There is lots of evidence in chromosome number changes, mostly duplications. Many grasses that we use as crops, such as wheat, have multiple genome copies and thus a much higher number of chromosomes.
Can you name a single animal species whose speciation-by-random-mutation we have witnessed?
Claiming that the science is bad because the time scales are large is to discount any hypotheses on large time scales. That blows away nearly all of astronomy and huge potions of geology. That's ridiculous. We can clearly learn about things that have happened in the past by piecing together the mountains of evidence that are available.
The even bigger problem is to, despite that, make them into de-facto doctrinal tenants such that any critic is automatically labelled a pseudo-scientific nutcase.
The additional problem with the hypothesis at hand (speciation-by-random-mutation) is that it has never been observed and thus confirmed.
Now what I just stated are simple objective facts that nobody who understands reasoning from first principles AND is academically honest should have any qualms with.
I hope you don't think that was some kind of genius gotcha question on your part ...
The same reasoning against Evolution, can be used for Plate Tectonics. So the question is valid, why do you believe one and not the other?
Many in this thread are creationist that believe the world was created 6000 years ago. The argument that at that time god kicked off Evolution and Plate Tectonics at same time. The arguments are valid for both.
But of course at the point you are using mysticism to just make up creation myths, of course you could reason about anything.
A good hypothesis has to be falsifiable and make new testable predictions but does not have to be directly observed in its entirety to be replaced or supported by new evidence. Taking plate tectonics again as an example it's relatively new but predicted all sorts of testable things in regards to earthquakes, deposits, volcanos, and current movement that have all matched better than any other proposed explanation predicts. If a set of new predictions by an alternate theory is found that predicts not only these findings but different ones plate tectonics does not then plate tectonics would be falsified and thrown to the side.
Fully agreed.
> A good hypothesis has to be falsifiable
Yes exactly which is what I'm saying. Speciation-by-random-mutation is in my understanding not a falsifiable hypothesis, or do I see that wrong in your view and why?
- Show the average mutation rate the theory claimed is not as high as was needed to drive the amount of speciation we see (this particular experiment could have added data against that instead of in support of it).
- Show that the rate of needed mutation rate to see the observed speciation amount would drive too much detriment for "workable" mutations to propagate. I.e. "if you need x mutations per generation to get y useful ones and we've seen at least z of y then the amount of bad x mutations would have overwhelmed the population".
- Run these types of long run experiments several times with animals with extremely low lifespans (i.e. days like fruit flies) and show the population's DNA is extremely stable over many years with no mutations occuring, casting doubt into the assumption mutations are occuring often enough to drive changes needed for speciation to occur so often. You'd also have to convincingly explain why the error has been in most all of the previous experiments rather than yours e.g. some listed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratory_experiments_of_spec...
- Find significant quantities of speciation which don't appear to be well explained by speciation-by-random-mutation and propose a different testable and falsifiable theory which explains not only those better but the others just as well as speciation-by-random-mutation did.
- And of course, the Bingo "free space": reproducibly demonstrate alternative means of speciation directly.
Really you can bundle "experiments attempting to support the speciation-by-random-mutation concept" (of which we've attempted many) into the same bucket as "experiments attempting to falsify the speciation-by-random-mutation concept". The only difference between which bucket they end up in is whether the outcome of the experiment agreed with the current theory or not.
Ring species are an excellent way to show how speciation occurs. It’s not a cow giving birth to a chicken. It’s a series of biologically compatible sub-species where the start and end are no longer compatible.
You want the impossible so you never have to confront the fact that you’re wrong. It’s a wholly incurious attitude and really should be a hard line on a site that purports to be about intellectual curiosity.
> ... incurious attitude and really should be a hard line on [HN]
Weak. You can't answer the question. Just like nobody can tell me how speciation-by-random-mutation is supposedly a valid, falsifiable hypothesis.
But the intellectual that you are , you don't say "hmm interesting points you raise there", but rather demand censoring the critic.
Weak way to intellectually throw in the towel.
---
Reg. ring species: Wikipedia tells you why they don't qualify:
> However, it is unclear whether any of the examples of ring species cited by scientists actually permit gene flow from end to end, with many being debated and contested. ...
> Many examples have been documented in nature. Debate exists concerning much of the research, with some authors citing evidence against their existence entirely.
I don't say "hmmm interesting points you raise there" because you don't raise any interesting points. Instead you retread the same tired arguments Creationists trot out despite being answered years ago.
Why does the lack of gene flow from end to end disqualify them. Just because genes from A can never make it to F, doesn't mean anything.
And your second quote is filled with weasel words. Not to mention, the following statements are pretty much "and here's a list of them".
How did you infer that? I specifically said in another comment that I'm not negating evolution, just the part about speciation-by-random-mutation.
> Why does the lack of gene flow from end to end disqualify them
This has to do with the technicalities of ring species. I recommend this article by an evolutionist himself, which explains it extremely well: https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2014/07/16/there-are-no-ring-...
In short, the hypothesized ring species don't solve the issue I raised because, let me quote that article:
> The authors [...] found, contrary to previous information, that there are indeed some hybrids (fertile ones, since they backcross) produced where the ring closes at the top, so they aren’t really acting like full biological species.
So we cannot be certain that where the ring closes, inter-breeding is impossible, because it has been shown to occur. Further:
> In the end, the authors conclude [...]: there are no good examples of ring species in nature
It was an interesting point about ring species that you raised however, and I learned something myself. So thanks.
So do you agree that species change by evolution, e.g. selection acting on random mutations?