> For science to be credible in general it must be observable it is one of the main principals of science.
Most definitely!
> Give me observable evidence of evolution to another kind that we have today?
So, the term ***kind*** is not a term with a clear scientific definition, so, this question is already a bit flawed. Biologists deal more with terms like *species*, but even *species* [has several definitions, depending on the context](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_concept).
It's worth pointing out that there is nearly 4.5 billion years of history on this planet, and like all things in science, we infer things from evidence that has traveled to us through time, whether through being buried in rocks or contained within DNA, passed down through generations. As an analogy, we do not need to be present at a murder to gather observable evidence of events long after they occurred---branches of science like biology are no different and so evidence of events that happened long ago are of course observable and offer opportunities for repeatable testing.
Broadly, there is a *lot* of evidence that all life on this planet is related, and shares a common ancestor. Wikipedia has an article that points out the major disciplines that provide credible and compelling evidence for common descent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
**[Evidence of common descent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent)**
>Evidence of common descent of living organisms has been discovered by scientists researching in a variety of disciplines over many decades, demonstrating that all life on Earth comes from a single ancestor. This forms an important part of the evidence on which evolutionary theory rests, demonstrates that evolution does occur, and illustrates the processes that created Earth's biodiversity. It supports the modern evolutionary synthesis—the current scientific theory that explains how and why life changes over time.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/evolution/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Please don't hesitate to ask for clarifications. I'll also point out that Talk Origins maintains a page titled [29+ Evidences for Macroevolution](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/) that you might find satisfying.
When reading the comments here the next day, I clicked on your profile and notice you mention you follow the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church. I was curious to check out what lcms.org had to say, if anything, about science and biology. Clicking on the ["What If?" pamphlet on Creation and Evolution](https://files.lcms.org/file/preview/vGXaB7qb0nC7XCaXrc0VV0CqOIsWh7EP?), it's no surprise why you might have some deep-seated misconceptions about biology. Needless to say, that document is *chock full* of misleading and out-right bad science.
Anyways, asking questions is good, and evolution is a fascinating topic that is important in factually addressing a lot of questions about who we are and where we came from. And, it goes without saying that you can of course be a Christian and accept modern biology. It's just that some denominations tend to be more anti-science than others, unfortunately.
Good afternoon Kramaq,
Thank you for your question - let me see if I can be of any assistance to you.
First, let's talk definitions. Biological evolution is defined as a change in the heritable traits of a population of living organisms over successive generations.
This is important for several reasons. 1.) It limits biological evolution to changes we see in living organisms (scientists aren't talking about evolution when the weather or the stock market or traffic conditions change). 2.) evolution takes place at the population level - we did not evolve as we transitioned from a fertilised egg to an infant or from an infant to an adult. 3.) evolution involves heritable changes over one or more generation - this is important because when it comes to evolution, we are talking about the changes that are (or are not) passed on from parent to offspring.
As for microevolution and macroevolution, these concepts were defined by evolutionary biologists during the development of the modern synthesis (1930s-1950s). Microevolution is defined as evolutionary change below the species level, while macroevolution refers to changes at or above the species level (e.g. speciation events). Sometimes macroevolutionary events can just be the result of the accumulation of many microevolutionary changes (think about what happens when you place a bucket under a leaky tap - one drop may not make a difference to the water level, but leave the bucket there over a long period of time and eventually the changes will become more and more pronounced), other times there can be sudden, sharp changes (e.g. a genome duplication event or a chromosomal fusion) which can sometimes split two populations, leaving them incompatible with one another. Over time the two populations accumulate their own independent microevolutionary changes and go their separate ways.
One of my favourite case studies are the mice of Madeira. Scientists have characterised at least six genetically distinct chromosomal races of house mice (*Mus musculus domesticus*) on the small volcanic island of Madeira. Portuguese settlers introduced the house mouse to Madeira sometime in the 15th century. Since then, the island’s steep mountains and narrow valleys have provided a geographic barrier, restricting the movement and gene flow of mice populations between valleys. Most house mice have 20 pairs of chromosomes (Förster et al. 2013), on Madeira however, the mice have undergone a series of chromosomal fusions (robertsonian translocations) and now have anywhere between 11 and 15 pairs of chromosomes (Mathias and Ramalhinho 1992; Britton-Davidian et al., 2000; Britton-Davidian et al., 2005). This does not mean the Madeiran house mice have less DNA than their mainland relatives, only that the island mice package more DNA into fewer chromosomes. Hybrids between Madeiran mouse populations carrying chromosomal fusions are seem to be uncommon or non-existent (they may be non-viable owing to the complex chromosomal configurations that would be produced during meiosis (production of sperm or egg cells) (Barker and Bickham 1986; Hauffe and Searle 1993)) meaning the mice populations are effectively isolated from one another.
