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?

[Bio-logical]

Moderator Opinion

I think that we may have strayed a bit off topic. Please include how your posts relate to the topic being debated.

trying to bring it back on topic but xcept keeps ignoring my evolution oriented posts.

[xcept]

Moderator Opinion

I think that we may have strayed a bit off topic. Please include how your posts relate to the topic being debated.

Don't most topics stray off topic? Its ultimately still on topic. Evolution and atheism vs. Christianity ans the Bible. So we have hundreds of topics to discuss this core issue. Who is right. Is the Bible true or is evolution true. Because they both cannot be true at the same time.

[xcept]

Moderator Opinion

I think that we may have strayed a bit off topic. Please include how your posts relate to the topic being debated.

trying to bring it back on topic but xcept keeps ignoring my evolution oriented posts.

no I'm actually ignore every orientation of your posts, not just the evolution oriented ones.

[T-mash]

Don't most topics stray off topic? Its ultimately still on topic. Evolution and atheism vs. Christianity ans the Bible. So we have hundreds of topics to discuss this core issue. Who is right. Is the Bible true or is evolution true. Because they both cannot be true at the same time.

The debate isn't about Bible vs Evolution. No one cares about what the bible says on evolution or the origin of humans. Even educated Christians don't consider the bible to contain literal truth about everything. Christianity and Evolution goes together just fine.

[xcept]

Don't most topics stray off topic? Its ultimately still on topic. Evolution and atheism vs. Christianity ans the Bible. So we have hundreds of topics to discuss this core issue. Who is right. Is the Bible true or is evolution true. Because they both cannot be true at the same time.

The debate isn't about Bible vs Evolution. No one cares about what the bible says on evolution or the origin of humans. Even educated Christians don't consider the bible to contain literal truth about everything. Christianity and Evolution goes together just fine.

no, I think you mean you don't care what the bible says. Then you go on saying even educated Christians say the Bible doesn't contain literal truth. But evidently your theory of evolution is 100% true? Please tell me how you believe evolution and the Bible go together just fine, because I would disagree. Since the Bible states in many places including the new testament that God is the creator of all things then this fact alone should be enough to see the clear disagreement between evolujtion and the bible. But to take that a bit further, Jesus states he created all and also John wrote that God created all through Jesus. Making Jesus more than a mere man, but also God.

[Cathar1950]

I will go on record saying that I cannot find any scripture that says the skin of Canaan was darkened as part of the curse. From what I can tell the correlation with dark skin was more a matter of historical interpretation that the Canaanites settled in Africa, not directly taken from scripture.

You are probably remembering things that came from 'The Book of the Mormon', rather than the standard mainstream Christian bible. The 'Curse of Cain' was the unrighteous was cursed by dark skin.. (Book of Moses, chapter 7)

In the Book of Mormon the "Jews" in America were turned dark because of sin but I am not sure if it is from the book that the curse of Ham comes from or if it was folklore already created as a justification for slavery.

[T-mash]

no, I think you mean you don't care what the bible says.

Why would I? No scientist uses the bible to find his/her answers.

Then you go on saying even educated Christians say the Bible doesn't contain literal truth.

Yes, which is true. This forum has a few Christians that support evolution fully and defend it as well (of course it's not really defending as much as correcting uneducated assumptions - evolution doesn't need defending).

But evidently your theory of evolution is 100% true?

Evolution is a 100% true for humans. As said before, nothing in biology makes sense without evolution. The entire world makes sense with evolution. Did evolution happen? We can't say with a 100% certainty, just as we can't say for a 100% that gravity exists. For now it fits, it works and every shred of evidence we have ever found concerning evolution supports it. There has never been found anything that makes us doubt evolution. Not a single tiny spec of evidence available that can debunk evolution. Only a single spec of evidence is needed to debunk evolution. None has been presented, only evidence supporting it. Science doesn't work with "what has the most evidence wins!", except in terms of models. Science works with what fits and what explains the world. Evolution does, the bible doesn't. It's just not the other way around. If it was.. that'd be equally cool with everyone, but it's just not.

