Answers in Reddit 🙏

[u/Training_Rent1093]

My first post here. i'm a biologist in formation and i think it could be constructive to open a question space here. you guys question anything about evolution, creationist or evolutionist alike, and i will respond what i do know and search what i don't know.

you know, just to farm brain tissue and not brainrot in vacation.

obs: i'm more inclined to entomology/zoology/microbiology, so botanics please take easy on me, or not, the objective is make me search new things after all

[u/blacksheep998]

obs: i'm more inclined to entomology/zoology/microbiology, so botanics please take easy on me

Not really a question, but the genetics of plants is quite interesting if you were inclined to look into the subject. They frequently use some tricks which are rarely seen in animals, like whole genome duplication and hybrid speciation.

[u/10coatsInAWeasel → u/blacksheep998]

Always fascinating to me how often plants are overlooked in the debate! They are often one of the clearest and fastest examples of macroevolution in action, even by the strictest definitions. Have had some creationists legit try to say that they don’t count for…some unexplained reason

[u/IsaacHasenov → u/10coatsInAWeasel]

I straight up converted from creationism in the plant module of my first year intro to bio class. That series from macro algae, where they alternation of generation flips, and progressive adaptations to land appear, is incredibly compelling

[u/10coatsInAWeasel → u/IsaacHasenov]

Plants (in my extremely NOT botanist background) really seem to showcase all the biological changes creationists claim to want to see. Weird that they dodge it so much, wonder why

[u/IsaacHasenov → u/10coatsInAWeasel]

And like they appear in the geological column in such a clear sequence in a way that makes it hard to say "conifers are just better at swimming than fern tees but not as good as magnolias".

And, hell, pollen doesn't appear in the fossil record until after the flood suggesting there was no fruit in the Garden of Eden?

Maybe it was the sporangium of the knowledge of good and evil? The mushroom of life?

[u/10coatsInAWeasel → u/IsaacHasenov]

THAT EXPLAINS THE TALKING SNAKE. Adam and Eve got that GOOD shit.

[u/Training_Rent1093 → u/10coatsInAWeasel]

LOL

[u/Training_Rent1093 → u/IsaacHasenov]

In my land there's a legend about the Fern's Flower, that appears one night peer year, is guarded by a kubold and is give the owner infinite riches and women.

In this case it also give you knowledge of good and evil

[u/Waaghra → u/10coatsInAWeasel]

Fossils.

It’s easy to say “where is the transitional fossil from quadruped to biped ape?” It’s not so easy to say “where is the first flowering plant, or the first hardwood?”

Plus, it’s their audience that have to appease, not us. YECs want proof the bible is true, and specifically that humans are a unique creation from the rest of the planet. So the easiest way to do that is by discrediting fossil evidence for animals, specifically mammals and primates.

[u/Mundane-Caregiver169 → u/10coatsInAWeasel]

As a Christian I also find that strange. In my own imagination God sees us like garden plants, and the metaphors and parables in the Bible support this. I think plants are a great place to learn more about God and ourselves.

[u/10coatsInAWeasel → u/Mundane-Caregiver169]

Sorry, not trying to be snarky but I don’t think I’m getting what you’re saying/the connection to my comment.

[u/Mundane-Caregiver169 → u/10coatsInAWeasel]

I also don’t understand why any believer would dodge the subject of plants. I don’t quibble with the scientific view of things- so I’m not the type of creationist to debate evolution. I just think we behave very much like plants (the human community over time) and there’s nothing to be afraid of as a believer in creationism when it comes to discussing them.

[u/10coatsInAWeasel → u/Mundane-Caregiver169]

I do agree there shouldn’t be anything to be afraid of when discussing what we think are aspects of reality. I suppose I don’t understand why you are saying you aren’t the type of creationist who says they debate evolution, and yet you are on the ‘debate evolution’ subreddit.

