• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

  • The rule regarding AI content has been updated. The rule now rules as follows:

    Be sure to credit AI when copying and pasting AI sources. Link to the site of the AI search, just like linking to an article.

Macroevolution

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,435
52,722
Guam
✟5,182,747.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It has been brought to my attention by Wikipedia that macroevolution has been observed.
Wikipedia said:
Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community.
Before I even think of accepting this as true, I want to run a challenge past you guys and see if I get the usual runaround.

If so, macroevolution can take a hike.

Challenge: Give me at least one Genus/species that macroevolution has produced another Genus/species from.

Be specific please, all I'm looking for in an answer, by way of crude example, is:

Canis lupus → Novus/nexus

My goal with this thread is to reinforce my belief that macroevolution doesn't exist by getting the usual runaround in way of verbose answers, ridicule, venting, having to ask the same questions over, links to other sites, etc.

On the other hand, a direct and concise answer just may cause me to rethink the possibility that macroevolution is viable.
 

Elendur

Gamer and mathematician
Feb 27, 2012
2,405
30
Sweden - Umeå
✟32,952.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Engaged
5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. 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 O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

5.1.1.2 Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)

Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.

5.1.1.3 Tragopogon

Owenby (1950) demonstrated that two species in this genus were produced by polyploidization from hybrids. He showed that Tragopogon miscellus found in a colony in Moscow, Idaho was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. pratensis. He also showed that T. mirus found in a colony near Pullman, Washington was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. porrifolius. Evidence from chloroplast DNA suggests that T. mirus has originated independently by hybridization in eastern Washington and western Idaho at least three times (Soltis and Soltis 1989). The same study also shows multiple origins for T. micellus.

5.1.1.4 Raphanobrassica

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.

5.1.1.5 Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)

A species of hemp nettle, Galeopsis tetrahit, was hypothesized to be the result of a natural hybridization of two other species, G. pubescens and G. speciosa (Muntzing 1932). The two species were crossed. The hybrids matched G. tetrahit in both visible features and chromosome morphology.

5.1.1.6 Madia citrigracilis

Along similar lines, Clausen et al. (1945) hypothesized that Madia citrigracilis was a hexaploid hybrid of M. gracilis and M. citriodora As evidence they noted that the species have gametic chromosome numbers of n = 24, 16 and 8 respectively. Crossing M. gracilis and M. citriodora resulted in a highly sterile triploid with n = 24. The chromosomes formed almost no bivalents during meiosis. Artificially doubling the chromosome number using colchecine produced a hexaploid hybrid which closely resembled M. citrigracilis and was fertile.

5.1.1.7 Brassica

Frandsen (1943, 1947) was able to do this same sort of recreation of species in the genus Brassica (cabbage, etc.). His experiments showed that B. carinata (n = 17) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra (n = 8) and B. oleracea, B. juncea (n = 18) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra and B. campestris (n = 10), and B. napus (n = 19) may be recreated by hybridizing B. oleracea and B. campestris.

5.1.1.8 Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)

Rabe and Haufler (1992) found a naturally occurring diploid sporophyte of maidenhair fern which produced unreduced (2N) spores. These spores resulted from a failure of the paired chromosomes to dissociate during the first division of meiosis. The spores germinated normally and grew into diploid gametophytes. These did not appear to produce antheridia. Nonetheless, a subsequent generation of tetraploid sporophytes was produced. When grown in the lab, the tetraploid sporophytes appear to be less vigorous than the normal diploid sporophytes. The 4N individuals were found near Baldwin City, Kansas.

5.1.1.9 Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)

Woodsia abbeae was described as a hybrid of W. cathcariana and W. ilvensis (Butters 1941). Plants of this hybrid normally produce abortive sporangia containing inviable spores. In 1944 Butters found a W. abbeae plant near Grand Portage, Minn. that had one fertile frond (Butters and Tryon 1948). The apical portion of this frond had fertile sporangia. Spores from this frond germinated and grew into prothallia. About six months after germination sporophytes were produced. They survived for about one year. Based on cytological evidence, Butters and Tryon concluded that the frond that produced the viable spores had gone tetraploid. They made no statement as to whether the sporophytes grown produced viable spores.


( Observed Instances of Speciation )


Edit: If you want some that's not using hybrids:

5.2.1 Stephanomeira malheurensis

Gottlieb (1973) documented the speciation of Stephanomeira malheurensis. He found a single small population (< 250 plants) among a much larger population (> 25,000 plants) of S. exigua in Harney Co., Oregon. Both species are diploid and have the same number of chromosomes (N = 8). S. exigua is an obligate outcrosser exhibiting sporophytic self-incompatibility. S. malheurensis exhibits no self-incompatibility and self-pollinates. Though the two species look very similar, Gottlieb was able to document morphological differences in five characters plus chromosomal differences. F1 hybrids between the species produces only 50% of the seeds and 24% of the pollen that conspecific crosses produced. F2 hybrids showed various developmental abnormalities.

