EVOLUTION.... I have a question thats bothering me ....

We live, we are constantly told, in a scientific age. We look to science to help us achieve the good life, to solve our problems (especially our medical aches and pains), and to tell us about the world. A great deal of our education system, particularly the post-secondary curriculum, is organized as science or social science. And yet, curiously enough, there is one major scientific truth which vast numbers of people refuse to accept (by some news accounts a majority of people in North America)--the fact of evolution. Yet it is as plain as plain can be that the scientific truth of evolution is so overwhelmingly established, that it is virtually impossible to refute within the bounds of reason. No major scientific truth, in fact, is easier to present, explain, and defend.

Before demonstrating this claim, let me make it clear what I mean by evolution, since there often is some confusion about the term. By evolution I mean, very simply, the development of animal and plant species out of other species not at all like them, for example, the process by which, say, a species of fish gets transformed (or evolves) through various stages into a cow, a kangaroo, or an eagle. This definition, it should be noted, makes no claims about how the process might occur, and thus it certainly does not equate the concept of evolution with Darwinian Natural Selection, as so many people seem to do. It simply defines the term by its effects (not by how those effects are produced, which could well be the subject of another argument).

The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent. This point has been overwhelmingly established in the past century and a half, ever since the French scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrated how fermentation took place and thus laid to rest centuries of stories about beetles arising spontaneously out of dung or gut worms being miraculously produced from non-living material. There is absolutely no evidence for this ancient belief. Living creatures must come from other living creatures. It does no damage to this point to claim that life must have had some origin way back in time, perhaps in a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup) or in some invasion from outer space. That may well be true. But what is clear is that any such origin for living things or living material must result in a very simple organism. There is no evidence whatsoever (except in science fiction like Frankenstein) that inorganic chemical processes can produce complex, multi-cellular living creatures (the recent experiments cloning sheep, of course, are based on living tissue from other sheep).

The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others. This, I take it, is self-evident. Let me cite a common example: many animals have what we call an internal skeletal structure featuring a backbone and skull. We call these animals vertebrates. Most animals do not have these features (we call them invertebrates). The distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates is something no one who cares to look at samples of both can reasonably deny, and, so far as I am aware, no one hostile to evolution has ever denied a fact so apparent to anyone who observes the world for a few moments.

The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase (although not at a uniform rate). And no human fossils have ever been found except in the most superficial layers of the earth (e.g., battlefields, graveyards, flood deposits, and so on). In all the countless geological excavations and inspections (for example, of the Grand Canyon), no one has ever come up with a genuine fossil remnant which goes against this general principle (and it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle).

Well, if we put these three points together, the rational case for evolution is air tight. If all living creatures must have a living parent, if living creatures are different, and if simpler forms were around before the more complex forms, then the more complex forms must have come from the simpler forms (e.g., vertebrates from invertebrates). There is simply no other way of dealing reasonably with the evidence we have. Of course, one might deny (as some do) that the layers of the earth represent a succession of very lengthy epochs and claim, for example, that the Grand Canyon was created in a matter of days, but this surely violates scientific observation and all known scientific processes as much as does the claim that, say, vertebrates just, well, appeared one day out of a spontaneous combination of chemicals.

To make the claim for the scientific truth of evolution in this way is to assert nothing about how it might occur. Darwin provides one answer (through natural selection), but others have been suggested, too (including some which see a divine agency at work in the transforming process). The above argument is intended, however, to demonstrate that the general principle of evolution is, given the scientific evidence, logically unassailable and that, thus, the concept is a law of nature as truly established as is, say, gravitation. That scientific certainty makes the widespread rejection of evolution in our modern age something of a puzzle (but that's a subject for another essay). In a modern liberal democracy, of course, one is perfectly free to reject that conclusion, but one is not legitimately able to claim that such a rejection is a reasonable scientific stance.

[link to records.viu.ca]

Intersting, I dont think youll find a "Full on" change from one species to another. Its far more likely that youll find lots of Micro Changes due to changing environment/climate catalyst.

There is no proof,evolution/darwinism is a pack of LIES

OK would you like to put a theory across? Seeing as you branded it a pack of lies, you must have an alternate theory.

Let me guess you got a fuzzy definition of "distinct species" (one that changes every time an example has been found that fulfills it or a definition so vague that every example can be said to not fulfill it)?

But to answer your question;


[link to www.talkorigins.org]

5.1 Speciations Involving Polyploidy, Hybridization or Hybridization Followed by Polyploidization.

5.1.1 Plants

(See also the discussion in de Wet 1971).
5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
5.1.1.2 Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)

Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.
5.1.1.3 Tragopogon

Owenby (1950) demonstrated that two species in this genus were produced by polyploidization from hybrids. He showed that Tragopogon miscellus found in a colony in Moscow, Idaho was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. pratensis. He also showed that T. mirus found in a colony near Pullman, Washington was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. porrifolius. Evidence from chloroplast DNA suggests that T. mirus has originated independently by hybridization in eastern Washington and western Idaho at least three times (Soltis and Soltis 1989). The same study also shows multiple origins for T. micellus.
5.1.1.4 Raphanobrassica

The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage.
5.1.1.5 Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)

