Let me clarify, and please allow me to step away from "macro" and "micro" since those terms may have baggage.
In a lot of discussions about ToE, someone will bring up an experiment in which a population of fruit flies was created to all have a specific trait. The starting population did not have that trait, but the current population certainly does. Voila! Evolution confirmed in the lab!
I was merely trying to point out that a new specicies is not described in the above paragraph. The Origin of Species is not of great interest if it discusses red hair or blue eyes (allele variation within a population, I believe is the term).
The real meat of ToE is when one species gives rise to a new species which can no longer interbreed with the original species. Ring species are of interest here.
But to reiterate the point I was trying to make. In a lab, a chemist can absolutely substantiate Avogadro's law. As often as you like. But a biologist cannot great a new species, and thereby substantiate ToE in a controlled laboratory setting.
Substantiating ToE cannot be done in the same way as the laws of physics of chemistry can be substantiated.
Substantiating ToE cannot be done in the same way as the laws of physics of chemistry can be substantiated.
That is true. "Controlled laboratory settings" are not the only way good data can be collected, though. No one has produced a hurricane or earthquake in a "controlled laboratory setting" either, but meteorological and geological theories depend upon their observation.
Why is substantiating ToE science but falsifying it not science? Or if falsifying is science too, maybe that's all the ID folks have to work with at this time that might be capable of producing something irrefutable. The problem is though that scientists tend to just ignore things that don't jibe with their prejudices or are embarrasing to their prejudices.
What those experiments showed was not that a new species would result but that small changes in a gene can produce large changes in morphology. Because most morphological changes from small gene changes are imperceptible, they ended up creating larger genetic changes to enable them to observe larger saltative morphological changes. Although speciation is generally considered to be a cessation in gene flow between two groups, had the individual flies survived, we would have considered those with four wings instead of two to be a different species, simply based on morphology.
"I was merely trying to point out that a new specicies is not described in the above paragraph. The Origin of Species is not of great interest if it discusses red hair or blue eyes (allele variation within a population, I believe is the term).
"The real meat of ToE is when one species gives rise to a new species which can no longer interbreed with the original species. Ring species are of interest here.
The problem with these arguments is the difference between the creationist definition of a species and the scientific definition of species. A good working definition is the cessation of gene flow. This stoppage of gene flow does not necessarily have to be a physical inability to have fertile offspring but can be where two populations for some other reason, simply do not interbreed.
This is seen in a number of ring species where two subspecies share the same geographical region and could produce fertile offspring but do not interbreed. A good example of this is the Asian Greenish Warbler where the two subspecies farthest from the origin could genetically have fertile offspring but do not recognize each other as members of the same breeding group. Their markings and songs are just too different.
"But to reiterate the point I was trying to make. In a lab, a chemist can absolutely substantiate Avogadro's law. As often as you like. But a biologist cannot great a new species, and thereby substantiate ToE in a controlled laboratory setting.
If plants are considered (as they should be) speciation has occurred in the lab, more than once. PatrickHenry's 'List-O-Links' has some good links to examples of this.
"Substantiating ToE cannot be done in the same way as the laws of physics of chemistry can be substantiated.
They can if you use the definition of species that science uses rather than the unrealistic definition creationists use.