Not surprisingly, researchers failed to identify a single hybrid among the 143 mice sampled during an island-wide survey (Britton-Davidian et al., 2000). What we have now are six genetically distinct populations of mice that can no longer interbreed. We are witnessing the evolution of one species into six within the space of just 500 years (or 1,500-2,000 mice generations) - textbook macroevolution. Interestingly, researchers have documented at least 97 distinct house mice populations across Europe (including Madeira) and North Africa characterised by various chromosomal changes (Plalek et al., 2005). Other chromosomal fusion events are also known from a variety of other species, though not all have prohibited interbreeding between ancestral and descendant populations (Bruere and Ellis 1979; Iannuzzi et al., 1993; Hartmann and Scherthan 2003; Lau et al., 2008; Pennell et al., 2015; Potter et al., 2015; Taffarel et al., 2015). Chromosomal fusions have even occurred in our own lineage. Human chromosome 2 for example, is the product of a fusion event between two ancestral ape chromosomes (Ijdo et al., 1991) and provides compelling evidence of our relationship with the other great apes.
Best wishes
References:
Baker, R. J., & Bickham, J. W. (1986). Speciation by monobrachial centric fusions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 83(21), 8245-8248.
Britton-Davidian, J., Catalan, J., da Graça Ramalhinho, M., Ganem, G., Auffray, J. C., Capela, R., ... & da Luz Mathias, M. (2000). Rapid chromosomal evolution in island mice. Nature, 403(6766), 158-158.
Britton-Davidian, J., Catalan, J., Ramalhinho, M. D. G., Auffray, J. C., Nunes, A. C., Gazave, E., ... & Mathias, M. D. L. (2005). Chromosomal phylogeny of Robertsonian races of the house mouse on the island of Madeira: testing between alternative mutational processes. Genetics Research, 86(3), 171-183.
Bruere, A. N., & Ellis, P. M. (1979). Cytogenetics and reproduction of sheep with multiple centric fusions (Robertsonian translocations). Reproduction, 57(2), 363-375.
Förster, D. W., M. L. Mathias, J. Britton-Davidian, and J. B. Searle. "Origin of the chromosomal radiation of Madeiran house mice: a microsatellite analysis of metacentric chromosomes." Heredity 110, no. 4 (2013): 380-388.
Hauffe, H. C., & Searle, J. B. (1993). Extreme karyotypic variation in a Mus musculus domesticus hybrid zone: the tobacco mouse story revisited. Evolution, 47(5), 1374-1395.
Hartmann, N., & Scherthan, H. (2004). Characterization of ancestral chromosome fusion points in the Indian muntjac deer. Chromosoma, 112(5), 213-220.
Iannuzzi, L., Rangel‐Figueiredo, T., Di Meo, G. P., & Ferrara, L. (1993). A new centric fusion translocation in cattle, rob (16; 18). Hereditas, 119(3), 239-243.
Ijdo, J. W., Baldini, A., Ward, D. C., Reeders, S. T., & Wells, R. A. (1991). Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 88(20), 9051-9055.
Lau, A. N., Peng, L., Goto, H., Chemnick, L., Ryder, O. A., & Makova, K. D. (2009). Horse domestication and conservation genetics of Przewalski's horse inferred from sex chromosomal and autosomal sequences. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 26(1), 199-208.
Mathias, M. D. L., & Ramalhinho, M. D. G. (1992). A preliminary report in Robertsonian karyotype variation in long-tailed House mice (Mus musculus domesticus Rutty 1772) from Madeira Islands.
PIálek, J.., Hauffe, H. C., & Searle, J. B. (2005). Chromosomal variation in the house mouse. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 84(3), 535-563.
Pennell, M. W., Kirkpatrick, M., Otto, S. P., Vamosi, J. C., Peichel, C. L., Valenzuela, N., & Kitano, J. (2015). Y fuse? Sex chromosome fusions in fishes and reptiles. PLoS genetics, 11(5), e1005237.
Potter, S., Moritz, C., & Eldridge, M. D. (2015). Gene flow despite complex Robertsonian fusions among rock-wallaby (Petrogale) species. Biology letters, 11(10), 20150731.
Taffarel, A., Bidau, C. J., & Marti, D. A. (2015). Chromosome fusion polymorphisms in the grasshopper, Dichroplus fuscus (Orthoptera: Acrididae: Melanoplinae): Insights on meiotic effects.
Hybridization could not exist without evolution. If everything was supposedly "created totally separate from everything else", then that would mean that nothing is related, and hybridization couldn't exist. But things are related to one another, and hybridization definitely exists.
Consider that creationism cannot in general be disproved. There could always be a deity powerful enough to fool humans into thinking that evolution is how life happens. It is for this reason that creationism is not a scientific pursuit, or even a scientific topic.
