If macroevolution is science then where have we ever experimented or observed it?

Question

As far as I know every species has stayed the same species as far as any of us have observed. If the theory of evolution is science then we have to be able to test and observe it. If we have observed macroevolution happening in real life then where?

No, jonmcn49, I don't know what a polyplody is. That's why I'm asking this question. This question is not an attack on evolution, simply that I might hear both sides. Thanks for the help though, I'll look into it.

ejc11 is getting a little off subject. He said, "Evidence for evolution in general does not depend on observing macroevolution." I'm not talking about evidence for evolution, I'm talking about observing macroevolution. Observation is part of the definition of science. This question has nothing to do with disproving evoluiton. I'm not making a point, I'm asking questions so I can get answers.

Answer 1

First off, in reference to the first answer, let me explain... "Ploidy" is a description of how many copies of each chromosome exist in the cells of a particular organism. Humans, for example, have two copies of each of their chromosomes. So they are considered diploid ("di" for two). "Polyploid" just means more than one copy.

There are a few cases where organisms have somehow developed an extra copy of their chromosomes. If two such organisms found each other and mated, that would be the start of a new species. For example, there are two types of gray treefrog - the common gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor) and the Cope's gray treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis). I don't remember the exact details, but one of them has more copies of its chromosomes than the other one. Because of that, they can't interbreed. Each one can only breed with others of its own species. Presumably, there was originally only one species of gray treefrog, and then, simply by adding another copy of the chromosomes, another species arose.

OK, so that's evolution creating new species. However, the problem here is with the extent of the change. It only takes one small change to get from a Cope's gray treefrog to a common gray treefrog. This has been observed in various species, and it isn't hard to imagine how such a small change could arise randomly through chance mutations.

On the other hand, as the changes get bigger and bigger, it becomes more and more unlikely that such a change could arise randomly. It also becomes more and more unlikely that the intermediate creatures would be able to thrive long enough to pass on their genes.

This is the problem with modern evolutionary theory. The only evolution that has ever been observed is on a very small scale (slight changes creating new species of treefrogs or of dusky salamanders, for example). And then the theory is just blown out and extrapolated so far that it ceases to make any sense.

As for the fossil record... even if an organism is found that appears to be intermediate between two other organisms, that still isn't observational science supporting evolution because the change itself was not observed. The "intermediate" organism can just as well be assumed to be an entirely separate critter that had nothing to do with the other two.

Answer 2

The source below is a good retort to this question. A summary:

1) Macroevolution takes a great deal of time (many many many generations). We wouldn't expect to see it in a large animal (esp. vertebrates). If we did see it (such as an amphibian becoming a reptile after just a few generations), it would be good case against evolution.

2) Evidence for evolution in general does not depend on observing macroevolution.

3) Biologists use the term macroevolution for change at or above the species level (speciation). Speciation is well documented and observed. (see this page for examples of speciation: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html)

4) Microevolution is very well documented, and since there are no known barriers for these small changes building up in an organism, and since we could expect a series of small changes to build up into large scale changes, microevolution implies macroevolution.

5) While transitional forms are a good form of inderctly observed evidence, we haven't directly observed it.

**Edit: I did list (#3) a source for what biologists call macroevolution (speciation). You brought up the theory of evolution in your details, so I included the same site's list for the importance of macroevolution to the theory of evolution in general. Your right--observation of macroevolution is evidence supporting natural selection, not evolution in general. Natural selction is the means by which evolution occurs, though. I was just trying to be thorough.

Using the source I cited above, here are some observations of speciation:

1) New species of mosquito in the London underground (Culex molestus) that arose from C. pipiens.

2) Helacyton gartleri that arose from human cervical carcinoma.

3) Several new species of plants that have arose via polyploidy (which was explained in another answer).

4) Ring species (read the above link for a full explanation of what ring species are).

There are many more examples of speciation if you check the site I listed above.

**Edit: And, by the way, the web sites I reference here have citations for peer-reviewed scientific articles for its claims. I don't live in a library, or I would have cited them myself here. There are 23 separate citations for various peer-reviewed articles, science texts, and other periodicals.

Answer 3

No offence but the slight of hand anti-science propagandists perform in redefining 'observation' in the scientific method only works on those who so want to believe that evolution is flawed that they don't think logically about what is being said.

Science is based on observations and reason. This does NOT mean directly observing everything happening right in front of you. There is no logical basis for such a definition. It means gathering concrete empirical evidence (repeatably so we know it there is not a mistake) and subjecting that evidence to the scientific method.

Protons, neutrons and electrons have never ever been directly observed. Yet we know they exist from a whole raft of indirect observations and the scientific method. Even in the chemical reactions which you are probably thinking about from school, no-one ever directly observes the molecules interacting. Indirect, empirical, evidence for what is happening is gathered.

