How can scientists possibly know ... ?? An open exploration thread

[holdon]

In the first place, how do you know that you can't have a fractional charge? To us today, it's obvious that atoms are made of electrons around a nucleus, and thus it only "makes sense" that atoms can have say 1 electrons'worth or 2 electrons'worth of charge, but not say 1 and a half electrons'worth of charge.

What Milikan did was ionize oil droplets (in modern terms strip electrons away from them), and then measure their charge - which is a story in itself. He found that their values were quantized, and at regular intervals!

Think of it this way: suppose you stood outside a candy store and looked at how much people were being charged (what a pun. heh heh.) for the sweets they bought. You don't get to look inside the shopping bag, though! The first person's bill is $1.80. The next person's bill is $1.20. The next, $2.40. The next, $3.00. After a few hours you find that everybody's bill comes in multiples of $0.60. It's pretty obvious, then, that on that particular day the candy shop only sold things with discrete prices of $0.60 - nothing cost anything else, or else you would've gotten someone with a bill which didn't add up to a multiple of $0.60.

So in the same way, Milikan discovered quantization, and interpreted his results to mean that atoms gain or lose charge in terms of electrons being pasted on or peeled off, and they went on one at a time - you can't get half an electrons'worth of charge.

Now, how to measure the mass of an electron? Well, suppose you have an electric field in space. The amount of force an electron experiences depends on its charge. However, how much acceleration it experiences depends both on the force and on its mass! (All other things being equal, it takes a lot more force to push a truck than it takes to push a small car.) And since acceleration determines velocity, maybe we could measure the velocity of an electron accelerating in a known field, and then find out its charge - basically, find out how fast a given field makes an electron move; the bigger an electron's mass, the more "push" you need to get it to a certain velocity.

In normal life you measure velocity by setting a starting point and an ending point, and then seeing how much time it takes to get between them. However, I think electrons would zip by far too fast for that to work. Enter magnetism! The magnetic force on an electron depends on its charge and its velocity; in particular, if an electron traveling at some speed enters a uniform magnetic field, it ends up turning a corner, and the radius of that bend allows you to calculate its mass and velocity.

And so that's how. =)

And this is good example that science is mere deduction. You think the candy bar was $0.60, but who is to say whether not 2 candy bars were sold for 1? And that maybe one had nuts in it and the other raisins?
Or whether the supposed 1 charge or mass of the electron was not composed itself of subcomponents.
What I am trying to get at is this: we deduct certain theories from what we observe. Nothing wrong with that. But we have to bear in mind that they are just that: theories.
Theories cannot be proven, only falsified, as Karl Popper so rightly said.

And here is where oftentimes scientists go wrong: they claim it is so, because of multiple proofs and what not. Instead of that they should say: we think it so. Or otherwise: we believe it is so. And now we're almost back to religion.....

 

[Biblewriter]

The origin of species is untestable?

You mean that we can't observe new species arising?

You, sir, are mistaken.

In APA format,
de Wet, J. M. J. 1971. Polyploidy and evolution in plants. Taxon. 20:29-35.

Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.

Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499.

Karpchenko, G. D. 1927. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Bull. Appl. Botany. 17:305-408.


Karpchenko, G. D. 1928. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Z. Indukt. Abstami-a Verenbungsi. 48:1-85.

Rice, W. R. 1985. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evolution of reproductive isolation: an exploratory experiment. Evolution. 39:645-646.

Rice, W. R. and E. E. Hostert. 1993. Laboratory experiments on speciation: What have we learned in forty years? Evolution. 47:1637-1653.


Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.


Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.


are just a few of the scientific papers detailing the observation of new species of several types of plant and fruit fly.



A quick google search will bring up more.



Metherion

You are obviously knowledgeable in science, so you cannot be ignorant of the fact that to qualify as scientific, a test must have two essential components.

The first is controls. The test must be conducted in such a way as to preclude other possible causes from producing the expected result.

The second is repeatability. The test must produce the same result whenever and wherever it is performed, and by whomsoever.

If such tests have not been performed, a key element of the scientific method has been omitted. And such tests can not be performed on the origins of species.

 

[holdon]

Selection, polyploidy, and hybridization are mechanisms that bring about speciation. They are not alternatives to speciation.
Maybe you should read the articles?

Oh my goodness, the can of worms. Let me ask you this: what is a species?

