Is Evolutionary Change Ever Actually Observed?

[Stargazer]

When according to the Punctuated Equalibrum Model, most
species appear abruptly in the strata of the fossil record
and remain in observed factual stasis (fixity) for the
duration of their tenure on the earth, then they disappear
suddenly from the record without leaving descendants.
Which explains the 98% of all species that ever lived are
extinct.
However, there are dozens of species still existing
today in stasis, called "living fossils" where little
of no change in morphology from their first appearance
in the fossil record to the present. If this is true,
where is the actual observed, factual evolutionary change?

[Cubist]

Show me a person who has never heard of a kinkajou, and I'll show you a person who wouldn't recognize a kinkajou if a rabid one was chewing on their face.

Tell me, Stargazer: What do *you* think "actual observed, factual evolutionary change" should look like? Depending on what *you* think "actual… evolutionary change" should look like, it may well be that there *isn't* anything which *you* would recognize as "actual observed, factual evolutionary change". But if that is, indeed, the case, it wouldn't prove that evolution lacks evidence; rather, it would prove that you don't understand evolution, and are therefore in much the same position as that hypothetical person who couldn't recognize a kinkajou that's chewing on their face.

So.

Could you explain what sort of evidence you think we should observe if evolution were true, Stargazer?

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 11:58:19 AM UTC-7, Stargazer wrote:

Evolution 101

Evolution is wholly dependent on inference because it's too slow to see as it allegedly occurs. If a person claims to see evolution, as it allegedly, occurs, then said observation is not and cannot be the evolution science has accepted since 1859.

Many times Darwinists say evolution is observed but a lot of people don't understand that "observed" means "via inference." One can easily verify what I'm saying by traversing over to YouTube: If evolution could be observed as it allegedly occurs then there would be countless videos showing evolution occurring. But in reality there are none. Darwinists intentionally lie about this 101 fact because they want the public to believe evolution can be observed in real time as it allegedly occurs.

And in case you're wondering, yes Darwinists believe in something that cannot be seen. Their God is just as invisible as the real God.

Ray

[Oxyaena]

On 7/18/2016 3:38 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 11:58:19 AM UTC-7, Stargazer wrote:
>> When according to the Punctuated Equalibrum Model, most
>> species appear abruptly in the strata of the fossil record
>> and remain in observed factual stasis (fixity) for the
>> duration of their tenure on the earth, then they disappear
>> suddenly from the record without leaving descendants.
>> Which explains the 98% of all species that ever lived are
>> extinct.
>> However, there are dozens of species still existing
>> today in stasis, called "living fossils" where little
>> of no change in morphology from their first appearance
>> in the fossil record to the present. If this is true,
>> where is the actual observed, factual evolutionary change?
>
> Evolution 101
>
> Evolution is wholly dependent on inference because it's too slow to see as it allegedly occurs. If a person claims to see evolution, as it allegedly, occurs, then said observation is not and cannot be the evolution science has accepted since 1859.

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

>
> Many times Darwinists say evolution is observed but a lot of people don't understand that "observed" means "via inference." One can easily verify what I'm saying by traversing over to YouTube: If evolution could be observed as it allegedly occurs then there would be countless videos showing evolution occurring. But in reality there are none. Darwinists intentionally lie about this 101 fact because they want the public to believe evolution can be observed in real time as it allegedly occurs.

Oh, really? Explain to me the evolution of two separate fruit fly
species in the laboratory, or the evolution of nylon bacteria, whom
subsist on nylon, which has only been around since the 30s. This FRA has
been answered so many times it even warrants its own FAQ, which
unsurprisingly you fail to mention:

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

>
> And in case you're wondering, yes Darwinists believe in something that cannot be seen. Their God is just as invisible as the real God.
>
> Ray
>

What do you mean by "Darwinists"? Darwinism is nothing more than a
pejorative term used by creationists to imply that evolution is an
'ism', so it's just as religious as creationism is, which is an example
of the equivocation fallacy.

