Evolutionists, can you give JUST ONE example of observable evidence that shows a change of animal class?

Question

http://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=Rjz-33M-bt8

Last time I asked this question I got 32 answers and not ONE example was given. I am asking for ONLY ONE example of a change of animal class that is observable and doesnt require FAITH. Please. JUST ONE

Answer 1

Are you a catholic? Are you aware that the Holy See considers evolution to be a fact?



The changes you wish to find examples of take place over a much too long period of time for us to observe. If we started observing now, it would take millions of years before a dog changes into another "class" (what does class even mean? how do you define class?) of animal. However, in the geologically and evolutionary brief period of time that humans coexisted with wolves, we have successfuly turned them into pugs and chihuahuas.

We have also managed to get speciation to appear in isolated populations of fruit flies - that is, we start with the same species of fly and end up with two distinct species - which means they cannot breed with eachother to produce fertile offsprings.. That is the definition of a species, as all members of the same species can mate and produce offsprings that will also be able to reproduce.

By the way, even with all the dramatic differences between chihuahuas and wolves (and I'm sure you'll agree there are plenty), they are still the same species. Theoretically, a wolf and a chihuahua can mate and produce a wolf-chihuahua hybrid, which will also be able to reproduce.



The real question you should be asking is why some people would try so hard to disprove evolution. I mean, couldn't an all powerful God also account for that?...

Historically, whenever science has proven God or the Church did not have the correct answer for something, there was a big outcry, sometimes people were burned at the stake and subjected to torture, but at the end, science prevailed, because it is the single best tool we have to reliable solve problems and reach an understanding of how the world around us works.

In the words of Ferdinand Magellan:

"The Church says that the Earth is flat, but I know that it is round. For I have seen the shadow of the earth on the moon and I have more faith in the Shadow than in the Church."



Do some research that doesn't include people who's agenda is to sell you a religion so you can pay tribute to the Church and make them even richer.

Answer 2

That is unlikely to have occurred within the time-frame that humans have existed. There are only 36 phylum and while most have at least one or two classes (and some may have as many as six classes) there are in total only about 108 classes of animalia. A new class branching out of an existing phylum is fairly major change and does not happen often.



In fact if you are talking about just classes of vertebrates (chordate animals with backbones) there are only eight classes, and of which only seven extant classes remain which are known to us (Agnatha, Chondrichthyes, Osteichthyes, Amphibia, Reptilia, Aves, Mammalia.) There was at one time also a extinct class of jawed fishes called Placoderms, but I would assume that you would count an extinct class among the eight classes of vertebrates which have ever existed.



That having been established -- even if we found a new class we would not be able to say with complete confidence we were certain that a new class did not pre-exist it's discovery by science. This has even happened, off the coast of Southeast Australia - where an entirely new *genus* has been encountered;



http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0102976#s4



It is currently thought that it must have simply been undetected by mankind until now, but it has been suggested during review that Dendrogramma *could* represent a new non-bilaterian phylum. Currently the scientific journals have not recognized such a high-level taxon for the time being, and are awaiting new data to resolve the matter.

Answer 3

Sure: But your question is flawed, if you mean "CLASS" as discussed below.



There has been a British couple on one isolated island in the Galapagos islands for more than 20 years, with the support of Ecuador, who have witnessed changed in birds..... several species of Darwin finches.



In times of plenty, birds of some of these species will have hatchlings that are hatched with both relatively slender bills for that species, as well as those with a bit thicker and stronger bills for that species.



(ClASSES showing change occur over way longer period of time that humans have years to observe... that is if you are meaning Kingdom, Phylum CLASS, Order, Family, Genus and Species.



For some CLASS to actually emerge before our eyes isn't possible.)



Back to evidence of mutation, which can be observed..... When times get tough, with little rain, and only plants with really hard seeds survive, those with thin bills die of starvation, and all one sees are this particular species with only thicker bills. When good times return, all hatchlings survive.



Another mutation that is common in animals is called "sport"..... one that is far superior than its parents.



Such a "sport" (Google the word) was Justin Morgan, the horse that was the founding sire of the Morgan breed of horse. He wasn't a big horse, but he could pull a plow all day, and then run match races all evening!!!! He had endurance beyond any other horse. And interestingly, Morgan horses are almost always his color, bay, today, and since he time... in the 1700's.... and all have his same head and neck configuration....subtle if you know nothing about horse breeds, obvious, if you are a horse show judge.



