Has anyone ever observed macro evolution taking place?

The scientific method requires observation, testability and repeatability.

Has anyone observed macro evolution taking place?

If not, it is not science.

Please only credential scientists with at least a BS answer.

No definitions were provided for this debate, so I shall supply my own:

anyone - any person or people
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

observe - take note of or detect (something) in the course of a scientific study
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

macroevolution - evolution happening on a large scale, at or above the level of a species.
http://www.biology-online.org...

take place - occur
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

I affirm the resolution that people have observed macroevolution taking place, because, speciation has been directly observed.

Evolution by way of natural selection is a fact, and while many opponents run the "microevolution is true, but macroevolution is not" argument, this is not a real contention with biologists.

Macroevolution is as much a fact as microevolution, and what's awesome is that even though it normally takes a long time for an entire gene pool to evolve into a new species, making it difficult to observe speciation within human lifetimes, we still have been able to observe it.

1. Species
A species is simply a community of organisms that can reproduce viable offspring with each other.
That's it.
You can be certain that you have organisms of a different species if they cannot reproduce viable offspring with each other.

That's why dogs can't breed with cats, whales can't breed with seals, and owls can't breed with ostrich.
Organisms like lions and tigers are still different species, even though they can reproduce offspring, because the offspring, a liger or a tyon, cannot reproduce viable offspring.

So, you may here macroevolution opponents say things like, "Why don't we see dogs becoming cats?"
The answer:
Dogs and cats are two different species, so you wouldn't expect to see a dog becoming a cat; you would expect for these individual species to genetically diverge within the species, over time, and this leads to reproductive isolation, which is the first step of speciation, macroevolution.

2. Speciation
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

When different groups of a species migrate or are geographically forced to different environments or are pressured with vastly different environmental constraints, the groups can become reproductively isolated; they can no longer produce viable offspring with each other making them a new species, and providing an example of macroevolution.

The apple maggot fly has been observed speciating and has an awesome explanation to it.
The original species, the Hawthorne Fly, used to feed on the fruit of hawthorns.

Once apples were introduced into their environment, some of the hawthorn flies fed only on the apples, while the typical hawthorn fly remained eating the fruits of hawthorns.
Now, since so much time has passed, currently, apple eating hawthorns (apple maggot flies) mature later in the season, and require chemicals from apples that help with fertilization/reproduction.

The original hawthorn fruit eaters simply cannot interbreed with the apple eaters,and remember the apple eaters were once hawthorn flies.
They are now two different species, and the parasites that inhabit them have also evolved along with the diet change.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Also,
"The Central European blackcap and Galapagos ground finch are two bird species that have undergone speciation recently, while scientists observed."
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

The Galapagos ground finch has been intensely studied by biologists Peter and Rosemary Grant since 1973.
In December of 2009, the Grants announced that, since the drought, the new lineage has been isolated from the local finches: the children and grandchildren of the survivors can only produce offspring with one another.
http://www.pnas.org...

So, we have a new species of ground finch...good old macroevolution.

The greenish warbler bird has also been observed speciating:
"Although generally difficult to observe, this process is captured in present day populations of the greenish warbler (Phylloscopus trochiloides) complex."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

So, to affirm this resolution, thanks to the Hawthorn Fly, the European Blackcap, the Galapagos Ground Finch, and the Greenish Warbler, which are only animal examples of speciation, macroevolution has been observed, documented, and proves the fact of macroevolution.

On to Con...

Notice that Con dodged the issue. The issue is evolution science, not has macroevolution been observed. To comply with the scientific method, one must not only observe phenomena, but must be able to come up with a hypothesis that is able to be tested repeatedly and is capable of falsification. He did not even deal with the other elements after observation. And this is becaue evolution is not testiable, repeatable or falsifiable. It is philosophy, not science.

But let us look at his claims as to observation.

We note that his entire argument turns on arbitrarily chosen taxonomy. Taxonomy is merely a classification system that is not found in nature. It is nothing more than choosing the metric system or the English system of measurement. Neither are wrong, but neither can be said to be right in the absolute sense.

Next, he is selective in his defintions even with his artbtrarily chosen taxionomy. Let us quote the whole thing as to miscroevolution:

Happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of a species, over geologic time resulting in the divergence of taxonomic groups.