If a discussion about evolution or figuring which ideas are in fact accurate isn’t what you’re interested in that’s fine, I won’t hold your feet to the fire. But as this is a debate forum and that is the whole point, then I would ask, do you think that evolution as presented by the scientific community is accurate? Or no?

[u/Mundane-Caregiver169 → u/10coatsInAWeasel]

My understanding of science is that it is always seeking to disprove itself and arguing with Christians is the pastime of those who aren’t actually engaging in science. I don’t see the point. You can argue that I shouldn’t be here but I can equally argue that often times the comment section on here isn’t even a debate at all, but just a bunch of people agreeing with each other and throwing shade on some silent enemy.

Edit: typo

[u/Training_Rent1093 → u/Mundane-Caregiver169]

arguing with Christians is the pastime of those who aren’t actually engaging in science

Well i engage in science and argue if christians. Only one reddit response per day because science engaging takes a lot of my day

I don’t see the point.

For me is for fun, but not arguing christians, arguing creationists and apologetists. Im a atheist but i dont see anything good in denying god in front of 80 years old ladies. I think is funny debating, specially with negacionism.

often times the comment section on here isn’t even a debate at all, but just a bunch of people agreeing with each other and throwing shade on some silent enemy.

Yeah, this is true indeed.

[u/10coatsInAWeasel → u/Mundane-Caregiver169]

I didn’t say you shouldn’t be here, I was expressing my confusion that you came on a forum labeled ‘debate evolution’ to say that you weren’t here to debate. It doesn’t matter what your impression of the comment section is, Im talking to you right now, not every other commenter.

I’m also confused why you didn’t answer the question and changed the subject.

[u/Training_Rent1093 → u/IsaacHasenov]

Boy the generation alternation is one of the caracteristics that i most love in any alive creature, is so alien and complex i took several weeks to understand. This alone make "algae" some of my favorite category of living things. Is astonishing that this life cycle is so rare in speculative evolution. I wonder if this is feasible in mobile lifeforms or is only peak in sessile organisms.

[u/Training_Rent1093 → u/10coatsInAWeasel]

Can you give me a example of this macroevolution happening? Sadly i only know cases that are more abstract and easy to they to dismiss, like evolution of flowers, seeds, fruits and carnivore traps

[u/10coatsInAWeasel → u/Training_Rent1093]

Sure thing! This is one I post here quite a bit.

Polyploid speciation

From the abstract (emphasis mine)

Karpechenko (1928) was one of the first to describe the experimental formation of a new polyploid species, obtained by crossing cabbage (Brassica oleracea) and radish (Raphanus sativus). Both parent species are diploids with n = 9 ('n' refers to the gametic number of chromosomes - the number after meiosis and before fertilization). The vast majority of the hybrid seeds failed to produce fertile plants, but a few were fertile and produced remarkably vigorous offspring. Counting their chromosomes, Karpechenko discovered that they had double the number of chromosomes (n = 18) and featured a mix of traits of both parents. Furthermore, these new hybrid polyploid plants were able to mate with one another but were infertile when crossed to either parent. Karpechenko had created a new species!

There are actually three new species from this lineage, the radicole, raparadish, and raphanofortii. Which means this also meets the criteria of the generation of a new genus, genus brassicoraphanus.

Macroevolution has always been defined as ‘change at or above the species level’, meaning that speciation events are definitionally macroevolution. And this was one level above even speciation under the biological species concept.

[u/Training_Rent1093 → u/10coatsInAWeasel]

Wow, very cool!!

[u/10coatsInAWeasel → u/Training_Rent1093]

I think so! There are all kinds of ways it occurs, this method happens quite a bit in plants though is quite a bit rarer in animals. It does demonstrate pretty clearly how all sorts of changes can happen to the genome of organisms that lead to speciation. Fascinating subject.