So you answer your question, No new CLASS of animal will ever occur during the time that any human could observe it. It takes a long time for a CLASS to emerge, and it occurs only if species of animals get separated...say by an eruption of a mountain range or a "sky island" where animals are trapped and cannot get down to the base of a mountain to then get back up into a new mountain top area. (Google sky islands). Just recently in the Catalina Mountains near Tucson, AZ, was found a new scorpion that existed only on this one mountain top, and no where else.... and example of a SPECIES, not a CLASS, that is distinct enough to have its own name. It likely could interbreed with other scorpions in that area, but only on this one mountain top was this particular scorpion.



Hopefully you see that no butterfly could before your very eyes, produce larva that would become spiders..... Insecta (butterflies) is a different CLASS that Arachnid, (Spiders).



See the problem with this question????

Answer 4

If by "observable", you mean someone sitting in a laboratory or going out into the wild can see an animal change in front of one's eyes from one "class" to another (e.g. from Class Amphibia to Class Reptilia) then of course that is not possible. It takes more than a single speciation event for an animal to be considered to have evolved so drastically that it should be classified as a different class. At the same time, even a single speciation event usually takes a lot longer than the entire lifetime of a single human being to occur. Finally there is no way to predict which particular species will in the near future evolve into a new species, let alone a new class.



Therefore we can only find evidence in the fossil record for such drastic transformations. Unfortunately the fossil record is notoriously imperfect. We still have no idea, for example, which group of reptile to which the ancestor of turtles belong. The ancestry of birds is being hotly debated. The picture for the evolution of mammals is clearer. We now know that mammals evolved from a therapsid reptile, about 205 million years ago. Therapsid reptiles in turn evolved from a synapsid reptile. Obviously we cannot travel back in time to observe a therapsid reptile evolving into the first mammal, but the evidence is there in the rocks. Another well documented case of one class evolving into another is the transformation from Class Osteichthyes (bony fishes) evolving into the first amphibian about 360 million years ago. The first amphibians (such as Ichtyostega and Acanthostega) are still very fishlike, but they do have limbs, fingers, toes and shoulder and pelvic girdles. These amphibians may still be classified in the same Class as fish, if not for the fact that their descendants evolved into land dwelling amphibians that were much more different from fish than they were. Therefore, if something similar were to happen right now, we may not recognize a new species as a new class until tens, or even hundreds of million years later, when their descendants have evolved to be a whole lot different, different enough to be considered a new class.



That in a nutshell is why it is not possible to observe directly one class evolving into another, or even one genus evolving into another.

Answer 5

A "class" in the biological context is pretty far up the "chain of command" as it were. Between phylum and order. Our human "class" is mammalia. So we share the same class with every other mammal on Earth. If you knew anything at all about evolution you would know that changing from one class to another is not possible. A NEW class can evolve, but one class of animal can't just change to another pre-existing class...... Evolution does NOT claim this happens, and in fact says it would not be possible, just in case you thought it did......... However, an entirely new biological class emerging certainly is possible, and has happened numerous times throughout history. However, it takes many millions of years of evolution. So if by give an example you mean one we watched emerge in the lab......come on dude. You can't really be that ignorant, can you?



If you mean an example of class change sure. The mammalian class first began emerging about 210 million years ago. From Triassic cynodonts. There you go, one example. Happy? Ultimately though all animals with a spine evolved from fish. Yes, that includes us.



Evolution is a proven fact dude. I'm sorry if that doesn't fit in with the ancient superstitions you follow, but it doesn't change reality...... When I was a kid I didn't believe in evolution either. Because they brainwashed us with nonsense in Sunday school that was skewed to try to make evolution sound ridiculous. They lied to us and said things like evolution claims a monkey gave birth to a person, and other such nonsense that you've probably been force fed too. If you actually want to learn about evolution, REAL evolution, try taking a biology class down at the local community college. Or go to a reputable website, like the one I've linked. Yes, I know it's a sad day when you learn just how much churches are willing to lie to the followers to try to keep them showing up Sunday mornings. But, you'll get over it.



http://www.mnh.si.edu/mammals/pages/how/

Answer 6

Considering the amount of time needed for a member of one class to evolve into another class, why do you ask such a question. You know such a process cannot be observed even in the entire span of human history.

Answer 7

Considering the amount of time needed for a member of one class to evolve into another class, why do you ask such a question. You know such a process cannot be observed even in the entire span of human history.

