noun: (biology) taxonomic group whose members can interbreed Need a definition of taxonomic? Derived from taxonomy: # noun: a classification of organisms into groups based on similarities of structure or origin etc
Fine, no problem. Though the one look definition provided would explain it to most folks well enough.
OK, assuming your definition then, I propose the following experiment: 1. take a taxonomic group that can interbreed, and divide it into subgroups; 2. isolate those subgroups and allow the subgroups to breed among each other in isolation; 3. after a large number of generations, bring the subgroups back together; Hypothesis: if the members of the subgroups can no longer breed between subgroups, but can still breed within their own subgroup, then that would be evidence of the development of a new species via evolutionary processes. Agreed?
No, I don't agree necessarily. Do the experiment, then I will look at the evidence, then evaluate your hypothesis. Oh, and not just one experiment on one taxonomic group.....do the experiment with many different taxonomic groups with varying degrees of biological complexity, from lowest organism to highest organism and make certain that the isolation of the subgroups are exactly the same, so that all environmental conditions are the same. If this evolutionary force is as consistent as gravity, etc., it should be seen everwhere. The changes that might take place that would perhaps preclude a breeding back into members of the other subgroups could possibly be quite temporary, and a return to the group as a whole living under the same conditions for generations may just as well bring a return to the ability to breed among the subgroups as they were in the very first place. No one is saying that environmental conditions don't have an impact on biological organisms, but the changes that take place that are adaptive in nature may well be within the design of the organism and/or within a range of changes possible within a taxonomic group. Not new species, but temporary alterations within a taxonomic group.
You have added all sorts of conditions in order to prevent the possibility that I will demonstrate that the experiment has already been done in the past -- and of course it has, otherwise I wouldn't have proposed it as an experiment (See Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution. 46:1214-1220). As for your conjecture that putting the two non-breeding species back together might cause them to again obtain the ability to interbreed and become one species again, that would be a change in the environment to favor interbreeding, and evidence of interbreeding would be a second proof of adaptive evolutionary process. As for your other proposed experiments up and down the scale of biological complexity, that would require a definition of biological complexity. At the moment, the most genetically complex creature yet identified is a particular strain of one celled amoeba (the name escapes me at present), and I doubt that this would be the creature you would choose for the ultimate proof to satisfy your intellectual fervor, especially, since amoeba are generally asexual so interbreeding is a non sequitur. In any case, it is demonstrated for at least one organic creature, that evolutionary processes are capable of speciation via reproductive isolation, and after that, it's up to the detractors to demonstrate that the experiment was a fluke, a mistake or a fraud. Until they do, the experiment proves inter-species evolution.
The experiment on one species does not prove inter-species evolution does in fact occur to all species, all of the time, in all situations....or if it would happen to other species. Perhaps the species tested had the ability to demonstrate what "appears" to be evolution to those who are looking for evolution. However, with gravity and other genuine forces of nature, we do see very predictable behavior. People are free to make a gross generalization from one specific isolated event to include all possible events, but the logic is not terribly sound in my opinion. In addition, most scientists would agree that a valid time tested experiment would need to be repeated under controlled conditions to rule out any number of variables that could cause a scientist to draw spurious conclusions to support a hypothesis they were trying to advance or prove. I don't mean to insult the work of biologists or biological theorists, but this experiment, and the broad conclusion as it applies to human beings makes me laugh out loud. Not saying your conclusion is wrong, just that I don't see sufficient evidence to make it right. My argument is not that evolution is wrong, and ID is right.... The argument is that neither should be dogmantically taught to children in public schools...or if we teach one belief system, teach all belief systems. I prefer facts be taught, let the children come to their own theories.
The proffered experiment was repeated and was done under controlled conditions. Even if the experiment doesn't prove that inter-species evolution occurs in all species all of the time, it proves that the biology of evolution is sound for at least one creature on the planet, and that creature is made of the same genetic material as all of the others. So, you can either accept the evidence for what it is: proof of biological evolution as a fact, or you can reject it, because it's not "good enough" for you, until someone causes a shrew to evolve into a human. According to your stated position, we should teach fact and not theory. I have just produced an experiment that proves that biological evolution factually occurs under lab conditions, so we can teach this in a high school biology class. No one on the other side of the "controversy" has produced any experiment to prove that new species appear by the hand of God. So, once again, based on your stated position, this postulate is off limits in a high school biology class, because it is just a theory.
