establishing evolution

[Necrosis]

i already provided some evidence for evolution and Neoseminole has done a good job providing more evidence but i run across an argument that speciation or macroevolution hasnt been observed. This seems to be a common argument, which is downright false.

Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory by J.R. Weinberg V. R. Starczak and P. Jora, Evolution vol 46, pp 1214-1220, 1992 - EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Experimentally Created Incipient Species of Drosophila by Theodosius Dobzhansky & Olga Pavlovsky, Nature 230, pp 289 - 292 (02 April 1971) - EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Founder-flush speciation in Drosophila pseudoobscura: a large scale experiment by A. Galiana, A. Moya and F. J. Alaya, Evolution vol 47, pp 432-444, 1993 - EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY



MORE


http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Observed_speciation

Ensatina
Ensatina eschscholtzi is a salamander that is in the process of forming two or more species. All the evidence supports this hypothesis; studies based on DNA, enzymes, geographic color variation and behavior give us evidence that this salamander has several points of incipient species formation. Two of the "subspecies" have differentiated to a point that they do not interbreed, which satisfies the definition of two species. And yet the populations that makeup this species are connected via interbreeding intermediate populations.

Ensatina is an example of a "ring species", where the environmental conditions suitable for their life is distributed in a "ring" around a central area where (mostly) they do not penetrate. In this case the ring in mostly an area surrounding the Central Valley of California. The distinction between species and subspecies is hotly debated with one contingent believing Ensatina eschscholtzi is composed of seven subspecies and another contingent believing it has already split completely into at least two species based on more recent molecular analysis. Ensatina is dealt with extensively in the literature:

  THERE is more, i will post more as arguments arise. but once this fact is clearly established among christians and creationists how will you deal with it?

[Oldschool Flip]

I would say that today you can see the changes in just our kids. 12 year olds at over 5' 10" in masses? I only knew of one as a 12 year old myself. It's obvious the previous generations of families were "smaller" than that of kids of today. Food of course have something to do with it, but people can't deny the size of children today. Even in Asian the people are getting taller and bigger just because of diet changes. And it will continue.

[Necrosis]

I would say that today you can see the changes in just our kids. 12 year olds at over 5' 10" in masses? I only knew of one as a 12 year old myself. It's obvious the previous generations of families were "smaller" than that of kids of today. Food of course have something to do with it, but people can't deny the size of children today. Even in Asian the people are getting taller and bigger just because of diet changes. And it will continue.

what im getting at here is that the formation of new species that cannot reproduce or interbred has been observed, dispelling the myth that only microevolution has been observed.

[liberalismo]

People are not evolving taller. If they are, it is a small jump from a few thousand years ago. If kids are taller today than they were a generation or two ago, it is something else. I don't know if they are though.

[Necrosis]

bump for creationists to argue against this evidence and to admit that the common lies expounded by creationists are clearly and obviously false.

[OTHstrong]

what im getting at here is that the formation of new species that cannot reproduce or interbred has been observed, dispelling the myth that only microevolution has been observed.

There are a lot of species from the same family that can't interbreed 99% of the time, for example the tiger and the lion can't inter breed 999 times out of a thousand but if persistent enough you will finally find them succeeding and the new breed of lion and tiger is called liger I believe only a few have been made and the come with incredible side effects and are twice the size of a reguler lion. So basically they came across a slight variation within a species and they tried to inter breed and couldn't, but if they keep tryining they might succeed and your little theory goes down the drain, however just because they can't interbreed doesn't mean a new species have evolved, just mean a variation within a species known as microevolution, not macro.

[Necrosis]

There are a lot of species from the same family that can't interbreed 99% of the time, for example the tiger and the lion can't inter breed 999 times out of a thousand but if persistent enough you will finally find them succeeding and the new breed of lion and tiger is called liger I believe only a few have been made and the come with incredible side effects and are twice the size of a reguler lion. So basically they came across a slight variation within a species and they tried to inter breed and couldn't, but if they keep tryining they might succeed and your little theory goes down the drain, however just because they can't interbreed doesn't mean a new species have evolved, just mean a variation within a species known as microevolution, not macro.

did you read the articles i posted new species have been observed. Your example is of speciation, a new species is defined as one that cannot interbred. That is one that cannot produce offspring, say a human having sex with a pig.

i have given you direct evidence of "macroevolution" why do you persist to deny direct observable evidence?