A species of hemp nettle, Galeopsis tetrahit, was hypothesized to be the result of a natural hybridization of two other species, G. pubescens and G. speciosa (Muntzing 1932). The two species were crossed. The hybrids matched G. tetrahit in both visible features and chromosome morphology.
5.1.1.6 Madia citrigracilis

Along similar lines, Clausen et al. (1945) hypothesized that Madia citrigracilis was a hexaploid hybrid of M. gracilis and M. citriodora As evidence they noted that the species have gametic chromosome numbers of n = 24, 16 and 8 respectively. Crossing M. gracilis and M. citriodora resulted in a highly sterile triploid with n = 24. The chromosomes formed almost no bivalents during meiosis. Artificially doubling the chromosome number using colchecine produced a hexaploid hybrid which closely resembled M. citrigracilis and was fertile.
5.1.1.7 Brassica

Frandsen (1943, 1947) was able to do this same sort of recreation of species in the genus Brassica (cabbage, etc.). His experiments showed that B. carinata (n = 17) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra (n = 8) and B. oleracea, B. juncea (n = 18) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra and B. campestris (n = 10), and B. napus (n = 19) may be recreated by hybridizing B. oleracea and B. campestris.
5.1.1.8 Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)

Rabe and Haufler (1992) found a naturally occurring diploid sporophyte of maidenhair fern which produced unreduced (2N) spores. These spores resulted from a failure of the paired chromosomes to dissociate during the first division of meiosis. The spores germinated normally and grew into diploid gametophytes. These did not appear to produce antheridia. Nonetheless, a subsequent generation of tetraploid sporophytes was produced. When grown in the lab, the tetraploid sporophytes appear to be less vigorous than the normal diploid sporophytes. The 4N individuals were found near Baldwin City, Kansas.
5.1.1.9 Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)

Woodsia abbeae was described as a hybrid of W. cathcariana and W. ilvensis (Butters 1941). Plants of this hybrid normally produce abortive sporangia containing inviable spores. In 1944 Butters found a W. abbeae plant near Grand Portage, Minn. that had one fertile frond (Butters and Tryon 1948). The apical portion of this frond had fertile sporangia. Spores from this frond germinated and grew into prothallia. About six months after germination sporophytes were produced. They survived for about one year. Based on cytological evidence, Butters and Tryon concluded that the frond that produced the viable spores had gone tetraploid. They made no statement as to whether the sporophytes grown produced viable spores.
5.1.2 Animals

Speciation through hybridization and/or polyploidy has long been considered much less important in animals than in plants [[[refs.]]]. A number of reviews suggest that this view may be mistaken. (Lokki and Saura 1980; Bullini and Nascetti 1990; Vrijenhoek 1994). Bullini and Nasceti (1990) review chromosomal and genetic evidence that suggest that speciation through hybridization may occur in a number of insect species, including walking sticks, grasshoppers, blackflies and cucurlionid beetles. Lokki and Saura (1980) discuss the role of polyploidy in insect evolution. Vrijenhoek (1994) reviews the literature on parthenogenesis and hybridogenesis in fish. I will tackle this topic in greater depth in the next version of this document.
5.2 Speciations in Plant Species not Involving Hybridization or Polyploidy

5.2.1 Stephanomeira malheurensis

Gottlieb (1973) documented the speciation of Stephanomeira malheurensis. He found a single small population (< 250 plants) among a much larger population (> 25,000 plants) of S. exigua in Harney Co., Oregon. Both species are diploid and have the same number of chromosomes (N = 8). S. exigua is an obligate outcrosser exhibiting sporophytic self-incompatibility. S. malheurensis exhibits no self-incompatibility and self-pollinates. Though the two species look very similar, Gottlieb was able to document morphological differences in five characters plus chromosomal differences. F1 hybrids between the species produces only 50% of the seeds and 24% of the pollen that conspecific crosses produced. F2 hybrids showed various developmental abnormalities.
5.2.2 Maize (Zea mays)

Pasterniani (1969) produced almost complete reproductive isolation between two varieties of maize. The varieties were distinguishable by seed color, white versus yellow. Other genetic markers allowed him to identify hybrids. The two varieties were planted in a common field. Any plant's nearest neighbors were always plants of the other strain. Selection was applied against hybridization by using only those ears of corn that showed a low degree of hybridization as the source of the next years seed. Only parental type kernels from these ears were planted. The strength of selection was increased each year. In the first year, only ears with less than 30% intercrossed seed were used. In the fifth year, only ears with less than 1% intercrossed seed were used. After five years the average percentage of intercrossed matings dropped from 35.8% to 4.9% in the white strain and from 46.7% to 3.4% in the yellow strain.
5.2.3 Speciation as a Result of Selection for Tolerance to a Toxin: Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus)

At reasonably low concentrations, copper is toxic to many plant species. Several plants have been seen to develop a tolerance to this metal (Macnair 1981). Macnair and Christie (1983) used this to examine the genetic basis of a postmating isolating mechanism in yellow monkey flower. When they crossed plants from the copper tolerant "Copperopolis" population with plants from the nontolerant "Cerig" population, they found that many of the hybrids were inviable. During early growth, just after the four leaf stage, the leaves of many of the hybrids turned yellow and became necrotic. Death followed this. This was seen only in hybrids between the two populations. Through mapping studies, the authors were able to show that the copper tolerance gene and the gene responsible for hybrid inviability were either the same gene or were very tightly linked. These results suggest that reproductive isolation may require changes in only a small number of genes.
5.3 The Fruit Fly Literature