Please tell me how you believe evolution and the Bible go together just fine, because I would disagree.

Evolution and the bible don't work together on the same subject no. You however don't have to believe in each part of the bible to draw a religion from it.

Since the Bible states in many places including the new testament that God is the creator of all things then this fact alone should be enough to see the clear disagreement between evolujtion and the bible.

Evolution doesn't say anything about how life started.

But to take that a bit further, Jesus states he created all and also John wrote that God created all through Jesus. Making Jesus more than a mere man, but also God.

Evolution makes no claims about gods.

[xcept]

I will go on record saying that I cannot find any scripture that says the skin of Canaan was darkened as part of the curse. From what I can tell the correlation with dark skin was more a matter of historical interpretation that the Canaanites settled in Africa, not directly taken from scripture.

You are probably remembering things that came from 'The Book of the Mormon', rather than the standard mainstream Christian bible. The 'Curse of Cain' was the unrighteous was cursed by dark skin.. (Book of Moses, chapter 7)

In the Book of Mormon the "Jews" in America were turned dark because of sin but I am not sure if it is from the book that the curse of Ham comes from or if it was folklore already created as a justification for slavery.

the prophet joseph smith was supposed to be infallible. But yet claimed things such as horses and cattle were indiginous to the U.S. and steel was around much earlier than it actually was, etc. So uhhhh... no.

[xcept]

no, I think you mean you don't care what the bible says.

Why would I? No scientist uses the bible to find his/her answers.

Then you go on saying even educated Christians say the Bible doesn't contain literal truth.

Yes, which is true. This forum has a few Christians that support evolution fully and defend it as well (of course it's not really defending as much as correcting uneducated assumptions - evolution doesn't need defending).

But evidently your theory of evolution is 100% true?

Evolution is a 100% true for humans. As said before, nothing in biology makes sense without evolution. The entire world makes sense with evolution. Did evolution happen? We can't say with a 100% certainty, just as we can't say for a 100% that gravity exists. For now it fits, it works and every shred of evidence we have ever found concerning evolution supports it. There has never been found anything that makes us doubt evolution. Not a single tiny spec of evidence available that can debunk evolution. Only a single spec of evidence is needed to debunk evolution. None has been presented, only evidence supporting it. Science doesn't work with "what has the most evidence wins!", except in terms of models. Science works with what fits and what explains the world. Evolution does, the bible doesn't. It's just not the other way around. If it was.. that'd be equally cool with everyone, but it's just not.

Please tell me how you believe evolution and the Bible go together just fine, because I would disagree.

Evolution and the bible don't work together on the same subject no. You however don't have to believe in each part of the bible to draw a religion from it.

Since the Bible states in many places including the new testament that God is the creator of all things then this fact alone should be enough to see the clear disagreement between evolujtion and the bible.

Evolution doesn't say anything about how life started.

But to take that a bit further, Jesus states he created all and also John wrote that God created all through Jesus. Making Jesus more than a mere man, but also God.

Evolution makes no claims about gods.

thanks for the clarification on your views. I can see from your claims that evolution is 100% true to you. Therefore we cannot argue or debate it since its your belief. Dogmatic belief cannot be reasoned with. So thanks for playing. See nothing you stated can be proved true in light of the current evidence we have. No way to show the evolution fro molecules to man because no one observed or recorded it. Its a theory.

[Scotracer]

Just when I thought you'd had a personal epiphany xcept in at least listening to others' rationale, you go and throw around the "it's a theory" statement. This is the single oldest, and near-sighted argument that any Creationist could bring up...and it's just flat-out wrong.

Scientific Theory means something all-together different from the layman usage of the term. Theory is the unified model and explanation for data, facts and laws. It is the highest any idea can get in science.

If we use the "it's a theory" logic, we should all jump off the top of skyscrapers since Gravity is just a theory.