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.

 

[JerryClower]

Not trying to "troll" or anything of that nature, but no human has ever seen any type of mammal give birth to a slightly different mammal. How can an animal of one species produce an entirely different species? I know that it is gradual changes over time, that is why nobody has ever seen it happen. But what I'm asking is, how can an organism have offspring of a different species, like the theory of evolution states? Don't most scientists believe that all life forms present today evolved from other life forms? How is that even possible? Someone needs to tell me, don't most scientists believe that all land animals came from prehistoric life forms found in the ocean?

Also a question about natural selection. In natural selection, does the DNA of the organism actually "recognize" it needs to make a change, and then change. Or does natural selection just mean that an organism with the best sight and hearing (example) will be most likely to reproduce so then it will pass the 'best' sight and hearing onto its offspring. Eventually, over a lot of years, an organism will be produced that has great sight and hearing, since the organisms with the best sight and hearing are the ones that mated and reproduced offspring. Am I right?

 

[DanP]

Also a question about natural selection. In natural selection, does the DNA of the organism actually "recognize" it needs to make a change, and then change. Or does natural selection just mean that an organism with the best sight and hearing (example) will be most likely to reproduce so then it will pass the 'best' sight and hearing onto its offspring. Eventually, over a lot of years, an organism will be produced that has great sight and hearing, since the organisms with the best sight and hearing are the ones that mated and reproduced offspring. Am I right?

DNA doesn't know anything. It doesn't know it has to change.

When individuals in a population reproduce with different chances of success, hence some individuals contribute to the subsequent generations more offspring, allele frequency in the population change in such a way that it *adapts individuals* to the environments which influenced reproductive success. This is natural selection in a nutshell.

So yeah, basically it means your 2nd option.

 

[DanP]

Someone needs to tell me, don't most scientists believe that all land animals came from prehistoric life forms found in the ocean?

If you are interested in this, I think it would be interesting for you to explore a bit the theories about the colonization of land with photosynthetic organisms which lived in seas. It's really a important moment, and it illustrates many limitations said organisms had initially when moving to land (shores) , and the many adaptations required to actually move to totally dry land.

I think its very interesting to read about it.

 

[zomgwtf]

DNA doesn't know anything. It doesn't know it has to change.

When individuals in a population reproduce with different chances of success, hence some individuals contribute to the subsequent generations more offspring, allele frequency in the population change in such a way that it *adapts individuals* to the environments which influenced reproductive success. This is natural selection in a nutshell.

So yeah, basically it means your 2nd option.

The DNA doesn't know anything but it does recognize various things including mutations and organism can recognize when gene expression needs to change. It doesn't 'control mutations' as such however.

Not trying to "troll" or anything of that nature, but no human has ever seen any type of mammal give birth to a slightly different mammal. How can an animal of one species produce an entirely different species? I know that it is gradual changes over time, that is why nobody has ever seen it happen. But what I'm asking is, how can an organism have offspring of a different species, like the theory of evolution states? Don't most scientists believe that all life forms present today evolved from other life forms? How is that even possible? Someone needs to tell me, don't most scientists believe that all land animals came from prehistoric life forms found in the ocean?

We've never seen the birth of a slightly different mammal? Wonder it means to have a birth defect then...
You will need to define to me what species means there are so many various definitions floating around the scientific world it's hard to keep them all straight and give a 'definitive answer' to your question.

They have offspring the same way they have their other offspring... the catch of course being they have been mutated... which has been documented MANY times so I hope you won't try to dispute this.
Yes most scientists believe that all life forms present today evolved from other life forms. (If we include that life forms are no longer being created.)
It's very easily possible. Ask more specific questions and I can give you much more specific answers.
If we go far enough back in common ancestors yes, we will go allllll the way back to ocean life forms.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Not trying to "troll" or anything of that nature, but no human has ever seen any type of mammal give birth to a slightly different mammal.

Happens all the time. Where do new dog breeds come from? What about birth defects? What about disease immunities (including recent, and I believe novel, genetic resistance to HIV)?

How can an animal of one species produce an entirely different species? I know that it is gradual changes over time, that is why nobody has ever seen it happen. But what I'm asking is, how can an organism have offspring of a different species, like the theory of evolution states?

Of course speciation is not particularly well-defined, or rather there's not much agreement about what a good definition would be. But in short, change is incremental enough that A could mate with B, B could mate with C, ..., and Y could mate with Z, but A cannot mate with Z. (That is, "can mate with" or "is the same species as" are not actually transitive relations.)

The well-known example of a ring species gives an unrelated illustration of the concept. Letting <--> mean "is fertile with" or "is the same (biological) species as", we have
Herring Gull <--> American Herring Gull <--> East Siberian Herring Gull <--> Birula's Gull <--> Heuglin's gull <--> Siberian Lesser Black-backed Gull
but
Herring Gull <-/-> Siberian Lesser Black-backed Gull.

This is similar to the linguistic concept of a dialect continuum, if you're familiar with that.

Someone needs to tell me, don't most scientists believe that all land animals came from prehistoric life forms found in the ocean?

Sure, but that's not a hard transition. The 'recent' (~50 Ma) ancestors of dolphins were land-dwellers, whereas the transition from sea to land was much further back (~450 Ma).

Also a question about natural selection. In natural selection, does the DNA of the organism actually "recognize" it needs to make a change, and then change.

Never.

Or does natural selection just mean that an organism with the best sight and hearing (example) will be most likely to reproduce so then it will pass the 'best' sight and hearing onto its offspring. Eventually, over a lot of years, an organism will be produced that has great sight and hearing, since the organisms with the best sight and hearing are the ones that mated and reproduced offspring. Am I right?

Not particularly, but that's closer than the idea that DNA "wants" something and does it.

Natural selection is just this: what creatures live, live. If having eyes was a deadly disadvantage for some reason, then lots of creatures with eyes would die. Then most existing creatures would be eyeless, either because they survived the Great Eye Purge or because their parents (etc.) did.

If eyes provide no particular advantage but cost a lot (metabolically speaking), then there's some selection pressure away from eyes. When food is plentiful, creatures with eyes survive and reproduce just fine; when scarce, they're more likely to die off. Thus creatures in environments not friendly to eyes (e.g., naked mole rats) have, over a long course, selected against expensive (in terms of disease as well as development) large eyes. In environments where eyes are an advantage, the selection is in the opposite direction. A gazelle with poor eyesight might have trouble escaping predation, in which case it fails to pass along its genes.

Most novel developments (whether mutations or simple cross-breading) are either harmful or essentially neutral. Sometimes several apparently neutral developments, when combined, have an effect; in these cases that effect can be selected for or against.