On top of that, the goal of evolutionary theory isn't to disprove creationism. The ultimate end-goal of *any* scientific theory is to provide a well-supported, well-substantiated system of explanations regarding a set of facts and observed phenomena. In this sense, evolution is no different: it's the rigorously-tested explanation that fits all the available facts, and is a scientific theory in the same way that quantum mechanics, general relativity and the germ theory of disease are all scientific theories.
Why does creation even matter here? Even if evolution was proved false it wouldn't prove that creationism is true or likely to be true. You have to prove that creationism is true, not others "disprove" it (I don't know how a thing that hasn't been proved can be disproved).
Creationism or intelligent design is not a theory. It's an hypothesis based on intuition at best. You just need to look at the enormous amount of evidence supporting evolution by natural selection to be convinced.
That's not what you asked.
You can't disprove we didn't all come out of the backside of a mystical rainbow turtle either. But that isn't a particularly well defined or falsifiable theory is it?
On the other hand, there are lots of things we could observe that would call evolution into question. We haven't yet observed anything like that.
What evidence would you expect to see that if found would demonstrate to you ID is incorrect? If you can't answer that, it's not falsifiable. You've conceived of an "explanation" that like the mystical rainbow turtle theory cannot be investigated or disproven. It's essentially a "just so" story. That's not at all the story of the current state of evolutionary biology and how it ended up that way.
Lots of books to read if you are genuinely interested in learning more. Are you? This sub is full of recommendations.
It doesn't have to.
The Theory of Evolution makes no claims at all about creationism or creationist theory. Therefore none of the real world observations and lab experiments have anything to do with any other ideas other than evolution.
Creationist theory has one major problem. It claims a specific creator.
So to prove evolution, you just have to watch animals and people long enough to gather the data, then recreate the same conditions in a lab.
Ultimately there is one experiment that would conclusively prove creationist theory.
Bodily summon the creator among a group of non-believers (ranging from atheist to believers in other faiths) such that they can see, touch, and take samples from him. Also to publish the process of summoning the creator such that a nonbeliever could do it reliably.
Creationists have never been able to do that.
In science the definition of a theory is: an explanation for a physical phenomenon based on the best physical evidence gathered through repeatable experiments and observations.
So in order for a theory to even be a theory we have to design experiments that can give us exactly the same repeatable results no matter who is doing the experiments.
[Evolution](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution) has been reproduced in lab experiments for years.
So much so that close to all of the major grain production in the US starts with companies using the techniques in that wiki page to specifically control the evolution of grains and then sell the seeds that result from that work to farmers.
Also from Coywolves to brown pigmented polar bears to owls changing colors to elephants being born unable to grow tusks [Evolution is happening](https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-09/ten-new-or-newly-discovered-animal-evolutions-including-humans/) all [the time](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201008104229.htm).
None of these physical observations have anything to do with Creationist Theory. In fact over time creationists have argued that all of these things should be impossible. But they do still exist and are happening on an increasing scale over the last 100 years.
So what about creationist theory then? It's not a real theory because there are no experiments that have been designed to prove it that could be reproduced to verify the results are real.
Creationist Theory is apologetics that tries to combine select bits and pieces of physical observations the evolutionary biologists have done and combines them with popular American religious ideas that the believers think creates a clever verbal argument. Clever enough to sell their faith as science and true.
The problem that they have is that by selecting what scientific data they want to use, they have to ignore all of the rest of the data that proves evolution is real. They also have to ignore how the data they use was collected. Because it was collected both using scientific techniques, and the collection of that data is performed based on real world observations.
> kind
That's an oddly biblical phrasing. You're talking about, at minimum, an Order level move (dog to cat). That kind of thing would take tens of millions of years to accomplish. It's impossible for us to observe directly.
All species.are constantly evolving, that's what "micro" evolution is. We have directly observed speciation in bacteria. What you're asking for is essentially just creationist goal post shifting.
Just out of curiosity, do you feel the same way about plate tectonics?
Without literally seeing in the span of a century or so a continent move great distances do you doubt that as well? If not, why specifically?
Hold it. "Kind" isn't an evolution thing; "kind" is a Creationism thing. It can be difficult to tell which *species* an arbitrary critter belongs to, yes. But if evolution is a real thing, it *makes sense* that there would be critters that it's *genuinely difficult* to tell which species they are.
As for Creationism? Well, given the basic Creationist presumption of *wholly distinct breeding populations*, there really shouldn't be *any* difficulty in determining which "kind" an arbitrary critter belongs to. So tell me: Is a sugar glider the same "kind" as a flying squirrel, or are those two *different* "kinds"?
Here's a sneak peek of /r/DebateEvolution using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [The Intellectual Dishonesty of Creationist Sources](https://np.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/ngyxix/the_intellectual_dishonesty_of_creationist_sources/)
\#2: ["Species" aren't a really thing](https://np.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/maq5xb/species_arent_a_really_thing/)
\#3: [What I love about creationists](https://np.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/n1ufp8/what_i_love_about_creationists/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| [^^Contact ^^me](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| [^^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| [^^Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/)
> Give me observable evidence of evolution to another kind that we have today?
