Has evolution actually been observed?

[JerryClower]

I know that it has been 'proven', but my question is, has it actually been observed by somebody? Yes, we can see the similarities between different subspecies and species but that alone is not proof that they evolved from each other. Has anyone actually seen it happen?

 

[zomgwtf]

I know that it has been 'proven', but my question is, has it actually been observed by somebody? Yes, we can see the similarities between different subspecies and species but that alone is not proof that they evolved from each other. Has anyone actually seen it happen?

I'm sure you your self have witnessed evolution. Do you get the flu shot?

 

[CRGreathouse]

I know that it has been 'proven', but my question is, has it actually been observed by somebody?

Sure, it happens all the time with microorganisms. It's even been observed in animals (fruit flies).

 

[zomgwtf]

Sure, it happens all the time with microorganisms. It's even been observed in animals (fruit flies).

What abouuuut http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution" .

There are PLENTY of instances where evolution has been observed.

 

[JerryClower]

Good answers guys but it was my fault because I was unclear on what I was talking about. I meant the theory of evolution, as proposed by Charles Darwin, from one species to another, a macro change in the organism that makes it a whole new species or subspecies. Has it been observed?

Didn't Darwin say that all life forms that existed in his present time all came from germ cells many years ago?

 

[mgb_phys]

from one species to another, a macro change in the organism that makes it a whole new species or subspecies.

Can all breeds of dog successfully breed with wolves?

 

[JerryClower]

Can all breeds of dog successfully breed with wolves?

Not sure. I don't think it could happen physically. I think some dogs are to small to have sexual intercourse with wolves. I think it could happen unnaturally though, maybe. You know, artificial insemination. If you know the answer, go ahead and answer it for me, because I am stumped.

 

[russ_watters]

Good answers guys but it was my fault because I was unclear on what I was talking about. I meant the theory of evolution, as proposed by Charles Darwin, from one species to another, a macro change in the organism that makes it a whole new species or subspecies. Has it been observed?

What do you mean by "observed"? Do you mean observed on a human timescale?

If that's what you mean, the answer is probably difficult, but if that's what you mean, why would you put such a constraint on evolution? That constraint is simply inappropriate and unnecessary in science. There are plenty of phenomena that we observe in science that are too fast (time dilation - nanosecond accuracy required), too slow (most of geology/astronomy), too small (cellular biology, materials science), too dim (astronomy), in the wrong frequency of light (astronomy, radio communications), etc. for us to observe in human timescales/with human sensory organs. Science long ago started to progress beyond what humans could discover with our senses - centuries ago.

 

[russ_watters]

Not sure. I don't think it could happen physically. I think some dogs are to small to have sexual intercourse with wolves. I think it could happen unnaturally though, maybe. You know, artificial insemination. If you know the answer, go ahead and answer it for me, because I am stumped.

The ability to breed, as far as evolution is concerned, has nothing to do with penis size. Dogs and wolves are different species because the dna itself is incompatible. Dog sperm cannot inseminate a wolf (and vice versa). That's the definition of speciation.

Just so we're clear about what the others were getting at, dogs evolved from wolves over the past few thousand years because humans bred them in a way (domesticated, isolated) that caused the species to separate.

 

[JerryClower]

What do you mean by "observed"? Do you mean observed on a human timescale?

If that's what you mean, the answer is probably difficult, but if that's what you mean, why would you put such a constraint on evolution? That constraint is simply inappropriate and unnecessary in science. There are plenty of phenomena that we observe in science that are too fast (time dilation - nanosecond accuracy required), too slow (most of geology/astronomy), too small (cellular biology, materials science), too dim (astronomy), in the wrong frequency of light (astronomy, radio communications), etc. for us to observe in human timescales/with human sensory organs. Science long ago started to progress beyond what humans could discover with our senses - centuries ago.

So are you implying that even though something cannot be sensed with at least one of the five senses that it shouldn't be disregarded as false?

