That's nothing new, many infectious diseases evolve every year, which is why we need a new flu shot, the common cold can't be cured, and staph becomes MRSA sending pharmaceuticals on an arms race just to keep hospitals sterile.
The real lower bound is the number of generations, and that number (<30) is only given in the subtitle after you click through.
My father was a North-Sea fisherman and reported on dramatic increases of Roe when fish populations were declining. Since the type of flat fish they were catching had usually lived for many years, our conclusion was that it would have to be a bio-chemical progress already built-in to the genes.
"How fast can evolution occur?" doesn't seem like a meaningful question. If evolution is defined as a significant change in a population's gene distribution, it can occur in an arbitrarily short period of time.
It's hard to define speciation though. If two groups refuse to mate with each other, but they could in a lab, are they speciated? What if artificial semination works but naturally doesn't? Etc.
Selectively setting the bar ridiculously high can be an indicator of bias.
Actually it's an indicator of skepticism and intellectual honesty, exactly what any scientist should have... As Feynman would say, a "kind of leaning over backwards" to show how you might be incorrect.
All quality scientific theories are validated when we have empirical or mathematical proof that demonstrates that a given X process produces Y results and evidence. For example, an explosion of a bomb (X) results in a certain pattern of destruction (Y). We know that upon seeing a certain pattern of destruction (Y) we can infer that it was a bomb explosion because we've seen and witnessed prior explosions (X).
The only way the existence of (Y) can logically infer the existence of (X) is if we've previously tested and validated that X indeed produces Y.
Is it so much to ask that I have X process demonstrated before I truly believe the theoretical assertation that Y evidence really indicates the existence of X process?
Is that not what real science is about, forming theories and then empirically validating whether or not X indeed produces Y as we claim is does?
I don't get how hard this is for people to logically grasp. Scientific conjecture doesn't logically hold water until we stop assuming that X->Y and actually empirically show or mathematically demonstrate that X->Y.
In physics we have equations like E=mc^2 which are constantly tested and validated. In chemistry we have repeated and empirically validated experiments that show how adding a catalyst to a reaction will speed it up. In biology we have demonstrated and visible results of how different types of light affect plant growth. In electronics we repeatedly validate that V indeed equals I times R. And the list goes on...
Don't you get it? X process is repeatedly tested and validated to produce Y results. That's how quality science works.
I don't care if you have a whole mountain of what you claim is Y "evidence", if you can't repeatedly demonstrate and validate the assertion that X process produces Y results then it doesn't matter how much "evidence" there is, there is no true logical basis to claim that Y infers an X until you have demonstrated X->Y.
Yeah, and we have plate tectonics which explains... oh, geez, I guess nothing, since we can't fit an entire tectonic plate into a lab in order to repeatedly test it.
Well at least we know that the planet's magnetic field is produced by aligned iron molecules in the core since... Well shit, I guess we can't fit a planetary core in the lab.
Ok, I've got one: we know that the sun is a nuclear furnace, fusing hydrogen into helium because... um...
Well, I guess you're right. We can't know anything by repeated inference.
I think it's hilarious how your article sums up in two sentences exactly what I've been trying to say in 1,000+ words in these comments and succinctly summarizes why I still remain justly skeptical:
Moreover, efforts to create more life in the labs will eventually hit a philosophical wall, not a technical one. "If somebody makes something great in the lab, it's fantastic. But really the origin of life on Earth is an historical problem that we're never going to be able to witness and verify," he says.
It can't be 100% verified, but that doesn't mean that the theory of evolution holds no water. Being "skeptical" doesn't mean ignoring the evidence for things you don't like. It's the most likely explanation at the moment, backed up by evidence and the experiments we can do. Thus, for the time being, we accept it. It's not a tablet handed down by God, but it's not ignorable just because we're not cocksure.
Why are you so opposed to evidence that did not originate in a laboratory? The fossil record shows that differentiation and evolution has occurred quite a number of times. Just because we weren't in control of it doesn't mean it doesn't hold weight. Besides, what other explanation do you have for the fossil record?
Your conception of science is twisted and narrow, your bomb example is a classic modus moron, and you would rather make a grand display of your ignorance than take a few minutes to Google up the sort of evidence for evolution that you claim doesn't exist.
Let us hope that you are troll sir, for otherwise we must conclude that you are an idiot.
Idea + Expectations + Observations = Scientific Argument
1. We have the scientific idea - Macro evolution over 4+ bn years
2. We have the expectations (aka what you call circumstantial "evidence") - fossil record and a whole mountain of other expectations.
3. So where exactly are the observations that confirm this idea produces our expectations? Nowhere. You can't observe Macro evolution in action. All that exists is a mountain of circumstantial expectations with no observations.
Two-thirds of a scientific argument doesn't equal a scientific argument, moron. It certainly must seem like trolling when you don't even understand the process by which scientific arguments are validated.
I love how you classify the fossil record as "expectations." New species appear in the historical record, complete with transitional forms. What's your explanation? Repeated acts of special creation?
Look, the reason I didn't link any more observations of "macro" evolution is because examples have already been linked (and you've ignored them), and because you seem to think that you have logical grounds for dismissing all evidence while clearly demonstrating that you do not understand either basic logic or the scientific method. Seriously, google "modus moron" and fix your shit if you don't want to come across like an ignorant creationist troll.
I suspect that your real complaint isn't based on anything that is clearly evident from what you have posted so far and that pointing you at stuff you could easily find for yourself if you were genuinely curious is a waste of time. But in case I'm wrong:
I don't know why Evolutionist trolls continue to insist that ID advocates "toss out all the evidence".
You are aware that the same "evidence" such as the vast fossil record, and insane complexity of the universe is what forms the basis for the ID argument, right? Even Dawkins himself admits that all intuition indicates that the universe has been designed.