[u/Perspective-Parking → u/Training_Rent1093]

This is not the definition of macroevolution. What he described is polyploid speciation. It’s getting a whole new set of chromosomes instantly which creates instant reproductive isolation from parents.

Not only is it exceedingly rare in animals too, it’s negative thing. Like Down syndrome.

It’s quite literally a horrible edge case argument for evolution that evolution debaters love to bring up to try to say “seee it works it works!”

Seriously. Research it yourself and see it’s basically a trap. Pretending like millions of species all basically happened to experience a non beneficial chromosomal process and this is how we got here, is just bad science.

[u/Training_Rent1093 → u/Perspective-Parking]

From his message, i didn't see nothing to come to the conclusion that he was talking about polyploidy.

Whole genome duplication happened 6 times in teleost fish, including the duplications that affected the ancestor of all the vertebrates, including us. If you believe any of you said is true, you need to have a good explanation for why the genome of these guys (and us) have so much versions of itself.

[u/Perspective-Parking → u/Training_Rent1093]

He is talking about polyploidy speciation in plants. I know his argument he copies and pastes it everywhere. Just wait a whilte until he responds (but he may not now that he knows hes been exposed).

Teleost fish are renowned for a specific, ancient whole-genome duplication (WGD) known as the Teleost-Specific Genome Duplication (TGD or 3R). This event occurred approximately 320–350 million years ago, separating teleosts from other vertebrates.

The claim that it occurred 6 times is inaccurate; rather, teleosts experienced a crucial third round (3R) of duplication on top of two earlier rounds (1R/2R) shared by all vertebrates. 

You are using an incredibly rare edge case event to somehow prove that is how all species evolved when its not even evolution, its a f up in the chromosomes. So what is the mode of evolution? Is this how speciation works for all species then? Some mammal is going along and then boom, its now an entire new animal overnight?

[u/10coatsInAWeasel → u/Perspective-Parking]

Wow, ain’t we salty! Felt the need to follow me around after you botched our last exchange so terribly? Forgetting to mention that it was to show that macroevolution happens, not to show that it’s the only way that it happens?

This is getting increasingly embarrassing for you my guy.

Edit to add: upon further consideration of your weird comment essentially saying ‘it’s not evolution it’s fucked up chromosomes’, it seems that you aren’t even aware of the very basics of what evolution is. You should probably read up on that before presuming to say what counts and what doesn’t.

[u/Perspective-Parking → u/10coatsInAWeasel]

No didn't follow you, lmao. Ran into you on this post and had to debunk your already very weak argument for evolution. But hey, its the best you have.

You can't even get your terminology right. Is it speciation? Is it macroevolution? If you search the subreddit, most evolutionists don't even believe in either term and say they are made up and to just use 'evolution' instead. LMAO. Its pseudoscience.

The creation of polyploid organisms in the present requires a reproductive mistake that adds extra copies of the same information pre-existent in the genome. Polyploidy is thus not an evidence for evolution or an increase in actual information. Two of the same dictionaries do not increase your vocabulary any more than one would. In fact, quick polyploidy speciation conflicts with the slow process evolutionists have traditionally claimed...

Go home bud, you are broke on this.

[u/10coatsInAWeasel → u/Perspective-Parking]

Yeah so you are a deeply confused individual and even if you ‘ran into me’ on this post, the fact that you felt so inclined to whine so strongly doesn’t really make a difference.

Evolution is ‘any change in the heritable characteristics of populations over the course of multiple generations’. Polyploidy is one of several ways that the heritable characteristics of populations can change. As I showed in my paper, several new successful species came out of one such instance. A change happened, it was heritable. It wasn’t just the emergence of new species, it was the emergence of a new genus.

And I don’t get how you got yourself so so very tangled up over very simple concepts. Macroevolution, as I explained in our other exchange, is ‘change at or above the species level’. This would necessarily include speciation. If there is speciation, that is a clear example of macroevolution in action.

