Enh, what am I talking about. I probably posted some for Holocaust deniers or somebody back there someplace. Anyway, even from me, it's a red flag.

I forgot to mention that there are a number of Christians here that also disagree with her post or claim and understand evolution. I meant to mention it but I ended up posting before I was done.
I was just reading an article in Process Studies where Goodman was pointing out that one thing some theists (Creationists) have in common with those that see evolution as a process both see the world as having changed and is going to change in the future. One seems to denying process or change as something ongoing.

[McCulloch]

Moderator Reminder

Let's try to get back to the topic at hand, Can we finally close the book on the creationist's contention that macroevolution is but a fantasy of science?

If you wish to debate the dishonest tactics of creationists, open a new thread for that.

If we have properly identified A Pirates Pride2000's book then it has been thoroughly enough discredited as not being a college-level biology book; fully up-to-date and unbiased.

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

That is quite odd. Most college level books have a bit narrower focus than an entire field of study such as biology. I cannot find which book this is in reference to, perhaps you could use the protocol common among university students, and refer to the book by its authors rather than simply by its title.

[Veritas4God]

Dash it all!! Thanks a lot, you guys. I really don't want to be here, but you have raised a few questions which, I think, are worth answering. Byt the way, I'm leaving for Mexico in three days. I'll be gone for a month, and, as you can imagine, that makes it rather hectic for me right now. That's why I don't want to debate at this time. I will continue this forum when I return.
Ok, to start with, what exactly are you, Cnorman? Athiest, evolutionist, creationist, christian, what? Please show me from what unbiased sources you are getting your information. Have you contacted google yet?
Cathar, when exactly did he curse? What sources are you using? If I and a whole crowd of creationists started debating solely with you, I guarantee you would have something undesireable to say about it. I do not believe our friend the pirate WAS, in fact, debating beyond his skills. He had some very good points that I noticed none of you answered satifactorily. Would you also please tell me from where you get your unbiased answers?
Goat, Have you read that book? I suggest you do. It may be labeled 'college prep',but in actuallity, it is on level with college cirriculums. One thing you need to understand about science, my friend, is that no science is completely objective. All so called "science" will be tainted by whomever wrote the book or gave the speech. Evolutionist scientists will try till the end of time to come up with a reasonable explaination as to how the earth came into existence, whereas creationists will always maintaine that God did, in fact, create the earth and everthing in it. Thier theory will never change. Evolution has to change with each new evidence for a creator.
Joey, I don't think you realize how hard it is to be the only one in a crowd of many who oppose you. comment on a christian video, and try to answer all of the people who respond. Then come back.
You guys, I really don't want to argue with you. I came on merely because I heard of a friend who needed my help. Thank you all for ganging up on me, instead of our mutual friend, the pirate. I think I'm beginning to get used to it. Although You may not like it, I will pray for all of you. While that last line is gonna get ALOT of criticism, so did Jesus, so...... say what you will.

[cnorman18]

That's the longest parting shot I ever saw.

I'm a Jew. Thirty-some years ago I was a Methodist minister; I converted to Judaism at the age of 50.

[Cathar1950]

Before I address Veritas4God I would like to apologize.
I got a_Pirates_pride2000
mixed up with
ragamuffin.
It happens.

[JoeyKnothead]

Joey, I don't think you realize how hard it is to be the only one in a crowd of many who oppose you. comment on a christian video, and try to answer all of the people who respond. Then come back.

I have no sympathy for one that freely enters a debate site and then complains about being "ganged up on", or words to that effect.

In my neck of the woods Christians have been "ganging up" to oppress, force their beliefs, or silence others for far too long. Asking me to understand why a Christian would find such so difficult will do nothing but encourage me.

As I said before, it matters not how many speak, but which are correct.

[Cathar1950]

Dash it all!! Thanks a lot, you guys. I really don't want to be here, but you have raised a few questions which, I think, are worth answering

Cathar, when exactly did he curse? What sources are you using?

I mistook her for ragamuffin, my mistake and I apologize. Is "Dash it all!!" cursing?

We all get confused and make mistakes. It isnt the first and it wont be the last but I hope I check better next time when I am working on more then one thread.
I feel so stupid. Of course someone once said stupid is not something you are it is something you do and we hope to learn.

If I and a whole crowd of creationists started debating solely with you, I guarantee you would have something undesireable to say about it.

I have been in such a crowd and I am usually out numbered by friends and family.
It seems the creationists are prone to saying anything in a debating forum to preach their "undesireable" warnings and threats as well as such undesirable things such like:

Thank you for reading. I am praying for you all.

"It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in God."

~Mix

I would think before I went into such a crowed. It isnt like we are in their church. This is a debating site not a preaching platform or a place where you grab something off a web site and now armed with the sword of God destroy the unbeliever with you poor data and bad arguments.

I do not believe our friend the pirate WAS, in fact, debating beyond his skills.

If you are having trouble understanding fallacies and less then forthright practices such as quote mining then yes they are debating beyond their skills or they are dishonest.
Granted they may have done it out of ignorance with well meaning intentions such as astound the unbeliever, excuse me, the one that understands evolution (non-creationists) as there are believers that are not creationists.

He had some very good points that I noticed none of you answered satifactorily.

Everyone answered and you seem to think it is ganging up on them. Kind of want it both ways dont you. Now please tell us what were those very good points specifically? We disagree and all we saw was an act of quote mining which they admitted was pointless as they didnt mean anything by it. The questions were not only address satisfactorily it was adequately detailed. What were the points and could be satisfactorily answered?

Would you also please tell me from where you get your unbiased answers?

I never claimed I had an unbiased answer because I dont think we can really have unbiased answers or questions. Being unbiased is a goal or value but modern studies in research show us we cant help it. That is why we have peer reviews, scholarship and the facts. We understand we are all biased and that is why doubt is a mature approach and practice.
Does my bias make her books bias correct and appropriate as an authority or what ever it was suppose to be?
Besides you seem to have forgotten that your friend was the one claiming an unbiased source. Now that she was shown to be wrong you want to question my bias which isn't even the question or claim made. I thought you said you could debate.

You guys, I really don't want to argue with you. I came on merely because I heard of a friend who needed my help. Thank you all for ganging up on me, instead of our mutual friend, the pirate. I think I'm beginning to get used to it. Although You may not like it, I will pray for all of you. While that last line is gonna get ALOT of criticism, so did Jesus, so...... say what you will.

Oh now you are Jesus.
What is it you think you are getting use to?

At this point she is coming across better then you have and given her age she didn't do that bad especially with some of the creationist we run across.
I ope she comes away from this having learned some things about debating and a little more careful about what sources she uses and how she uses them.
We got rules in here that make us all look like ladies and gentlemen.

[JoeyKnothead]

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.