 

[Mallon]

And this is good example that science is mere deduction. You think the candy bar was $0.60, but who is to say whether not 2 candy bars were sold for 1? And that maybe one had nuts in it and the other raisins?

Occam's razor.

If such tests have not been performed, a key element of the scientific method has been omitted. And such tests can not be performed on the origins of species.

Controls are a blessing, but they are not a necessity. Natural experiments (such as those in palaeontology, geology, astronomy, or ecology) are often without controls because not all variables can be accounted for. One way to account for a lack of controls, however, is to gather corroborating evidence from disparate fields of study and determine whether they agree. Such is the case with evolution.
More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment#Natural_experiments

Oh my goodness, the can of worms. Let me ask you this: what is a species?

That is one of the great questions of biology, and I doubt that I can answer it in a single post (if an answer even exists). Depending on which field you work on, biological and morphological species are probably the most common concepts.
Regardless, our inability to define "species" lends credence to the idea that evolution via speciation occurs. Take the following colour gradient, for example:

Where does green end and blue begin? It's difficult to draw a line because the colours are continuous, just as biological populations are. Throw the fossil record into the mix, and things become even more confusing, because taxa that appear distinct today are not readily distinguished the further you trace their ancestry back into the fossil record. And gene sequencing tells the same story.
The alternative to evolution is the idea that species, or certain higher order taxa, were created ex nihilo. I imagine if such were the case, identifying created "kinds" wouldn't such a problem for the baraminologists, who just can't seem to agree on where to draw their lines (except when it comes to humans, of course).

 

[holdon]

Occam's razor.

Occam's razor has never proved anything.

That is one of the great questions of biology, and I doubt that I can answer it in a single post (if an answer even exists). Depending on which field you work on, biological and morphological species are probably the most common concepts.
Regardless, our inability to define "species" lends credence to the idea that evolution via speciation occurs. Take the following colour gradient, for example:

Where does green end and blue begin? It's difficult to draw a line because the colours are continuous, just as biological populations are. Throw the fossil record into the mix, and things become even more confusing, because taxa that appear distinct today are not readily distinguished the further you trace their ancestry back into the fossil record. And gene sequencing tells the same story.
The alternative to evolution is the idea that species, or certain higher order taxa, were created ex nihilo. I imagine if such were the case, identifying created "kinds" wouldn't such a problem for the baraminologists, who just can't seem to agree on where to draw their lines (except when it comes to humans, of course).

Well, then we cannot talk about what constitutes "speciation" either. I thought so.
Selection has never brought roses to become tulips.
Polyploidization has never brought roses to another species.
Hybridization has never brought roses to become another species.

 

[Mallon]

Occam's razor has never proved anything.

I suppose not. Yet you rely on it every day. When you wake up in the morning and see snow on the ground, so you suppose that it snowed overnight, or do you give credence to the idea that a bunch of flying snow machines came and dumped snow on your lawn?

Well, then we cannot talk about what constitutes "speciation" either. I thought so.
Selection has never brought roses to become tulips.

Because evolution doesn't work that way. Dogs don't become cats, brothers don't become sisters, and roses don't become tulips. If you think otherwise, you have a seriously misguided understanding of evolution.

Polyploidization has never brought roses to another species.
Hybridization has never brought roses to become another species.

I noticed you left out selection.
Regardless, polyploidy and hybridization do lead to speciation. If you have no aversion to Wikipedia, I would direct you to the articles written here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Sympatric_.28non-geographic.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_speciation
and here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

You can keep saying "no" until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't actually change anything.

 

[holdon]

I suppose not. Yet you rely on it every day. When you wake up in the morning and see snow on the ground, so you suppose that it snowed overnight, or do you give credence to the idea that a bunch of flying snow machines came and dumped snow on your lawn?

Or I can simply believe it snowed overnight. What's wrong with that?

Because evolution doesn't work that way. Dogs don't become cats, brothers don't become sisters, and roses don't become tulips. If you think otherwise, you have a seriously misguided understanding of evolution.

Of course, now you're going to redefine evolution. Or at least you will have to define what you mean by it.

I noticed you left out selection.

No, it's right there....

Regardless, polyploidy and hybridization do lead to speciation.

How can you say that if you haven't or can't define what a species is? Not a very scientific process here....

 

[Mallon]

Or I can simply believe it snowed overnight. What's wrong with that?

Nothing is wrong with it! It's the simplest answer, and most likely, the correct one. That's Occam's razor!