All I am wanting to know is if people have actually seen evolution take place. Not simple evolution, but evolution that many scientists accept today? Once again the theory of evolution has not been around for that long in comparison to how long humans have been here. Maybe in the future there will be tons of pictures of past organisms so that the people of the future can actually see how the organisms changed instead of having to guess (educated guess) by what they see with fossils

 

[JerryClower]

The ability to breed, as far as evolution is concerned, has nothing to do with penis size. Dogs and wolves are different species because the dna itself is incompatible. Dog sperm cannot inseminate a wolf (and vice versa). That's the definition of speciation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfdog

What about these?

 

[zomgwtf]

The ability to breed, as far as evolution is concerned, has nothing to do with penis size. Dogs and wolves are different species because the dna itself is incompatible. Dog sperm cannot inseminate a wolf (and vice versa). That's the definition of speciation.

Just so we're clear about what the others were getting at, dogs evolved from wolves over the past few thousand years because humans bred them in a way (domesticated, isolated) that caused the species to separate.

Not entirely correct. Hybrids between various speicies do occur frequently for many animals. So interbreeding isn't a defining characteristic for separate species. However their natural tendency to breed with similar animals is part of a characteristic.

You see questions about 'speciation' etc. are difficult questions because the terms themselves are not exactly defined any longer (species for instance, there is a plethora of resources on what the word means and no one is exactly sure what it should include yet).

So dogs can and do interbreed with wolves:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canid_hybrid

EDIT: @Jerry's questions:
"speciation" I'm quite sure has been observed. Depending on your definition of species though... you appear to be moving the goalpost. First just 'evolution' occurring then 'speciation' but not including 'sub-species'. You should post explicit definitions of the words you are using.

 

[zomgwtf]

This is slightly outdated but I think it may help you:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

[russ_watters]

So are you implying that even though something cannot be sensed with at least one of the five senses that it shouldn't be disregarded as false?

That is exactly what I'm saying. And I took it further: as tools for scientific inquiry, our senses are woefully inadequate.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Edit: Sorry, didn't see zomgwtf's post!

Dog sperm cannot inseminate a wolf (and vice versa).

My old neighbors (before I moved) had a Siberian Husky-wolf. A Google search suggests they're pretty common.

Domestic dogs are generally considered to be a subspecies of wolf (C. lupus familiaris and C. lupus).

 

[russ_watters]

...from that wiki on wolf-dog hybrids, it says the reclassification of dogs as a wolf subspecies is a relatively recent development. I was not aware of this or the hybrids. Thanks for the clarification, guys.

 

[DanP]

The ability to breed, as far as evolution is concerned, has nothing to do with penis size. Dogs and wolves are different species because the dna itself is incompatible. Dog sperm cannot inseminate a wolf (and vice versa). That's the definition of speciation.

Mules are the most common example of inter-specie breeding, and I think just about anyone seen a mule in their lifes. It has nothing to do with definition of "speciation". Horse and donkey are 2 different species, yet they can produce offspring.

Also, physical attributes for example size has a lot to do with the ability to engage in intercourse. No intercourse, no *natural* ability to reproduce. I don't think a poor chihuahua male will ever be able to naturally have intercourse with a German Shepard female , for example. Though the opposite may be true (no ideea really :P) in some twisted situation :P

 

[BoomBoom]

All I am wanting to know is if people have actually seen evolution take place. Not simple evolution, but evolution that many scientists accept today?

What is the difference? Evolution is a process...

 

[JerryClower]

What is the difference? Evolution is a process...

The difference I am talking about is changes from simple organisms that we see today, to complex organisms that we see today. If evolution, as described by scientists, is only apparent millions of years ago, but not now how can it be true? I'm just wondering if evolution (macro evolution) of different species, has actually happened and been documented. We see similarities between organisms, but that does not mean that they evolved from one another.

 

[zomgwtf]

The difference I am talking about is changes from simple organisms that we see today, to complex organisms that we see today. If evolution, as described by scientists, is only apparent millions of years ago, but not now how can it be true? I'm just wondering if evolution (macro evolution) of different species, has actually happened and been documented. We see similarities between organisms, but that does not mean that they evolved from one another.

You have a gross misunderstanding of evolution it appears.

First off get rid of this notion of evolution vs. macro evolution being different.