5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum

Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).
5.3.2 Disruptive Selection on Drosophila melanogaster

Thoday and Gibson (1962) established a population of Drosophila melanogaster from four gravid females. They applied selection on this population for flies with the highest and lowest numbers of sternoplural chaetae (hairs). In each generation, eight flies with high numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed and eight flies with low numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed. Periodically they performed mate choice experiments on the two lines. They found that they had produced a high degree of positive assortative mating between the two groups. In the decade or so following this, eighteen labs attempted unsuccessfully to reproduce these results. References are given in Thoday and Gibson 1970.
5.3.3 Selection on Courtship Behavior in Drosophila melanogaster

Crossley (1974) was able to produce changes in mating behavior in two mutant strains of D. melanogaster. Four treatments were used. In each treatment, 55 virgin males and 55 virgin females of both ebony body mutant flies and vestigial wing mutant flies (220 flies total) were put into a jar and allowed to mate for 20 hours. The females were collected and each was put into a separate vial. The phenotypes of the offspring were recorded. Wild type offspring were hybrids between the mutants. In two of the four treatments, mating was carried out in the light. In one of these treatments all hybrid offspring were destroyed. This was repeated for 40 generations. Mating was carried out in the dark in the other two treatments. Again, in one of these all hybrids were destroyed. This was repeated for 49 generations. Crossley ran mate choice tests and observed mating behavior. Positive assortative mating was found in the treatment which had mated in the light and had been subject to strong selection against hybridization. The basis of this was changes in the courtship behaviors of both sexes. Similar experiments, without observation of mating behavior, were performed by Knight, et al. (1956).
5.3.4 Sexual Isolation as a Byproduct of Adaptation to Environmental Conditions in Drosophila melanogaster

Kilias, et al. (1980) exposed D. melanogaster populations to different temperature and humidity regimes for several years. They performed mating tests to check for reproductive isolation. They found some sterility in crosses among populations raised under different conditions. They also showed some positive assortative mating. These things were not observed in populations which were separated but raised under the same conditions. They concluded that sexual isolation was produced as a byproduct of selection.
5.3.5 Sympatric Speciation in Drosophila melanogaster

In a series of papers (Rice 1985, Rice and Salt 1988 and Rice and Salt 1990) Rice and Salt presented experimental evidence for the possibility of sympatric speciation. They started from the premise that whenever organisms sort themselves into the environment first and then mate locally, individuals with the same habitat preferences will necessarily mate assortatively. They established a stock population of D. melanogaster with flies collected in an orchard near Davis, California. Pupae from the culture were placed into a habitat maze. Newly emerged flies had to negotiate the maze to find food. The maze simulated several environmental gradients simultaneously. The flies had to make three choices of which way to go. The first was between light and dark (phototaxis). The second was between up and down (geotaxis). The last was between the scent of acetaldehyde and the scent of ethanol (chemotaxis). This divided the flies among eight habitats. The flies were further divided by the time of day of emergence. In total the flies were divided among 24 spatio-temporal habitats.

They next cultured two strains of flies that had chosen opposite habitats. One strain emerged early, flew upward and was attracted to dark and acetaldehyde. The other emerged late, flew downward and was attracted to light and ethanol. Pupae from these two strains were placed together in the maze. They were allowed to mate at the food site and were collected. Eye color differences between the strains allowed Rice and Salt to distinguish between the two strains. A selective penalty was imposed on flies that switched habitats. Females that switched habitats were destroyed. None of their gametes passed into the next generation. Males that switched habitats received no penalty. After 25 generations of this mating tests showed reproductive isolation between the two strains. Habitat specialization was also produced.

They next repeated the experiment without the penalty against habitat switching. The result was the same -- reproductive isolation was produced. They argued that a switching penalty is not necessary to produce reproductive isolation. Their results, they stated, show the possibility of sympatric speciation.
5.3.6 Isolation Produced as an Incidental Effect of Selection on several Drosophila species

In a series of experiments, del Solar (1966) derived positively and negatively geotactic and phototactic strains of D. pseudoobscura from the same population by running the flies through mazes. Flies from different strains were then introduced into mating chambers (10 males and 10 females from each strain). Matings were recorded. Statistically significant positive assortative mating was found.

In a separate series of experiments Dodd (1989) raised eight populations derived from a single population of D. Pseudoobscura on stressful media. Four populations were raised on a starch based medium, the other four were raised on a maltose based medium. The fly populations in both treatments took several months to get established, implying that they were under strong selection. Dodd found some evidence of genetic divergence between flies in the two treatments. He performed mate choice tests among experimental populations. He found statistically significant assortative mating between populations raised on different media, but no assortative mating among populations raised within the same medium regime. He argued that since there was no direct selection for reproductive isolation, the behavioral isolation results from a pleiotropic by-product to adaptation to the two media. Schluter and Nagel (1995) have argued that these results provide experimental support for the hypothesis of parallel speciation.