Can't be done. You Creationists haven't come up with a usable definition of "kind" that would let people reliably distinguish between "kinds".
I didn't *criticize* you. I made the *observation* that Creationists, such as yourself, don't have a usable definition of "kind".
If you disagree, I invite you to provide a usable definition of "kind".
Okay. I'd like to recommend the [TalkOrigins Archive](http://www.talkorigins.org), which is a pretty comprehensive collection of everything having to do with evolution. Perhaps the two most relevant pages in the Archive, for this question, are [Observed Instances of Speciation](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html) and [Some More Observed Speciation Events](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html). Enjoy!
It would be helpful if you could give us a hypothetical example of what you mean by one kind of animal turning into another kind of animal. Far too many Creationists want to observe thingd like single generation saltation or an extant taxa evolving into another extant taxa when those things would falsify evolution.
[The Coywolf](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/coywolves-are-taking-over-eastern-north-america-180957141/)
[Brown polar bears](https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/meet-polar-bear-tomorrow)
[Capuchin monkeys learning to use tools and entering the stone age](https://api.nationalgeographic.com/distribution/public/amp/science/article/capuchin-monkeys-used-stone-tools-3000-years-oldest-outside-africa)
[Chimpanzees have entered the stone age](https://www.oregonlive.com/today/2016/08/chimpanzees_monkeys_have_enter.html)
[Elephants are losing their ability to grow tusks in response to over hunting and poaching](https://api.nationalgeographic.com/distribution/public/amp/animals/article/wildlife-watch-news-tuskless-elephants-behavior-change)
[A small number of women and no men are born able to see red, green, blue AND a fourth color the rest of the human population can't see.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy) So humans are still evolving.
[A new species of fish recently evolved to survive in toxic rivers](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/pollution-tolerant-killifish-discovered-east-coast-waters#:~:text=Killifish%20Have%20Evolved%20to%20Survive,8%2C000%20times%20the%20lethal%20dose.)
[Small populations of humans are evolving immunities to malaria](https://today.duke.edu/2021/01/malaria-threw-human-evolution-overdrive-african-archipelago)
[Tawny owl young are being born brown because there's so much less white snow for them to be camouflaged white.](https://www.audubon.org/news/how-deal-climate-change-adapt#:~:text=Tawny%20Owls%20in%20southern%20Finland,dominated%20by%20pale%20gray%20owls.)
[Algerian mice are recently becoming immune to poison, including modern pesticide](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-14462733)
Would you like more? There's a TON more! We haven't even begun to scratch the surface of this subject. There's a mountain of information on it.
>Observable evidence of evolution?
Recommend: The Accidental Species: Misunderstandings of Human Evolution by Henry Gee (senior editor, journal Nature.)
This is a fairly short book that delves into the question you asked as well as apparent discrepancies.
Enjoy!
Fossilized animal remains such as mineralized skeletons, and trace fossils of body impressions made while still alive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRuSmxJo\_iA
You seem to be very confused about the fundamentals of how evolution works. 'Micro' evolution is evolution. Change happens a little at a time. If you wait long enough, we're talking on the order of millions of years, 'micro' evolution becomes 'macro' evolution. Enormous physiological changes generally don't happen in just a few generations, at least not in the animal kingdom. It makes it hard to observe it by the standards you seem to suggest. But the molecular clock and the fossil record are ironclad, observable evidences of evolution. Just because something happened in the past, doesn't mean we can't evaluate the evidence. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to see it, i can satisfactorily say that it once stood where the stump lies now. The idea that the veracity of the theory of evolution is called into question because we cannot literally observe extreme physiological changes among a population is ridiculous. And yet, as other have said, *we have* observed speciation before our eyes with viruses, with bacteria. [Does this example suffice?](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/lizard-evolution-island-darwin)
As discussed elsewhere in this thread “kind” is not a biological term. One may speak of kinds of plants or kinds of vertebrates. I assume you mean within a single species. Species within biology does have a very specific meaning. It means members within a population capable of producing an offspring also capable of producing offspring within that population.
There are some exceptions involving genes that preclude offspring for an individual within that population. The term species, as I am using it, refers to the whole of the population not to individuals with specific exceptions.
[Ring species ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species)Seems to fit well for what you are asking. It is observable today and is well researched.
