Observational Evidence of Evolution on the Genus and Family Scale?

[Prince_James]

Has there ever been an observed instance of an organism diverging from others of its former species to such an extent that it is rightfully to be classified into another genus or even family? If so, where might I find information about the experiment? If not, does this not remove from evolution studies the certainty of observationto demonstrate its claims, and undermines it as a firmly satisfied hypothesis?

The observation, by the way, may either be natural or eugenical in nature.

 

[spidergoat]

It usually takes more than one person's lifetime for this to happen, so observations are generally of fossil evidence- indirect. Indirect observations can be quite compelling as evidence, so no, it doesn't undermine the Theory of Evolution. I could point out that no single atoms have been observed directly, either.

Evolution on the species level (speciation), and evolution within a species have been observed.

 

[Prince_James]

Spidergoat:

Inferences are rather piss-poor evidence, I'd say. They are subject to the current paradigms of scientific theories that prevail today and certainly cannot be said to be based on robust-enough sources, when it is claimed that the majority of species never left fossils, or their fossils are perpetually beyond our reach to find.

That is to say, indirect observation certainly falls under a lesser category of observation than actual, in-the-flesh, observation. Which if I am to judge by your statement, has never been observed?

I find this troubling if so, for it certainly downgrades the Theory of Evolution from well-supported to "supported only on the levels of species".

 

[John99]

Everything about evolutionary theory relies on time, and time will be it's downfall.

 

[Prince_James]

I just want to make sure this is known:

I am not arguing for any teleological system. I am simply curious if there is any foundation whatsoever in observation for genus and above creation through evolution. Evidently, the only evidence so far found is in inferrence from fossils.

 

[spidergoat]

Correct. Macroevolution cannot be studied directly, a point that is well known in the field.

Macroevolution is studied by examining patterns in biological populations and groups of related organisms and inferring process from pattern. Given the observation of microevolution and the knowledge that the earth is billions of years old -- macroevolution could be postulated. But this extrapolation, in and of itself, does not provide a compelling explanation of the patterns of biological diversity we see today. Evidence for macroevolution, or common ancestry and modification with descent, comes from several other fields of study. These include: comparative biochemical and genetic studies, comparative developmental biology, patterns of biogeography, comparative morphology and anatomy and the fossil record.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

 

[Dinosaur]

DNA analysis of various ogranisms, including single celled ones, show amazing similirities at the celular level among widely divergent species. This along with micro-evolution provides support for the theory.

There might not be any observational data showing one species evolving into a totally different species. If there is such data, it would involve organisms which multiply very fast, resulting in a researcher being able to observe many generations in his lifetime. Perhaps Fruit Flies, bacteria, and other rapidly multiplying organisms have been observed to change into another species.

 

[Prince_James]

Spidergoat and Dinosaur:

Then I fail to see how the elephant in the middle of the room is ignored? Though clearly there are mountains of contingent evidence pointing towards evolution, there is no satisfactory proof of the theory that speciation can lead to genus-/familiar-/phylumic-ation. That is to say, the principle view of evolution is impossible to prove so far to the rigours of scientific fact. It is little more than a metaphysical proposition which abuses that philosophical method as we are dealing with observed empirical facts.

Again, I will not deny that the evidence is clearly in favour of evolution on all studies, but it is also brilliantly clear that evolution is not supported by observation, and therefore the inferrences are mere hypotheses of suspect validity pending verification that the processes inherent in life are suited towards the interpretation of the evidence so far produced.

 

[spidergoat]

It's the best explanation so far.
It is based on the scientific method, which deals not only with well established facts, but with likely explanations and probabilities. There are fossils that show what plants and animals were common in the past, and we can see what animals are here now. We can compare the DNA of living and recently deceased specimens, we can observe the variation between individuals, species and genus. We can estimate the percentage of variation between the DNA of closely related species and calibrate it so as to determine how much time has passed since they diverged.

I am not sure if anyone has observed a chemical reaction in progress, the actual molecules interacting, yet I don't hear the same complaint with regard to the periodic table, common industrial processes. or the scientific explanation for volcanoes.