Less dramatic results were obtained by growing D. willistoni on media of different pH levels (de Oliveira and Cordeiro 1980). Mate choice tests after 26, 32, 52 and 69 generations of growth showed statistically significant assortative mating between some populations grown in different pH treatments. This ethological isolation did not always persist over time. They also found that some crosses made after 106 and 122 generations showed significant hybrid inferiority, but only when grown in acid medium.
5.3.7 Selection for Reinforcement in Drosophila melanogaster

Some proposed models of speciation rely on a process called reinforcement to complete the speciation process. Reinforcement occurs when to partially isolated allopatric populations come into contact. Lower relative fitness of hybrids between the two populations results in increased selection for isolating mechanisms. I should note that a recent review (Rice and Hostert 1993) argues that there is little experimental evidence to support reinforcement models. Two experiments in which the authors argue that their results provide support are discussed below.

Ehrman (1971) established strains of wild-type and mutant (black body) D. melanogaster. These flies were derived from compound autosome strains such that heterotypic matings would produce no progeny. The two strains were reared together in common fly cages. After two years, the isolation index generated from mate choice experiments had increased from 0.04 to 0.43, indicating the appearance of considerable assortative mating. After four years this index had risen to 0.64 (Ehrman 1973).

Along the same lines, Koopman (1950) was able to increase the degree of reproductive isolation between two partially isolated species, D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis.
5.3.8 Tests of the Founder-flush Speciation Hypothesis Using Drosophila

The founder-flush (a.k.a. flush-crash) hypothesis posits that genetic drift and founder effects play a major role in speciation (Powell 1978). During a founder-flush cycle a new habitat is colonized by a small number of individuals (e.g. one inseminated female). The population rapidly expands (the flush phase). This is followed by the population crashing. During this crash period the population experiences strong genetic drift. The population undergoes another rapid expansion followed by another crash. This cycle repeats several times. Reproductive isolation is produced as a byproduct of genetic drift.

Dodd and Powell (1985) tested this hypothesis using D. pseudoobscura. A large, heterogeneous population was allowed to grow rapidly in a very large population cage. Twelve experimental populations were derived from this population from single pair matings. These populations were allowed to flush. Fourteen months later, mating tests were performed among the twelve populations. No postmating isolation was seen. One cross showed strong behavioral isolation. The populations underwent three more flush-crash cycles. Forty-four months after the start of the experiment (and fifteen months after the last flush) the populations were again tested. Once again, no postmating isolation was seen. Three populations showed behavioral isolation in the form of positive assortative mating. Later tests between 1980 and 1984 showed that the isolation persisted, though it was weaker in some cases.

Galina, et al. (1993) performed similar experiments with D. pseudoobscura. Mating tests between populations that underwent flush-crash cycles and their ancestral populations showed 8 cases of positive assortative mating out of 118 crosses. They also showed 5 cases of negative assortative mating (i.e. the flies preferred to mate with flies of the other strain). Tests among the founder-flush populations showed 36 cases of positive assortative mating out of 370 crosses. These tests also found 4 cases of negative assortative mating. Most of these mating preferences did not persist over time. Galina, et al. concluded that the founder-flush protocol yields reproductive isolation only as a rare and erratic event.

Ahearn (1980) applied the founder-flush protocol to D. silvestris. Flies from a line of this species underwent several flush-crash cycles. They were tested in mate choice experiments against flies from a continuously large population. Female flies from both strains preferred to mate with males from the large population. Females from the large population would not mate with males from the founder flush population. An asymmetric reproductive isolation was produced.

In a three year experiment, Ringo, et al. (1985) compared the effects of a founder-flush protocol to the effects of selection on various traits. A large population of D. simulans was created from flies from 69 wild caught stocks from several locations. Founder-flush lines and selection lines were derived from this population. The founder-flush lines went through six flush-crash cycles. The selection lines experienced equal intensities of selection for various traits. Mating test were performed between strains within a treatment and between treatment strains and the source population. Crosses were also checked for postmating isolation. In the selection lines, 10 out of 216 crosses showed positive assortative mating (2 crosses showed negative assortative mating). They also found that 25 out of 216 crosses showed postmating isolation. Of these, 9 cases involved crosses with the source population. In the founder-flush lines 12 out of 216 crosses showed positive assortative mating (3 crosses showed negative assortative mating). Postmating isolation was found in 15 out of 216 crosses, 11 involving the source population. They concluded that only weak isolation was found and that there was little difference between the effects of natural selection and the effects of genetic drift.

