Evolution by Natural Selection is a fact

[Mazzyhere]

I have a feeling you did not pay for the entire aerticle.

If you had, you would have seen that the researchers go on to discuss various hypothesis for the large species explosion during the Cambrian period, including Megaevolution, Punctuated Equilibrium, Macromutations and Heterochrony.
Hardly the conclusion you have drawn from the short abstract.

It is not about the content of the article. It is about the terminology and what you have actually observed by way of natural selection. Researchers are clear about this terminology but you and Outhouse appear not to be.

Oh, by the way the link you posted is not the same article because it has a different abstract. That's about Hox gene expression. As a matter of fact now that you mention it, some recent research I read lately suggests the differnces in gene expression between humans and chimpanzees is 83%. Have you heard of that?

The natural selection observed in nature and labs offers the possible mechanism macroevoluton may be achieved but is not a demonstration of it. Ring species demonstrate that adaptation can go around in circles and inability to mate, geographic or genetic, can be no more than a designed mechanism that reduces the incidence of non beneficial matings.

To observe such macroevolutionary change you must demonstrate a change at least at genus if not family level, as arbitrary as that is. That has not happened in nature or labs.

You have not observed change above species level anywhere. You should not get confused about that.

 

[Mazzyhere]

Speciation has nothing to do with Macroevolution. Speciation has been observed and it is fact.

We know how Macroevolution has taken place even though we cannot observe it in a person's life time. There is no mystery here.

WebsterWorld

One can find the full paper here -

Evolution by Natural Selection is as well established as any other theory, it is not based on beliefs, it is based on observational data.

None of those links take away from what these reserchers say in the Nature article. I don't understand why you are posting them.

Speciation has been observed by way of adaptation and microevolution. You have not observed sufficient change to suggest you have observed macroevolution, just like the article says.

You and a few others appear to be trying to misrepresent some terminology that you really should not have a problem with. I am not confused.

Evolutionary biologists have long sought to understand the relationship between microevolution (adaptation), which can be observed both in nature and in the laboratory, and macroevolution (speciation and the origin of the divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and the development of complex organs), which cannot be witnessed because it occurs over intervals that far exceed the human lifespan. The connection between these processes is also a major source of conflict between science and religious belief. Biologists often forget that Charles Darwin offered a way of resolving this issue, and his proposal is ripe for re-evaluation in the light of recent research.


Do you think the evolutionary researchers that wrote the Nature article misrepresented the terminology in the Abstract and their claim that macroevolution has not been demonstrated in the lab just to trick you? I don't.

 

[Pleroma]

None of those links take away from what these reserchers say in the Nature article. I don't understand why you are posting them.

Speciation has been observed by way of adaptation and microevolution. You have not observed sufficient change to suggest you have observed macroevolution, just like the article says.

There is genetic evidence which proves as to how it happened and using molecular clocks we can determine when it happened. When did I said that macroevolution has been observed in the lab? That doesn't change the fact that evolution by natural selection is a fact.

You and a few others appear to be trying to misrepresent some terminology that you really should not have a problem with. I am not confused.

Evolutionary biologists have long sought to understand the relationship between microevolution (adaptation), which can be observed both in nature and in the laboratory, and macroevolution (speciation and the origin of the divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and the development of complex organs), which cannot be witnessed because it occurs over intervals that far exceed the human lifespan. The connection between these processes is also a major source of conflict between science and religious belief. Biologists often forget that Charles Darwin offered a way of resolving this issue, and his proposal is ripe for re-evaluation in the light of recent research.


Do you think the evolutionary researchers that wrote the Nature article misrepresented the terminology in the Abstract and their claim that macroevolution has not been demonstrated in the lab just to trick you? I don't.

Again I never claimed that macroevolution has been observed in lab.

 

[outhouse]

That could be the case for ether side of the debate.

there is no "other side" [facepalm]

That is true but does not negate my statement that individuals adapt during a lifetime

thats not evolution, and has nothing to do with speciation

again, its ignorance on the topic at hand.

Oh you are a bit rude. I am not ignorant.

No, you made a mistake and I corrected you.

while you may not be ignorant, that doent excuse oneself from making remarks from a point of severe lack of education for various reasons.

