A Big Experiment

[bandit4god]

If lifespan and equipment degradation were not an issue, what experiment could be conducted over time to observe macroevolution take place?  For example, could a consortium scientists design a multi-millenial experiment observing a wide array of species on an island set apart for that very purpose?

[Tank]

If lifespan and equipment degradation were not an issue, what experiment could be conducted over time to observe macroevolution take place?  For example, could a consortium scientists design a multi-millenial experiment observing a wide array of species on an island set apart for that very purpose?

Why would one need to set asside an island when the Earth would do?

[Guardian85]

As this is exactly what nature did on the Galapagos Islands and Madagaskar, to name a few: yes; such an undertaking could be done, if the consept of macroevolution was an open question within the serious scientific community.
Since it is not, we should probably call it possible, but unneccesary.

Might be cool, though... 

[Recusant]

I agree with Tank; I think that mere observation over a long period of time would show evolution in action. I find the constant harping on "micro" vs "macro" evolution by those who deny the reality of evolution to be a lame argument. It's not as if scientists haven't already been able to observe speciation, after all.

By the way, welcome back to HAF, bandit4god. You kind of left our last conversation dangling.

[bandit4god]

Thanks, Recusant!  I gave you and a couple of others a "warm hello" in my other post today--I missed you guys.    

You'll have to remind me which one I left dangling... Folks were getting a bit snarky, so I took a break for a spell.  

Reason I brought up this question was an article I read that (from an atheist's perspective) argues religion will always be among us.  Got me thinking what it would take to convince broad swaths of people to recant, and seeing a recorded history of new species emerge over a few millenia might do it.  Why should the pursuit of science be restricted by the tiny lifespans of humans?

I'll almost surely get a raft of snarky responses that the fossil record does it for us, but are there not questions about species transition that could be answered by such an experiment?  And given video recording technology, do we really need to doom future scientists to digging in the dirt anymore?

[Recusant]

Thanks, Recusant!  I gave you and a couple of others a "warm hello" in my other post today--I missed you guys.    

You'll have to remind me which one I left dangling... Folks were getting a bit snarky, so I took a break for a spell.  

I guess I could have used a more neutral wording and said, "Thank you for letting me have the last word." I think that the one I was enjoying the most was your "P-inductive argument for God's existence" thread. I don't blame you for walking away when you did, though; it's true that there were issues with snarkiness in that thread and others. Some people tend to rely on that tone a bit too heavily, in my opinion. When they do it here, however, they generally get called on it. No need to necro that thread, unless you really want to carry on with it. Many of the participants are no longer active members of this forum, and it might be more trouble than it's worth. I'm sure there's enough going on to sink your teeth into, or alternatively, maybe you've come up with a new and improved version of your OP.

Reason I brought up this question was an article I read that (from an atheist's perspective) argues religion will always be among us.  Got me thinking what it would take to convince broad swaths of people to recant, and seeing a recorded history of new species emerge over a few millenia might do it.  Why should the pursuit of science be restricted by the tiny lifespans of humans?

Since there are many who follow a religion who also have no trouble accepting the reality of evolution, I don't see how stronger evidence in favor of it would convince more than a small minority to "recant." Those who accept it wouldn't change, and those who don't accept it would probably continue with their denial of reality, or adopt the position of theists who don't see any necessary conflict.

I'll almost surely get a raft of snarky responses that the fossil record does it for us, but are there not questions about species transition that could be answered by such an experiment?  And given video recording technology, do we really need to doom future scientists to digging in the dirt anymore?

Some scientists like digging in the dirt! Not only that, but practically no scientist these days is merely trying to provide further fossil evidence for evolution by finding more fossils; they know that such evidence is unnecessary. They are more motivated by discovering previously unknown species, and learning more about the species already known. I think very few, if any of them care about what the Creationists think.

[xSilverPhinx]

What are you calling macroevolution here exactly?

The best organisms would be bacteria, because they reproduce so quickly, and change such as the acquired ability to digest nylon (which is man made, and not found naturally) evolved.

Selective breeding is a good way of seeing changes occur over a period of time. The differences between all the dog breeds and their wolf ancestor is a good example. Another example I like is the Domesticated silver fox experiement because a chain of changes such as droopy ears, changed fur color followed from simply selecting silver foxes for their tameness. They started barking also. It isn't too much of a stretch to see that it's probably what happened to dogs as well, though in a much shorter time span.  

Here's a video clip from BBC Horizon on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbcwDXhugjw

[Whitney]

Reason I brought up this question was an article I read that (from an atheist's perspective) argues religion will always be among us.  Got me thinking what it would take to convince broad swaths of people to recant, and seeing a recorded history of new species emerge over a few millenia might do it.  