Of course, now you're going to redefine evolution. Or at least you will have to define what you mean by it.

Not at all. I'm using the same definition accepted by scientists. You're the one implying that coeval species can mutate into one another (roses to tulips), which is not what the theory of evolution suggests.

No, it's right there.... How can you say that if you haven't or can't define what a species is? Not a very scientific process here....

As I said above, not all workers use the same species definition. Palaeontologists cannot make use of the biological species concept, for example, because they obviously cannot breed their fossils.
The many experiments we have cited in favour of speciation make use of the biological species concept.
Please, don't criticize the research before you understand it.

 

[holdon]

Nothing is wrong with it! It's the simplest answer, and most likely, the correct one. That's Occam's razor!

Like I said: it doesn't prove it..... But I believe it. Science is just like that: a belief.

Not at all. I'm using the same definition accepted by scientists.

I like the "I'am using the same as scientist". Are you in need of some credence?

You're the one implying that coeval species can mutate into one another (roses to tulips), which is not what the theory of evolution suggests.

No, I didn't say they can at all. What's wrong with your reading skills? And what exactly does the theory of evolution suggest?

As I said above, not all workers use the same species definition. Palaeontologists cannot make use of the biological species concept, for example, because they obviously cannot breed their fossils.
The many experiments we have cited in favour of speciation make use of the biological species concept.
Please, don't criticize the research before you understand it.

Define a species, and then maybe we can test the research against that....

 

[Biblewriter]

I suppose not. Yet you rely on it every day. When you wake up in the morning and see snow on the ground, so you suppose that it snowed overnight, or do you give credence to the idea that a bunch of flying snow machines came and dumped snow on your lawn?


Because evolution doesn't work that way. Dogs don't become cats, brothers don't become sisters, and roses don't become tulips. If you think otherwise, you have a seriously misguided understanding of evolution.


I noticed you left out selection.
Regardless, polyploidy and hybridization do lead to speciation. If you have no aversion to Wikipedia, I would direct you to the articles written here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Sympatric_.28non-geographic.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_speciation
and here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

You can keep saying "no" until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't actually change anything.

Your examples wholly fail to demonstrate your thesis.

Polyploidy is only an erroneous multiplication of existing genetic material, and hybridization is nothing more or less than selective breeding.

Like selection, neither of these is even a demonstration of a new species originating, much less a test. And selection most absolutely has nothing to do with the development of new genetic material. It is nothing more than the gradual dominance of the favored of two or more existing genetic alternatives.

The earliest "demonstration" of evolution in progress that I personally remember is a butterfly population in England. Supposedly, in earlier days the population was 90% white. But afterward, when the industrial revolution had turned the countryside black, that population was found to be 90% black.

But this demonstration wholly neglected that fact that the black variant already existed when the supposed demonstration began.

What was actually demonstrated, supposing the alleged facts were indeed correct, was nothing more than natural selection. But the evolutionists hailed it as a proof of evolution!

I have never seen even one supposed demonstration of evolution that was not based on the assumption that evolution was indeed a proven fact.

Earlier, you said,

Controls are a blessing, but they are not a necessity. Natural experiments (such as those in palaeontology, geology, astronomy, or ecology) are often without controls because not all variables can be accounted for. One way to account for a lack of controls, however, is to gather corroborating evidence from disparate fields of study and determine whether they agree. Such is the case with evolution.

Your assertion is really an admission that the scientific method cannot be applied to evolutionary theory. All of the fields you mentioned (even much of ecology) are connected with the false premise that evolution is science.

Corroborating evidence from disparate fields of study is helpful, if all such evidence is considered, but that is not science. But beyond that inconvenient truth, evidence that challenges the validity of evolution is systematically ignored. I well remember an article that was published in the (peer reviewed) Journal of Geology. The article was about human-like footprints that occurred in Cretaceous strata over a wide area in the eastern United States. The article ended with a statement to the effect that:

If man, or man's early ape ancestor, of that ape ancestor's early mammalian ancestor existed as far back as in the cretaceous period, then the whole science of geology is so completely wrong that all the geologists will resign their jobs and take up truck driving. Hence science rejects the conclusion that man made these footprints in the mud of the cretaceous period with his feet.

But such information is not only ignored, it is often actively suppressed. Adherents of evolutionary theory have gone so far as to go to court to prevent excavation (on private property) of fossil sites where such footprints have been observed.

