>>13426956>I don't know what a diatom fossil isIf only you had the sum total of all human knowledge at your finger tips. Maybe you could to look it up. Diatoms are a group of algae. When they die their bodies sink to the ocean floor,e ach successive generation lands on top of the previous generation so they have a very complete fossil record. The graph here:
>>13426949 shows the fossil record between 3.4mya and 1.6mya. Diatoms not only shows gradual fluctuation in average organism size over millions of years but also clearly differentiate into two separate species ~3mya
>You're talking to a lay-personYou're not a lay-person. Your keyboard is covered in your own drool
>If you can't explain this stuff to a normal person then I have no reason to believe you"Facts aren't real if I'm too retarded to comprehend them". Do you know scientifically why the sky is blue? No? Guess you don't believe the sky is blue then.
>You've given me several examples of micro-evolutionNo, both diatoms and London Underground mosquitos are indisputable proof of speciation
>forcing evolution would be a completely viable purpose for a study. So I'd like to see someone do it"The Evolution of Reproductive Isolation as a Correlated Character Under Sympatric Conditions" (Rice, 1990)
The study produced reproductive isolation in fruit flies over 25 generations entirely within a laboratory environment. It fulfils all of your prerequisites
>If there was a single case of a dog giving birth to a non-dog, then I might believe itAgain, you've misinterpreted what evolution is. I addressed this in my original response, Species A never births Species B, genetic drift instead becomes significant when comparing population samples many generations apart (hence the colour spectrum analogy)
>here's the dividing lines for yellow-orange-redSee pic related. You can't pinpoint exactly where one colour becomes another you can only make certain judgements outside of the ambiguous zone, just like speciation