How come you are so unclear?

quote mining a article does not unseat a scientific theory that has been in place over a hundred years

 

[outhouse]

Observed speciation

Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. The biologist Orator F. Cook seems to have been the first to coin the term 'speciation' for the splitting of lineages or "cladogenesis," as opposed to "anagenesis" or "phyletic evolution" occurring within lineages.[1][2] Whether genetic drift is a minor or major contributor to speciation is the subject matter of much ongoing discussion.
There are four geographic modes of speciation in nature, based on the extent to which speciating populations are isolated from one another: allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric. Speciation may also be induced artificially, through animal husbandry, agriculture, or laboratory experiments. Observed examples of each kind of speciation are provided throughout.


Key words for you would be! "or labratory"

 

[rusra02]

Evolution by Natural Selection is a fact.

“To put it bluntly but fairly, anyone today who doubts that the variety of life on this planet was produced by a process of evolution is simply ignorant—inexcusably ignorant, in a world where three out of four people have learned to read and write.”

- Daniel C. Dennett

You need to define what you mean by evolution. ToE advocates call any change, however slight, "evolution". Example: The size or shape of a finch's beak. The claim that the "variety of life on this planet was producted by a process of evolution" is without merit or proof. Quite the opposite, in fact. And accusing people of being ignorant isn't going to change that.

 

[McBell]

It is not about the content of the article.

:biglaugh:

It is about the terminology and what you have actually observed by way of natural selection. Researchers are clear about this terminology but you and Outhouse appear not to be.

Wait...
Does not he terminology determine the content?

Oh, by the way the link you posted is not the same article because it has a different abstract. That's about Hox gene expression. As a matter of fact now that you mention it, some recent research I read lately suggests the differnces in gene expression between humans and chimpanzees is 83%. Have you heard of that?

It would be a really good idea that you read the whole article before you try to use it in support of your argument.

The natural selection observed in nature and labs offers the possible mechanism macroevoluton may be achieved but is not a demonstration of it. Ring species demonstrate that adaptation can go around in circles and inability to mate, geographic or genetic, can be no more than a designed mechanism that reduces the incidence of non beneficial matings.

To observe such macroevolutionary change you must demonstrate a change at least at genus if not family level, as arbitrary as that is. That has not happened in nature or labs.

You have not observed change above species level anywhere. You should not get confused about that.

So it is your opinion that something has to be observed before it can be believed?

 

[McBell]

Speciation has been observed by way of adaptation and microevolution. You have not observed sufficient change to suggest you have observed macroevolution, just like the article says.

Perhaps you should define what you mean by macro evolution.
Seeing as you have just contradicted the article you are so attached to...

 

[Pleroma]

You need to define what you mean by evolution. ToE advocates call any change, however slight, "evolution". Example: The size or shape of a finch's beak. The claim that the "variety of life on this planet was producted by a process of evolution" is without merit or proof. Quite the opposite, in fact. And accusing people of being ignorant isn't going to change that.

Daniel Dennett is talking about Evolution by Natural selection which is biological evolution as taught in all the schools and universities in the world.

Daniel is not accusing people of being ignorant he is removing the ignorance clouded in their minds.

 

[McBell]

And accusing people of being ignorant isn't going to change that.

it is not an accusation.
It is a statement of observable fact.

Your dislike of the word has absolutely no bearing on its accurate usage.

 

[mycorrhiza]

It is not about the content of the article. It is about the terminology and what you have actually observed by way of natural selection. Researchers are clear about this terminology but you and Outhouse appear not to be.

I guess the article was a bit unorthodox in it's usage of the term then, because macroevolution is at species level or higher according to the common scientific usage of the word. (1) (2). Speciation has been directly observed several times and thus we have observed macroevolution several times. The terms seem rarely used outside of the creationist debates, though, so I don't see the point in using it, especially since it's used in different ways. Instead, refer to "evolution at species level" or "evolution at genus level" so it's clear what you mean.

Oh, by the way the link you posted is not the same article because it has a different abstract. That's about Hox gene expression. As a matter of fact now that you mention it, some recent research I read lately suggests the differnces in gene expression between humans and chimpanzees is 83%. Have you heard of that?

Even if the gene expression is different, it doesn't change that the genetic material shared is very high.

The natural selection observed in nature and labs offers the possible mechanism macroevoluton may be achieved but is not a demonstration of it. Ring species demonstrate that adaptation can go around in circles and inability to mate, geographic or genetic, can be no more than a designed mechanism that reduces the incidence of non beneficial matings.