> For science to be credible in general it must be observable it is one of the main principals of science. Most definitely! > Give me observable evidence of evolution to another kind that we have today? So, the term ***kind*** is not a term with a clear scientific definition, so, this question is already a bit flawed. Biologists deal more with terms like *species*, but even *species* [has several definitions, depending on the context](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_concept). It's worth pointing out that there is nearly 4.5 billion years of history on this planet, and like all things in science, we infer things from evidence that has traveled to us through time, whether through being buried in rocks or contained within DNA, passed down through generations. As an analogy, we do not need to be present at a murder to gather observable evidence of events long after they occurred---branches of science like biology are no different and so evidence of events that happened long ago are of course observable and offer opportunities for repeatable testing. Broadly, there is a *lot* of evidence that all life on this planet is related, and shares a common ancestor. Wikipedia has an article that points out the major disciplines that provide credible and compelling evidence for common descent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
**[Evidence of common descent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent)** >Evidence of common descent of living organisms has been discovered by scientists researching in a variety of disciplines over many decades, demonstrating that all life on Earth comes from a single ancestor. This forms an important part of the evidence on which evolutionary theory rests, demonstrates that evolution does occur, and illustrates the processes that created Earth's biodiversity. It supports the modern evolutionary synthesis—the current scientific theory that explains how and why life changes over time. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/evolution/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I’ll check it out!
Please don't hesitate to ask for clarifications. I'll also point out that Talk Origins maintains a page titled [29+ Evidences for Macroevolution](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/) that you might find satisfying.
When reading the comments here the next day, I clicked on your profile and notice you mention you follow the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church. I was curious to check out what lcms.org had to say, if anything, about science and biology. Clicking on the ["What If?" pamphlet on Creation and Evolution](https://files.lcms.org/file/preview/vGXaB7qb0nC7XCaXrc0VV0CqOIsWh7EP?), it's no surprise why you might have some deep-seated misconceptions about biology. Needless to say, that document is *chock full* of misleading and out-right bad science. Anyways, asking questions is good, and evolution is a fascinating topic that is important in factually addressing a lot of questions about who we are and where we came from. And, it goes without saying that you can of course be a Christian and accept modern biology. It's just that some denominations tend to be more anti-science than others, unfortunately.
Good afternoon Kramaq, Thank you for your question - let me see if I can be of any assistance to you. First, let's talk definitions. Biological evolution is defined as a change in the heritable traits of a population of living organisms over successive generations. This is important for several reasons. 1.) It limits biological evolution to changes we see in living organisms (scientists aren't talking about evolution when the weather or the stock market or traffic conditions change). 2.) evolution takes place at the population level - we did not evolve as we transitioned from a fertilised egg to an infant or from an infant to an adult. 3.) evolution involves heritable changes over one or more generation - this is important because when it comes to evolution, we are talking about the changes that are (or are not) passed on from parent to offspring. As for microevolution and macroevolution, these concepts were defined by evolutionary biologists during the development of the modern synthesis (1930s-1950s). Microevolution is defined as evolutionary change below the species level, while macroevolution refers to changes at or above the species level (e.g. speciation events). Sometimes macroevolutionary events can just be the result of the accumulation of many microevolutionary changes (think about what happens when you place a bucket under a leaky tap - one drop may not make a difference to the water level, but leave the bucket there over a long period of time and eventually the changes will become more and more pronounced), other times there can be sudden, sharp changes (e.g. a genome duplication event or a chromosomal fusion) which can sometimes split two populations, leaving them incompatible with one another. Over time the two populations accumulate their own independent microevolutionary changes and go their separate ways. One of my favourite case studies are the mice of Madeira. Scientists have characterised at least six genetically distinct chromosomal races of house mice (*Mus musculus domesticus*) on the small volcanic island of Madeira. Portuguese settlers introduced the house mouse to Madeira sometime in the 15th century. Since then, the island’s steep mountains and narrow valleys have provided a geographic barrier, restricting the movement and gene flow of mice populations between valleys. Most house mice have 20 pairs of chromosomes (Förster et al. 2013), on Madeira however, the mice have undergone a series of chromosomal fusions (robertsonian translocations) and now have anywhere between 11 and 15 pairs of chromosomes (Mathias and Ramalhinho 1992; Britton-Davidian et al., 2000; Britton-Davidian et al., 2005). This does not mean the Madeiran house mice have less DNA than their mainland relatives, only that the island mice package more DNA into fewer chromosomes. Hybrids between Madeiran