[OTHstrong]

did you read the articles i posted new species have been observed. Your example is of speciation, a new species is defined as one that cannot interbred. That is one that cannot produce offspring, say a human having sex with a pig.

i have given you direct evidence of "macroevolution" why do you persist to deny direct observable evidence?

Because every single person that believes in evolution that I ever have come in contact with freely admits that macro evolution has never been observed, they all say it has occurred millions of time and they all have called me dumb a million times but never have I come across an evolutionist who claims that macro e has been the observed, your the first

[Necrosis]

Because every single person that believes in evolution that I ever have come in contact with freely admits that macro evolution has never been observed, they all say it has occurred millions of time and they all have called me dumb a million times but never have I come across an evolutionist who claims that macro e has been the observed, your the first

the formation of a new species has been observed it is ongoing. A new species could be forming right now already passing through millions of micro or incremental changes previously.

I have seen many many people on here claim that speciation has been observed.

[OTHstrong]

Well, i've watch creation and evolution debates and the one debating evolution argue very well and has many good points but freely admits that this type of change is impossible to observe because being at the precise place at the precise time is 1 in a trillion. If you believe in it then cool but to say it has been observed when 99% of evolutionist freely admits its not possible to observe.

[Necrosis]

Well, i've watch creation and evolution debates and the one debating evolution argue very well and has many good points but freely admits that this type of change is impossible to observe because being at the precise place at the precise time is 1 in a trillion. If you believe in it then cool but to say it has been observed when 99% of evolutionist freely admits its not possible to observe.

scroll to the opening post and read, it has been observed. No point in arguing something that has been proven and can be reviewed, it is fact.

[Necrosis]

more

"Scientists have now directly observed new species evolving (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html). Recently a scientist performed experiments which show that new species of stick insect originate from small adaptations to their environment via natural selection (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080402071538.htm). Scientists have also studied a new species of mosquito which evolved in the underground tunnels of London (http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v82/n1/full/6884120a.html). Obviously there has been a lot of progress made in the field of evolutionary biology."

[Necrosis]

more from the expelled site, As i am watching the dreadful documentary ben stein made

A recent example of observation of evolution by “Darwinian means” is the incredibly quick evolution of Italian wall lizards on the isle of Pod Mrcaru, as detailed by National Geographic. In 1971, researchers introduced five pairs of lizards to the island. Thirty-seven years later, there are over 5000 lizards on the island, all descended, according to DNA testing, from the original ten lizards. In this amazingly short time period, the originally insectivorous lizards evolved adaptations to a vegetarian diet, stronger jaws, and a different social structure. They are well on their way to becoming a different species entirely.

Some other examples:

The apple maggot fly originally parasitized native hawthorns. When other members of the rose family, such as apples, were introduced to the Americas, some flies parasitized them. These flies now have different genes and breeding cycles from the original flies and are well on their way to becoming a separate species.
Geographically-isolated populations of the ensatina salamander of California have been shown by DNA analysis to be splitting into several different species of salamanders.

[Eisenherz]

oh yes thats macro evolution right there! A mosquito adapted to living conditions in underground tunnels..oh and this is macro-evolution that was observed

[Necrosis]

oh yes thats macro evolution right there! A mosquito adapted to living conditions in underground tunnels..oh and this is macro-evolution that was observed
Until the day we see something of the nature like a reptile giving birth to a bird, macro evolution is a fairy tale/theory.

dude are you serious? the ignorance of this post shows why creationists ignore facts when presented, you are immune to reason, completely and utterly immune. I provided evidence of new species formation, one that would even meet kent hovinds definition which happens to be the same as evolutions. organisms which cannot interbreed.

you asking for a bird to come from a reptile is the epitome of ignorance as evolution does not work like that. Why would it? what sense would that make? a reptile to more bird like forms over millions of years could be plausible but speciation of unrelated branches of the evolutionary tree per se do not happen like this.

The above is direct observation of new species formation, live with it, or keep living in your fantasy world. I suggest you embrace fact and move away from the gaps because they are being filled with knowledge and eventually your god will have no where to reside like thor or apollo.