[Oxyaena]

On 7/18/2016 2:57 PM, Stargazer wrote:
>
> When according to the Punctuated Equalibrum Model, most
> species appear abruptly in the strata of the fossil record
> and remain in observed factual stasis (fixity) for the
> duration of their tenure on the earth, then they disappear
> suddenly from the record without leaving descendants.
> Which explains the 98% of all species that ever lived are
> extinct.

You have a false understanding of punctuated equilibrium, punc-eq is
where evolution is static for long periods of time if there's no
environmental change, followed by short periods of evolution, a prime
example of punc-eq would be *Homo erectus*, which was a species that
survived for quite a while, possibly until as recently as 50,000 years
ago, of course there was intermittent speciation events, that's a given,
as populations of a given species become isolated, and there's no
genetic flow with the main population, eventually the two populations
will drift too far apart for there to be any inter-breeding, thus new
species have evolved, this has even been observed in the laboratory, and
in the field. This was the case with *H. heidelbergensis* evolving into
*H. sapiens* in Africa, and the Neanderthals and Denisovans in Eurasia,
respectively.

> However, there are dozens of species still existing
> today in stasis, called "living fossils" where little
> of no change in morphology from their first appearance
> in the fossil record to the present. If this is true,
> where is the actual observed, factual evolutionary change?
>

So-called "living fossils" are actually quite different from their
extinct ancestors, the only reason there is no perceived change (from
the eyes of the untrained) is because there is no need for them to
change, their state is an advantageous trait, so there's no need for
selection to occur if it's already successful, that doesn't mean they
haven't changed, not at all, but it means that their current biological
state is highly successful, and has been for millions of years, so
there's no need for selection to act upon them.

[Ernest Major]

Stargazer's ignorance of observed evolutionary change does not make it
non-existent. Your ignorance of observed evolutionary change does not
make it non-existent. Stargazer may have an excuse. You lack an excuse -
examples have been presented to you on several occasions. You can't even
"justify" your claims above by your usual resort to the epistemological
nihilism of occasionalism.

There are two classic instances of observed instance of evolution in
Gould's work on Punctuation Equilibrium. While for most taxa the fossil
record is too sparse to distinguish between Punctuated Equilibrium and
Gradualism, or to demonstrate stasis, Gould found two instances where in
a small region of time and space intermediates between two more
widespread and longer occurring species occur.

Speciation has been observed multiple times. From the book I never got
round to writing

"Among those unfamiliar with the science of biology it is widely, but
incorrectly, thought that speciation has not been observed. In fact
speciation by several different modes has been observed or replicated.
Here I focus on polyploid speciation resulting in sexually reproducing
plant species, which is relatively frequent among observed and
replicated instances of speciation, as a result of its shorter
characteristic timescale, and is less open to disputation, compared to
example the formation of new vegetatively or apomictically reproducing
taxa, or in groups with permanent odd polyploidy or permanent
translocation heterozygosity, as to whether a taxon is a genuine species.

By restricting myself to sexually reproducing species I can apply the
biological species concept wherein a species is a congeries of
populations among which individuals reproduce sexually, and which is
sufficiently isolated genetically from other species. Such species have
been observed to have originated in the wild, under cultivation, and in
the laboratory. In other cases species have been recreated
experimentally from the putative ancestors, and in yet other cases the
origins of polyploid species have been inferred from studying their
karyotype and genome.

The ancestral life cycle of plants includes an alternation of
generations between a haploid (gametophyte) generation with a single set
of chromosomes, and a diploid (sporophyte) generation with two sets of
chromosomes. (In the familiar flowering plants the gametophyte
generation is reduced to the pollen grain (male) and embryo sac
(female).) A polyploid plant has 3, 4 or more sets of chromosomes. In an
autopolyploid all the sets of chromosomes come from a single species; in
an allopolyploid the sets of chromosomes represent two or more species.

There are several processes which can result in an increase in the
number in the number of sets of chromosomes - somatic cell chromosome
duplication, formation of unreduced gametes, polyspermy and somatic cell
fusion. These processes, together with hybridisation, can and do combine
to produce new species."

