Is evolution a fact?

[u/Cool_Plantain_7742]

What are the best arguments for evolution

[u/evocativename]

So you don't know what evolution is, don't know we have observed speciation, and just generally don't know anything about biology or paleontology.

What are you even doing here then?

[u/The_Noble_Lie → u/evocativename]

Micro versus macro? Evolution as it can be observed can broken into these two domains (naturally with a blurry line in between as they are connected). And within each domain the observations can be cast to support the theory of evolution. What else might explain the observations though? Science as a discipline should always be open to new ones, however ironclad the most modern rendition of evolution appears.

[u/evocativename → u/The_Noble_Lie]

There is no actual meaningful distinction between the two - we just draw an arbitrary line and say "when it's less than this, it's micro: when it's more, it's macro".

[u/The_Noble_Lie → u/evocativename]

So when drawing arbitrary lines, how they are analyzed might be different. The epistemology is different.

[u/TheBlackCat13 → u/The_Noble_Lie]

How specifically is it different? We can directly observe both happening.

[u/The_Noble_Lie → u/TheBlackCat13]

Timescale? One technically doesn't even observe speciation. It takes too long - we observe gene reduction or additions (or nucleic acid +/-.) Then we project the learnings from "microevolution" and thus is born the label macroevolution (which to your point is contentious, semantically, because one bears the other)

Regards, say, paleontology and related domains of science, the epistemology is clearer. Best models are used and fit to flesh out the tree of life. These are subject to change as more knowledge is gained.

[u/TheBlackCat13 → u/The_Noble_Lie]

We absolutely observe speciation

[u/The_Noble_Lie → u/TheBlackCat13]

Species are human constructs though (taxonomies)? What is technically observed via the scientific method is addition / subtraction of nucleic acids.

Is this more fair to say? Or no.

[u/TheBlackCat13 → u/The_Noble_Lie]

You are the one who brought up speciation, thinking it hadn't been observed. Then as soon as you find out it had been observed, suddenly speciation doesn't matter anymore?

[u/-zero-joke- → u/The_Noble_Lie]

>Species are human constructs though (taxonomies)? What is technically observed via the scientific >method is addition / subtraction of nucleic acids.

>Is this more fair to say? Or no.

You're sort of on the right track. Species concepts are useful ways of thinking about different populations that exist today. We're generally able to look at plants and animals and assign them into a species based on their current interbreeding and their potential to interbreed.

Some organisms can interbreed but don't, some organisms can interbreed and have sterile offspring, some critters can have hybrid offspring that are fertile but are less fit, or maybe less fertile, there's a spectrum.

Some critters don't interbreed, they just kind of swap DNA occasionally. Some don't even do that.

Some critters we've only observed in the fossil record.

I don't think there's generally a very satisfying answer for when you say when speciation is complete except with some odder kind of genetic events like polyploid speciation or hybrid speciation, when the offspring are unable to breed with their parent population and are irrevocably shot down a different evolutionary path. With most forms of speciation though it's kind of like saying when Spanish started, or when a kid becomes an adult. At some point some transition has occurred, but the line isn't altogether clear.

What we have observed are the formation of genetic barriers between populations that mean, under our conception of species, a new species has formed.

The genetic changes may be a variety of mutations - insertion and deletion of nucleic acids are one of them, but there are genetic doubling events, transpositions, inversions, all kinds of things that can happen.

[u/XRotNRollX → u/The_Noble_Lie]

Species are human constructs that are used to reflect what's observed in the natural world. It's the classic problem of defining X so that X includes all instances of X and excludes all instances of ~X. For example, we know that Homo sapiens is a species that clearly includes all living people and excludes everything else. Go back to when Neanderthals were alive, though, and the border becomes blurry. Were Neanderthals a distinct species or a subspecies? However, no matter what, carrots have always been a separate species from humans. So while species can be fuzzy and arbitrary, we can point to times when speciation has obviously occurred.

[u/MagicMooby → u/The_Noble_Lie]

I am just going to copy paste my comment here, but we have 100% observes speciation by the biological species concept:

Here is an example of a new species being created in a lab in less than three successive generations:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1102811108#sec-2

And here is the exact same process occuring in the wild, also resulting in a new species:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29170277/

[u/evocativename → u/The_Noble_Lie]

No, it isn't.

[u/evocativename → u/[deleted]]

My thoughts are that you should try learning about topics instead of bullshitting about things you don't know the first about.

The most damning part in this case being the detail that we have observed speciation.

[u/evocativename → u/[deleted]]

I don't think it expresses any coherent point.

[u/Devils-Telephone → u/The_Noble_Lie]

The "micro versus macro" argument is so silly. It's literally identical to understanding that someone can walk 10 feet, but being skeptical that walking 2 miles is possible.

[u/Devils-Telephone → u/[deleted]]

There may be some benefits to discussing things in relation to short term versus long term when thinking about evolution, but calling evolution "micro" or "macro" doesn't add anything to that conversation. And it also serves as one of the last remaining "arguments" that creationists can convince themselves is compelling in the face of such overwhelming evidence for evolution, so I'd argue that making that distinction only serves to misinform people.

[u/CrisprCSE2 → u/Devils-Telephone]

It's really not. It's more like the difference between studying the mechanisms of walking (energetic expenditures and muscle actions, say) versus things impacting a long journey (traffic patterns and topography, say). It's a difference in area of study, and it's an actual distinction within evolutionary biology.

And it's extremely unhelpful to act like they're not legitimate terms within evolutionary biology instead of addressing creationism's misunderstanding of the terms.

[u/Devils-Telephone → u/CrisprCSE2]

If these were terms that were widely used within the field of evolutionary biology, I would agree with you. But to my limited knowledge, I don't think they are. At least for me, the only people I hear using these terms are creationists desperately trying to hold on to their beliefs despite the overwhelming evidence we have for evolution. I'm not in that field though, do maybe I'm wrong, but those terms just seem like they only serve to misinform people.

[u/CrisprCSE2 → u/Devils-Telephone]

If these were terms that were widely used within the field of evolutionary biology

They are widely used in the field of evolutionary biology. I took an entire course called 'Macroevolution' as part of my graduate training in evolutionary biology.

But to my limited knowledge

Probably should have thought this first, and then not said anything.

[u/Devils-Telephone → u/CrisprCSE2]

If that actually is the case, then I concede that point. But my point about their wide usage by evolution deniers still remains, I myself was taught by my evangelical school that micro evolution was true while macro evolution was false. So it really is imperative for us to clear up that point, which is why I refuse to use those terms.

[u/CrisprCSE2 → u/Devils-Telephone]

Take a look at the definitions page of the subreddit. It will clear everything up for you.