Answer 8

Do you know how far up the taxonomic hierarchy you are going? Do you expect evolution to suggest that a species from a class of reptiles will evolve into a species that belongs class of arachnids? You won't get any examples because they're aren't any. Classes are divergent. If you did it would be a proof against evolutionary theory;not for it. You don't jump classes,



On the other hand, speciation from one species within a class to another happens all the time. There are plenty examples. It is even possible for a new class within its phylum to evolve from speciation, albeit it could take a number of generations of the species for that class to be properly defined.



If you want examples of speciation occurring today, just look up a reputable website (that means stay away from the lying gobshite that is called creationism)



One last thing: unlike creationism, biological evolution has never been based on faith. It is accepted worldwide, not because it has won any popularity contest, but because it is an established fact based on empirical evidence. If it contradicts your holy books, then you need to reappraise your faith in and/or understanding of those books.

Answer 9

Considering the amount of time needed for a member of one class to evolve into another class, why do you ask such a question. You know such a process cannot be observed even in the entire span of human history.

Answer 10

You don't change to a new class in a single jump. That's what you're asking for, isn't it? You ask for something that evolution says can't happen, then crow that you've disproved evolution. Why are creationists so dishonest?



Or are you asking about the first species in a new class?

Answer 11

Considering the amount of time needed for a member of one class to evolve into another class, why do you ask such a question. You know such a process cannot be observed even in the entire span of human history.

Answer 12

Considering the amount of time needed for a member of one class to evolve into another class, why do you ask such a question. You know such a process cannot be observed even in the entire span of human history.

Answer 13

Considering the amount of time needed for a member of one class to evolve into another class, why do you ask such a question. You know such a process cannot be observed even in the entire span of human history.

Answer 14

You don't change to a new class in a single jump. That's what you're asking for, isn't it? You ask for something that evolution says can't happen, then crow that you've disproved evolution. Why are creationists so dishonest?



Or are you asking about the first species in a new class?

Answer 15

The theory of evolution explains how speciation can occur, and 'Class' is really far away from species, taxonomically speaking. All mammals are in the same class, as are all reptiles, amphibians, birds, etc. so it takes HUGE amounts of time for a population of organisms to change enough for a "new" class to arise.

Answer 16

Do you want an example. It is very easy to give you one:

You. I bet my bottom dollar That in the past there was an era when you weren't even able to speak and even less to make that kind of questions. That is the begining or the mutations that leads to evolution. I'm not trying to persuade you I'm just reporting you facts and consequences. The more you deny it, the less you'll evolve.

Answer 17

Considering the amount of time needed for a member of one class to evolve into another class, why do you ask such a question. You know such a process cannot be observed even in the entire span of human history.

Answer 18

You don't change to a new class in a single jump. That's what you're asking for, isn't it? You ask for something that evolution says can't happen, then crow that you've disproved evolution. Why are creationists so dishonest?



Or are you asking about the first species in a new class?

Answer 19

Considering the amount of time needed for a member of one class to evolve into another class, why do you ask such a question. You know such a process cannot be observed even in the entire span of human history.

Answer 20

i gave you 2 examples when I answered this the first time you asked. One species does not change into another species. A mouse doesn't turn into a turtle. But a whale could grow legs from it's fins if it could no longer find food in the ocean. Animals adapt to their environment. Adaption is evolution.

Answer 21

Considering the amount of time needed for a member of one class to evolve into another class, why do you ask such a question. You know such a process cannot be observed even in the entire span of human history.

Answer 22

I think you should give them a break and ask for observational evidence for the appearance of a new Genus.



However the Linnaean taxonomic system is not a true representation of created kinds and in many cases the Kind is at a higher level. The badger Kind for instance probably includes ten different species and also four different genera. http://creation.com/badger



[edit] Phylogenetic trees do not in general match trees constructed on the basis of morphology. This was a cover story on New Scientist several years ago but it appears the myth dies hard. This includes trees based on ERV's.

ERV's Phylogenetic Tree's & Other Fairy Tales https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuk5l_Lg4_4&list=UUMMnU5X62OySc4CHCNATC9A&index=4

Answer 23

Easy.



The fact that any phylogenetic tree of 20 different animals of different classes, determined by morphology, will be IDENTICAL to the tree determined by parsimonious DNA mapping.



The chances that could happen without common ancestry exceeds the number of molecules in the universe.



And it is true of ANY 20 animals you choose.

Answer 24

a single example of "a change of animal class" is not evolution.