Examples of observed new species in the wild include Spartina anglica,
Senecio cambrica, Tragopogon mirus, Tragopogon micellus and Mimulus
peregrinus. Example of new species emerging spontaneously under
conditions of Aesculus carnea, Digitalis mertonensis and Primula kewensis.

In the laboratory both novel species (such as Elytricum fertile) and
prexisting species (such as hexaploid wheat, tetraploid brassica and
West African okra - the last recreated in a Japanese laboratory by a
researcher unaware of the preexisting crop populations) have been
created from their parent species.

Work on sunflowers has replicated homoploid speciation.

Turning to change less drastic than speciation, there are many examples
of observed changes in allele frequencies in populations. For example
there is industrial melanism in Biston betularia and other moth species;
antibiotic resistance in bacteria; herbicide resistance in plants;
insectide resistance in mosquitoes; drug resistance in malarial
parasites; warfarin resistance in rodents; beak size in Galapagos
finches; and citric acid metabolism in E. coli.

--
alias Ernest Major

[RonO]

Have you ever looked at these punctuated events? There isn't much
change between the organisms that existed before and then were
apparently replaced in the fossil record.

This wiki gives the example of human evolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

What do you not get and what is your issue?

Ron Okimoto

[Rolf]

"Oxyaena" <oxy...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:nmjdej$lim$1...@news.albasani.net...

Scientists even believe in unseen gravity.

Evolutionary change is the same as ID except the equation works without
gods.

[jillery]

On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 14:57:52 -0400, Stargazer <star...@att.net>
wrote:

First, the Punctuated Equilibrium model, was created by Niles Eldredge
and Stephen Gould, as a supplement to Darwinian Evolution, not as its
replacement.

Second, Gould and Eldredge were rightfully appalled that
anti-evolutionary spokespersons wilfully misquoted them to suggest
that their model was anything other than a supplement to Darwinian
Evolution.

Third, there are lots of good explanations for the observations on
which the Punctuated Equilibrium model is based, besides the
presumption that species in fact appear spontaneously, remain fixed in
form, and then disappear spontaneously.

Fourth, the phenomenon of "living fossils" is well-known to
biologists, and poses no challenge to Darwinian Evolution. The
"little change" to which you refer is relative to the much faster and
greater changes that take place within most populations, and refers to
superficial and external appearances only.

Fifth, there are lots of significant changes that happen in species
that by its very nature the fossil record can't capture, ex.
metabolism.

Finally, my understanding is that once all the Punctuated Equilibrium
rhetoric settled, the consensus was that it's mostly over differences
of opinion on what "gradual" actually means. Much to the chagrin of
special creationists everywhere, almost no populations of
substantially different morphology have appeared out of thin air.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Rolf]

"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nmjgfn$eui$1...@dont-email.me...

Saved.

> --
> alias Ernest Major
>

[Jonathan]

On 7/18/2016 5:50 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 14:57:52 -0400, Stargazer <star...@att.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>> When according to the Punctuated Equalibrum Model, most
>> species appear abruptly in the strata of the fossil record
>> and remain in observed factual stasis (fixity) for the
>> duration of their tenure on the earth, then they disappear
>> suddenly from the record without leaving descendants.
>> Which explains the 98% of all species that ever lived are
>> extinct.
>> However, there are dozens of species still existing
>> today in stasis, called "living fossils" where little
>> of no change in morphology from their first appearance
>> in the fossil record to the present. If this is true,
>> where is the actual observed, factual evolutionary change?
>
>
> First, the Punctuated Equilibrium model, was created by

What has that got to do with his point?

Rest of off-topic ramblings snipped

[Stargazer]

Homo Sapuens belong to the class - Mammaliam, Order- Primates, Family -
Hominidae, Genus - Homo. How many classes, orders etc. Earlier
ancestor forms must have belong to different classes, orders etc.

So, there must have been massive evolutionary change between homo
sapiens and the first common organism: which must have belonged to a
different phylum, class etc. Is there a gradual sequence of evolutionary
change between any of these?