There are numerous religious people who accept evolution as the valid science that it is...I think the only place where the small majority believe in creation is the USA.  So, I don't see what it has to do with religion not existing in the future...not to mention that religion itself evolves to fit the beliefs of the people.

Not to mention that speciation has been recorded and the line at which it becomes what creationists call macroevolution is very wide and gray.

[Stevil]

Would bacteria becoming resistant to medicine like penicillin be a product of evolution?

Cerainly it seems to me that having living organisms suited to their environment points to evolution. Especially when you consider the earth's environment changes a lot of the years e.g. Ice Age.

[xSilverPhinx]

Would bacteria becoming resistant to medicine like penicillin be a product of evolution?

Yes, penicillin kills off bacteria that are can't survive it and selects those that can. Those in turn at the ones that continue reproducing and having resistant offspring. Drug resistant bugs are going to be a huge problem soon enough, especially since the other side of the arms race, medicine, can probably only evolve so far before it starts to really harm our own cells too, which defeats the purpose.

[Will]

Keep watching, keep documenting.

We've only known about Darwinian evolution for the tiniest sliver of recorded history, let alone human history, let alone the history of the planet. Macroevolution (actually, just evolution) is the wonderful process of gradual change, and so we'll have to document it just as gradually. Fortunately, we've already seen real, honest to goodness examples of evolution on the macro scale, such as in the change in the beaks of Galapagos finches. I can just picture the Beagle docked, Charles Darwin taking down the basic information on the finches that would eventually lead to proof positive of evolution. It's very cool stuff.

[bandit4god]

Fortunately, we've already seen real, honest to goodness examples of evolution on the macro scale, such as in the change in the beaks of Galapagos finches

Will, Whitney, and Tank are moderators... more proof that selection is real! 

I hear what you guys are saying concerning selection having been observed within a given species to reflect selection pressures.  What's much more interesting to me is scientists observing a population of one species, day-in-day-out, year-in-year-out, and waking up one day to say... whoa mama, we've got another species here!  Expansion in the number of chromosomes would probably be the test for macroevolution in my book.

I'd even be interested in such an experiment if scientists helped it along a bit.  Lets say they noticed a finch one day (or engineered one) with a very distinctive mutation.  They could segregate that finch into a separate population (with a few girlfriends) and watch how the mutation lives/manifests down through the generations.  Would help answer the following questions for my great (x 50) grandchildren:
- How does a mutation, even a dramatic one, not get "squashed" or "diluted" by the rest of the gene pool?
- How do chromosome chains lengthen from one generation to the next?
- What is the probability that an extremely dramatic mutation (e.g., a child having more chromosomes, etc.) would be timed with a facilitating segregation event (e.g., enough separation to allow the mutation and a few girl/boyfriends) to have a critical mass of children and earn a "place at the table" as a new species?

[Tank]

Fortunately, we've already seen real, honest to goodness examples of evolution on the macro scale, such as in the change in the beaks of Galapagos finches

Will, Whitney, and Tank are moderators... more proof that selection is real! 

I hear what you guys are saying concerning selection having been observed within a given species to reflect selection pressures.  What's much more interesting to me is scientists observing a population of one species, day-in-day-out, year-in-year-out, and waking up one day to say... whoa mama, we've got another species here!  Expansion in the number of chromosomes would probably be the test for macroevolution in my book.

I'd even be interested in such an experiment if scientists helped it along a bit.  Lets say they noticed a finch one day (or engineered one) with a very distinctive mutation.  They could segregate that finch into a separate population (with a few girlfriends) and watch how the mutation lives/manifests down through the generations.  Would help answer the following questions for my great (x 50) grandchildren:
- How does a mutation, even a dramatic one, not get "squashed" or "diluted" by the rest of the gene pool?
- How do chromosome chains lengthen from one generation to the next?
- What is the probability that an extremely dramatic mutation (e.g., a child having more chromosomes, etc.) would be timed with a facilitating segregation event (e.g., enough separation to allow the mutation and a few girl/boyfriends) to have a critical mass of children and earn a "place at the table" as a new species?

And so would the reduction in the number of chromasomes, as observed in the great apes.

Ken Miller on Human Evolution

Ken Miller explains this very well and was one of the expert witnesses in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District where his testomony went unchallenged and helped to ensure that mythology was kept out of the science class room.

[Tank]

Ring Species: Unusual Demonstrations of Speciation

Ring species provide a unique glimpse into how some species came to be.

A ring of populations encircles an area of unsuitable habitat.
At one location in the ring, two distinct forms coexist without interbreeding.
Around the rest of the ring, the traits of one species change gradually through intermediate populations into the second species' traits.

[/size]

[bandit4god]

Quite familiar with Ken Miller's fused chromosome explanation.  What I'm positing in this thread is that it would be quite cool to actually observe one animal's chromosomal mutation become a species and how that actually happens.