First. I am calling for a single empirical study that reflects evolution via the creation of a new feature, not contained in the original genome, that is beneficial to the selection of the organism. This needs to be empirical in the sense that it is measurable in real time with ordinary instrumentation, it is coherent in its results, it is replicated, and it is falsifiable. Also, it needs to be in the public domain – I won’t pay to see it.
This eliminates inferential and extrapolatory conjectures. It eliminates ideological rationalization. It eliminates axiomatic crashing.
Second. I am calling for a single, reputable, credible source that shows that change to a genome is not required in order to produce new features that are not in that genome, or if you will, DNA change (mutation) is not required. I am asking for validating empirical data here, not just a statement such as "evolution doesn't happen to individuals, it happens to populations" or variations thereof.
Third. I repeat, a single (just one) instance. Not a raft of reading; not a link to gazillions of papers. Just one, single, irrefutable, replicated, falsifiable empirical study.
Now, there are also some types of studies that I no longer care to see. One of those categories is that of “ring species”, which I will discuss here:
When a species finds itself divided so that one part is geographically isolated from, or even adjacent to, another part, it is thought that the species are free to evolve away from each other, and become “speciated”. Many define speciation as having happened if the two populations no longer breed together, for whatever reason.
If one is to think of this in a logical format, perhaps we can use set theory.
If we allow that the original population, P, is divided into two separate populations, P(1) and P(a), then first we can say that P(1) and P(a) are part of P, but not part of each other:
Let I(a) = Individual in P(a), and I(1) is an individual in P(1).
If I(a) is P(a)
P(a) is P,
Then I(a) is P.
Now if the process repeats, so that P(a) separates into P(a0) and P(b), the relationship similarly becomes,
If I(b) is P(a)
P(a) is P,
I(b) is P.
This process continues for all parts of P(a –> infinity), as well as for P(1 –> infinity).
The only way to leave P is to develop characteristics that are outside of P: i.e., to mutate.
However it is possible for P(ax) not to be able to breed with P(1x). This is the “big dog-little dog” issue: a Great Dane and a “teacup Chihuahua” will not breed. But if the separation process is reversed, subsequent progeny could reproduce, since there has been no DNA change in this process to prevent it. As little dog progeny get bigger and big dog progeny get smaller, eventually breeding will again be possible. Speciation outside the species has not really occurred, because no DNA change has occurred that would produce new characteristics.
Conclusion: Ring populations do not validate evolution; failure to reproduce does not validate evolution. DNA changes that incorporate new beneficial features (mutations) that are selected for adaptation are required to validate evolution.
Another category I have had enough of is subspeciation:
Subspeciation:This is just another form of the ring species argument above: variability within a genome; “big dog-little dog”.
And another category I won’t look at is anything to do with archaeo-biology, which is purely inferential and without hope of any empirical proof of conjecture.
Also, four winged fruit fly types of negative mutations.
However, viral introgressions might be interesting.
Finally, please do send me real empirical validation of evolution it you find it.