Again you incorrectly asserted that biological populations are continuous. But an apparent continuum exists only in cases of variations that are caused by a number of genes. I remember in being taught (in a senior level heredity course) how to calculate the number of genes involved in population that shows an apparent gradient in some quality. I remember the method we were taught yeilded the conclusion that a total of ten genes was involved in the variation of skin color between a purebred negroid and a purebred caucasian.

But the obvious error in your assertion is that, although minor variations between members of a given species can be readily observed, the differences between species are not at all blurred, except when the concept of species is itself blurred to correspond more to race, as it exists in humans or breed, as it exists in domesticated animals.

In geology, we were taught that the geological record showed gradual changes. But upon examination of the data the same professors presented, it became obvious that the record actually showed a long series of stable ecosystems that suddenly appeared, flourished virtually unchanged for long periods of time, and then suddenly vanished, only to be suddenly replaced by a different stable ecosystem.

So the alleged continuum simply does not exist.

 

[gluadys]

And this is good example that science is mere deduction. You think the candy bar was $0.60, but who is to say whether not 2 candy bars were sold for 1? And that maybe one had nuts in it and the other raisins?

Doesn't change the math. If the shop was having a two for one sale, the unit of sale is 2 bars. Just like the unit for sale for a package of Lifesavers is the package, not the 8 candies in the package. The point is that the sale price per unit of sale is $0.60.

If someone had purchased one bar for $0.30 one of the sales slips would have shown a total such as $1.50 or $2.70 which is NOT a multiple of $0.60.

 

[gluadys]

Occam's razor has never proved anything.

Well, then we cannot talk about what constitutes "speciation" either. I thought so.
Selection has never brought roses to become tulips.

Of course not. In this context "rose" is not a species and neither is "tulip" In the Linnean classification these would be at least a family and possibly an order.

Polyploidization has never brought roses to another species.

But it has produced new species of roses.

Hybridization has never brought roses to become another species.

Probably because rose species can only hybridize with other rose species. I would not be surprised if a rose species has been produced by hybridization.



PS In the context above I am using the biological species definition. This means the defining limit of a species is reproductive isolation in natural conditions.

 

[gluadys]

Your examples wholly fail to demonstrate your thesis.

Polyploidy is only an erroneous multiplication of existing genetic material,

If the consequence is a viable population that is reproductively isolated from the parent population, then the erroneous multiplication of existing genetic material produced a new species. Polyploidy is the mechanism of speciation in this case.

and hybridization is nothing more or less than selective breeding.

Is it still selective breeding which it occurs in nature? And if the result is a viable population that is reproductively isolated from both parental populations, is that not speciation?

And selection most absolutely has nothing to do with the development of new genetic material. It is nothing more than the gradual dominance of the favored of two or more existing genetic alternatives.

Correct, but without it, there would be no adaptive change in a species.

The earliest "demonstration" of evolution in progress that I personally remember is a butterfly population in England. Supposedly, in earlier days the population was 90% white. But afterward, when the industrial revolution had turned the countryside black, that population was found to be 90% black.

It was a moth population and it effectively demonstrated bird predation as a mechanism of natural selection causing a characteristic of the species to change. This is an example of change in a species, but it was never promoted as an example of speciation.

But this demonstration wholly neglected that fact that the black variant already existed when the supposed demonstration began.

No, it didn't. As you just said, natural selection does not develop new genetic material. This was a study of natural selection, so of course the black variant was already in existence. It had to be in order to be selected.

What was actually demonstrated, supposing the alleged facts were indeed correct, was nothing more than natural selection. But the evolutionists hailed it as a proof of evolution!

It was both. It was evolution by natural selection. The predominant characteristic of the species did change.

Perhaps you are under the illusion that scientists only identify the process of evolution where there is a new species. Not so. Evolution occurs within species as well as producing speciation. It is about changing the characteristics of a species. Sometimes this results in speciation, but whether or not speciation occurs, it is still evolution.

I have never seen even one supposed demonstration of evolution that was not based on the assumption that evolution was indeed a proven fact.

No doubt because you are using a different definition of "evolution" that biologists use. They are quite right to call it evolution if it demonstrates what they define as evolution. A different definition, of course, requires a different type of demonstration.

So perhaps you need to lay out what you consider to be the salient characteristics of evolution. According to your concept of evolution, how would we know whether a population had evolved?

 

[holdon]

Doesn't change the math. If the shop was having a two for one sale, the unit of sale is 2 bars. Just like the unit for sale for a package of Lifesavers is the package, not the 8 candies in the package. The point is that the sale price per unit of sale is $0.60.