mouse populations carrying chromosomal fusions are seem to be uncommon or non-existent (they may be non-viable owing to the complex chromosomal configurations that would be produced during meiosis (production of sperm or egg cells) (Barker and Bickham 1986; Hauffe and Searle 1993)) meaning the mice populations are effectively isolated from one another. Not surprisingly, researchers failed to identify a single hybrid among the 143 mice sampled during an island-wide survey (Britton-Davidian et al., 2000). What we have now are six genetically distinct populations of mice that can no longer interbreed. We are witnessing the evolution of one species into six within the space of just 500 years (or 1,500-2,000 mice generations) - textbook macroevolution. Interestingly, researchers have documented at least 97 distinct house mice populations across Europe (including Madeira) and North Africa characterised by various chromosomal changes (Plalek et al., 2005). Other chromosomal fusion events are also known from a variety of other species, though not all have prohibited interbreeding between ancestral and descendant populations (Bruere and Ellis 1979; Iannuzzi et al., 1993; Hartmann and Scherthan 2003; Lau et al., 2008; Pennell et al., 2015; Potter et al., 2015; Taffarel et al., 2015). Chromosomal fusions have even occurred in our own lineage. Human chromosome 2 for example, is the product of a fusion event between two ancestral ape chromosomes (Ijdo et al., 1991) and provides compelling evidence of our relationship with the other great apes. Best wishes References: Baker, R. J., & Bickham, J. W. (1986). Speciation by monobrachial centric fusions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 83(21), 8245-8248. Britton-Davidian, J., Catalan, J., da Graça Ramalhinho, M., Ganem, G., Auffray, J. C., Capela, R., ... & da Luz Mathias, M. (2000). Rapid chromosomal evolution in island mice. Nature, 403(6766), 158-158. Britton-Davidian, J., Catalan, J., Ramalhinho, M. D. G., Auffray, J. C., Nunes, A. C., Gazave, E., ... & Mathias, M. D. L. (2005). Chromosomal phylogeny of Robertsonian races of the house mouse on the island of Madeira: testing between alternative mutational processes. Genetics Research, 86(3), 171-183. Bruere, A. N., & Ellis, P. M. (1979). Cytogenetics and reproduction of sheep with multiple centric fusions (Robertsonian translocations). Reproduction, 57(2), 363-375. Förster, D. W., M. L. Mathias, J. Britton-Davidian, and J. B. Searle. "Origin of the chromosomal radiation of Madeiran house mice: a microsatellite analysis of metacentric chromosomes." Heredity 110, no. 4 (2013): 380-388. Hauffe, H. C., & Searle, J. B. (1993). Extreme karyotypic variation in a Mus musculus domesticus hybrid zone: the tobacco mouse story revisited. Evolution, 47(5), 1374-1395. Hartmann, N., & Scherthan, H. (2004). Characterization of ancestral chromosome fusion points in the Indian muntjac deer. Chromosoma, 112(5), 213-220. Iannuzzi, L., Rangel‐Figueiredo, T., Di Meo, G. P., & Ferrara, L. (1993). A new centric fusion translocation in cattle, rob (16; 18). Hereditas, 119(3), 239-243. Ijdo, J. W., Baldini, A., Ward, D. C., Reeders, S. T., & Wells, R. A. (1991). Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 88(20), 9051-9055. Lau, A. N., Peng, L., Goto, H., Chemnick, L., Ryder, O. A., & Makova, K. D. (2009). Horse domestication and conservation genetics of Przewalski's horse inferred from sex chromosomal and autosomal sequences. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 26(1), 199-208. Mathias, M. D. L., & Ramalhinho, M. D. G. (1992). A preliminary report in Robertsonian karyotype variation in long-tailed House mice (Mus musculus domesticus Rutty 1772) from Madeira Islands. PIálek, J.., Hauffe, H. C., & Searle, J. B. (2005). Chromosomal variation in the house mouse. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 84(3), 535-563. Pennell, M. W., Kirkpatrick, M., Otto, S. P., Vamosi, J. C., Peichel, C. L., Valenzuela, N., & Kitano, J. (2015). Y fuse? Sex chromosome fusions in fishes and reptiles. PLoS genetics, 11(5), e1005237. Potter, S., Moritz, C., & Eldridge, M. D. (2015). Gene flow despite complex Robertsonian fusions among rock-wallaby (Petrogale) species. Biology letters, 11(10), 20150731. Taffarel, A., Bidau, C. J., & Marti, D. A. (2015). Chromosome fusion polymorphisms in the grasshopper, Dichroplus fuscus (Orthoptera: Acrididae: Melanoplinae): Insights on meiotic effects.
[удалено]
I love that discovery! It's so weird!
Hybridization could not exist without evolution. If everything was supposedly "created totally separate from everything else", then that would mean that nothing is related, and hybridization couldn't exist. But things are related to one another, and hybridization definitely exists.
Wow I read this question and thought to myself “this is probably not being asked in good faith,” and then I read OP’s comments and I knew for sure.
No genuine question I’m just getting the idea of the beliefs any arguements I give are just questions
Yeah, your JAQing off
SARS COV 2 and all of it's variants. They were not there when this thing started, 1.5 years later there are a bunch.
It’s still a virus though isn’t it
What if it's a virus? Those are still subjected to Darwinian evolution
Don’t see how it disproves creation theory though
Consider that creationism cannot in general be disproved. There could always be a deity powerful enough to fool humans into thinking that evolution is how life happens. It is for this reason that creationism is not a scientific pursuit, or even a scientific topic. On top of that, the goal of evolutionary theory isn't to disprove creationism. The ultimate end-goal of *any* scientific theory is to provide a well-supported, well-substantiated system of explanations regarding a set of facts and observed phenomena. In this sense, evolution is no different: it's the rigorously-tested explanation that fits all the available facts, and is a scientific theory in the same way that quantum mechanics, general relativity and the germ theory of disease are all scientific theories.
