What is the experimental-factual (not theoretical) evidence of evolution?

Question

There are many archaeological findings. All they mean is that something existed. They do not mean that something evolved "FROM" ...

My question is only about possible factual evidence for the "FROM" part. How do we know what evolved FROM what, without relying on theoretical arguments?

(I am interested only in the "evolution of new species" part. Not in the natural selection of populations WITHIN a species, which is well known and understood.)

In my field, nuclear physics, evidence must be clear cut, without hand waving. There is room for theories too, but, they must be clearly labeled as theories. Anyone who tries to label a theory as fact gets booted out...

So, can someone educate me on the factual-experimental evidence for the "FROM" part of evolution?

5 answers, and no answer yet.

Answer 1

You're right... 5 answers and NOT ONE even attempted to answer this question... I'm going to "try" my best to, but I cannot be perfect.

First off all... there IS factual evidence in evolution.... Look at dogs... and horses, and ANY other animal that has been breed for specific traits. That's evolution. I'll use dogs as an example.
Using DNA (Very concrete evidence, if you ask me), we can been able to discovery that ALL modern dogs came from a few species of wolves, that had been domesticated thousands of years ago. Now... I'm sure you're thinking that it's Not evolution, because dogs can still 'breed' with other dogs of different breeds, but THINK broader. Can dogs mate and produce viable offspring with wolves? *shakes head* they can't. Because the lineage that contains dogs is a seperate species, there can be no breeding.

Just to go back an explain a little bit... You want to know how we know that dogs came FROM domesticated wolves. We know that through DNA, like I mentioned before, but the reason WHY we can use DNA as a good indicator, is because we can locate similarities in the genes, and we can also mathmatically calculate the frequency of mutations in the genome to create an estimate "timeline" as to how long ago the species began to diverge.
When we look at a single gene, between dogs and wolves, you know they aren't the same. They have different base pairs, they are insertions and deletions, and possibly rearragements of segements of the sequence. But overall, they are SO similar, that it difficult to assume that such similar sequeces could have been created entirely independent of one another.
(Quick side note: It's like two people taking a test. If two tests are turned in and have the SAME exact answers (right AND wrong), the most likely reason for the similarity is that they were sitting next to each other, and not that they came up with both correct and incorrect answer independently of each other)

Another means of determining that Factual-evidence you want is to look at geographical speciation.... Look at the Galapagos Island, or even the Hawaiian Islands as an example. The Hawaiian Islands, at one point, didn't exist. They were formed by volcanoes, and when it became cool enough for birds to land on the surface and survive, those birds stayed there. They may have flown over from the North America, or Central/South America, or even further) Over time, the birds, in their new environment, diverged from their starting population, and became new species of birds. We have the evidence for this from a number sources. First off, we know the migration paths of birds today. We can determine which birds had paths close to flying by the Hawaiian Islands, and then compare these bird's DNA with those that are new species on the island, may be related. Also, we have morphological cues that are found in the Hawaiian birds of today, that match the morphology of birds on the North American continent, further emphasizing that birds migrated across the Pacific Ocean to the Hawaiian Islands.

Proof is everywhere that evolution exists. I'm not sure how clearly I was able to write my comments, but I hope it gives some insight to you, with a little thought.

Answer 2

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Especially in plants it polyploidization is very common. It can be induced in the lab. Depending on some details, plants with a different degree of ploidy can not interbreed with each other any more, so diverge into two new species. The genetics can be pretty simple like the gametes of the two species would result in an uneven number of chromosome sets (e.g. 3N) which would result in a mess at any future meiosis.

You could argue that the current species concept is hand waving (somebody mentioned ring species) but it precisely problematic because evolution happens and individuals do not always clearly belong to one species or other.

Generally I would say you should as little expect evolutionary theory to be instantly and intuitively clear to you as nuclear physics. If you achieved some understanding at nuclear physics you probably spent some time and effort on it. You need to do the same on evolutionary theory.

In addition not all mechanisms change upon scale. Small changes within a species can lead to changes large enough to result in speciation. Saying otherwise is like accepting that steps exist, but can't be assembled into staircases. Saying evolution can happen only within species does not seem logical...is there any valid theory (with some factual evidence supporting it) which says this has to be the case? Is there a mechanism (please explain) which prevents evolution to result into new species?

Answer 3

When uranium turns into lead by shedding some of its nuclear components, you don't need to first see some intermediate form between uranium and lead before you believe one element actually changed into another, do you?

Example. In the very short time since canis lupus was domesticated, this species has created an enormous variety of races and it won't be long until it will be completely impossible for a descendant of the Chiwawa to mate with a Saint Bernard. You will agree that the Chiwawa and the St. B. are both dogs, but you will also appreciate how much different they are. Extrapolate this another couple of thousend years...

Answer 4

To quote Handy (the right-hand puppet of the Human Ton): "Read a book!" God knows there's enough out there. You might want to study up a bit on anatomy and cladistics as well, since they play a large part in the process. I suspect, though, that you already have decided what constitutes 'factual argument' and what constitutes 'hand-waving'. Oh, yes - almost forgot - feel free (if you're so inclined) to sneeringly dismiss my "answer" as just one more meaningless response from an evolution apologist; it's hardly more than that, and it's no skin off my nose, anyway.

Answer 5

What is wrong with theoretical evidence? In your line of work, nuclear physics, there is almost all theories. Just the idea of there being atoms is theory.

But there is also lots of scientifically labeled facts to support evolution. They are seen in genetics mostly. 99% of biology is based on evolution. There is also observable evidence. One of my favorite is rings species. Not only does it support evolution, it brings up queststions as to what exactly a species is.

Answer 6

This is the problem with evolutionists, they do not take in the ENTIRE picture. You want evidence of evolution? Music, dance, flight, structures, architecture, energy, clothing, hair styles, you name it. There may not be any factual evidence of evolution in humans, animals, or insects (Although there has been some studies in bees), but there is evidence of evolution all around the world, just open your eyes.

Answer 7

Take a class in population genetics.