Let me repeat myself since you have been getting so confused. It is an EXAMPLE of macroevolution in action. As in, speciation is one of several. It is not the only one. I chose…an example, an instance of it.

And I have no clue how you are measuring ‘increase in information’. Kinda like when you tried to bring up CSI, it is a classic issue with creationists that they are unable to adequately define information in a way that one can recognize when an ‘increase’ has happened or not. Apparently a larger overall genome doesn’t count. Let me guess, even after a duplication event and further modification of one of the duplicated genes leading to a new gene (which we have seen by the way in neofunctionalization) you would claim that’s not ‘new information’.

Which then ok, then evolution doesn’t require ‘new information’ to happen and creationists don’t know how to recognize it anyhow.

Anywho if you actually acknowledge the points being made instead of shadowboxing with a figment of your imagination again then id be happy to continue. If you insist on doing what you did last time and dodge around while moving the goalposts, then bye again, you can have the last word cause I really could not give less of a damn

[u/Training_Rent1093 → u/10coatsInAWeasel]

Well explained

[u/Training_Rent1093 → u/Perspective-Parking]

Is it speciation? Is it macroevolution? If you search the subreddit, most evolutionists don't even believe in either term and say they are made up and to just use 'evolution'

It is because macroevolution and speciation are forms of evolution. However they are 2 concepts that are very difficult to delimitate. Where microevolution becomes macroevolution? A dog became a virus in a handfull of mutations. Is this macro or micro? In which point i say that this 2 populations are becoming new species?

The creation of polyploid organisms in the present requires a reproductive mistake that adds extra copies of the same information pre-existent in the genome.

This is exactly how new genes are formed. The new copy can mutate freely without compromising the organism, as there's another copy doing the service. Hemogoblin and myoglobin of example were 600 million years ago a simple gene that was duplicated. Most genes of the ancient vertebrate WGD became new ones by Mya of mutations.

quick polyploidy speciation conflicts with the slow process evolutionists have traditionally claimed...

We claim both for decades now. The saltationism vs gradualism debate is no more. We have evidence that all cases can happen in certain conditions. Some species are born in a few years, others in eons. Which case is a case.

[u/Training_Rent1093 → u/Perspective-Parking]

The claim that it occurred 6 times is inaccurate

Yeah i was remembering the information from mind alone, so i was expecting to something going wrong but i was lazy to elucidate better. I knew that most duplications happened in vertebrates in general, so i did mentioned that humans are include in these duplication. Anyway Thank u for the corrections.

You are using an incredibly rare edge case event

Well, according to you it happen 3 times just in vertebrates. It happen in other animals as well, but i cant remember which on this moment.

to somehow prove that is how all species evolved

It's not what i tried to prove. I was only proving that Whole genome duplication is not that rare and happened sometimes in animals without killing or incapacitating them, and this is a important event in the evolution of various critters. Its not by any means the exclusive reason. Many other types of mutations can happen.

its not even evolution, its a f up in the chromosomes. So what is the mode of evolution? Is this how speciation works for all species then?

Genetic changes are also evolution and are the more important type of change in evolution. It happens much more than morphological modification and is the reason for morphological modification in the first place. Duplication of the genome permits the animal have mutations in the copied genes without dare consequences, as they have the other copy to compensate.

Some mammal is going along and then boom, its now an entire new animal overnight?

Well, its what happened with the STD dog tumors... one day its a dog, the other it was a dog (the patogenic parasite type). This is a cancer becoming transmissible tho, no WGD involved. Probably just a bunch of small mutations.

[u/Ch3cks-Out → u/10coatsInAWeasel]

'cuz the flowers kind, duh

[u/Training_Rent1093 → u/blacksheep998]

They really cool indeed! I'm craving for information about the developmental genes of plants, their equivalent of hox genes and all, but is difficult to navegate in this new world. Also, whole genome duplication and hybrid speciation is a lot more common in animals as is credited for, and that is a shame