Do you have any evidence to support that it's a designed mechanism to reduce non-beneficial matings? Ring species are good examples of the process of speciation. If speciation is possible, but not evolution at a higher level, then there would need to be some kind of genetic barrier that only allows for a certain amount of change. Yet, one of these barriers are yet to be found. I believe that they should have been quite clear in some of the genome projects. Do you have any evidence suggesting that such a barrier does exist, making what you call macroevolution impossible?

To observe such macroevolutionary change you must demonstrate a change at least at genus if not family level, as arbitrary as that is. That has not happened in nature or labs.

While we haven't directly observed it, we have plenty of indirect observations of it, both in the fossil records and in the genetic evidence gathered from thousands of plants and animals. If science only relied on direct observation it would suck to be a geologist, paleontologist or physicist. We have several ways of measuring and collecting data that don't require that we directly observe something. As far as I know, we haven't observed electrons, but we know they exist, because we have measured them. The same goes for Big Bang: we haven't observed it, but we have measured it and gathered plenty of evidence. The predictions made were true and it was accepted.

You have not observed change above species level anywhere. You should not get confused about that.

We have observed it in both nature (fossils) and labs (genetic evidence).

 

[painted wolf]

Speciation has nothing to do with Macroevolution. Speciation has been observed and it is fact.

Wrong... Macroevolution includes speciation, but is not limited to it.

Macroevolution is evolution between separate populations. Generally happening at the species level or higher... thus, the mutations that are making American Red Foxes different from European Red Foxes are Macroevolution as are the mutations that make Red Foxes different from Grey Foxes and so on.

And yes, you are right... we have observed speciation. Clearly in the wild and to a lesser degree in the lab.

We know how Macroevolution has taken place even though we cannot observe it in a person's life time. There is no mystery here.

Yes, we can observe it in some cases. Plants can speciate in a single generation and this has been observed several times.

We have observed it in animals the wild both under natural and under more controlled conditions. Though as you said, it's rare that it happens in a single persons lifetime.

Thankfully we don't need it to be witnessed by a single person to have it be witnessed. We can record data pretty accurately for future generations.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

As a matter of fact now that you mention it, some recent research I read lately suggests the differnces in gene expression between humans and chimpanzees is 83%. Have you heard of that?

would you care to provide a source for that?

The natural selection observed in nature and labs offers the possible mechanism macroevoluton may be achieved but is not a demonstration of it. Ring species demonstrate that adaptation can go around in circles and inability to mate, geographic or genetic, can be no more than a designed mechanism that reduces the incidence of non beneficial matings.

To observe such macroevolutionary change you must demonstrate a change at least at genus if not family level, as arbitrary as that is. That has not happened in nature or labs.

No, as the abstract you provided said... speciation is also macroevolution and we have certainly observed that.

You have not observed change above species level anywhere. You should not get confused about that.

Of course we have... we study the genetics and the evolutionary changes between genus and higher quite a lot. Plus we have fossil evidence, molecular evidence and so on.

You seem to think that "observation" means seeing it happen in front of you (ie. direct observation)... but if that is the case then no one would be able to observe a crime scene and certainly wouldn't be able to use the observed evidence to solve a crime.

Direct observation is not the only kind of observation allowed. If it were then we'd have a problem with physics, chemistry, geology, anthropology, astronomy, medicine and every other branch of science.

wa:do

 

[Mazzyhere]

would you care to provide a source for that?

I am unable to post links at present. I will provide the link when I can if you still want it.

Perhaps you would like to source it. Here is the title. It is a paid article, so only the abstract is available but that does distinguish the terminomogy or macroevolution, microevolution and that change above species level has never been observed.

Reznick DN, Ricklefs RE (February 2009). "Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution". Nature 457

No, as the abstract you provided said... speciation is also macroevolution and we have certainly observed that.

Yes the article refers to speciation as it refers to macroevolution, However natural selection is not an example of macroevolution and neither is adaptation, although it may provide the means to that end. I think it was Outhouse that was unclear about this.

For me it depends on how vaguely one wishes to use the term speciate and if we are talking about speciation to the point of change that species are no longer genetically compatable, or are we talking about beak size changes and immunity that are bellow species level, or are we talking about species that don't mate simply because they are geographically separated or have mate preferences but are still genetically compatable, or are we talking about ring species that are genetically incompatable as this change is still only at species level.

Of course we have... we study the genetics and the evolutionary changes between genus and higher quite a lot. Plus we have fossil evidence, molecular evidence and so on.