If someone had purchased one bar for $0.30 one of the sales slips would have shown a total such as $1.50 or $2.70 which is NOT a multiple of $0.60.

We know that nobody purchased anything less than $0.60. But we don't know what go delivered for the $0.60, because we could not look into everyone's bag. To conclude that 1 candybar = $0.60 is therefore possibly a faulty conclusion..... And if the unit of sale was 2 bars instead of 1, we don't know either.....

 

[holdon]

Of course not. In this context "rose" is not a species and neither is "tulip" In the Linnean classification these would be at least a family and possibly an order.

I guess you don't know much about the Linnean classification then. Because per that standard you're wrong.

But it has produced new species of roses.

Eh, I guess you mean new "subspecies"? Not a new species. What would you have called such a new species? Neither roses nor tulips.

Probably because rose species can only hybridize with other rose species.

Could that be clue of some kind?

I would not be surprised if a rose species has been produced by hybridization.

Not a new species. Perhaps you could call it a subspecies. Normally, we call that a new variety....

PS In the context above I am using the biological species definition. This means the defining limit of a species is reproductive isolation in natural conditions.

Ah, and thereby you're proven wrong in what you said above: the rose is a species.....

 

[holdon]

Is it still selective breeding which it occurs in nature? And if the result is a viable population that is reproductively isolated from both parental populations, is that not speciation?

No, it is not.

It was a moth population and it effectively demonstrated bird predation as a mechanism of natural selection causing a characteristic of the species to change. This is an example of change in a species, but it was never promoted as an example of speciation.

Because it was not "speciation". It was still the same moth species.

It was both. It was evolution by natural selection. The predominant characteristic of the species did change.

No, a certain selection of that species exhibited a certain characteristic. That's the correct way to put it.

Perhaps you are under the illusion that scientists only identify the process of evolution where there is a new species. Not so. Evolution occurs within species as well as producing speciation. It is about changing the characteristics of a species. Sometimes this results in speciation, but whether or not speciation occurs, it is still evolution.

Sometimes, the perceived change in certain characteristics within a species is called evolution. It is really "micro-evolution", but it is just a selection of the species with certain allel expressions. The species itself has not changed at all. This is what Darwin observed in bird populations. I have no problem with that.

But a change in a species so as to produce an entire new viable species is just unheard of. It doesn't exist. This "macro-evolution" would explain birds coming out of reptiles and such. It's a theory that to this day cannot be explained in any satisfactory manner. Let alone be proven.

 

[gluadys]

I guess you don't know much about the Linnean classification then. Because per that standard you're wrong.

Linnean classification:

rosids--sub-class of eudicotyledons (a class)
Rosales--order
Rosaceae--family
Rosa--genus

The NCBI taxonomy browser lists over 100 defined species of plant in the genus Rosa.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi

To see the list type Rosa in the search engine. Note that species are listed along the left margin and varieties and sub-species are in an indented list under the species they are varieties or sub-species of.

To see a list of tulip species type Tulipa in the search engine.

Eh, I guess you mean new "subspecies"?

No, I do not. By species I mean a population that is reproductively isolated from its ancestral population. Some species of polyploid roses exhibit this characteristic of reproductive isolation. Sub-species are only partially, at best, isolated from the rest of the species in terms of capacity to reproduce.

What would you have called such a new species? Neither roses nor tulips.

Actually tulips are monocotyledons, which puts them in an entirely different Linnean class than roses. A rose-tulip hybrid is as likely as one of a sparrow with a minnow.

Normally, we call that a new variety....

Both nature and breeders produce new varieties. Breeders have to take care that their varieties do not spontaneously hybridize because they are not reproductively isolated from others of the same species.

Hybridization occurs frequently and spontaneously between varieties. It occurs more rarely between closely related species. In one instance a botanist successfully produced a hybrid between species of a different genus.

Taxonomists and biologists do not normally call a population that has become reproductively isolated a "variety".

Ah, and thereby you're proven wrong in what you said above: the rose is a species.....

No. Rose is a genus comprising 100 or more species.

There is an international body charged with granting recognition to species and species' names. There is always discussion among taxonomists as to whether a certain group is really a species or only a sub-species. And there is also a recognized procedure for applying to have a suggested species officially recognized or to have one officially delisted.