 

[iceaura]

The fact that morphological categorization into genus and family correlates very well with genetic classification is almost proof, in itself, of evolutionary relationship.

Unless some other theory can by found that provides, for example, the following confirmed prediction: The genetic code of a Peruvian hyrax is closer to that of an African elephant than it is to that of a North American chipmunk.

The remarkable ability of Darwinian evolutionary theory to predict, from obscure and technical morphological features used for classification but not correlated directly with general ecological role etc, similarly correlated genetic code, has not been matched by any other theory I have ever heard of.

There are thousands of examples, all of them easily derived from and even predictied by Darwinian evolution and no other theory known.

The objection, that large and time-consuming evolutionary changes have not been observed since 1900 or so (when it first became possible to observe small and quick ones), therefore Darwinian evolution is mere conjecture without scientific basis, is bizarre. It is not a requirement any other scientific theory about large and slow processes would be asked to meet, and it most certainly is not a type of requirement that any other explanation for genus and family level categorization possibilities is asked to meet.

 

[Prince_James]

Spidergoat:

Obviously, evolution is the best answer right now. No one with any scientific knowledge can doubt this. But the simple fact that we are dealing with mere estimations, inferrences, et cetera, means that our "best" is necessarily "shitty". That is, until it is observed to be possible in the laboratory, the idea that evolution is fact in the same sense that the laws of motion, or the chemical basis for gunpowder explosions is spurious. Evolution is a highly inferred, evidence-suggested, hypothesis, but clearly not a working scientific foundation for life that has been justified to the extent needed. This is troubling and saddening.

I am not sure if anyone has observed a chemical reaction in progress, the actual molecules interacting, yet I don't hear the same complaint with regard to the periodic table, common industrial processes. or the scientific explanation for volcanoes.

One can actually perform such experiments in the laboratory. In fact, screw the laboratory: One can do many experiments in one's kitchen to satisfaction. Mixing vinegar and baking powder produces an observable reaction in line with the theory which describes its relations.

 

[Prince_James]

Iceaura:

The objection, that large and time-consuming evolutionary changes have not been observed since 1900 or so (when it first became possible to observe small and quick ones), therefore Darwinian evolution is mere conjecture without scientific basis, is bizarre. It is not a requirement any other scientific theory about large and slow processes would be asked to meet, and it most certainly is not a type of requirement that any other explanation for genus and family level categorization possibilities is asked to meet.

When studying stars, do not we build small-scale experimental foundations for studying the processes? Particle accelerators, fusion reactors (and hydrogen-bombs), et cetera, et cetera. Not to mention various means to measure things occuring at cosmic scales, such as all varieties of telescopes, probes...Should we not then expect to satisfy a similar requirement to affirm the validity of evolutionary processes being able to account for the diversity of life as we know it?

No one denies the predictability of Darwinian evolution, yet we cannot also deny that modern genetic studies have produced some surprises, too. For instance, it is well known that many genetic studies have shaked up the "tree of life". Animals thought to be related closely have been shown to not be so. Then we have surprises such as species of amoeba with larger genomes than human beings. Whether any of these things attack evolution is very unlikely, but we cannot say that evolution is unattackable on any foundation. Indeed, that will not come until we embark on a rigourous policy of producing evidence of claims of specification leading towards the development of new genus, families, and other such levels. Even if it takes us a thousand years of a continued experiment to do so.

 

[iceaura]

That is, until it is observed to be possible in the laboratory, the idea that evolution is fact in the same sense that the laws of motion, or the chemical basis for gunpowder explosions is spurious.

The exact kinds of change we describe as "Darwinian evolution" have been observed in the laboratory and in the field. It is only the extension to long times or large scales that remains unobserved.

The same is true for extensions of other theories to long times or large scales. And the same uncertainty is involved. As it turns out, Newtons Laws do not extend to long times and large scales - and the failure to so extend was noticed and investigated as soon as technology allowed.