I'm not tossing out any evidence, I'm re-interpreting it under my own world-view, in the same fashion that you have your own self validating world-view where you interpret the "evidence".
Regardless, explain to me how forensic science and circumstantial evidence works if my "shit" above regarding the bomb example is not sound. It's not a truth table that I've written above, it's an assertion that we can guess with high probability what event happened if 1) we have seen the event in the past or can replicate it and 2) we understand the effects and resulting evidence for that event.
How can species even have genetic limitations? We all have the same code format - DNA - and we all make proteins based on it. Given that any mutation might occur, one genome might evolve to a horrifyingly huge number of children genomes over many, many generations. Deletions and copying allow for potentially any change to be made to the organism, and it will be added to the species' pool if the creature survives. A mutation has to be either useful, neutral, or just present in an otherwise fit organism in order to persist.
And nobody claims that lobe-finned fishes (drastically different fish from guppies) sprouted legs - their fins gradually evolved to allow terrestrial locomotion. If you look at the fin of a coelecanth (http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/classification/clas... - similar to the ancestors of the first walking animal), you'll submit that it has fins much more similar to webbed feet - which is what the first amphibians had. Evolution is much more gradual than you seem to think we're claiming.
Also, I think it's pathetic that this comment was hidden from the public. Doing that cuts off communication even more than it already has been.
Given that any mutation might occur, one genome might evolve to a horrifyingly huge number of children genomes over many, many generations. Deletions and copying allow for potentially any change to be made to the organism, and it will be added to the species' pool if the creature survives.
Yet again, more conjecture where people are telling me stuff happens without actually ever demonstrating it. This is more pseudo-scientific BSing that produces garbage that sounds reasonable yet can never be tested or validated.
Show me the money. Show me the actual process happening where one genome evolves into a horrifyingly huge number of child genomes. Show me the live mutations where a school of guppies eventually produces guppies with legs. Is it really that hard to ask of science to show me the process that supposedly produces all these results??? Results don't logically indicate a process until a process is shown to produce those results.
Isn't that how we validate scientific theories? We claim a Higgs boson exists, and then we build the LHC to empirically validate that assumption, right?
Evolution is much more gradual than you seem to think we're claiming.
I knew people were going to be picky over the word "sprouted", regardless I am well aware that the conjectural claims of Macro-Evolution include an extremely long period of time.
Also, I think it's pathetic that this comment was hidden from the public.
That's what happens around here. A bit of legitimate skepticism, people get their beliefs challenged and they drive-by down vote without responding.
You clearly have no idea what timescales we are talking about. Think of it like compound interest. Say we start with a 1 dollar and the first year you get a penny back aka 1% compounded annually. Now how much money do you have in 1 million years? ~2 with 4,321 zeros.
Mankind has used evolution to turn wolves into decorative toy's in a few thousand years by selecting who lived and who died. Plenty of "Dog" DNA is new, but we have only recently started to understand the basic building blocks. The theory of evolution existed long before we could look and DNA, and yet DNA completely validated the theory at every level. It just works.
Yet you want more? WHY? What other idea works on every level? Saying "The invisible panda made the world last week" could be true but it gives us no new incite. Yet they theory of evolution is useful when talking about building software, biochemistry, fishing, farming, and buying stock in ways that seem completely unrelated.
PS: The math on evolution is complex and I suspect you are far to stupid to understand it. Yet, the fact you don't understand in no way relates to reality.
Educating others is only possible if the others want to be educated. Anyone denying "macro-"evolution in this manner is beyond help. Shutting up the ignorant aholes is the best anyone can do.
It's not being picky, it's you writing as if you don't understand what we are talking about. I thought you might not have meant that, but forgot about it when I began writing. Sorry. Please don't complain because I misinterpreted you when you wrote something unclear, though.
In terms of experiments, I dunno, man. You're pretty much going to have to let that one go - you can never have experiments with animals over a certain size. If you can manage reading about bacterial experiments, though, that's been done - here (http://www.rasmusen.org/x/2006/11/24/evolution-experiments-w...) may be a good place to start. Bacteria don't modify limbs, but they can evolve new metabolic mechanisms in experiment time, which I think is comparable. For larger animals, see the fossil record. There really are some incredible examples - I'll show you if you're interested.
I still don't see what mechanism you're claiming inhibits parts of the genome from mutation. You accept that mutation occurs and think there are parts where it can't, correct? Though this would make sense if you were assuming a Creator wanted only microevolution to happen, but you can't just assume the things you're trying to prove. With no assumptions, there is no reason for these prohibitions on mutations to exist (other than on crucial DNA where protections have evolved because the functions are so important to life - cell duplication, for example). There are differences all over human DNA, not just in one special spot. What, other than the religious aspect, is convincing you that mutation spares parts of the genome?
> I still don't see what mechanism you're claiming inhibits parts of the genome from mutation.
It seems like he's saying that the burden of proof is on you, since you are claiming that macroevolution exists. He doesn't need a specific qualm to do that. For instance, if you had said, "it is possible to build a mountain out of rice, since the total mass of rice in the world is sufficient for that purpose," he would be entirely justified in asking you to actually build the mountain rather than just measuring the amount of rice in the world. After all, who knows what problems rice-mountain-building encounters. Maybe rice piles higher than a hundred meters begin to fall apart. Nobody knows. One could say the same thing about macroevolution, namely, there might indeed be some factor which prevents a large number of minor mutations from sticking around to cause speciation. A skeptic doesn't have to name this factor, the burden is on you to provide proof.
...and, of course, ample proof of macroevolution (and the fact that it is caused by an accumulation of smaller evolutionary changes) has been provided by the fossil record, as you've said many times.
The real lower bound is the number of generations, and that number (<30) is only given in the subtitle after you click through.