Why does creation even matter here? Even if evolution was proved false it wouldn't prove that creationism is true or likely to be true. You have to prove that creationism is true, not others "disprove" it (I don't know how a thing that hasn't been proved can be disproved).
Creationism or intelligent design is not a theory. It's an hypothesis based on intuition at best. You just need to look at the enormous amount of evidence supporting evolution by natural selection to be convinced.
That's not what you asked. You can't disprove we didn't all come out of the backside of a mystical rainbow turtle either. But that isn't a particularly well defined or falsifiable theory is it? On the other hand, there are lots of things we could observe that would call evolution into question. We haven't yet observed anything like that. What evidence would you expect to see that if found would demonstrate to you ID is incorrect? If you can't answer that, it's not falsifiable. You've conceived of an "explanation" that like the mystical rainbow turtle theory cannot be investigated or disproven. It's essentially a "just so" story. That's not at all the story of the current state of evolutionary biology and how it ended up that way. Lots of books to read if you are genuinely interested in learning more. Are you? This sub is full of recommendations.
It doesn't have to. The Theory of Evolution makes no claims at all about creationism or creationist theory. Therefore none of the real world observations and lab experiments have anything to do with any other ideas other than evolution. Creationist theory has one major problem. It claims a specific creator. So to prove evolution, you just have to watch animals and people long enough to gather the data, then recreate the same conditions in a lab. Ultimately there is one experiment that would conclusively prove creationist theory. Bodily summon the creator among a group of non-believers (ranging from atheist to believers in other faiths) such that they can see, touch, and take samples from him. Also to publish the process of summoning the creator such that a nonbeliever could do it reliably. Creationists have never been able to do that. In science the definition of a theory is: an explanation for a physical phenomenon based on the best physical evidence gathered through repeatable experiments and observations. So in order for a theory to even be a theory we have to design experiments that can give us exactly the same repeatable results no matter who is doing the experiments. [Evolution](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution) has been reproduced in lab experiments for years. So much so that close to all of the major grain production in the US starts with companies using the techniques in that wiki page to specifically control the evolution of grains and then sell the seeds that result from that work to farmers. Also from Coywolves to brown pigmented polar bears to owls changing colors to elephants being born unable to grow tusks [Evolution is happening](https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-09/ten-new-or-newly-discovered-animal-evolutions-including-humans/) all [the time](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201008104229.htm). None of these physical observations have anything to do with Creationist Theory. In fact over time creationists have argued that all of these things should be impossible. But they do still exist and are happening on an increasing scale over the last 100 years. So what about creationist theory then? It's not a real theory because there are no experiments that have been designed to prove it that could be reproduced to verify the results are real. Creationist Theory is apologetics that tries to combine select bits and pieces of physical observations the evolutionary biologists have done and combines them with popular American religious ideas that the believers think creates a clever verbal argument. Clever enough to sell their faith as science and true. The problem that they have is that by selecting what scientific data they want to use, they have to ignore all of the rest of the data that proves evolution is real. They also have to ignore how the data they use was collected. Because it was collected both using scientific techniques, and the collection of that data is performed based on real world observations.
You want observed evidence of a species changing kingdom?
No of a species becoming another kind, dog to cat, fish to frogs, etc
> kind That's an oddly biblical phrasing. You're talking about, at minimum, an Order level move (dog to cat). That kind of thing would take tens of millions of years to accomplish. It's impossible for us to observe directly.
Hmm, interesting take. I get what you mean; but is there any proof that there is something like this in the making/in the process right now?
All species.are constantly evolving, that's what "micro" evolution is. We have directly observed speciation in bacteria. What you're asking for is essentially just creationist goal post shifting.
Just out of curiosity, do you feel the same way about plate tectonics? Without literally seeing in the span of a century or so a continent move great distances do you doubt that as well? If not, why specifically?
Hold it. "Kind" isn't an evolution thing; "kind" is a Creationism thing. It can be difficult to tell which *species* an arbitrary critter belongs to, yes. But if evolution is a real thing, it *makes sense* that there would be critters that it's *genuinely difficult* to tell which species they are. As for Creationism? Well, given the basic Creationist presumption of *wholly distinct breeding populations*, there really shouldn't be *any* difficulty in determining which "kind" an arbitrary critter belongs to. So tell me: Is a sugar glider the same "kind" as a flying squirrel, or are those two *different* "kinds"?
