eksyte

Since it's the only real hole in the evolutionary theory, has it ever been observed?

patchy

Have you ever seen a dog?

flashbaby

there is only one species on the planet so no evolution has been observed

wait thats wrong after all

TB resistance to antibiotics is on going if thats what you mean

JPD

Nylon eating bacteria.

Maybe that's micro - heck its evolution still. Unless nylon was around when Adam fell over a log.

fromdownunder

Or a fruit fly?, Or a Peppered moth, or most cereal crops, or domesticated cattle, cats, sheep, or read "The Beak of the Finch", or met people born without wisdom teeth :wave: ?

Norm

ZouPrime

Just in case you miss the other poster's sarcasm, I'm going to give you the straight answer you want; yes, it has been observed countless time. It's far, far from a "hole" in the theory.

Creationists are typically unaware of this because they are stuck in their childish conception of evolution, where species diverge suddendly in a very short time frame (e.g. "a monkey giving birth to a man"). Evolution is a very, very slow process, and that's why it is way easier to observe it in species that have a very high reproduction rate, such as bacterias or insects.

patchy

It may be a fine line, but perhaps the OP is asking more if speciation has been observed (to which the answer is still a resounding yes) rather than if evolution has been observed.

If evolution is stated most simply as change in a group of organisms over time, only the thickest dunderhead can deny that we've seen this happen before our eyes time and time again.

Speciation seems to be the real hangup, the line in the sand that some walk up to but won't cross out of some silly superstition.

flashbaby

what about this for a new species
http://calvin.st-andrews.ac.uk/exter...?reference=423

patchy

That's an excellent point, and one which eksyte would do well to grasp, for it answers the original question quite nicely.

The strawman version of evolution in which "we don't see cats giving birth to puppies" is pure creationist crap and an absurdity that NO ONE predicts from true Darwinian evolution.

A key point to remember: We don't "see" a lot of evolution "happening", and shouldn't expect to, for one very simple reason:

Our short lifespans.

Our lives might seem long to us (never long enough, though) but in reality they are but an instant compared to the long stretches of deep time in which evolution truly thrives. Even if we live to a ripe old age and earnestly "look for" evolution throughout that whole available time, we are only catching a brief glimpse of any population's evolution-- a tiny fragment of subtle changes that on their own probably won't even be visibly discernable.

It's like asking someone if they've ever "observed" wood petrify. We have petrified wood, so we know it happens, but...good luck finding someone who can credibly claim to have "seen it happen."

We can "force" a faster mechanism of evolution to happen, in a much quicker timeframe more calibrated to our short lifespans, though...through artificial rather than natural selection. I expect this to be nit-picked, but...
for the purposes of this discussion, you can think of the two processes as being essentially the same: traits are being selected for, and re-selected for, and re-selected for, and re-selected for, until the accumulated changes result in a new species--in other words, an organism unable to successfully reproduce with its "original" ancestral form.

The only meaningful difference (for this discussion's sake) is that instead of the wilds of nature making these selections of which organisms will most successfully survive and reproduce (fitness), we have men making those decisions and guiding the process towards a desired end result. (Like, say, miniature collies instead of big collies.)

It's harder to "see" evolution, even artificially selected for, in "big" animals of the sort most creationists insist on using as the benchmark: because their lives (and reproductive cycles) are longer--not as long as ours, but longer nonetheless. Insects and plants are more commonly provided as observed speciation examples because their shorter cycles mean that their evolution can be "sped up"--whether selection is taking place artificially or naturally.

Creationists tend to balk and roll their eyes at examples such as fruit flies or bacteria, as if those aren't "real" life forms, but the underlying principles are identical to the ways in which we end up with tigers and nurse sharks.

And homo sapiens, if you really want to see creationists get lathered up.

Viti

Recently there was an article on a super-mosquito species that has evolved in Athens, Greece. Compared to most mosquitos it has twice as long of a range for detecting blood, can distinguish between colors, has a faster wing-beat speed, and is resistent to many pesticides and repellants.