[NeoSeminole]

There are a lot of species from the same family that can't interbreed 99% of the time, for example the tiger and the lion can't inter breed 999 times out of a thousand but if persistent enough you will finally find them succeeding and the new breed of lion and tiger is called liger I believe only a few have been made and the come with incredible side effects and are twice the size of a reguler lion. So basically they came across a slight variation within a species and they tried to inter breed and couldn't, but if they keep tryining they might succeed and your little theory goes down the drain, however just because they can't interbreed doesn't mean a new species have evolved, just mean a variation within a species known as microevolution, not macro.

In biology, a species is defined as the members of a population which are capable of producing virile offspring with one another. I don't know how your example of the liger disproves evolution.

[NeoSeminole]

Because every single person that believes in evolution that I ever have come in contact with freely admits that macro evolution has never been observed, they all say it has occurred millions of time and they all have called me dumb a million times but never have I come across an evolutionist who claims that macro e has been the observed, your the first

how do you define "macro evolution?"

[NeoSeminole]

oh yes thats macro evolution right there! A mosquito adapted to living conditions in underground tunnels..oh and this is macro-evolution that was observed

if you understood how evolution works, then you would know how incredibly stupid this post sounds. What did you expect? The mosquito to lay eggs which hatched into bats? If anything, that would disprove evolution.

[OTHstrong]

In biology, a species is defined as the members of a population which are capable of producing virile offspring with one another. I don't know how your example of the liger disproves evolution.

My example of liger doesn't disprove anything, all I am saying is that the lion and tiger failed to produce offspring for decades and then it succeeded, so the example in the above post about the observation of 2 species that aren' producing offspring because they haven't seen them produce off spring doesn't mean they can't produce offspring, it could also mean that its difficult to produce offspring. vary vague for proof of macro e thats all.

[NeoSeminole]

My example of liger doesn't disprove anything, all I am saying is that the lion and tiger failed to produce offspring for decades and then it succeeded, so the example in the above post about the observation of 2 species that aren' producing offspring because they haven't seen them produce off spring doesn't mean they can't produce offspring, it could also mean that its difficult to produce offspring. vary vague for proof of macro e thats all.

I think you misunderstand the definition of a species. Some are capable of interbreeding such as your example of a tiger and a lion. However, their offspring are sterile.

[liberalismo]

Important note*

People confused "observed" and think that it can only mean directly seen. There are other ways to observe things, indirectly. A crime scene investigator observes the crime indirectly by observing the evidence left behind. This is what archaeologists and evolutionary biologists do with large scale evolution change. No one has seen dinosaurs turn into birds, but we have the fossils showing it happened, the genetic clues showing it happened, etc, just like a forensic scientist has the hairs left behind or the fingerprints.

[OTHstrong]

Important note*

People confused "observed" and think that it can only mean directly seen. There are other ways to observe things, indirectly. A crime scene investigator observes the crime indirectly by observing the evidence left behind. This is what archaeologists and evolutionary biologists do with large scale evolution change. No one has seen dinosaurs turn into birds, but we have the fossils showing it happened, the genetic clues showing it happened, etc, just like a forensic scientist has the hairs left behind or the fingerprints.

Great post because thats the way I understood it when referring to macro-evolution, evolutionist have reason to believe because cicumstantial evidance not actual observation, like you said the word is misused, however NeoSeminole and Necrosis seem to think that scientist have literally observed these changes.

[liberalismo]

Great post because thats the way I understood it when referring to macro-evolution, evolutionist have reason to believe because cicumstantial evidance not actual observation, like you said the word is misused, however NeoSeminole and Necrosis seem to think that scientist have literally observed these changes.

People use the word "observed" differently.


Scientists "observe" large scale evolution the same way that a Crime Scene Investigator or Forensic Scientist observes a murder scene with a ton of evidence.

[Necrosis]

People use the word "observed" differently.


Scientists "observe" large scale evolution the same way that a Crime Scene Investigator or Forensic Scientist observes a murder scene with a ton of evidence.

no they dont they literally observe it in their lifetime. Read above. I dont understand the confusion the evidence is in the first post, in published papers and scientific articles. The formation of a new species has been observed countless times, fossils, homology, genetics etc.. strengthen this argument.

[liberalismo]

no they dont they literally observe it in their lifetime. Read above. I dont understand the confusion the evidence is in the first post, in published papers and scientific articles. The formation of a new species has been observed countless times, fossils, homology, genetics etc.. strengthen this argument.

There have been directly observed instances of speciation in flies and some plants.

But fossils, homology, genetics, this is indirect observation.