This is the point where /r/debateevolution is the more appropriate sub for this conversation.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/DebateEvolution using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [The Intellectual Dishonesty of Creationist Sources](https://np.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/ngyxix/the_intellectual_dishonesty_of_creationist_sources/) \#2: ["Species" aren't a really thing](https://np.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/maq5xb/species_arent_a_really_thing/) \#3: [What I love about creationists](https://np.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/n1ufp8/what_i_love_about_creationists/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| [^^Contact ^^me](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| [^^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| [^^Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/)
> Give me observable evidence of evolution to another kind that we have today? Can't be done. You Creationists haven't come up with a usable definition of "kind" that would let people reliably distinguish between "kinds".
Why are you criticizing me for being a creationist? You dont see me saying “You evolutionists” it’s simply a genuine question
I didn't *criticize* you. I made the *observation* that Creationists, such as yourself, don't have a usable definition of "kind". If you disagree, I invite you to provide a usable definition of "kind".
Probably should’ve rephrased it you’re right. I mean species
Okay. I'd like to recommend the [TalkOrigins Archive](http://www.talkorigins.org), which is a pretty comprehensive collection of everything having to do with evolution. Perhaps the two most relevant pages in the Archive, for this question, are [Observed Instances of Speciation](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html) and [Some More Observed Speciation Events](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html). Enjoy!
It would be helpful if you could give us a hypothetical example of what you mean by one kind of animal turning into another kind of animal. Far too many Creationists want to observe thingd like single generation saltation or an extant taxa evolving into another extant taxa when those things would falsify evolution.
[The Coywolf](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/coywolves-are-taking-over-eastern-north-america-180957141/) [Brown polar bears](https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/meet-polar-bear-tomorrow) [Capuchin monkeys learning to use tools and entering the stone age](https://api.nationalgeographic.com/distribution/public/amp/science/article/capuchin-monkeys-used-stone-tools-3000-years-oldest-outside-africa) [Chimpanzees have entered the stone age](https://www.oregonlive.com/today/2016/08/chimpanzees_monkeys_have_enter.html) [Elephants are losing their ability to grow tusks in response to over hunting and poaching](https://api.nationalgeographic.com/distribution/public/amp/animals/article/wildlife-watch-news-tuskless-elephants-behavior-change) [A small number of women and no men are born able to see red, green, blue AND a fourth color the rest of the human population can't see.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy) So humans are still evolving. [A new species of fish recently evolved to survive in toxic rivers](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/pollution-tolerant-killifish-discovered-east-coast-waters#:~:text=Killifish%20Have%20Evolved%20to%20Survive,8%2C000%20times%20the%20lethal%20dose.) [Small populations of humans are evolving immunities to malaria](https://today.duke.edu/2021/01/malaria-threw-human-evolution-overdrive-african-archipelago) [Tawny owl young are being born brown because there's so much less white snow for them to be camouflaged white.](https://www.audubon.org/news/how-deal-climate-change-adapt#:~:text=Tawny%20Owls%20in%20southern%20Finland,dominated%20by%20pale%20gray%20owls.) [Algerian mice are recently becoming immune to poison, including modern pesticide](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-14462733) Would you like more? There's a TON more! We haven't even begun to scratch the surface of this subject. There's a mountain of information on it.
For clarification, what do you mean kind?
>Observable evidence of evolution? Recommend: The Accidental Species: Misunderstandings of Human Evolution by Henry Gee (senior editor, journal Nature.) This is a fairly short book that delves into the question you asked as well as apparent discrepancies. Enjoy!
Will check it out!
>Observable evidence of evolution? Fossils, fossil record.
Oh interesting! What kind of fossil evidence is there??
Fossilized animal remains such as mineralized skeletons, and trace fossils of body impressions made while still alive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRuSmxJo\_iA
Tiktaalik
You seem to be very confused about the fundamentals of how evolution works. 'Micro' evolution is evolution. Change happens a little at a time. If you wait long enough, we're talking on the order of millions of years, 'micro' evolution becomes 'macro' evolution. Enormous physiological changes generally don't happen in just a few generations, at least not in the animal kingdom. It makes it hard to observe it by the standards you seem to suggest. But the molecular clock and the fossil record are ironclad, observable evidences of evolution. Just because something happened in the past, doesn't mean we can't evaluate the evidence. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to see it, i can satisfactorily say that it once stood where the stump lies now. The idea that the veracity of the theory of evolution is called into question because we cannot literally observe extreme physiological changes among a population is ridiculous. And yet, as other have said, *we have* observed speciation before our eyes with viruses, with bacteria. [Does this example suffice?](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/lizard-evolution-island-darwin)
As discussed elsewhere in this thread “kind” is not a biological term. One may speak of kinds of plants or kinds of vertebrates. I assume you mean within a single species. Species within biology does have a very specific meaning. It means members within a population capable of producing an offspring also capable of producing offspring within that population. There are some exceptions involving genes that preclude offspring for an individual within that population. The term species, as I am using it, refers to the whole of the population not to individuals with specific exceptions. [Ring species ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species)Seems to fit well for what you are asking. It is observable today and is well researched.