xcept wrote:Not only could Darwin not cite a single example of a new species originating, but neither has anyone else, in all the subsequent century of evolutionary study. No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has gotten near it.
Well, your sentence does not make sense at all. What Darwin did or did not cite as an example is irrelevant to modern day biology (although he did cite the tortoiuses of the Gallopose Islands, which makes your statement false).
And yes, many species have been shown to be produced by the mechanism of natural selection. Here is a short list of them from
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Example one:
Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.
(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)
Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.
Example two:
Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you suggested.)
(Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original stock.)
Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719
Example three:
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)
Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
Example four:
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.
(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)
Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348
Evolutionists commonly protest that they know evolution is true, but they can't seem to determine its mechanism.
Descent with modification (also known as mutation and genetic drift) followed by a filter of natural selection. That is the mechanism. Are you finished telling Biologists
what they don't know, when in fact they do?
As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record, persist for some millions of years virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly. As a result, many modern evolutionists agree with the following assessment. In any case, no real evolutionist . . . uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation. No Order in the Fossils Not only are there no true transitional forms in the fossils; there is not even any general evidence of evolutionary progression in the actual fossil sequences.
Please show the source and the relevance of this claim, as well as your particular interpretation of this evidence.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
