FYI, the ecoli used in the LTEE experiment reproduce asexually, so defining 'evolution' in this sense is entirely at the discretion of the scientists. For sexually reproducing organisms, speciation occurs when an organism can no longer reproduce with its predecessor, a feat which science still can't prove.
umm, what? Darwin's finches comes to mind [1]. Also, since then, a host of other examples. All you need to do is look at the Wikipedia page [2], which has citations to the primary research.
Unless you mean, no one has seen it happen inside a lab? But that's not true either.., accelerated evolution experiments with uni-cellular species with different "sexes", leading to reproductive isolation (ergo, speciation) has been shown [3].
How about multi-cellular species where this has been demonstrated at the broad genetic & physiological / behavioral level? That's been done too. See these two for a review of some of the work [4,5].
None of your citations, including Darwin's finches, prove evolution.
Your citation #3 states "In conclusion, we have succeeded in creating an artificial reproductive group that is isolated from the WT group." They artificially castrated a species; that is not evolution.
Citation #4: "The authors suggest that reproductive isolation has evolved in situ as a result of...". Again, not proof.
Citation #5 adds no value at all: "Although the sample of genes characterized thus far by various laboratories remains small, and concentrated in the genus Drosophila, I suspect that these patterns may prove general, although likely not universal. Our recent work, along with that of several other groups, also suggests that the selection underlying the evolution of speciation genes may sometimes assume a surprising form, response to intragenomic conflicts, perhaps involving meiotic drive." Keywords: suspect, suggests, may, perhaps
You may want to believe evolution so badly, but science doesn't have the proof yet, and that is a fact.
I’ll just not comment on this anymore, but I’m afraid I was responding to an existing religious flame war, not creating it. I’ll be careful not to fuel such fires again though, sorry.
Edit: sorry, my comment seems a bit dismissive, but I really do recognize that no good comes from feeding the fire, and I wasn’t trying to weasel out of personal responsibility in that.
defining 'evolution' in this sense is entirely at the discretion of the scientists
That’s utter nonsense. No general definition of evolution (whether as a general concept or whether via a specific mechanism, such as natural selection) requires sexual reproduction. Only some mechanisms do (in particular, obviously, sexual selection). Evolution by random mutation and natural selection (the core concept of the modern synthesis, which underpins all of modern biology) is completely independent of sexual reproduction.
For sexually reproducing organisms, speciation occurs when an organism can no longer reproduce with its predecessor
You’re misunderstanding something that is used for convenience, but is really a vast simplification. In reality speciation isn’t one defined point in time (hence it’s idiocy to ask what species the parents of the first human were — evolution is gradual!). To name just one specific example where your example breaks down: ring species [1].
[…] science still can't prove [speciation in sexually reproducing organisms].
Evolution by random mutation and natural selection (the core concept of the modern synthesis, which underpins all of modern biology) is completely independent of sexual reproduction.
Now all you have to do is prove that a "random mutation" created a new species.
I invite you to actually read that article all the way to the end. The classical examples of ring species may be oversimplifications but the concept of gradual gene flow is still very much intact (obviously).
As for your first point: don’t just selectively ignore what I’ve written and linked to. Beyond that, there is ample evidence. And it’s not hard to find, I’d invite you to honestly try. But I’ll stop here since I don’t have much hope of actually convincing a creationist. I posted the information for the benefit of others.
Comments
FYI, the ecoli used in the LTEE experiment reproduce asexually, so defining 'evolution' in this sense is entirely at the discretion of the scientists. For sexually reproducing organisms, speciation occurs when an organism can no longer reproduce with its predecessor, a feat which science still can't prove.
umm, what? Darwin's finches comes to mind [1]. Also, since then, a host of other examples. All you need to do is look at the Wikipedia page [2], which has citations to the primary research.
Unless you mean, no one has seen it happen inside a lab? But that's not true either.., accelerated evolution experiments with uni-cellular species with different "sexes", leading to reproductive isolation (ergo, speciation) has been shown [3].
How about multi-cellular species where this has been demonstrated at the broad genetic & physiological / behavioral level? That's been done too. See these two for a review of some of the work [4,5].
[1] https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article/3/9/45/2701607
"On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection", Darwin & Wallace
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#The_effect_of_sexua...
[3] http://www.pnas.org/content/112/14/4405
"Molecular coevolution of a sex pheromone and its receptor triggers reproductive isolation in Schizosaccharomyces pombe"
[4] http://www.pnas.org/content/97/23/12398
"Natural selection and speciation"
[5] http://www.pnas.org/content/102/suppl_1/6522
"The genetic basis of reproductive isolation: Insights from Drosophila"
And all this from a cursory 5 minute search (including time to type this up)..
None of your citations, including Darwin's finches, prove evolution.
Your citation #3 states "In conclusion, we have succeeded in creating an artificial reproductive group that is isolated from the WT group." They artificially castrated a species; that is not evolution.
Citation #4: "The authors suggest that reproductive isolation has evolved in situ as a result of...". Again, not proof.
Citation #5 adds no value at all: "Although the sample of genes characterized thus far by various laboratories remains small, and concentrated in the genus Drosophila, I suspect that these patterns may prove general, although likely not universal. Our recent work, along with that of several other groups, also suggests that the selection underlying the evolution of speciation genes may sometimes assume a surprising form, response to intragenomic conflicts, perhaps involving meiotic drive." Keywords: suspect, suggests, may, perhaps
You may want to believe evolution so badly, but science doesn't have the proof yet, and that is a fact.
(Deleted)
Please don't take HN threads further into religious flamewar. Of all directions not to go, that may be the nottest.
I’ll just not comment on this anymore, but I’m afraid I was responding to an existing religious flame war, not creating it. I’ll be careful not to fuel such fires again though, sorry.
Edit: sorry, my comment seems a bit dismissive, but I really do recognize that no good comes from feeding the fire, and I wasn’t trying to weasel out of personal responsibility in that.
That’s utter nonsense. No general definition of evolution (whether as a general concept or whether via a specific mechanism, such as natural selection) requires sexual reproduction. Only some mechanisms do (in particular, obviously, sexual selection). Evolution by random mutation and natural selection (the core concept of the modern synthesis, which underpins all of modern biology) is completely independent of sexual reproduction.
You’re misunderstanding something that is used for convenience, but is really a vast simplification. In reality speciation isn’t one defined point in time (hence it’s idiocy to ask what species the parents of the first human were — evolution is gradual!). To name just one specific example where your example breaks down: ring species [1].
Once more, that’s utter nonsense (e.g. [2]).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1635482/
Now all you have to do is prove that a "random mutation" created a new species.
Second, you cite the Ring Species wiki, which links to an article which argues ring species don't exist. The proof is nebulous. https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/07/16/there-ar...
I invite you to actually read that article all the way to the end. The classical examples of ring species may be oversimplifications but the concept of gradual gene flow is still very much intact (obviously).
As for your first point: don’t just selectively ignore what I’ve written and linked to. Beyond that, there is ample evidence. And it’s not hard to find, I’d invite you to honestly try. But I’ll stop here since I don’t have much hope of actually convincing a creationist. I posted the information for the benefit of others.