Are there any known, documented instances of observable macroevolution? NOT microevolution

I am not very familiar with bacteria, sorry.
That seems less like "we evolved a cow into a tiger" and more like "we evolved a spectral bat into a fruit bat" since I don't know of the actual physical changes; it seems more like a single attribute (micro) having been altered.
But bacteria are so simple and I don't understand them well, that that may be the entirety of their existence?

Rhagoletis pomonella is in the process of diverging into two species as a result of colonizing a new host species.
If you're asking for something evolving into something of an entirely different phylum, that's not something that can be directly observed. All known phyla originated in the Cambrian.

>averof-lab.org/web/publications_files/1997 Nature wings.pdf
>s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/32241216/Kukalova-Peck_1973.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1522003494&Signature=Ww0HWJ0X3D0RngcUuVLVIHr/0ys=&response-content-disposition=inline; filename=Origin_and_Evolution_of_Insect_Wings_and.pdf

Prokaryotes are morphologically boring and metabolically interesting. What they eat and how is what sets most of them apart.

Attached: cola evolution.png (903x458, 318K)

Creationists, flat-earthers, race deniers and anti-vaxxers should be outright banned from Veeky Forums.

>Rhagoletis pomonella is in the process of diverging into two species as a result of colonizing a new host species.

Can you talk more about these?

>If you're asking for something evolving into something of an entirely different phylum, that's not something that can be directly observed. All known phyla originated in the Cambrian.

This is very useful to me, as I was never taught any of the terminology and I can search for stuff based on this (phylum/phyla, cambrian). Thankyou.

Macroevolution is literally microevolution given enough time. Learn your shit before posting next time.

>race deniers

What?

i am asking in order to learn, sorry.

i was taken out of school in third grade because my parents are dumb so i don't have the basic foundations most people have here.

trying to read wikipedia articles/sites and watch college biology lectures/youtube videos online only goes so far, and this was one area that was throwing me. i was curious if there had been any documented cases of it, if any experiments had been done to speed up that process to demonstrate it, etc. if there has not been, and the understanding is that it does happen given enough time, OK. but i was very curious to know if there was anything observable for me to look at.

Atheist creationist.

they should be fucking shot in the streets

It all depends on what you consider "macro" evolution. Since macroevolution is just microevolution given enough time it's subjective what you want to consider micro or macro. It's like if you stepped 1 foot in the same direction over a long enough time you eventually have traveled a far distance but each individual step seems boring.

Really simple question.
Deserves a simple answer.

No. There is not any recorded event where one species evolved into a different species.

Define macroevolution

Microevolutionary changes add up until you have species which can no longer interbreed.
It's sometimes hard to define precisely.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
Darwin's finches are an obvious example. So are salamanders in California.

When England burned coal, butterflies and moths gradually turned dark since they could not be spotted against sooty tree-bark and had a better chance of surviving and having offspring. Now that coal is largely banned, it's the lighter-colored butterflies and moths which have a survival advantage and they're becoming predominant.

Museums have year-by-year specimens pinned in display cases so you can see the change occurring.

Get fucking triggered you pseudo-scientist cucks.

I just want something that is basically more than a mouse becoming a variant of a mouse, a fly becoming a fly with x additional or alternate feature, etc.
When something becomes no longer a mouse, no longer a fly, etc.

Most of what I have found via googling is stuff like bird beak variations, coat or scale color variations, mating call variations, etc. but the animal is still a finch bird, still a particular type of lizard, still a fruit fly, etc. I have not found things comparable to a beak becoming something completely unlike a beak, limbs becoming wings or fins, etc.

I am having a hard time explaining, sorry.

Is there any ongoing work to try to accelerate the process and demonstrate it?

Rhagoletis pomonella, the apple maggot, evolved to feed on the fruit of the hawthorn tree. Since apples were introduced into its range, a subpopulation has begun feeding on apples instead. The two groups appear to be reproductively isolated, with apple flies mating only with apple flies and hawthorn flies mating only with hawthorn flies, despite being present in the same environment.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_maggot
deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/62806/336061a0.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
researchgate.net/profile/Kenneth_Filchak/publication/12277175_Filchak_KE_Roethele_JB_Feder_JL_Natural_selection_and_sympatric_divergence_in_the_apple_maggot_Rhagoletis_pomonella_Nature_407_739-742/links/0f31753beb5dd78d4c000000.pdf

you basically want a mouse getting wings and

this image is a good explanation of how microevolution becomes macroevolution.

Attached: Evolution.jpg (875x402, 154K)

Or something comparably significant, yeah.
Like something evolving from being a quadruped to a biped.
Something evolving from having scales to fur, or fur to feathers, or comparable.
If this is anything having occurred, or something there is research being done on.