I would be pleased if you could provide an example of this observed change above species level. I am not aware of any examples of observed change above species level at all.

You seem to think that "observation" means seeing it happen in front of you (ie. direct observation)... but if that is the case then no one would be able to observe a crime scene and certainly wouldn't be able to use the observed evidence to solve a crime.

Direct observation is not the only kind of observation allowed. If it were then we'd have a problem with physics, chemistry, geology, anthropology, astronomy, medicine and every other branch of science.

wa:do

Well, Yes, you are correct I do discriminate between that which is observed and that which remains theoretical. For example some nested hierarchies are in quite a bit of trouble at present.

However, until I see your example/s of observed change above species level I am saying that macroevolution, change above species level has never been observed and natural selection does not prove the theory of evolution as fact as stated in the thread topic.

Rather I would say that adaptation by natural selection has been observed and that would be closer to the truth. We have seen this in fruitflys that have been unable to adapt to climate change while others appear to have adapted. This change remains below species level although allele frequencies may change.

I am very interested to see some examples of observed changes above species level. That would be good. Thanks.

 

[mycorrhiza]

However, until I see your example/s of observed change above species level I am saying that macroevolution, change above species level has never been observed and natural selection does not prove the theory of evolution as fact as stated in the thread topic.

I am very interested to see some examples of observed changes above species level. That would be good. Thanks.

So if I understand you correctly, you claim that because we haven't seen it with out very eyes, and even though we have seen clear evidence of it in both the fossil record and the genomes of several species, it is not proven?

We shouldn't expect new genuses or families to form during our lifetime. First of all, it's a very slow process, and second of all, it's a man-made system. Several species have changed genus because we found out that they were actually more close to another genus than the first, so it's not a static and clear thing at all. Species evolve, not genus or family as a whole.

What would you consider evidence of evolution above species level?


For it to be possible that speciation can happen, but not change above this, there would have to be a genetic barrier that allows for change at species level, but not above. Could you provide evidence that suggests that such a barrier exists?

 

[tumbleweed41]

It is not about the content of the article. It is about the terminology and what you have actually observed by way of natural selection. Researchers are clear about this terminology but you and Outhouse appear not to be.

I see, context is unimportant in research.

Oh, by the way the link you posted is not the same article because it has a different abstract. That's about Hox gene expression. As a matter of fact now that you mention it, some recent research I read lately suggests the differnces in gene expression between humans and chimpanzees is 83%. Have you heard of that?

The link is for the same article.
Your post;

Review Article Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution

12 Feb 2009
David N. Reznick & Robert E. Ricklefs
Abstract

Evolutionary biologists have long sought to understand the relationship between microevolution (adaptation), which can be observed both in nature and in the laboratory, and macroevolution (speciation and the origin of the divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and the development of complex organs), which cannot be witnessed because it occurs over intervals that far exceed the human lifespan. The connection between these processes is also a major source of conflict between science and religious belief. Biologists often forget that Charles Darwin offered a way of resolving this issue, and his proposal is ripe for re-evaluation in the light of recent research.

My Link

Nature 457, 837-842 (12 February 2009) | doi:10.1038/nature07894; Published online 11 February 2009

Evolutionary biologists have long sought to understand the relationship between microevolution (adaptation), which can be observed both in nature and in the laboratory, and macroevolution (speciation and the origin of the divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and the development of complex organs), which cannot be witnessed because it occurs over intervals that far exceed the human lifespan. The connection between these processes is also a major source of conflict between science and religious belief. Biologists often forget that Charles Darwin offered a way of resolving this issue, and his proposal is ripe for re-evaluation in the light of recent research.

Why would you claim otherwise?

The natural selection observed in nature and labs offers the possible mechanism macroevoluton may be achieved but is not a demonstration of it. Ring species demonstrate that adaptation can go around in circles and inability to mate, geographic or genetic, can be no more than a designed mechanism that reduces the incidence of non beneficial matings.

To observe such macroevolutionary change you must demonstrate a change at least at genus if not family level, as arbitrary as that is. That has not happened in nature or labs.

You have not observed change above species level anywhere. You should not get confused about that.

Perhaps you should do a bit more research on observed speciation. In labs and in nature.

Crop development and animal husbandry has been producing new species for thousands of years.

And natural speciation has been observed frequently in both botany and biology.

I can list them for you if you like.
Or you can find a comprehensive list HERE.