A final test of the founder-flush hypothesis will be described with the housefly cases below.
5.4 Housefly Speciation Experiments

5.4.1 A Test of the Founder-flush Hypothesis Using Houseflies

Meffert and Bryant (1991) used houseflies to test whether bottlenecks in populations can cause permanent alterations in courtship behavior that lead to premating isolation. They collected over 100 flies of each sex from a landfill near Alvin, Texas. These were used to initiate an ancestral population. From this ancestral population they established six lines. Two of these lines were started with one pair of flies, two lines were started with four pairs of flies and two lines were started with sixteen pairs of flies. These populations were flushed to about 2,000 flies each. They then went through five bottlenecks followed by flushes. This took 35 generations. Mate choice tests were performed. One case of positive assortative mating was found. One case of negative assortative mating was also found.
5.4.2 Selection for Geotaxis with and without Gene Flow

Soans, et al. (1974) used houseflies to test Pimentel's model of speciation. This model posits that speciation requires two steps. The first is the formation of races in subpopulations. This is followed by the establishment of reproductive isolation. Houseflies were subjected to intense divergent selection on the basis of positive and negative geotaxis. In some treatments no gene flow was allowed, while in others there was 30% gene flow. Selection was imposed by placing 1000 flies into the center of a 108 cm vertical tube. The first 50 flies that reached the top and the first 50 flies that reached the bottom were used to found positively and negatively geotactic populations. Four populations were established:
Population A + geotaxis, no gene flow
Population B - geotaxis, no gene flow
Population C + geotaxis, 30% gene flow
Population D - geotaxis, 30% gene flow

Selection was repeated within these populations each generations. After 38 generations the time to collect 50 flies had dropped from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop A, from 4 hours to 4 minutes in Pop B, from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop C and from 4 hours to 45 minutes in Pop D. Mate choice tests were performed. Positive assortative mating was found in all crosses. They concluded that reproductive isolation occurred under both allopatric and sympatric conditions when very strong selection was present.

Hurd and Eisenberg (1975) performed a similar experiment on houseflies using 50% gene flow and got the same results.
5.5 Speciation Through Host Race Differentiation

Recently there has been a lot of interest in whether the differentiation of an herbivorous or parasitic species into races living on different hosts can lead to sympatric speciation. It has been argued that in animals that mate on (or in) their preferred hosts, positive assortative mating is an inevitable byproduct of habitat selection (Rice 1985; Barton, et al. 1988). This would suggest that differentiated host races may represent incipient species.
5.5.1 Apple Maggot Fly (Rhagoletis pomonella)

Rhagoletis pomonella is a fly that is native to North America. Its normal host is the hawthorn tree. Sometime during the nineteenth century it began to infest apple trees. Since then it has begun to infest cherries, roses, pears and possibly other members of the rosaceae. Quite a bit of work has been done on the differences between flies infesting hawthorn and flies infesting apple. There appear to be differences in host preferences among populations. Offspring of females collected from on of these two hosts are more likely to select that host for oviposition (Prokopy et al. 1988). Genetic differences between flies on these two hosts have been found at 6 out of 13 allozyme loci (Feder et al. 1988, see also McPheron et al. 1988). Laboratory studies have shown an asynchrony in emergence time of adults between these two host races (Smith 1988). Flies from apple trees take about 40 days to mature, whereas flies from hawthorn trees take 54-60 days to mature. This makes sense when we consider that hawthorn fruit tends to mature later in the season that apples. Hybridization studies show that host preferences are inherited, but give no evidence of barriers to mating. This is a very exciting case. It may represent the early stages of a sympatric speciation event (considering the dispersal of R. pomonella to other plants it may even represent the beginning of an adaptive radiation). It is important to note that some of the leading researchers on this question are urging caution in interpreting it. Feder and Bush (1989) stated:

"Hawthorn and apple "host races" of R. pomonella may therefore represent incipient species. However, it remains to be seen whether host-associated traits can evolve into effective enough barriers to gene flow to result eventually in the complete reproductive isolation of R. pomonella populations."

5.5.2 Gall Former Fly (Eurosta solidaginis)

Eurosta solidaginis is a gall forming fly that is associated with goldenrod plants. It has two hosts: over most of its range it lays its eggs in Solidago altissima, but in some areas it uses S. gigantea as its host. Recent electrophoretic work has shown that the genetic distances among flies from different sympatric hosts species are greater than the distances among flies on the same host in different geographic areas (Waring et al. 1990). This same study also found reduced variability in flies on S. gigantea. This suggests that some E. solidaginis have recently shifted hosts to this species. A recent study has compared reproductive behavior of the flies associated with the two hosts (Craig et al. 1993). They found that flies associated with S. gigantea emerge earlier in the season than flies associated with S. altissima. In host choice experiments, each fly strain ovipunctured its own host much more frequently than the other host. Craig et al. (1993) also performed several mating experiments. When no host was present and females mated with males from either strain, if males from only one strain were present. When males of both strains were present, statistically significant positive assortative mating was seen. In the presence of a host, assortative mating was also seen. When both hosts and flies from both populations were present, females waited on the buds of the host that they are normally associated with. The males fly to the host to mate. Like the Rhagoletis case above, this may represent the beginning of a sympatric speciation.
5.6 Flour Beetles (Tribolium castaneum)

Halliburton and Gall (1981) established a population of flour beetles collected in Davis, California. In each generation they selected the 8 lightest and the 8 heaviest pupae of each sex. When these 32 beetles had emerged, they were placed together and allowed to mate for 24 hours. Eggs were collected for 48 hours. The pupae that developed from these eggs were weighed at 19 days. This was repeated for 15 generations. The results of mate choice tests between heavy and light beetles was compared to tests among control lines derived from randomly chosen pupae. Positive assortative mating on the basis of size was found in 2 out of 4 experimental lines.
5.7 Speciation in a Lab Rat Worm, Nereis acuminata