You have no idea what evolution is and what it isn't.

Answer 25

a single example of "a change of animal class" is not evolution.

You have no idea what evolution is and what it isn't.

Answer 26

a single example of "a change of animal class" is not evolution.

You have no idea what evolution is and what it isn't.

Answer 27

a single example of "a change of animal class" is not evolution.

You have no idea what evolution is and what it isn't.

Answer 28

a single example of "a change of animal class" is not evolution.

You have no idea what evolution is and what it isn't.

Answer 29

Sometimes, you must go where the evidence leads.

You are on the jury for a murder trial. The evidence against the defendant is:

1. The murder happened outside a bar. A witness that knew the defendant saw the defendant sitting in his car with a gun.

2. A security camera at the bar shows the defendant’s car in the parking lot at the time of the murders.

3. Three witnesses heard the shots and ran to the sound.

4. All 3 witnesses saw the defendant standing over the bodies of the victims, with a smoking gun.

5. The defendant ran and was chased and caught by 2 of the witnesses. Those 2 witnesses held the defendant for the police.

6. The victims’ blood was on the shoes and pant legs of the defendant.

7. The defendant’s fingerprints are on the gun.

8. Bullets from the victims match the gun the defendant was holding.

9. Records show that the defendant purchased the murder weapon 3 days before the murder.

10. Tests of the defendant’s right hand shows that he recently fired a gun

11. The bartender at the bar saw the 2 victims, male and female, in the bar necking in one of the booths and saw them leave together minutes before the murders.

12. A search of the male victim’s pockets included a key to a near by motel.

13. The female victim was the defendant’s wife.

14. The murders took place outside the view of the security camera.

The Defense Attorney claimed that the Prosecution failed to prove the case against the defendant because no one actually saw the defendant shoot the victims and there are no photographs or videos of the murders.



What is your verdict?



Ok, lets turn this around: Why do Fundamentalist believe in such a weak god that is a poor engineer?



The rest of the universe is governed by a set of consistent, rational laws that allow the universe to run on full automatic. Why would God design biology to work different and require constant hands-on-control.



Creationists have a weak, stupid god that built a universe that requires constant tweaking. Their god is a poor engineer. It makes more sense that biology would work like the rest of the universe, self correcting, self regulating, and self modifying. Thus, His creatures can change as their environment changes. That is all evolution is, the plants and animals adapting to their changing environment (That is glorious!).



Evolution is an extremely elegant solution to life on a planet with a changing environment. Only a Master Engineer could come up with such an elegant solution for a self-correcting system. The Creationists severely limit God's intelligence and engineering ability by saying He had to sit and create everything by hand when the whole system is automated. Seems disrespectful.



Evolution is useful for biology. It is THE theory that ties everything else (biology, geology, paleontology, genetics, etc) together and makes it all make sense. Predictions made by Evolution match the observed facts better than any other theory. If and when something better is proposed, it will be adopted. Every mechanism needed for Evolution to work can be demonstrated (Corollary to Murphy’s Law – Anything that can happen, will happen.) Thus, Creation Science must demonstrate a mechanism that prevents Evolution (Not propose, but show that such a mechanism exists.)

Answer 30

By it's definition, evolution is at the species level whereas Class is a branch nearer the trunk of the evolutionary tree. But lets take the example of comparision of Birds to Mammals and use Human as the Mammalian representative. Birds have a cloaca where three body functions employ one external opening (urinary, alimentary, and reproductive functions). Embarrassed by the fact that Humans also have a cloaca, anatomists hundreds of years ago chose to group only the urogenital function together and describe the alimentary as coming out a separate hole when in fact in both birds and Mammals all that comes out the pelvic outlet. In Humans (more noticeable in females) the outlet extends from the camel toe to the tailbone and that opening is common to all three body functions no different from birds.

Answer 31

a single example of "a change of animal class" is not evolution.

You have no idea what evolution is and what it isn't.

Answer 32

Considering the amount of time needed for a member of one class to evolve into another class, why do you ask such a question. You know such a process cannot be observed even in the entire span of human history.

Answer 33

Watch a Chihuahua try to mate with a Great Dane ... ok ... they're the same species, but the differences between them are because humans have selectively bred dogs for tens of thousands of years.



Now ask if, in another few hundred thousand years whether they could reproduce together due to the build up of genetic differences ...

Answer 34

To demand 'evidence' that you will not accept is dishonest, and what 'belief infections' do, symptomatically!

your insistence on changing the goal-posts is another symptom of a belief infection!

