You asked for a verified example, and I gave you one -- How about Homo erectus =====> Homo sapiens. Now you want it to have been observed and reproducible?
By your requirements, physical observation and reproducibility, pretty much nothing can be demonstrated. You are not doing science.
Do you believe in the global flood too?
"You asked for a verified example, and I gave you one -- How about Homo erectus =====> Homo sapiens. Now you want it to have been observed and reproducible?
By your requirements, physical observation and reproducibility, pretty much nothing can be demonstrated. You are not doing science."
"physical observation and reproducibility" are not my definition of science but the accepted definition of science.
from http://www.vetmed.wsu.edu/courses-jmgay/GlossScience.htm
Scientific Research: The systematic, controlled, empirical and critical investigation of hypothetical propositions about the presumed relations among natural phenomena (Kerlinger, 1964). The objective inquiry into natural phenomena using currently accepted investigation procedures, the immediate product of which is evidence, with the objective of discovering how that aspect of the physical world works. It is an empirical, conceptual system of learning about the physical world that organizes publicly observable facts and reasoning within a structure of theories and inferences. The methods of inquiry are constructed to minimize the effects of natural human biases in observation and interpretation. By convention, the evidence, the procedures used to acquire it, and subsequent interpretation is subjected to peer evaluation as a prelude to publication in the primary literature where it is publicly available for further scrutiny and use.
Scientific Knowledge: The current set of peer-evaluated consensus models about how natural phenomena work, which often differ between groups of researchers at the research frontier. These models are established by evidence obtained from critical scientific inquiry that has been subjected to peer evaluation and replication. All scientific knowledge contains varying degrees of uncertainty and is constantly at varying risk of being modified or discarded as the result of evidence from further inquiry. Models are disproved by multiple findings of discrepant evidence, which is often the result of improvements in measurement technology. Discrepant findings are weakened by failure of legitimate independent replication and are strengthened by their success. Many repeated studies of the same design and execution that result in the same evidence do not significantly increase the likelihood that the model of the phenomena is correct. Similarly, a belief is not strengthened (converted to knowledge) by the weight of the number of people who hold it.
Do you believe in the global flood too?
I don't know if there was a global one, but there are sure a lot of legends about one besides the Biblical story. There has been evidence of gigantic floods happening before, though, like in the Pacific Northwest and the Southwest US.
>>>You asked for a verified example, and I gave you one -- How about Homo erectus =====> Homo sapiens.<<<
LOL. You are some comedian!