Test My Theory: Macro evolution DOES happen?

[RoadRunner79]

I was discussing a known rapid one-gen "macro" evolution as a possible response to the creationist claim that we NEVER see "macro" changes in species, and the implications for the specimen's chances for successfully passing on that mutation.

You want Hyla Versicolor then, the Gray Tree Frog. It's an American frog that's largely identical to the Cope's Gray Tree Frog, except that the latter is diploid, and the former is tetraploid. Over the course of one or two generations, Hyla Versicolor evolved a double chromosome set that classifies is as an entirely new species. If literally doubling your chromosome count doesn't qualify as a macro change, I don't know what does.

Unless, of course, "macro" changes are supposed to be obvious, outward appearance changes, which only really bespeaks a superficial understanding of biology. If you're being asked for a crocoduck, then you're being asked for evidence of chimera-ism, not evolution. If immense, baseline genetic changes that fundamentally alter the species you're in don't count, then it's possible, just saying, that creationists are just looking for reasons not to be pleased and nothing would satisfy their conditions.

This is interesting!

I've never looked into this very much and have not really heard of it given for evidence of evolution.  

Here are some of my first thoughts (please correct anything that is in error).

• Now given my understanding of the topic, I am assuming, that this isn't considered gradual change over time.  That is, that the frog did not gain chromosomes gradually over many generations, to end up with double the chromosomes.
  
• That some anomaly in reproduction caused the chromosomes to double in a single generation.  It is surprising to me, that they did survive although they obviously did.  (I would think this would normally be fatal)
  
• My first assumption, which seems to be confirmed by a quick google search, is that the diploid and tetraploid variatioins are unlikely to be able to reproduce successfully together; either with the offspring not surviving very long, or being infertile.  I would be curious if it is thought, that if there where two tretraploid variations to initiate the species, or if a rare mating occurred between the two, which was able to perpetuate this difference.
  
• This is a rare example, and not typical of what is referred of the process of macroevolution. 
  

It's also interesting, that you bring up chimera's.   A little different than what you are talking about, but have you ever looked at human chimeraism?   I was introduced to it, once, when someone was commenting on my different colored eye brows.  I primarily have brown hair, but on one side, I have blonde for the upper part of my body, patches in my beard, and hair, one blonde eye brow/ eye lashes, one arm has blonde hair etc.... I've never been tested, but I could have two sets of DNA, that caused this.  My understanding is that it is being found to be more common than previously though (if not always apparent).

---

Can you two please get a thread?

I apologize... I will ignore them from here on.   Don't want to take the thread off topic.