Beliefs are an infection of the imagination, and distorts the cognitive process!



You cannot be intellectually honest with your imagination crawling, infested, with 'beliefs'!



Your 'demand' is erroneous and pathological!

Answer 35

Do you observe yourself getting older? Generally people don't unless they refresh their memory with photographs or video. It is only after a certain period are physical changes noticible -- aging, weight gain, weight loss, balding....and so on. So it is with evolution, each change is minute from generation to generation that it can only be noticed when viewed through the quantum whole.

Answer 36

You don't change to a new class in a single jump. That's what you're asking for, isn't it? You ask for something that evolution says can't happen, then crow that you've disproved evolution. Why are creationists so dishonest?



Or are you asking about the first species in a new class?

Answer 37

We can give you all the examples in the world but you'll just argue that they're all the same "class" of animal.



http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/01/key-step-in-evolution-from-single-to-multi-cell-clusters-discovered.html

Answer 38

Your not gonna get answers for questions that haven't been answered yet. Evolutionists like to believe blindly. I can show you something interesting though.





Evidence of non-random mutation rates suggests an evolutionary risk management strategy:

--------------------

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22522932/?i=2&from=/23533222/related



Non-random mutation: the evolution of targeted hypermutation and hypomutation:

------------

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23281172/?i=5&from=/22522932/related

Answer 39

We can give you all the examples in the world but you'll just argue that they're all the same "class" of animal.



http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/01/key-step-in-evolution-from-single-to-multi-cell-clusters-discovered.html

Answer 40

a single example of "a change of animal class" is not evolution.

You have no idea what evolution is and what it isn't.

Answer 41

The OP is a fraud. He/she knows enough that the question they ask cannot be answered under the terms they set up. This isn't a question but a rant.



OK.... Let's play the game but on MY TERMS. A creationist poses a rhetorical question on Y!, usually with no knowledge of evolutionary principles. S/he may provide unreferenced quotes, misquotes, made up quotes, misstatements, YouTube videos, Creationist websites, or outright lies. S/he usually doesn't know that evolution has NOTHING to do with the origin of life, which is the science of abiogenesis. Yet, S/he is usually proud of their willful ignorance and wear it like protective armor.



Then, they pick the answer that agrees with their anti-science, anti-evolution, anti-knowledge, pro-creationist world view and claim "success". I guess they seek comfort in their views and ignorance, but they certainly don't seek new information.



So.... thanks for the opportunity to present REAL REFERENCES to readers that might never have seen Creationism EXPOSED as a non-science, and evolution shown as very much a falsifiable set of predictions and mechanisms to explain the diversity of life on this planet. In 150 years of research in the fields of biology, biogeography, geology, molecular biology, anthropology, paleontology, population genetics, and others, the theory of evolution has been modified (see below for the definition of a theory), but NEVER FALSIFIED.



If I were to suggest only one thing for you to read, it would be the 2005 court case where Creationists pushing Intelligent Design wanted it taught in the science curriculum of public schools as science. The conservative judge, after hearing evidence IN A COURT OF LAW, including TESTIMONY from the leading Creationists, ruled that Creationism was a religious approach and not scientific. Creationism/Intelligent Design did not use the methods of science and had NO EVIDENCE to support it. Here is the full judge's decision:



http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html

and http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html



Also you should see the position of the National Academy of Sciences. If you haven't heard of them: http://www.nasonline.org/about-nas/mission/ "The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a private, non-profit society of distinguished scholars. Established by an Act of Congress, signed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863, the NAS is charged with providing independent, objective advice to the nation on matters related to science and technology. Scientists are elected by their peers to membership in the NAS for outstanding contributions to research. The NAS is committed to furthering science in America, and its members are active contributors to the international scientific community. Nearly 500 members of the NAS have won Nobel Prizes, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, founded in 1914, is today one of the premier international journals publishing the results of original research."



This is part of a statement by them about evolutionary theory.... http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html "The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.



Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously"



To the OP. Keep up your rhetorical questions and your obvious ignorance of evolutionary science, and I'll counter with a real court decision disallowing Creationism as a science, and a real statement from the scientific community supporting evolutionary theory as very much an accepted field of science. OP, let's see who accomplishes their goal on this board in the long run.

Answer 42

Monkeys evolved into atheists.

Answer 43

One should not ask of others that which they can not provide. You show me yours (evidence) and then I will show you mine.

Atheist.