In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these worms were used as test organisms in environmental toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was searched for populations of the worm. Two populations, P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992) performed tests on these two populations and the Woods Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they looked at whether broods from crosses were successfully reared. The results below give the percentage of successful rearings for each group of crosses.
WH × WH - 75%
P1 × P1 - 95%
P2 × P2 - 80%
P1 × P2 - 77%
WH × P1 - 0%
WH × P2 - 0%

They also found statistically significant premating isolation between the WH population and the field populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed slightly different karyotypes from the field populations.
5.8 Speciation Through Cytoplasmic Incompatability Resulting from the Presence of a Parasite or Symbiont

In some species the presence of intracellular bacterial parasites (or symbionts) is associated with postmating isolation. This results from a cytoplasmic incompatability between gametes from strains that have the parasite (or symbiont) and stains that don't. An example of this is seen in the mosquito Culex pipiens (Yen and Barr 1971). Compared to within strain matings, matings between strains from different geographic regions may may have any of three results: These matings may produce a normal number of offspring, they may produce a reduced number of offspring or they may produce no offspring. Reciprocal crosses may give the same or different results. In an incompatible cross, the egg and sperm nuclei fail to unite during fertilization. The egg dies during embryogenesis. In some of these strains, Yen and Barr (1971) found substantial numbers of Rickettsia-like microbes in adults, eggs and embryos. Compatibility of mosquito strains seems to be correlated with the strain of the microbe present. Mosquitoes that carry different strains of the microbe exhibit cytoplasmic incompatibility; those that carry the same strain of microbe are interfertile.

Similar phenomena have been seen in a number of other insects. Microoganisms are seen in the eggs of both Nasonia vitripennis and N. giraulti. These two species do not normally hybridize. Following treatment with antibiotics, hybrids occur between them (Breeuwer and Werren 1990). In this case, the symbiont is associated with improper condensation of host chromosomes.

For more examples and a critical review of this topic, see Thompson 1987.
5.9 A Couple of Ambiguous Cases

So far the BSC has applied to all of the experiments discussed. The following are a couple of major morphological changes produced in asexual species. Do these represent speciation events? The answer depends on how species is defined.
5.9.1 Coloniality in Chlorella vulgaris

Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella.
5.9.2 Morphological Changes in Bacteria

Shikano, et al. (1990) reported that an unidentified bacterium underwent a major morphological change when grown in the presence of a ciliate predator. This bacterium's normal morphology is a short (1.5 um) rod. After 8 - 10 weeks of growing with the predator it assumed the form of long (20 um) cells. These cells have no cross walls. Filaments of this type have also been produced under circumstances similar to Boraas' induction of multicellularity in Chlorella. Microscopic examination of these filaments is described in Gillott et al. (1993). Multicellularity has also been produced in unicellular bacterial by predation (Nakajima and Kurihara 1994). In this study, growth in the presence of protozoal grazers resulted in the production of chains of bacterial cells.

In rocks Billions of years old - there are just simple one celled creatures.

500 million yr old rocks start to have more complex creatures

Today there is all sort of shit running around.


Deal with it!

There is no such thing as darwinism, as there is no Einsteinism or Newtonism, these are names of scientists who discovered how things work.

Yes, evolution is proven many times as is relativity theory and expanding universe.

There is none.

You are just not able to understand. As stupid kid is not able to understand astronomical proof of realtivity theory. Go, dig out dinosiaurs, read all books about evolution and you will find the proof.

The OP asked a specific question.

And with the whole world at our fingertips, via Google, there is still nothing to provide what the OP is asking.

If you have it, post it here

the proof is all around you. It's in the fossils. It's there every time that you fill your tank with fuel.

What you are really saying is "I haven't bothered to study evolution".

So I advise you to get out some books and start reading.

Oh, and one more thing, evolution is a key part of modern medicine and the flu jab, HIV, H5N1 and other virsuses and retroviral techniques can be viewed under the the microscope and the evolution of real life viruses tracked.

It's all around you. You just need to look with your mind and eyes open and start to learn real science not crap religious ideology which is based on and propagates ignorance.

I'm thinking, considering the number of genes and the fact that sudden drastic mutations tend to turn out badly (Stevie's a good example), most evolution probably tends to occur a gene at a time, with many of them lost during mating (especially with fewer children in a family).

So if you take the 25-30,000 human genes, make a permanent change in a couple of them every 20 years or so, it's going to be a while before you even approach a fractional percentage large enough to tell one creature's a different species, much less an entirely different animal.

Smaller creatures like bugs and bacteria should mutate much faster...although they tend to be more specialized for their lifestyles, so evolution might take just as long to appear, because changes might hamper their ability to survive and reproduce.

But heck, we're regularly reading about people being taller and other traits changing, I'm not sure why evolution on the scale of millions of years would be so hard to grasp as a possibility. We've only thought about it for less than 200 years (give or take, it wasn't entirely an original idea of Darwin's, he just happened to present it when the world was more prepared to accept it). If in 10,000 more years we don't see anything significant, then it might be time to toss it out the window.

[link to www.youtube.com]

[link to records.viu.ca]

[link to www.allaboutcreation.org]

[link to digg.com]

You twat.

Go peddle your ignorance elsewhere.