I did not mean for this to be any form of debate over the truth of it; I just wanted to know if there are any documented cases of significant changes as I've struggled to find any.

I've gotten that much, I just wanted to know if we had any documented cases of it where I could visually observe it.

Evolution rarely "invents" anything really new.
It usually re-purposes existing structures.
Hair, nails, and scales are all modified skin. So are feathers. The were thermal insulation and turned out to be useful for flight.
The "hammer, anvil, and stirrup" bones in our inner ears (which allow us to hear) were once parts of the jaw-bone, which migrated.

For a REALLY good explanation of how evolution works, I recommend the series "Your Inner Fish". Clearly told with excellent graphics.

youtube.com/watch?v=BkJ16tkMKqs&list=PLH_nypAO3GE1q39qxuy4Vx182B0O31PG_

Attached: Capture.jpg (706x153, 23K)

> You stand on the shore of the Indian Ocean in southern Somalia,facing north, and in your left hand you hold the right hand of your mother. In turn she holds the hand of her mother, your grandmother. Your grandmother holds her mother's hand, and so on.The chain wends its way up the beach, into the arid scrubland and westwards on towards the Kenya border. How far do we have to go until we reach our common ancestor with the chimpanzees? It is a surprisingly short way.Allowing one yard per person, we arrive at the ancestor we share with chimpanzees in under 300 miles. We have hardly started to cross the continent; we are still not half way to the Great Rift Valley. The ancestor is standing well to the east of Mount Kenya, and holding in her hand an entire chain of her lineal descendants, culminating in you standing on the Somali beach. The daughter that she is holding in her right hand is the one from whom we are descended. Now the arch-ancestress turns eastward to face the coast, and with her left hand grasps her other daughter, the one from whom the chimpanzees are descended (or son, of course, but let's stick to females for convenience).The two sisters are facing one another, and each holding their mother by the hand. Now the second daughter, the chimpanzee ancestress, holds her daughter's hand, and a new chain is formed, proceeding back towards the coast.First cousin faces first cousin, second cousin faces second cousin, and so on. By the time the folded-back chain has reached the coast again, it consists of modern chimpanzees.You are face to face with your chimpanzee cousin, and you are joined to her by an unbroken chain of mothers holding hands with daughters. If you walked up the line like an inspecting general -past Homo erectus, Homo habilis, perhaps Australopithecus afarensis -and down again the other side (the intermediates on the chimpanzee side are unnamed because, as it happens, no fossils have been found), you would nowhere find any sharp discontinuity.

Very very appreciate the playlist!!! I have compiled a lot of videos and lectures into another playlist regarding this subject and will add this into it. This looks like one of the better quality things on this topic too, so I am excited!!!

Leftist creationists in general.

What you consider a mouse or not a mouse is subjective. You might enjoy the axolotl which underwent a massive change just by changing what genes switched on or off in an extremely short period of time.

>You might enjoy the axolotl which underwent a massive change just by changing what genes switched on or off in an extremely short period of time.

Could you talk a little more about this? If you can hit on some more key points/buzzwords I can look more into it.

>fossils aren't evidence
>t. brainlet

I would recommend this for you OP. It's a longish book but it explains everything quite well.

Attached: 17977[1].jpg (316x475, 27K)

Second the recommendation!!

didn't say they weren't evidence, only that i wasn't looking for bones/fossils

a lot of the visual images that "reconstruct" them are sort of up to interpretation (ie: thought dinosaurs didn't have feathers, found they do)

there was an artist who did neat reconstructions of current animals the way we speculate about the appearance of past ones
i didn't read the article but this has some images from the book the artist made: blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/all-yesterdays-book-and-launch-event/

There's always the peppered moth. I suppose that's micro tho.

>I just want something that is.......
You are looking for a cat turning into a dog or something similarly dramatic. Your view on evolution is too simplistic.
Just read some popsci or wikipedia on evolution and it's mechanisms or divert your attention to Flat Earth.

>wasting trips on an autistic reddit opinion

Like giraffes evolving from horse-like creatures to those long necked dick suckers they are today? No, that kind of evidence would've put a nail in the coffin to the whole creation vs evolution argument.
That and the whole lose end about evolutionary theory is it takes hundreds of thousands of years to go through enough generations of change to warrant a whole new species, which gives creationists that leg of "oh what a convenient excuse for not having any evidence"

the evidence is there in the fossil record...creationists just handwave it away or outright deny it exists, like they do all evidence that contradicts them. pic related.

Attached: what creationists actually believe.png (1048x854, 69K)

Attached: NP50sD1.jpg (625x424, 59K)