posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 11:45 PM
Originally posted by Vasa Croe
I would like to ask creationists to debunk macro evolution based on the following example:
Brassicoraphanus is the name for all the intergeneric hybrids between the genera Brassica (cabbages, etc.) and Raphanus (radish). The name comes from
the combination of the genus names. Both diploid hybrids and allopolyploid hybrids are known and share this name.
Early experimental crosses between species of these two genera had been sterile or nearly sterile, but large-scale experiments by Soviet agronomist
Georgi Dmitrievich Karpechenko using Raphanus sativus and Brassica oleracea were remarkable because some of the plants produced hundreds of seeds. The
second generation were allopolyploids, the result of gametes with doubled chromosome numbers. As Karpechenko realized, this process had
created a new species, and it could justifiably be called a new genus, and proposed the name Raphanobrassica for them, but the earlier name
Brassicoraphanus has priority. Plants of this parentage are now known as radicole.
Now I have already heard those that have said the completely new "kind" produced is infertile. That is not true. They are able to produce seeds
and germinate both parent plants which would make them very much able to reproduce, and reproduce yet another "kind".
As far as I know, creationists consider plants life and this is a shining example of macro evolution for life.
I have also already heard, from creationists, that this proves Intelligent Design, to which I have stated that if this indeed proves intelligent
design then creationists must believe that man is GOD.
So...definitive proof of macro evolution exists.
The above example is from two completely different genus, or "kind" as creationists like to specify, and they created a completely different genus,
I am sure this will bring plenty of debate and semantics but facts are facts and this is one example that I have yet to see brought up in a creation
vs evolution debate.
It is actually a very definitive example as it will force anyone in the debate to either say it is intelligent design, therefore calling man a GOD or
that it is evolution therefore debunking creation. I have yet to figure out an in between stance on this particular example.
Here is the in-between stance you did not figure out:
The evidence you offer is excellent proof that species change does not require the efforts of an omnipotent God. However, it is not, as others in
this thread have pointed out, proof that the Darwinian explanations for evolution are correct. It proves simply that it is possible for an
intelligent mind who understands microbiology to generate a new species from existing species, using suitable isolation techniques.
It refutes the absurd notion that an almighty God must be responsible for all life, which is good. It also shows that intelligent humans can
successfully dabble in genetics and create things that did not previously exist, just as they can create computers and automobiles from dirt and oil.
There is a theory out there that some find interesting, which declares that the entities who created the universe in general are nothing like the
omnipotent God of modern religions, and had a natural origin. It offers several possible motivations for creation, but does not propose that the same
entities who created galaxies, stars, and planets were necessarily responsible for the creation of biological life. It also proposes that the
creators of life are not responsible for the maintenance of life, and that Darwinist principles are indeed the primary cause of variations within a
species. (The principle is called adaptive engineering
The entire body of available evidence, from physics, astronomy, biology and microbiology invites some concept of conscious engineering, but disfavors
the notion of an omnipotent God as the engineer. The same evidence offers no proof that it all happened naturally, and simple probability math
indicates that whole genes cannot occur as the result of random chance. You might give the alternative theory a look. Digital Universe -- Analog
The theory also proposes that the same kind of entity (beon) that is responsible for the heavy lifting in biological life, such as abiogenesis and
major species divergence, is the same kind of entity that is responsible for the occasional creative thoughts generated by humans.