 

[Mazzyhere]

I see, context is unimportant in research.

The link is for the same article.
Your post;

My Link

Why would you claim otherwise?

Thanks for the link seeing as I cannot post it. And what?.....

The link has the information I posted that clearly states macroevolution which is change above species level has never been observed. I have a few of them I can post when I am able to.

Perhaps you should do a bit more research on observed speciation. In labs and in nature.

Crop development and animal husbandry has been producing new species for thousands of years.

And natural speciation has been observed frequently in both botany and biology.

I can list them for you if you like.
Or you can find a comprehensive list HERE.

Uhmm! That link only gives examples of the term speciation being used as it relates to adaptation at species level. That's OK, for evolutionists it is a matter of degree as Painted Wolf said. I wouldn't expect much from a Talk Origins site as most of their articles are old and way outdated. Your article actually shows how confused researchers, are about the species definition, if anything. The thing is none of the examples provided in your article are examples of change above species level. I am hoping Painted Wolf can provide some.

The article I posted is from evolutionary researchers and is published. I am not understanding the struggle here. Your article is from 1995. My article was published in 2009. Do you really think Nature would publish an article that was so blatantly wrong in its statement that change above species level has not been observed?

Evidence of macroevolution can only be found in the fossil record and I think fairly well most of your researchers would agree with this. The creationist slant is more around adaptation, and if you like, speciation, being limited.

 

[painted wolf]

I am unable to post links at present. I will provide the link when I can if you still want it.

I dov't need a link, yo can just give me journal name and the title of the paper.

Perhaps you would like to source it. Here is the title. It is a paid article, so only the abstract is available but that does distinguish the terminomogy or macroevolution, microevolution and that change above species level has never been observed.

Reznick DN, Ricklefs RE (February 2009). "Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution". Nature 457



Yes the article refers to speciation as it refers to macroevolution, However natural selection is not an example of macroevolution and neither is adaptation, although it may provide the means to that end. I think it was Outhouse that was unclear about this.

I think you need to read more broadly than a single paper. It's a very poor way to defend a position.
JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Adaptation Reviewed: A Phylogenetic Methodology for Studying Character Macroevolution
http://blogimages.bloggen.be/tsjokfoto/attach/16147.pdf

For me it depends on how vaguely one wishes to use the term speciate and if we are talking about speciation to the point of change that species are no longer genetically compatable, or are we talking about beak size changes and immunity that are bellow species level, or are we talking about species that don't mate simply because they are geographically separated or have mate preferences but are still genetically compatable, or are we talking about ring species that are genetically incompatable as this change is still only at species level.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here...

I would be pleased if you could provide an example of this observed change above species level. I am not aware of any examples of observed change above species level at all.

See the above referenced papers.

Well, Yes, you are correct I do discriminate between that which is observed and that which remains theoretical. For example some nested hierarchies are in quite a bit of trouble at present.

Please clarify what you mean by "quite a bit of trouble" and provide examples.

I'm aware the finer details of some phylogenies are still being debated but I don't know any that are "in quite a bit of trouble".

However, until I see your example/s of observed change above species level I am saying that macroevolution, change above species level has never been observed and natural selection does not prove the theory of evolution as fact as stated in the thread topic.

And again you seem to be limiting observation to first hand real time events.
If this is so then you must discard every branch of science including medicine.

Rather I would say that adaptation by natural selection has been observed and that would be closer to the truth. We have seen this in fruitflys that have been unable to adapt to climate change while others appear to have adapted. This change remains below species level although allele frequencies may change.

Adaptation as you are using it is evolution. Evolution is changes in allele frequencies over time.

I am very interested to see some examples of observed changes above species level. That would be good. Thanks.

Here is another example

wa:do

 

[Mazzyhere]

What would you consider evidence of evolution above species level?

For it to be possible that speciation can happen, but not change above this, there would have to be a genetic barrier that allows for change at species level, but not above. Could you provide evidence that suggests that such a barrier exists?

There would have to be allot of things that would need to be demonstrated such as non somatic irreversible major organ and systems change.

There is recent research into gene expression. When I can post links I may talk about it. There was an 83% difference in the sample of I think it was over 250 genes from chimpanzee and human. I am expecting this field of research to perhaps provide much clarity.

 

[Thief]

So we are certain that God....the Creator...The Almighty....
doesn't have what it takes to tweak a molecule whenever He sees fit?