[Blood of Tyrants]

Name one successful random mutation that resulted in a new species that you can prove from accepted scientific observation practices. No, extinct animal A that is similar to living animal B proves nothing because no change was observed.

[PatrickHenry]

Name one successful random mutation that resulted in a new species that you can prove from accepted scientific observation practices. No, extinct animal A that is similar to living animal B proves nothing because no change was observed.

If you were provided with information showing exactly this [observed speciation], would it change your mind in the slightest?

[xm177e2]

Name one successful random mutation that resulted in a new species

You know I can't do that. That is why this recent discovery is so important--because it brings us one step closer to proving this piece of the puzzle.

There is no way with current technology that we could collect enough data on enough living creatures for a long enough time period to watch this process occur completely in the wild. The scientists have merely kickstarted the process.

What you are asking is also unreasonable because one mutation by itself will almost never cause one species to split in two. If you read the article, you'll see that this one important mutation has a trigger effect, causing two distinct subgroups of the species to form and isolate themselves from each other. Over time, as they accumulate more mutations, and the idea is that after numerous mutations they will eventually become incompatible and hence will be considered to be two distinct species.

[Virginia-American]

Name one successful random mutation that resulted in a new species that you can prove from accepted scientific observation practices.

One of my favorite examples is Nylon-eating bacteria. Of course, it's not the same definition of species as applies to a eukaryote, but you have to admit, it's certainly a new biochemical pathway, and also that it would be a fatal mutation in a nylon-free environment (eg the Earth prior to the 1930s)

I have a question for you: why would you expect *one* mutation to cause speciation? Isn't it a gradual process, as the percentage of viable, fertile offspring decreases? How many mutations separate donkeys from horses? Greate Danes from chihuahuas?

An interesting almost-example involoves the rh blood factor. If the mother is rh-negative and the baby is rh-positive, and any fetal blood mixes with the mother's, she produces antibodies to it. A subsequent pregnancy with an rh-positive baby will very often result in a miscarriage. If this were symmetrical (ie an rh-positive woman carrying an rh-negative baby...) and *always* resulted in a miscarriage, the rh+ and rh- populations would be different species. (The Basques have the highest rh-negative rate in the world. I wonder if this has helped them remain a distinct population?)