OooSnap said:
The evolution story goes something like this: life arose from goo and evolved to you by the way of the zoo.
Is there any empirical, observational documentation of an organism population evolving camouflage abilities on the fly like an Indonesian Mimic Octopus or Anole Lizard?
|
First of all, evolution says nothing about the origin of life. That's abiogenesis, a distinct concept from that of evolution.
Second, actual observation of population evolution has most certainly occurred. Usually in very-short-lived species, like Fruit Flies, for which many generations can pass in a relatively short time, or in species that have something new to adapt to relatively recently (like Apples in America).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
More generally, though, evolution isn't just scientific, it's practically tautological. That is, it's true by definition. We have observed every part of the process - we just haven't observed the whole process entirely, because it takes longer than a few years to happen. One example of evolution's processes work like this:
1. Species A moves into a new region. This new region has issues that weren't found in the previous region (such as less dark dirt and more light snow).
2. Those of Species A in the new region now have a problem - their current properties do not suit the new region (such as having dark skin or fur), and thus the species has more trouble there.
3. A few within the species find it easier due to small mutations within their DNA (mutations in DNA are very common, and well-known - Down Syndrome is a good example of one). This might, for instance, produce a version of Species A with lighter skin or fur.
4. Those with the mutation survive and prosper more easily, and thus pass their mutated DNA on to their offspring, who also benefit from the change.
5. Over a long period of time, those without the mutation reproduce much more slowly, and eventually die out entirely (or almost entirely). Species A has now become, say, Species A'.
6. A further issue arises for some within Species A', which causes a further mutation to improve reproductive ability. Steps 1-5 occur again, resulting in Species A''. By this point, Species A'' will find it more difficult to breed with Species A, because of increasing differences in DNA.
7. Repeated instances of steps 1-6 produce Species A''', A'''', and A''''', and so on. Eventually, one of the resulting species is incapable of breeding with the original Species A at all, because any resulting offspring will be non-viable. Further evolution then pushes the differences further, eventually making breeding impossible at all.
An example of species that are most of the way along this process are Horses and Donkeys. Horses and Donkeys have different numbers of chromosomes, but are capable of breeding. The resulting offspring is called a "Mule". Mules are viable as animals, but are nearly completely infertile - they're practically unable to then have offspring themselves. To give you a sense of how uncommon it is, there has been no observed instance of a fertile mule stallion, and just 60 documented cases of mule mares giving birth, with records going back to 1527.
Mathematical and statistical modelling combined with various empirical evidence suggests that the Horse and the Donkey share a common ancestor, roughly 4.5 million years ago. Also within this "Group" is the zebra, which can also breed with a horse or a donkey (producing a "Zebroid"), and the offspring is similarly sterile. Zebras have between 32 and 46 chromosomes (donkeys have 62, and horses have 64).
Many dog breeds are the result of artificial selection. But did you know that there are dog breeds that are incapable of breeding with each other? For instance, the beagle and the irish setter cannot breed with each other. Yet they can each breed with the same other types of dog - their DNA is just a little too distant from each other to produce viable offspring.
So yes, the evolution "story" is "really" scientific.