5.2.2 Maize (Zea mays)

Pasterniani (1969) produced almost complete reproductive isolation between two varieties of maize. The varieties were distinguishable by seed color, white versus yellow. Other genetic markers allowed him to identify hybrids. The two varieties were planted in a common field. Any plant's nearest neighbors were always plants of the other strain. Selection was applied against hybridization by using only those ears of corn that showed a low degree of hybridization as the source of the next years seed. Only parental type kernels from these ears were planted. The strength of selection was increased each year. In the first year, only ears with less than 30% intercrossed seed were used. In the fifth year, only ears with less than 1% intercrossed seed were used. After five years the average percentage of intercrossed matings dropped from 35.8% to 4.9% in the white strain and from 46.7% to 3.4% in the yellow strain.

5.2.3 Speciation as a Result of Selection for Tolerance to a Toxin: Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus)

At reasonably low concentrations, copper is toxic to many plant species. Several plants have been seen to develop a tolerance to this metal (Macnair 1981). Macnair and Christie (1983) used this to examine the genetic basis of a postmating isolating mechanism in yellow monkey flower. When they crossed plants from the copper tolerant "Copperopolis" population with plants from the nontolerant "Cerig" population, they found that many of the hybrids were inviable. During early growth, just after the four leaf stage, the leaves of many of the hybrids turned yellow and became necrotic. Death followed this. This was seen only in hybrids between the two populations. Through mapping studies, the authors were able to show that the copper tolerance gene and the gene responsible for hybrid inviability were either the same gene or were very tightly linked. These results suggest that reproductive isolation may require changes in only a small number of genes.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,435
52,722
Guam
✟5,182,747.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And here we go.
{ examples of macroevolution }
Let me clarify:
Challenge: Give me at least one Genus/species that macroevolution has produced another Genus/species from.
By 'another', I mean a 'different' Genus/species, as I elaborated with my example.

In those examples you gave, the first thing I looked for was their Genus, to see if they were the same.

In the examples you gave where they were not the same Genus, the offspring was sterile.

Please try again, thank you.
 
Upvote 0

Elendur

Gamer and mathematician
Feb 27, 2012
2,405
30
Sweden - Umeå
✟32,952.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Engaged
And here we go.

Let me clarify:

By 'another', I mean a 'different' Genus/species, as I elaborated with my example.

In those examples you gave, the first thing I looked for was their Genus, to see if they were the same.

In the examples you gave where they were not the same Genus, the offspring was sterile.

Please try again, thank you.
Some of them wasn't sterile I think, but I'll not pursue that list then.

Here's one example without sterile offspring:

5.7 Speciation in a Lab Rat Worm, Nereis acuminata

In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these worms were used as test organisms in environmental toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was searched for populations of the worm. Two populations, P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992) performed tests on these two populations and the Woods Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they looked at whether broods from crosses were successfully reared. The results below give the percentage of successful rearings for each group of crosses.

WH × WH - 75%
P1 × P1 - 95%
P2 × P2 - 80%
P1 × P2 - 77%
WH × P1 - 0%
WH × P2 - 0%

They also found statistically significant premating isolation between the WH population and the field populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed slightly different karyotypes from the field populations.
 
Upvote 0

Naraoia

Apprentice Biologist
Sep 30, 2007
6,682
313
On edge
Visit site
✟30,998.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
It has been brought to my attention by Wikipedia that macroevolution has been observed.

Before I even think of accepting this as true, I want to run a challenge past you guys and see if I get the usual runaround.

If so, macroevolution can take a hike.

Challenge: Give me at least one Genus/species that macroevolution has produced another Genus/species from.

Be specific please, all I'm looking for in an answer, by way of crude example, is:

Canis lupus &#8594; Novus/nexus

My goal with this thread is to reinforce my belief that macroevolution doesn't exist by getting the usual runaround in way of verbose answers, ridicule, venting, having to ask the same questions over, links to other sites, etc.

On the other hand, a direct and concise answer just may cause me to rethink the possibility that macroevolution is viable.
AV, you are building a mighty strawman here, and I'm not letting you get away with it.

A "genus" is a completely arbitrary thing. Deciding whether something belongs to a new genus is like deciding whether a son is a different height from his father. What counts as "different"?

Speciation actually means something, even though it's still not an all or nothing issue. But at least you can say that this plant, animal etc. can no longer interbreed with the plants, animals, etc. it descended from. What defines a new genus? "Looks different enough"?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,435
52,722
Guam
✟5,182,747.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Isn't marcoevoluition generation of new species?
In my days, the answer would be, 'no.'

Are a Cocker Spaniel and a Dalmatian an example of macroevolution?
AV is demanding a new genus, and by equating genus/species, is implicitally having an early tea break with nobs on.
I don't even know what you meant by this.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,435
52,722
Guam
✟5,182,747.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
A "genus" is a completely arbitrary thing.
You lost me on this one.