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:477789ad-b52f-48c7...@googlegroups.com...

How do you observe Intelligent Design?

Why are you behaving like an idiot? Stupid question. Did you ever ask a
stupid question?

We don't believe and we don't tell nobody that we observe evolution in real
time as it occurs. Thats pure BS.
We know species change, the geological, paleontological, genetical, they all
confirm that. The only question that can be asked is how and why.
And we already know a great deal about that.

You know, Ray, the scientists engaged in research on evolution are the same
breed of scientists that you find in any and all, ALL sciences without
exception.
That's the way it is. There ain't no special breed of scientists
"Darwinist", "Atheist", "Moron" "Stupid" "Dont understand logic"

The scientists that send people to the moon, ecplore the solar system with
their rockets and telescopes, space shuttles and so on, they are of the same
stock. They use one and the same logic as all of science. Despite your
insane an malicious accusations of being silly, moronic, atheistic and so
an, as you so freely label them, they are intelligent, hard working and
capable people light years beyond your primitive level.

The greatest of them all were/are Evolutionists! Not "Darwinists". There are
no Galileoists, Newtonists, Einsteinists, and so on.
They just accepted and understodd evolution. It really doesn't take much
brainpower to understand, to realize that the creation stories in the Bible
are myths. Myths!

You think you are smarter tham Richard Feynman, Stephen Hawking, Einstein,
Schrödinger, Niels Bohr, and all the rest of them, huh? That's a mountain of
hubris. You are a self confessed ignoramus, you don't uderstand the ToE
according to your own statement some time ago.

Your ridiculous use of works like "uninteligent process". You don't
understand nature, you are very ignorant about physics and chemistry, chaos
theory, self-organization, complexity.

You are on the level of the "Tornado in a junk yard" type of arguments.

So far you have'nt achieved anything. Dembski, Ken Ham or Behe, they did and
can at least do things, even if they are wrong..What can you do? Have you
ever held a job? Are you living in the same world as the rest of us? I
haven't seen anything to indicate that you are a regular person, there is
something fishy about who/what you are. I have asked before but never got a
reply: Do you have any friends, family, a job, any activities like most
people have?

[joecummin...@gmail.com]

On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 14:57:52 -0400, Stargazer <star...@att.net>
wrote:

>

If we accept evolution as genetic adaptation to environmenttal change,
then the presence of so-called living fossils isn't a problm. Their
environment hasn't changed.

As to Ray's demand to "see" evolution, he's like the tiresome litttle
boy who demands to see a tree growing "NOW!!!"

Have fun,


Joe Cummings

[jillery]

On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 19:32:57 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Since you asked sooo nicely, he didn't make a point, but asked a
question, one which implied a variety of ignorant and incorrect
misunderstandings. Given that, it's reasonable to provide a
comprehensive reply, which I did.

>Rest of off-topic ramblings snipped

Since my reply directly responded to Stargazer's post, they can't
reasonably be described as off-topic or rambling. More to the point,
you didn't even try to respond to any part of Stargazer's post or
mine. Given that, it's almost certain that your post is a petty and
infantile assertion of a false equivalence to your off-topic ramblings
in other threads. It's no surprise that you fail to recognize the
difference.

<cogent and coherent reply restored>

[jillery]

On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 19:32:57 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Here's a clue for you. If you're going to express righteous moral
outrage, it helps to leave documentation of the basis for it. Just
sayin'.

[RonO]

The difference between classes and orders are not the ones that Eldridge
and Gould were addressing. Just think for just a moment. Why are
whales still considered to be mammals? Why are penguins still
considered to be birds (aves)? Why are humans obviously still apes,
primates, mammals, amniotes, vertebrates, cordates, etc?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 23:29:58 -0400, Stargazer <star...@att.net>
wrote:

Do you deny there has been massive evolutionary change between homo
sapiens and the organisms found in Ediacaran strata?

Do you deny the time between now and the Ediacaran is hundreds of
millions of years?

If so, on what basis? If not, why are still unsatisfied?

