The question remains: What is the minimum set of sufficient conditions, necessary to prove that evolution of a species has occured? Until you answer this question, no one can know if any proof will satisfy. PS. My offerred experiment satisfies your above stated definition of "evolution" and "species." The genetic composition of the worms has changed, and the taxonomic groups can breed amongst themselves, but not between groups.
The example that I offerred, is not the only one available. There are many others. But, based on your post, other examples would be insufficient unless they also were subjected to repeated experimentation. So, how many independent trials of such an experiment, would satisfy you that the experiment was not a fraud (or a mistake)?
Must you be so predictable? My satisfaction is not the purpose of the present discussion. The definitions I have already provided include those elements essential to the theory that you have up 'til now failed to prove. Any further elaboration is not required at this point. Mutation is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition of evolution. The inability to interbreed is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition of a difference of species. The claim of "evolution" based on the citing you provided is without merit and pure bologna.
My cite satisfies your definition(s). You are simply dismissing it based on your unsupported opinion that it does not. Still waiting for you to answer the question of what are the precise "sufficient conditions" necessary to proving evolution?
Unmet Condition of Evolution #1: A modification, beyond the mere loss of information due to mutation, in the genetic composition of a population resulting in a new species.
So far, my cited example satisfies all of your requirements. The worms no longer successfully interbreed, and that is a HUGE modification. If you're not going to reveal all of the criteria in advance, then I'm not going to play with you, because you can always add a new condition, to bolster your argument. What, in your opinion, are the precise "sufficient conditions" necessary to prove evolution?
Hiding? LOL! I could say something incredibly satirical here, but I'll just keep my mouth shut and thank you for your support.
Wrong. "Unmet Condition of Evolution #1: A modification, beyond the mere loss of information due to mutation, in the genetic composition of a population resulting in a new species." You have not show any evidence that the changes you cite are beyond those caused by the mere loss of information due to mutation. If you have such evidence, what is it?
From what in the cited study do you infer that the modifications are caused by the mere loss of information? How do you know that the modifications were not the product of an added gene, rather than a lost gene? The summary only states that the keryotypes are slightly different, i.e., the worms have a different chromosome pattern. For that matter, there is nothing in the summary that suggests that the modification is the result of mutation v. adaptation. The only thing that the study shows, is that the two field populations of worms can breed among themselves, the lab population can breed amongst itself, and that neither of the field populations can breed with the lab population. The lab population can reproduce -- it is not sterile and it is genetically different than the field population. There is nothing in the summary that suggests how this happened -- only that it HAS happened, and without any apparent human involvement, other than to physically isolate the two populations, which were originally part of the field population. If you are now stating, that in order for this to prove evolution according to your personal definition, that I must provide, not only a population that cannot interbreed, but ALSO a population that has at least one substantial physical difference, then this example is insufficient for your needs. However, for the majority of the scientific community, which does not share your personal opinion about what is necessary to prove evolution, my cited example is "sufficient." To wit, the following are definitions of evolution from famous biologists: "Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions." -- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986 and: "Evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next." -- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974 Note: An allele is a specific variation of a gene.