You are obviously quite incapable of picking up a proper book and learning, preferring to read fairytales and believing in invisible friends.

guess people like BoB cant read what AC 361147 showed.

These are not scientific links, just the usual religious claptrap of pseudo-intellectual mumbo jumbo based on ignorance, prejudice and deception.

Oh and in addition to the truly vast number of fossils, DNA forensics, pattern identification and massive amounts of real science such as archeology and medical analysis, the reality of evolution is also essential to and used in advanced computer algorithms.

Not that any real science will make a jot of difference to the invisible friends believers, of course, logic, science and reason are the believer's enemy.

The OP did no such thing.

For example if I would ask him the difference between a human and an ape he would claim that the biggest difference would be the fact that we have a different number of chromosomes (we have 2 less), yet the first example of my post shows a plant which has an offspring with DOUBLE the amount of chromosomes and can't reproduce with other plants of the species of the parent which "obviously" doesn't count.

Simply said for most creationists terms like "distinct species" are non-specified terms that they can use in what ever way they can fit things into their religion.

If you disagree please provide a proper explanation of a different species, do you mean a new genus, do you mean different amounts of chromosomes (if it's not then the difference between apes and humans becomes nearly non-existent)?

Oh, I can read alright.


And nothing in this thread delivers what the OP is asking for, not even what was posted here:







Maybe a re-reading of what the OP is asking for would be good right now.

And, since the OP asked for it not to be turned into a religious thread.....as obviously some of you seem intent on doing.....I will leave it up to you now to provide the specific request of the OP.

Yep. The true believer has a genetic mutation all of his/her own: Myopic vision when it comes to real science and evidence.

But AC did a wonderful post! Excellent read for all those who want to read truth not religious mumbo jumbo.

Tell you what, Bob, why don't you post what you think is the "proof of evolution" then if the posts here don't match your expectations?

Hey, patriot: You may want to check this book out. The author thinks evidence shows that evolution was almost instant and resulted from magnetic reversals ... (I'm simplifying. Anyway, he doesn't think that there's evidence for gradual evolution...)

 [link to www.iceagenow.com] 

hmmm I read everything everyone has posted so far and no one has linked me to anything that is proof of evolution from one species to an entire diffent species ....

I can find proof all around of actual observable MICRO evolution ... that allows species to adapt to environments presented them over time .... but

I still can not find one case of proven evolution showing where one species became somethng entirely different than the previous species ....

Ill keep looking

Date: Jan. 3, 2008
Contact: Maureen O'Leary, Director of Public Information
Office of News and Public Information
202-334-2138; e-mail [email protected]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Scientific Evidence Supporting Evolution Continues To Grow; Nonscientific Approaches Do Not Belong In Science Classrooms


WASHINGTON -- The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and Institute of Medicine (IOM) today released SCIENCE, EVOLUTION, AND CREATIONISM, a book designed to give the public a comprehensive and up-to-date picture of the current scientific understanding of evolution and its importance in the science classroom. Recent advances in science and medicine, along with an abundance of observations and experiments over the past 150 years, have reinforced evolution's role as the central organizing principle of modern biology, said the committee that wrote the book.

"SCIENCE, EVOLUTION, AND CREATIONISM provides the public with coherent explanations and concrete examples of the science of evolution," said NAS President Ralph Cicerone. "The study of evolution remains one of the most active, robust, and useful fields in science."

"Understanding evolution is essential to identifying and treating disease," said Harvey Fineberg, president of IOM. "For example, the SARS virus evolved from an ancestor virus that was discovered by DNA sequencing. Learning about SARS' genetic similarities and mutations has helped scientists understand how the virus evolved. This kind of knowledge can help us anticipate and contain infections that emerge in the future."

DNA sequencing and molecular biology have provided a wealth of information about evolutionary relationships among species. As existing infectious agents evolve into new and more dangerous forms, scientists track the changes so they can detect, treat, and vaccinate to prevent the spread of disease.

Biological evolution refers to changes in the traits of populations of organisms, usually over multiple generations. One recent example highlighted in the book is the 2004 fossil discovery in Canada of fish with "intermediate" features -- four finlike legs -- that allowed the creature to pull itself through shallow water onto land. Scientists around the world cite this evidence as an important discovery in identifying the transition from ocean-dwelling creatures to land animals. By understanding and employing the principles of evolution, the discoverers of this fossil focused their search on layers of the Earth that are approximately 375 million years old and in a region that would have been much warmer during that period. Evolution not only best explains the biodiversity on Earth, it also helps scientists predict what they are likely to discover in the future.

Over very long periods of time, the same processes that enable evolution to occur within species also can result in the appearance of new species. The formation of a new species generally takes place when one subgroup within a species mates for an extended period largely within that subgroup, often following geographical separation from other members of the species. If such reproductive isolation continues, members of the subgroup may no longer respond to courtship from members of the original population. Eventually, genetic changes become so substantial that members of different subgroups can no longer produce viable offspring. In this way, new species can continually "bud off" of existing species.

Despite the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution, opponents have repeatedly tried to introduce nonscientific views into public school science classes through the teaching of various forms of creationism or intelligent design. In 2005, a federal judge in Dover, Pennsylvania, concluded that the teaching of intelligent design is unconstitutional because it is based on religious conviction, not science (Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District). NAS and IOM strongly maintain that only scientifically based explanations and evidence for the diversity of life should be included in public school science courses. "Teaching creationist ideas in science class confuses students about what constitutes science and what does not," the committee stated.