I suggest the onus is on you to show that the species listed are not species, and should be delisted. Of course you would have to show which other species of rose they are a sub-species or variety of. Go to the International Association for Plant Taxonomy

http://www.bgbm.org/iapt/default.htm

and present your case for a change in botanical nomenclature.

 

[Biblewriter]

If the consequence is a viable population that is reproductively isolated from the parent population, then the erroneous multiplication of existing genetic material produced a new species. Polyploidy is the mechanism of speciation in this case.



Is it still selective breeding which it occurs in nature? And if the result is a viable population that is reproductively isolated from both parental populations, is that not speciation?



Correct, but without it, there would be no adaptive change in a species.



It was a moth population and it effectively demonstrated bird predation as a mechanism of natural selection causing a characteristic of the species to change. This is an example of change in a species, but it was never promoted as an example of speciation.



No, it didn't. As you just said, natural selection does not develop new genetic material. This was a study of natural selection, so of course the black variant was already in existence. It had to be in order to be selected.



It was both. It was evolution by natural selection. The predominant characteristic of the species did change.

Perhaps you are under the illusion that scientists only identify the process of evolution where there is a new species. Not so. Evolution occurs within species as well as producing speciation. It is about changing the characteristics of a species. Sometimes this results in speciation, but whether or not speciation occurs, it is still evolution.



No doubt because you are using a different definition of "evolution" that biologists use. They are quite right to call it evolution if it demonstrates what they define as evolution. A different definition, of course, requires a different type of demonstration.

So perhaps you need to lay out what you consider to be the salient characteristics of evolution. According to your concept of evolution, how would we know whether a population had evolved?

You have clearly demonstrated to all bystanders exactly what I have been talking about.

Evolutionists in recent years have re-defined the word "species" as you have used it here, because when used in this way, it is possible to demonstrate the rise of new "species."

But this definition totally breaks down if the isolated populations are again allowed to mix, for then the new "species" disappears.

And I maintain that a change in the predominant characteristic of a species is not evolution.

To validly demonstrate that evolution is physically possible, it would necessary to demonstrate a situation in which new genetic material began to exist, and that this material conferred a unequivocal benefit to those offspring that inherited it.

But to demonstrate that new genetic material began to exist, it would be necessary to prove that that genetic material was not in the population in the beginning.

This has not been done, because the overriding assumption that evolution is indeed factual makes almost everyone who calls themselves scientists to simply assume that new genetic material began to exist at every stage along the evolutionary trail.

 

[gluadys]

We know that nobody purchased anything less than $0.60.

Not only that. We also know that nobody purchased anything for $0.90 or $1.37 or any price that was not a multiple of $0.60.

But we don't know what go delivered for the $0.60, because we could not look into everyone's bag. To conclude that 1 candybar = $0.60 is therefore possibly a faulty conclusion....

That would be a faulty conclusion, but it is not the conclusion shernren was getting at. The correct conclusion is that all prices per sales unit were $0.60 or multiples of $0.60. Whether the sales unit was a single candy bar, a package of 8 toffee candies or a case of 100 Tic-Tacs is not relevant. Because there is no sales unit of one Tic-tac or one toffee in the package.

 

[gluadys]

No, it is not.

There were two questions here. Which one were you answering?

Because it was not "speciation". It was still the same moth species.

Good, we are agreed. No one ever claimed there was speciation in this case. What was claimed was evidence of evolution via natural selection. Natural selection was what they were looking for and what they found.

No, a certain selection of that species exhibited a certain characteristic.

And whether that certain portion of the species was 5% or 95% varied according to circumstances. It is the change in proportional size of the "certain selection" that defines evolution. What was shown was that natural selection was the reason for the proportional size of the group exhibiting the characteristic under study. Confirmation of natural selection was confirmation that evolution had occurred within the species.

Sometimes, the perceived change in certain characteristics within a species is called evolution. It is really "micro-evolution",

A meaningless distinction. Micro-evolution is evolution. Macro-evolution is a lot of evolution.

The species itself has not changed at all.

But yes, the species had changed. It changed from 5% black to 95% black. (And then back to 5% black when the pollution was cleaned up.) How can you say that is not a change?

But a change in a species so as to produce an entire new viable species is just unheard of.

Depends on your definition of species. When you lump a whole genus or even family together as one "species" because they share a common name, you will get a hard time showing speciation. Speciation doesn't happen at that level. It happens at the point of reproductive isolation between similar populations.