[Carling]

If evolution is such a lock, why is it that there is not one documented instance in the past 200 years of a member of one species giving birth to a completely new species with a different genetic code?

Not once has that happened. Color variations within the same species has been documented, but genetic alteration to the point of declaring a new species. NEVER.

My personal thoughts on this aside, how can anyone lend credence to calling evolution fact when the theory cannot be proved even in a controlled lab environment?

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

A Review of The Design Revolution by William Dembski

[StJacques]

"If evolution is such a lock, why is it that there is not one documented instance in the past 200 years of a member of one species giving birth to a completely new species with a different genetic code?"

As estimated by evolutionary biologists, the development of a new species must take at least thousands of years for a sufficient number of mutations to alter the genetic code sufficiently to identify a new species.

So the real question is not "why is it that there is not one documented instance in the past 200 years of a member of one species giving birth to a completely new species with a different genetic code?" but rather "do we have documented instances of mutations across a variety of living species that are sufficient to establish a factual basis that, given the postulated length of time required to form a new species, evolutionary development is plausible?" And the answer to the second question is a resounding "yes."

[Texas Songwriter]

you are correct sir.

[Military family member]

Could it be that it takes longer than 200 years to produce a new species? We're talking life on a pretty grand scale here, unless we want to claim that the word was created about 6,000 to 9,000 years ago, or whatever Bishop Usher claimed.

[ThinkPlease]

If evolution is such a lock, why is it that there is not one documented instance in the past 200 years of a member of one species giving birth to a completely new species with a different genetic code?

Not true. There are many different instances of speciation: The Scientific Case for Common Descent"

Pay close attention to Section 5 part 6. There are plenty of examples right there, with more not listed.

[NJ_gent]

"If evolution is such a lock, why is it that there is not one documented instance in the past 200 years of a member of one species giving birth to a completely new species with a different genetic code?"

The question is oversimplified to fit an agenda. Evolution doesn't make the claim that one species all of a sudden sees its DNA altered within a generation to form an entirely new species. That's actually absurd. What evolution does is take what we already know about genetic variation, applies a little common sense to it, and then looks at the consequences of the result over a long-term period.

There are genetic differences between your parents and you. That does not make you a new species. Imagine for a moment, though, that you and a friend move to isolated spots on the planet. Let's assume you live in northern Canada, while your friend lives in central Africa. Assuming you remain completely isolated from each other, as do all those around you, your offspring over the next several dozen generations will begin to show signs of divergent evolution. Your group, living in a very cold place, sees those whose genes manifest poor homeothermic characteristics die off before they can pass those genes on to the next generation. Your friend's group, living in a more hospitable environment, does not lose those type of individuals. His group, however, will tend to see slower moving people picked off by predators often before they can pass on their genes to future generations. So we see two forces at work: the genetic variation/mutation/differentiation inherent to all known lifeforms, and the elimination of the genetic traits unsuitable for the differing environments.

What evolution tells us is that if you continue along this path for a sufficient amount of time (on the order of a few million years), you will reach a point where genetic variation and differentiation has created a difference between the two groups so great on a genetic level that they can no longer interbreed and produce viable offspring. It is the projection out to a few million years that tends to create the doubters. Few who've studied genetics doubt genetic variation/differentiation/mutation, and it's difficult to doubt the obiousness of the truth that those not fit to survive in an environment will not survive in that environment.

"My personal thoughts on this aside, how can anyone lend credence to calling evolution fact"

In my opinion, anyone who claims Evolution is a fact is just as silly as someone who claims it's entirely myth. It's a theory in progress which explains, with a high degree of accuracy, much of what we see around us in terms of differences between species, and in terms of the differences between modern and pre-historic species.

"when the theory cannot be proved even in a controlled lab environment?"

The driving principles of evolution have been shown in a lab, most dramatically using bacteria cultures which are exposed to various toxins. If you want another example, ask the people who make RAID why it is that they constantly have to develop new formulas for their bug-killing products. They'll tell you that when you've killed the 99% of bugs in your home as promised on the can, that 1% repopulates and is immune to the old stuff. (That's a partial simplification, but the principle holds true).

[Ichneumon]

If evolution is such a lock, why is it that there is not one documented instance in the past 200 years of a member of one species giving birth to a completely new species with a different genetic code?

Please define "completely new species", and "different genetic code" as you are using them in this sentence.

Depending on your choices for those terms, the answer is either a) there *have* been documented instances, or b) you're asking for too much in too short a time -- like asking why we haven't seen any new mountain ranges arise in the past 200 years, if plate tectonics is correct.

Not once has that happened.

See above. The amount of species change one could reasonably expect to see within 200 years HAS been observed, many times.

Color variations within the same species has been documented,

...and much more...

but genetic alteration to the point of declaring a new species. NEVER.

Again, as long as you're not going to insist on gigantic amounts of accumulated change, new species *HAVE* been observed to arise. See for example: Observed Instances of Speciation and Some More Observed Speciation Events

And if you're willing to relax your "200 years" window a bit, in the past few thousand years "completely new" species of animals and plants have arisen under human observation, including for example domestic dogs from grey wolves (and while they're still canids, dogs are *not* still wolves), new species of foodplants from their ancestral species (many of which most people would never imagine were related -- modern corn is descended from a grass-like plant, for example), and so on.

My personal thoughts on this aside, how can anyone lend credence to calling evolution fact when the theory cannot be proved even in a controlled lab environment?

Actually, countless aspects of evolutionary theory *have* been "proven in a controlled lab environment", countless times. Who lied to you and told you that it hadn't been?

Furthermore, there are vast numbers of observations and evidences which confirm evolution outside "the lab". Whoever told you that the only "real" scientific verification can occur in a "lab" was misleading you on that point as well.