If a Genus is arbitrary, is is okay if I call a Canis latrans a Felix latrans?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,435
52,722
Guam
✟5,182,747.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Well AV, the case in my post #4, what do you think of it?
It's way over my head, and doesn't even come close to addressing my OP.

If these worms are sill considered Nereis, then that isn't macroevolution, in my opinion.

In other words, they're still Nereis.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,435
52,722
Guam
✟5,182,747.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Guys, I'm under the impression that the definition of macroevolution is one genus giving rise to another genus.

If I'm wrong -- (and I hope I am) -- then Wikipedia can take a hike, and so can macroevolution.
 
Upvote 0

Elendur

Gamer and mathematician
Feb 27, 2012
2,405
30
Sweden - Umeå
✟32,952.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Engaged
It's way over my head, and doesn't even come close to addressing my OP.

If these worms are sill considered Nereis, then that isn't macroevolution, in my opinion.

In other words, they're still Nereis.
Ok, I'll try to break it down a bit:

1. 1964 six Nereis acuminata was collected from Long Beach Harbor, California.
2. They were bred to make a population of several thousands Nereis acuminata.
3. Four pair from that population (8 individuals) was brought to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute where they were experimented upon for 20 years. (They were the start of a new population)
4. From 1986 to 1991 the Long beach area was searched for Nereis acuminata.
5. Two populations, called P1 and P2, were found.
6. 1992 tests were performed on those two populations and the population that was brought to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, which they call WH.

My education in biology isn't more than high school level so I don't know what premating and postmating isolation means, I think I'll let someone fill in that.

But those numbers represents the broods early survival, listing both parents group:


WH × WH - 75% Means the WH populations offspring has 75% early survival

P1 × P1 - 95% Means the P1 populations offspring has 95% early survival

P2 × P2 - 80% Means the P2 populations offspring has 80% early survival

P1 × P2 - 77% Means when the P1 and P2 populations interbreed, their offspring has 77% early survival

WH × P1 - 0% Means when the WH and P1 populations interbreed, their offspring has 0% early survival

WH × P2 - 0% Means when the WH and P2 populations interbreed, their offspring has 0% early survival



Of course I could've misinterpreted the whole thing, if someone with a bit more education could read this as well I would be more certain.
 
Upvote 0

Blayz

Well-Known Member
Aug 1, 2007
3,367
231
60
Singapore
✟4,827.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Guys, I'm under the impression that the definition of macroevolution is one genus giving rise to another genus.

If I'm wrong -- (and I hope I am)

You are wrong, your hope has been realized.

macro evolution is what ever some creationist IDer says it is, and sadly every now and then the common press (such as wikipedia) make the ill fated decision to play in their sand pit.

We don't use the term. Ever.

What about macro-christianity then. I mean, micro-christianity, that is oberservable, but macro-christianity...give me a break. Teach the controversy!
 
Upvote 0

Naraoia

Apprentice Biologist
Sep 30, 2007
6,682
313
On edge
Visit site
✟30,998.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
In my days, the answer would be, 'no.'

Are a Cocker Spaniel and a Dalmatian an example of macroevolution?
That depends on your definition of macroevolution ;) They are the same biological species (so: no), but you could argue that they're pretty different (so: yes).

You lost me on this one.

If a Genus is arbitrary, is is okay if I call a Canis latrans a Felix latrans?
Not in that sense, unless you call every dog and cat (and most other carnivorans) a Felis. Let's assume that this is a correct phylognetic tree for the dog family:

canid_phylogeny.jpg


Out of these species, Canis includes the four on the top branch: grey and red wolves, domestic dogs, and coyotes. African wild dogs are placed in a different genus (Lycaon). What I'm saying is that you could expand genus Canis to also include adjacent branches on the tree: African dogs, or African dogs and jackals, or all of those and maned wolves and South American foxes, etc. - and the only argument one could raise against that would be "but they are too different". There is no objective definition for a genus.

Guys, I'm under the impression that the definition of macroevolution is one genus giving rise to another genus.
I don't know where you got that definition from. My guess is your own imagination.

I don't think he knows.
 
Upvote 0

Blayz

Well-Known Member
Aug 1, 2007
3,367
231
60
Singapore
✟4,827.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Correction: you don't. You seem very quick to make claims about "us" as a whole.

Seriously, when was the last time you used "macro evolution" in a professional setting.

Then again, you are still an apprentice. Haven't you made it to journeyman status yet?
 
Upvote 0

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
29,741
16,854
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟480,866.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
Some stuff.
So you honestly thinking that intergenus movement is going to be oberservable on a 200 year old time scale? 200 years is NOT a lot of time. But if new species can arise in under 50 years, it seems pretty silly to hold on to the notion that nothing has changed in..."longer than that"
 
Upvote 0