Secondly get rid of the notion that evolution as described by scientist (which it is apparent you don't understand so you shouldn't talk about it anyways) is only apparent millions of years ago.

and lastly, get rid of the idea that because organisms are similar they evolved from one another.

It annoys me to NO END when people claim they know what's 'described by scientists' and try to contradict it using blatant misinformation.

 

[sas3]

This is slightly outdated but I think it may help you:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

You need to go back to the link listed here and read it. The answer to your question is there and it is "yes"

 

[conway]

Gradual, gradual, minute changes taking places over thousands of generations...but at SOME point a creature with 66 pairs of chromosomes spawns an offspring with 68 pairs...only it happens TWICE, in the same GENERATION, and those two FREAKS meet and hook up (instead of randomly mating with any of the countless possible number of 66-chromosome mates) and spawn a WHOLE NEW RACE of 68-chromosome creatures. It's all so simple I don't see how anyone could have the slightest doubt.

 

[zomgwtf]

Gradual, gradual, minute changes taking places over thousands of generations...but at SOME point a creature with 66 pairs of chromosomes spawns an offspring with 68 pairs...only it happens TWICE, in the same GENERATION, and those two FREAKS meet and hook up (instead of randomly mating with any of the countless possible number of 66-chromosome mates) and spawn a WHOLE NEW RACE of 68-chromosome creatures. It's all so simple I don't see how anyone could have the slightest doubt.

errr...? Troll much?

 

[conway]

What, did the CAPS give it AWAY??

Obviously the question of how the chromosome number changes is a trivial point.

 

[zomgwtf]

What, did the CAPS give it AWAY??

Obviously the question of how the chromosome number changes is a trivial point.

I'm biting what's your point with both your posts? Are you being serious or just trolling?

 

[conway]

Why can't I be both?

 

[conway]

I guess the point is that unlike the tiny gradual changes that take place over hundreds of generations, the change in chromosome number should be pretty well instantaneous. So its not absurd for someone to ask if "evolution" in that sense has actually been observed.

 

[DaleSwanson]

So are you implying that even though something cannot be sensed with at least one of the five senses that it shouldn't be disregarded as false?

While the event itself may not be able to be sensed by a single human, evidence of that event can. This is no different than anything that occurred at least a few hundred years ago. No one alive today witnessed the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest" , but there is plenty of evidence supporting it, and you'd have a hard time arguing it didn't occur just because you didn't see it.

 

[Philosothink]

there are Coy-dogs as well, that interbreed with coyotes... I now wonder if wolves and coyotes may mix?

I recently saw a post on youtube (in a theist/atheist argument) that the wild pigs of north america, which do not resemble domestic pigs very much outwardly, are not native to the continent, north or south. They started out pink and tame, and now they are big, brown, hairy and mean... just google wild boar and domestic pig... both share common ancestry.

Look at domestic dogs if you want to see evolution in action. Survival of the fittest in this instance, is the one that has the desired traits. Why does a pointer dog point, without training? Wolves do not, coyotes do not. This is man-influenced evolution at work.

And if you want a real poopile of an example... MRSA... it evolved to be resistant to modern antibiotics... imagine that, modern man, thwarted by an organism lacking a nervous system.

 

[DanP]

Look at domestic dogs if you want to see evolution in action. Survival of the fittest in this instance, is the one that has the desired traits. Why does a pointer dog point, without training? Wolves do not, coyotes do not. This is man-influenced evolution at work.

I am not very comfortable with putting this in "survival of the fittest" category. Evolution in the case of most domestic dogs, like pointers, seems to be mostly engineered by humans,by using different selective breeding mechanisms.

It doesn't look to me anything remotely close to natural selection. It's pretty much a man directed process, one in which he engineers breeds able to satisfy his needs. Discarding individuals with less desired traits is pretty much the same as discarding mechanical parts in an industrial plant. Discard if it doesn't pass the QA process.

Why does a pointer dog point, without training? Wolves do not, coyotes do not.

Do they lack the ability ? Maybe a wolf can point to his fellow wolfs where the pray it ? I don't know.

Perhaps is just behavior difference, not a real lack of natural ability to do this thing.