It is the same with macroevolution and most other science. There are thousands and thousands of (repeatable) observations behind Evolution. And, as science, Evolution makes testable predictions (thousands and thousands of them). Which it passes with flying colours.

Answer 4

Macro evolution is just a lot of micro evolution happening over a relatively short time. Some species might not have any need to adapt to their unchanging environment at all in 100,000 years let's say, and another species somewhere else might make a huge number adaptations over the same amount of time, which would be macro evolution. Liston to The one above me, Nature Boy I mean, and read more at the source. If the environment changes too fast for the species to adapt, it goes extinct./////////////////////////// I don't care how much we've yet to learn about evolution, nobody in their right mind could seriously believe that ridiculous creation myth! Look at all the problems there are with that.

Answer 5

in terms of technique, there are no longer any uncomplicated ameliorations between microevolution and macroevolution. the former is a handy label for small evolutionary differences frequently happening over relatively short timescales; the latter for sizable differences frequently happening over relatively long timescales. Macroevolution is cumulative microevolution. Macroevolution can not be stated from now on than you'll be conscious mountains vanishing hence of abrasion. in spite of the undeniable fact that, you'll be conscious and degree microevolution and erosion and extrapolate the long term result – forwards or backwards in time. The fossil checklist shows us that organisms have replaced dramatically over the years, which permits us to state categorically that macroevolution is a flat fact. this may be a uncommon element in technology and basically happens while the information is overwhelming and completely unambiguous.

Answer 6

We CAN observe it. We see it in the fossil record. Creationists keep saying that there are no transitional fossils but this is not true at all, there are tons of them. (As one example, just look up some articles about horse evolution -- in particular note how the hooves have developed.)

We can't just look at a creature and expect to see it evolve before our very eyes because evolution takes a looong time -- thousands or millions of years. Just like we know continental drift is real but you can't actually see it happening, it's way too slow.

Answer 7

Creationist. Why do you people keep sliding by the evidence that is presented by polyploidy alone? That's right, you do not know what polyplody is, do you?

jeuesislord. I was speaking of polyploidy in plants and insects and as you need to know, in plants polyploidy is not subject to the constraints you mentioned. In fact, it is considered a normal mode of speciation in plants. Check out Salsify, as a very well know speciation event of plant polyploidy. You do have a BS in evolutionary biology, so that example need be familiar to you. That is what you are sliding by. You are a waste of a BS in anything, as you are BS's this guy and me. See how much hard typing and thinking you made me do
Questioner. If you are serious, go here and get the truth, not BS from Tennessee.

http://www.talkorigins.org

http://www.aboutdarwin.com

http://www.accessexelence.org

Go to polyploidy on google for much info..

Answer 8

Microevolution = speciation events. Only some species stay static. The easiest example would be artifical selection for species such as domestic sheep, kinds of fruit flies,

Answer 9

NO, no one has ever proved macroevolution or microevolution empirically with scientific data. The fossil record (and Darwins "observations" ) are observations of something that no one can prove was caused by evolution. Speciation has not occured in fruit flies or sheep or any other species by natural or artificial selection and has not been recorded by scientific methods that provide evidence that this in fact has occured BECAUSE EVOLUTION is all theory, speculation, an "educated guess".

Certain features or mutations can occur, increase or decrease in the population but no new species have formed under valid scientific observation. I've mutated countless fruitflies and so havent others, they are always weaker and always just fruitflies.

I like the treefrog example, that is a case in which something out of the norm seems to "fit" the theory.

If anyone else has any expertise, please site specific scientific articles, peer-reviewed, that support your claims-not something your teacher told you, you read on the web, or saw on tv.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOUR OPINION, IT IS ABOUT WHAT IS FACT, READ THE QUESTION CAREFULLY, REFERENCE SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS NOT WEB SITES

INSTEAD OF GIVING THUMBS DOWN< WHY NOT PROVIDE SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES THAT PROVE YOUR POINT-NOT WEB SITES WITHOUT ANY SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY THAT MAKE ASSUMPTIONS BASED ON OBSERVATIONS THAT SEEM TO FIT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION-HARD SCIENCE DEMANDS THAT FACTS BE PROVEN EMPIRICALLY WHEREAS THEORIES SUCH AS EVOLUTION CANNOT BE FACTS BUT REMAIN A THEORY AFTER ALL IT IS THE "THEORY OF EVOLUTION" NOT A FACT-THIS IS NOT SOCIOLOGY, ARCHEOLOGY, PSYCHOLOGY, OR MYTHOLOGY.

Answer 10

Evolution is a process over time. It has not been observed but it can be domonstrated. Life on earth is 3.5 billion years old.