No such failure has been observed for Darwinian Theory as yet. Certainly the family and genus levels of organization, involving a few million years or so, have fallen neatly into Darwinian predictions.

There is a recognised opening for a serious modification of the theory in the failure of some genetic lineages to produce adaptations common in others. The possibility that certain arrangements of the DNA code or its expression cannot with resaonable probability evolve in certain "directions" due to the path in modification space they have already traveled - a sort of QWERTY phenomenon writ deep - is known and is being considered. But it requires accepting the basic theory as a given, for even consideration.

For instance, it is well known that many genetic studies have shaked up the "tree of life". Animals thought to be related closely have been shown to not be so.

Not quite. The relative distance of various animals from each other has been affected, but normally in areas in which argument already existed, and as far as I know no carefully and uncontroversially described "close" animals have been found to be genetically "distant" on any absolute scale.

In plants, which are less well known, some surprises have turned up where there had been little attention paid. And in fungi, which are poorly known, many surprises still await us no doubt. But this marks ignorance and inattention, not disagreement with the well known and accepted.

Should we not then expect to satisfy a similar requirement to affirm the validity of evolutionary processes being able to account for the diversity of life as we know it?

We have met those expectations, producing at a small scale and in short times exactly the changes whose extension to large scale and long times - as with the stellar reactions and the volcano chemistry studied small and quick in the lab - our theory demands.

 

[Prince_James]

IceAura:

The exact kinds of change we describe as "Darwinian evolution" have been observed in the laboratory and in the field. It is only the extension to long times or large scales that remains unobserved.

The possibility of intra-species mutation and later specification does not imply the further capacity to reach the level of genus, analytically. This has yet to be satisfied. As we know from prior revisions of science, things cannot be assumed simply because it seems reasonable that such may be the case.

The same is true for extensions of other theories to long times or large scales. And the same uncertainty is involved. As it turns out, Newtons Laws do not extend to long times and large scales - and the failure to so extend was noticed and investigated as soon as technology allowed.

Pardon me? It is not a matter of large scales, but of the nature of space, that Newton's Laws have been subjected to relativity to account for physical discrepancies. But yes, you are correct that we had to revise Newton's laws, which is an excellent example why we need to support evolution with direct observation, lest we may Newton's errors without his excuse of a lack of technology.

 

[spidergoat]

One can actually perform such experiments in the laboratory. In fact, screw the laboratory: One can do many experiments in one's kitchen to satisfaction. Mixing vinegar and baking powder produces an observable reaction in line with the theory which describes its relations.

You only observe the indirect effects of the reactions, and you assume the hypothesis about how chemical reactions occur is the most likely explanation. It's the same with evolution. We observe the effects (fossil remains), and deduce the most likely explanation.

No one has observed the molten core of the Earth, but we assume it to exist. No one has observed the various orbits of electrons in an atom, but by indirect means we know basically of it's nature.

 

[iceaura]

The possibility of intra-species mutation and later specification does not imply the further capacity to reach the level of genus, analytically.

Yes it does. You must remember that "genus" and so forth is an essentially arbitrary classification category - the key step is breeding separation, in Darwinian theory. The rest is easy, almost inevitable. To deny it you would have to propose and demonstrate a curb or limit on what appear to be an unending series of possibilities for genetic change.

But yes, you are correct that we had to revise Newton's laws, which is an excellent example why we need to support evolution with direct observation, lest we may Newton's errors without his excuse of a lack of technology.

We have made those observations, the kind that revealed problems with Newton. It was not laboratory experiment that showed the problems with Newton, but checking Newtonian predictions against observations of the effects of large distances and long times.

That is what the genetic studies of morphologically classified lineages do - they are an equivalent, for Darwinian theory, of astronomical observations for Newtonian theory. So far Darwin, unlike Newton, checks out fine.

 

[Prince_James]

Spidergoat:

The differences are legion between observing fossils and observing a simple reaction of baking soda and vinegar.

For one: Baking soda and vinegar reactions are repeatable. Fossils are the remains of creatures that lived millions of years ago and obviously cannot be created again, nor used for anything but inferrence to modern day specimens which may be related to them.