"As SCIENCE, EVOLUTION, AND CREATIONISM makes clear, the evidence for evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith. Science and religion are different ways of understanding the world. Needlessly placing them in opposition reduces the potential of each to contribute to a better future," the book says.

SCIENCE, EVOLUTION, AND CREATIONISM is the third edition of a publication first issued in 1984 and updated in 1999. The current book was published jointly by the National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine, and written by a committee chaired by Francisco Ayala, Donald Bren Professor of Biological Sciences, department of ecology and evolutionary biology, University of California, Irvine, and author of several books on science and religion. A committee roster follows.

The book was funded by the NAS, IOM, the Christian A. Johnson Endeavor Foundation, the Biotechnology Institute, and the Coalition of Scientific Societies.

Copies of SCIENCE, EVOLUTION, AND CREATIONISM will be available from the National Academies Press; tel. 202-334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242, or on the Internet at
www.nap.edu/sec, for $12.95; a PDF version is FREE. Reporters may obtain a copy from the Office of News and Public Information (contact listed above). In addition, a podcast of the public briefing held to release this publication is available at [link to national-academies.org] The NAS' evolution resources Web page, [link to national-academies.org] allows easy access to books, position statements, and additional resources on evolution education and research.

The National Academy of Sciences is an independent society of scientists, elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to their field, with a mandate from Congress since 1863 to advise the federal government on issues of science and technology. The Institute of Medicine was created in 1970 by the NAS to provide science-based advice on matters of biomedical science, medicine, and health.



[This news release and book are available at [link to national-academies.org] ]



NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE



Committee on Revising Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences



Francisco J. Ayala (chair) 1

Donald Bren Professor of Biological Sciences

Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology

University of California

Irvine



Bruce Alberts1

Professor

Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics

University of California

San Francisco



May R. Berenbaum1

Swanlund Professor of Entomology

Department of Entomology

University of Illinois

Urbana-Champaign



Betty A. Carvellas

Science Instructor

Essex Junction High School (retired)

Essex Junction, Vt.



M.T. Clegg1

Donald Bren Professor of Biological Sciences

Department of Ecology and Evolution

University of California

Irvine



G. Brent Dalrymple1

Professor and Dean Emeritus

Oregon State University

Corvallis



Robert M. Hazen

Staff Scientist

Carnegie Institution of Washington

Washington, D.C.



Toby Horn

Co-Director

Carnegie Academy for Science Education

Carnegie Institution of Washington

Washington, D.C.



Nancy A. Moran1

Regents’ Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology

Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology

University of Arizona

Tucson



Gilbert S. Omenn2

Professor of Medicine, Genetics, and Public Health

Center for Computational Medicine and Biology

University of Michigan Medical School

Ann Arbor



Robert T. Pennock

Professor

Department of Philosophy

Lyman Briggs School of Science

Michigan State University

East Lansing



Peter H. Raven1

Director

Missouri Botanical Garden

St. Louis



Barbara A. Schaal1

Spencer T. Olin Professor of Biology

Department of Biology

Washington University

St. Louis

Neil de Grasse Tyson

Visiting Research Scientist

Princeton University Observatory

Princeton, N.J.



Holly Wichman

Professor

Department of Biological Sciences

University of Idaho

Moscow



NATIONAL ACADEMY STAFF



Jay B. Labov

Study Director

Define "species" in biological terms and explain why you consider humans and apes to be different "species" as well.

The list I gave ALL comply with that requirement with the normally accepted definition of species (which is why I put quotes around your use of "species") yet you seem to ignore them all...

i read it all but it was ALL MICRO EVOLUTION ... jsut adaption to environment but all still the same species ...

Im looking for the smoking gun of a species jump that evolution dictates has to have happened at some point


Im trying to prove evolution to someone on somehting other than if micro evolution takes place ... then macro or SPECIES JUMPING has to occur ....

looking for an animal that has made the transition from one enity to another completely different

well for none biologists there is fossils as proof of evolution.
The best exaple is whales you can read it here.

[link to www.talkorigins.org]

Let us know when you find it.

You will be an overnight sensation.

Macro evolution = micro evolution + another micro evolution + another micro evolution ...

Its called a theory for a reason. There is no proof. If there were, we would have data showing clear evolution, not the micro adaptation.

But evolution freaks ego can not handle the thought of something being above them. Their narcissistic nature will not allow this. To them they are the Alpha and the Omega and to admit creation is the doorway to admit God, that is something will now allow.

So just get used to "Your narrow mind cannot handle, go read the blalblalblalbla"

End the end, their is NO PROOF and these little bitches now it. Again, it is still a THEORY for a reason, that is all it is and ever will be.

lets focus on something like ...

A group of animals with common charicteristics capable of mating with each other sharing common DNA characteristics.... prolly best definition I can think of ....

I ignored none of them ... they were just all definitions of micro evolution of adaptive changes that I will not be able to use in my debate with this other person ...

I have to find a known species that spawned an entirely separate species with uncompatible DNA structures