I accept the experiment for what it is. I accept the results of the experiment for what they are. No argument with facts. I don't accept the theory that is "seems" to validate as necessarily true. This particular species adapted the same way multiple times during controlled experiments. No problem. May be by design. Scientists called this adaptation a "new species" or inter-species evolution. It is not known that this adaptation was within the predetermined survival range of the species or not before the experiment, i.e. this adaptation may just as easily have been by design, or by plan of the organism to adapt to certain environmental conditions. The concept of "new species" or inter-species evolution suggests that there is no design, nor plan for the way in which changes take place when biological organisms are subjected to different environmental conditions that they must adapt to in order to survive. There is no evidence that this is the case that there is no plan for these changes to take place, by design. Speaking of biology..... I challenge any biological scientist to find one single biological species that lives forever. One would think that with all this random chance stuff (think monkeys banging out Shakespeare) that at least one species would have evolved to the point where it would no longer die of natural causes. Yet every single living biological species we know of had a birth, and we have near 100% certainty that they will all die. Hard to imagine all this "evolution" for millions if not billions of years...and not one has "evolved" or lucked into eternal life. I would speculate that some very powerful, very consistent "unknown" force wants biological organisms to be born, live, and then die.
Your comment "may be by design" is theoretical. The experiment is a fact. You can teach the result of the experiment, but according to your stated position, you cannot teach the theoretical "may be by design," until some demonstrable experiment is produced. The proffered experiment was published in 1992. It has been 13 years since, and no detractor has falsified the experiment. This, by itself, strongly suggests that the detractors cannot do so, because if they could, they would be all over the experiment demonstrating the hoax perpetrated on/by the scientific community. Negative arguments, like "may be by design" are entirely theoretical. Prove it, and you can publish it. But, no one has provided an experiment that demonstrates design, because those who seek to promote the theory, attribute the design to a supernatural creator whose actions, if they are real, are undetectable using the scientific method. If the detractors were to postulate a "natural" designer, and then attempt to prove that, then they would have no supernatural stumbling block. But, they do not, because they do not want the source of our existence to be some passer-by alien farmer. They want God, and nothing less will suffice. As for your challenge re evolution not producing creatures that are immortal, well, even though I don't agree with your view of what evolution should or should not do, nevertheless it is a scientific fact that ALL biological organisms that reproduce by cell division are immortal, because although they can be extinguished by accidental death, their cell division causes identical replications of the original, thus there is no death, as part of the life cycle of asexual creatures. Only biological organisms that reproduce sexually, die as part of their life cycle. That, in fact, is the evolutionary basis of death. Sexual reproduction and death apparently co-evolved, because the two traits are only found together. So, you're gonna need a better challenge. In any event, this argument has been had multiple times, and in the end, you will fall back on your "evolution is just a theory not a fact," proclamation, which is "designed" especially to "inflame" those who don't recognize that your actions are deliberately designed to generate hits to the ET website. However, I have a life, and before my life cycle ends, I need to go live some more of it. So, I'm outta here, but before I go, I just want to leave you and the rest of the creationist crew, with my own little challenge: Explain how it is possible that other primates and humans all have the same retroviral insertions in the exact same locations of their genome sequences (see attached .gif file). The scientific explanation, is that the insertions, which according to the scientists who mapped them, occurred millions of years ago, in the genome of the same creature, who eventually evolved into the various primates that occupy our planet today. What are the odds of this happening by accident? Lay out the gene sequences of the various referred to creatures on rolls of toilet paper, each gene separated by one millimeter each, and you would have rolls of paper stretched about 32,000 football fields in length. Then go up in the air in a plane and drop a handful of darts. If they all land in the same place on each roll of toilet paper, then you will have demonstrated that this factual event could have happened by accident. I'll be there to watch, and I'll be betting against you.