[Bill Rogers]

Not sure exactly what you are asking for, but here is a nice article on the transition from reptiles to mammals (or, to avoid paraphyletic groups, the transition from non-mammalian saurapsids to mammals)...

http://genesispanthesis.tripod.com/fossils/rept_mam.html

Your creationist sources will tell your there are no transitional fossils, but that's either simply false, or relies on a definition of "transitional" that makes it impossible for such a thing to exist as a matter of definition. In real life, there are plenty of transitional fossil series.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 19:32:57 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Jonathan
<writeI...@gmail.com>:

That particular excerpt has nothing to do with his question
(not "point"). The part relevant to his question was snipped
by some moron.

>Rest of off-topic ramblings snipped

Oh, so it was you who snipped the actual content, which was
neither off-topic nor irrelevant to the question. OK.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Jonathan]

On 7/19/2016 5:51 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 19:32:57 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 7/18/2016 5:50 PM, jillery wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 14:57:52 -0400, Stargazer <star...@att.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> When according to the Punctuated Equalibrum Model, most
>>>> species appear abruptly in the strata of the fossil record
>>>> and remain in observed factual stasis (fixity) for the
>>>> duration of their tenure on the earth, then they disappear
>>>> suddenly from the record without leaving descendants.
>>>> Which explains the 98% of all species that ever lived are
>>>> extinct.
>>>> However, there are dozens of species still existing
>>>> today in stasis, called "living fossils" where little
>>>> of no change in morphology from their first appearance
>>>> in the fossil record to the present. If this is true,
>>>> where is the actual observed, factual evolutionary change?
>>>
>>>
>>> First, the Punctuated Equilibrium model, was created by
>>
>>
>> What has that got to do with his point?
>
>
> Since you asked sooo nicely, he didn't make a point,

Neither did you, so far as I can tell! But then
I didn't bother to read past this point.

[jillery]

On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 18:52:10 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>>> What has that got to do with his point?
>>
>>
>> Since you asked sooo nicely, he didn't make a point,
>
>
>
>
>Neither did you,

I answered his question. No point was required.

And you just admitted your first question is just meaningless noise.

>so far as I can tell! But then
>I didn't bother to read past this point.

And there's the problem. You must enjoy proving me right and yourself
such an ass all the time.

[J. J. Lodder]

Stargazer <star...@att.net> wrote:

> When according to the Punctuated Equalibrum Model, most
> species appear abruptly in the strata of the fossil record
> and remain in observed factual stasis (fixity) for the
> duration of their tenure on the earth, then they disappear
> suddenly from the record without leaving descendants.

For context, punctuated equilibrium only makes sense
in the context of the theory of evolution.
It is a specialisation.
All it says is that the rate of evolution is highly variable.
(possibly, and not really a surprise)

> Which explains the 98% of all species that ever lived are
> extinct.

Nothing to do with punctuated equilibrium.
Getting extinct has nothing to do with rate of evolution.

> However, there are dozens of species still existing
> today in stasis, called "living fossils" where little
> of no change in morphology from their first appearance
> in the fossil record to the present.

There is more to evolution than mere morphology.

> If this is true,
> where is the actual observed, factual evolutionary change?

Depends on what you want to mean by 'actual' and 'observed',
and on how honest you want to be about it,

Jan

[Earle Jones27]

*
Ray: Can you answer at least one or two of Rolf's questions above?
Are you a real person? What do you do for a living? Rolf says there
is something fishy about what/who you are.

I'll go first:

I am an engineer with degrees (Electrical Engineering) from Georgia
Tech and Stanford. I worked for about 40 years at a well-known
research organization. I retired and I now live in a very nice
retirement community near Stanford.

I grew up as a Southern Methodist Christian in northern Alabama, but
fell away from those teachings when they came into direct contact with
my scientific teaching. I have lived in California since 1956, except
for an eleven year stint in Asia (Tokyo and Seoul.)

I called myself an agnostic for some years, but after realizing that
the word is ambiguous, I decided that I am really an atheist.

Tell us Ray: We already know that you are a Paleyan Christian
immutablist. What else are you?

earle
*