Secondly: There are no controversies in the process which governs baking soda and vinegar reactions. On the other hand, evolution has been admitted to not be able to demonstrate its claims of genus-cation yet.

Thirdly: We do have instruments that can detect with remarkable accuracy the fundamental principles of what is going on in the process. But as noted, we have not been able to do the same for evolution.

On each and every level, then, evolution does not reach the same certainty. Even if it is obviously a very powerful system with loads of contingent evidence, this major failure of observation is not something which can be dismissed as irrelevant. Evolution does suffer from a lack of experimental proof and as proven time and time and time again, we -cannot- judge scientific conclusions without rigorous proofs. We risk our Evolutionary Newtonism turning into Evolutionary Relativism if we do not confirm things, as best as possible, through observation or experiment.

Also, we have seen atoms:

http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/vintage/vintage_4506VV1003.html

 

[Prince_James]

IceAura:

Yes it does. You must remember that "genus" and so forth is an essentially arbitrary classification category - the key step is breeding separation, in Darwinian theory. The rest is easy, almost inevitable. To deny it you would have to propose and demonstrate a curb or limit on what appear to be an unending series of possibilities for genetic change.

Science cannot work upon analytical premises as you suggest. Rather, it must be supported -purely- by empirical foundations. Saying the degree of change in a genus is possible through specification must be demonstrated in the laboratory or through observation, again, lest we make a metaphysical proposition that is a misapplication of such.

We have made those observations, the kind that revealed problems with Newton. It was not laboratory experiment that showed the problems with Newton, but checking Newtonian predictions against observations of the effects of large distances and long times.

Which was direct observation, not indirect inferrence.

 

[James R]

Though clearly there are mountains of contingent evidence pointing towards evolution, there is no satisfactory proof of the theory that speciation can lead to genus-/familiar-/phylumic-ation.

If "microevolution" is accepted as fact, then something like divine intervention would be needed to stop speciation occurring by the same processes.

That is to say, the principle view of evolution is impossible to prove so far to the rigours of scientific fact.

All scientific theories of any consequence are impossible to prove at the level you're requiring.

It is little more than a metaphysical proposition which abuses that philosophical method as we are dealing with observed empirical facts.

You ought to stick to philosophy, since your knowledge of the scientific method is clearly lacking.

Inferences are rather piss-poor evidence, I'd say.

The entire scientific enterprise is built on inductive inferences.

No one denies the predictability of Darwinian evolution, yet we cannot also deny that modern genetic studies have produced some surprises, too.

Modern genetic studies would not make any sense without the theory of evolution. There would effectively be no way of ordering the data.

 

[Prince_James]

James R.:

If "microevolution" is accepted as fact, then something like divine intervention would be needed to stop speciation occurring by the same processes.

This is reasonable, surely. I do not doubt this. However, reasonable != science. Science does not work through reason. It works through analysis of empirical data. Data cannot be gathered until it is observed, either in the laboratory or in the field.

All scientific theories of any consequence are impossible to prove at the level you're requiring.

Pardon?

I can prove to you that baking soda and vinegar react in my kitchen sink right now. That is essentially what I am asking evolutionary science to do regarding genus creation.

Modern genetic studies would not make any sense without the theory of evolution. There would effectively be no way of ordering the data

Just to note: You cannot justify something by relating it to something else that is also subject to justification. One cannot prioritize which is "more important" and therefore we should "believe in the other thing because we believe in this".

Also, James R., from my understanding of the scientific method, the following steps are made:

1. A question is raised.
2. A hypothesis for an answer to this question is put forth.
3. This hypothesis is formulated into a formal experiment or an observation of natural conditions.
4. One observes the experiment or the natural conditions.
5. One sees whether the hypothesis seems to be at work.
6. You repeat to avoid variables and false findings.
7. If the experiment reveals reasonable continuations (from species to genus for instance) you design an experiment to further test. If not, one puts forth one's finding for review and incorporation.