Notice that for macroevolution to take place it must be over geologic time. While his chosen dictionary did not define this term, Wikipedia did: https://en.wikipedia.org... I hate to tell him this, but is more time than allowed by his studies. Thus, his studies do not show macroevolution because of the limited time of the observation.

But let us put that killer issue aside. He then changes the subject from macroevolution to speciaton, which takes us from something objective to something arbitrary. But even there he changes dictionaries because his first dictionary did no help him when it says:

An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring. Failing that (for example the Liger) It has to be ecologically and recognisably the same.

Notice how he defines species as being able to mate with one another, but his own dictionary says it is more about having common characteristics than the ability to reproduce. Indeed, two animals care share a species without common characteristics as long as the share the same ecology and look the same. Yea, that is not arbitrary at all. But it shows the hatred of science evolutionists will go to to defend their faith.

Turning to the examples of this speciation con gave reveals the depth of his mishandling of science. His first site concerning flies from Berkeley does not involved an observed event, but a made up example of how it would world ASSUMING it worked at all. Notice the lack of citation to any journal which such a thing was observed. Indeed, the article speaks of how is can happen, not did happen. Strike 1.

His next cite about the fruit flies is incomplete at best, as it is only an abstract with speciation in its title. The actual abstrat says noting about speciation. Perhaps Pro can find us the actual study and demonstrate that this study took place over geologic time. If not, it does not help his case. But remember, ability to reproduce is not the sine qua non of macroevolution, according to Pro's own dictionary.

Turning to Pro's next example, the European Blackcap, read the argument carefully and see it says nothing about speciation. It merely says that two of the same bird developed different physical characteristics because one set of these birds migrated and the other did it. The article said nothing about ability to mate with each other. Do you smell the ignorance an intellectual dishonesty? Notice how the authors hypothesize that these changes are the results of natural selection. Of course they do, as they have been propagandized to think that way their whole life. But how would they test, reap and falsify this hypothesis like real scientists. Hint: they cannot.

Turning now to Pro's next example of the finches. Apparently, there were three groups of finishes on this island. A drought came and reduced the population of two of the species greatly. And then, amazingly, the species surviving in large numbers began to mate with each other exclusively. So what? The surviving species did not change into a new species, but became more selective in their mates. Indeed, the article indicates that prior to the drought, there was cross-species mating, destroying Pro's thesis. BTW, the articles does not say that the 3rd species CAN ONLY mate with one another, but that they chose to only mate with one another. Pretend scientists have to make crap up to support evolution.

No new species, no evolution according to Pro. These are not examples of speciation at all. Unfortunately, the last two links could not open.

So, no, this dude has showed much imagination, but not speciation.

But about that testing, repeatability and falsification?

So, thanks for that Con...

Con mentions:
"Notice that [Pro] dodged the issue. The issue is evolution science, not has macroevolution been observed."

My response:
Actually, that's precisely the issue we're debating; just look at the title of this debate!
Then check the first round where Con reestablishes the resolution:
"Has anyone observed macro evolution taking place?"

So, I'm not dodging the issue, when the title of the debate is "Has anyone ever observed macroevolution taking place?"
and I provide four examples of observed speciation.

Con then misuses terminology:
"for macroevolution to take place it must be over geologic time...I hate to tell him this, but is more time than allowed by his studies."

My response:
Yeah, humans' existence isn't even visible on the scale of geologic time, so if you instigated a debate with the resolution, "Has any one ever observed a full unit of geologic time?" it would be nonsensical, because even the smallest units surpass humans' existence.

Geologic time is a means to measure the timing of past events, Con, it's not a particular amount of time; check the source you provided.
Your source explains how we can use earth's geological strata to determine the timing of events in history, and that's geologic time; it's a scale, not an amount.

So, my sources do demonstrate evolution over geologic time, not a geologic time unit, because over the time of those observations, geological strata aged and became different, so geologic time passed insignificantly or otherwise.

Con gets confused:
"Taxonomy is merely a classification system that is not found in nature. It is nothing more than choosing the metric system or the English system of measurement."

My response:
Our metric measurements are human representations of length, width, and height, and these dimensions exist in nature whether we have representations for them or not. Distance between and dimensions of matter exist irrespective of our ability to imbue them and assign our own numbers to them.

If there were no humans on earth, there would still be dimensions of rocks and the distance between those rocks, and no one needs to be there to make metric representations of them; the dimensions and distance objectively exist contingent on matter, not humans.

The same goes for genetic compatibility.
In nature, either organisms can reproduce viable offspring with each other or they can't, irrespective of our human ability to use taxonomic classification; we call them species, but if we didn't, then they still would be genetically compatible.
Organisms' genetic compatibility exists in nature despite Con's attempt to make the concept of species ONLY a human construct.

Con tries to get bold:
"Notice how he defines species as being able to mate with one another, but his own dictionary says it is more about having common characteristics than the ability to reproduce."

My response:
It's not my dictionary, and to defend biology-online's definition of species, they are being very particular when they say:
"An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring."

They used the adverb "usually" because if you have a member of the species who is only themselves infertile, they wouldn't be capable of mating and producing fertile offspring, but would still be genetically compatible in the gene pool, making them of the same species; species show ecological similarities based on their shared genetics.

Also, many bacteria are of the same species, but reproduce asexually by way of binary fission, so applying the basic "can interbreed viably" definition to those species gets weird, and biology-online took that into account.

Please, listen to me.
A species is a community of organisms who can actually or potentially produce viable offspring with each other.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

If you have two organisms who can potentially or actually interbreed viably, you have the same species.

species - a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Con continues with falsehoods:
"His first site concerning flies from Berkeley does not involved an observed event, but a made up example of how it would world ASSUMING it worked at all."

My response:
The flies were not from Berkeley, they were from the University of Edinburgh, UK.
I had provided a peer reviewed study's abstract, because to get the full text, one has to pay, so let me provide a free, full text, peer reviewed journal article, published in PNAS, about the Hawthorn Fly-->Apple Maggot Fly speciation:

http://www.pnas.org...

The researchers observed the species of Hawthorn Fly genetically diverge, over time, into a new species, reproductively isolated from Hawthorns, called the Apple Maggot Fly.

"Our findings confirm that postzygotic reproductive isolation can evolve as a pleiotropic consequence of host-associated adaptation, a central tenet of nonallopatric speciation."

Yep, confirm.
The researchers confirmed speciation in the observed flies, which is evolution at the species level, macroveolution.
Has anyone ever observed macroevolution taking place?
Yes, a PNAS published study from the University of Illinois, CONFIRMS this to be the case in Apple Maggot Flies.

Con continues:
"Turning to Pro's next example, the European Blackcap, read the argument carefully and see it says nothing about speciation."

My response:
Directly from my European Blackcap source,
"speciation begins when parts of a population evolve differences...through shifts in mate availability, mate choice, or simply the organisms' ability to mate successfully with one another..."

"...In December of 2009, researchers from Germany and Canada confirmed...these migration and mating shifts."
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

For the Galapagos Ground Finch, the title was:
"The secondary contact phase of allopatric speciation"
http://www.pnas.org...

So, both sources mentioned speciation, despite Con's dishonesty.

Con starts whining:
"Notice how the authors hypothesize that these changes are the results of natural selection. Of course they do, as they have been propagandized to think that way their whole life. But how would they test, reap and falsify this hypothesis like real scientists. Hint: they cannot."

My response:
Hint: they did in the studies provided at Berkeley...yet AGAIN dishonesty by Con.

"Importantly, the low but significant genetic divergence in sympatry (FST = 0.008; p < 0.005) exceeds the genetic divergence of these populations and an allopatric population of SW migrants from northern Germany separated by 800 km (FST = 0.0001"0.004; all p > 0.5; Table 1). The genetic divergence in sympatry was consistently found in different years and different sampling sites (Table S1). Interestingly, genetic differences are larger within years than when years are pooled, a result that corroborates our conclusions on the genetic divergence in sympatry."
http://www.cell.com...(09)01925-3

They hypothesized natural selection, because it's accurate and reliable. They're able to reap and attempt to falsify their hypothesis, with real data from real observations, and the numbers confirmed the genetic divergence which happened to a degree that CREATED A NEW SPECIES.
It's a fact.

The Con gets close to concession:
"A drought came and reduced the population of two of the species greatly...and then, amazingly, the species surviving in large numbers began to mate with each other exclusively. So what?"

My response:
So what?
You just admitted that the species, in large numbers, began to be reproductively isolated; this is speciation; this is macroevolution.

Unfortunately, I simply do not have the time to address this lengthy response. Nice debate.

I understand.
I extend all of my arguments, and thanks for the debate.

Extend and forwarding. So much evidence for macroevolution.

Yay evolution!
Thanks for the debate.
I extend all arguments.