Though it’s not as if Jonathan Wells is the last word on the subject.
Remember some things we just have to do the best we can with, because we can’t really run an experiment in a lab. Eg. in astromy, an experiment is ‘looking at another bit of the sky’ (vast simplification). We don’t get to control the conditions. Or if A big beard came down from the sky and said ‘I am God and I exist’ and all wars stopped instantly’ it wouldn’t be very repeatable, but would be quite convincing
The moth data that we all learned about in school doesn’t really address the OP. AFAIK, it was never “replicated”.
First, to further clarify the whole macro/microevolutino thing: macroevolution deals with large-scale phyletic changes, typically over geologic timescales. It includes such phenomona as the origins of major phyletic groups and extinction (particularly, differential extinction and survival of various groups). The underlying processes are largely thought to be the same as when dealing with change within populations (microevolution), but it is still helpful to examine the “big” concepts separately; the origins of amphibians is conceptually different from the origin of bullfrogs.
As for the OP:
The history of life, like the history of human civilization, is characterized by non-repeated, unique events. While there may be underlying themes which are repeated, the major events were one-time-only; vertebrates, for example, only evolved once. The processes which drive evolution have been demonstrated time and again. Replicable experiments can verify that the theories of mechanism are sound. The specific events which shape the history of life, have not been repeated (and, indeed, cannot be – any more than we can relive major events in our own history. We may re-enact the Civil War, for example, but we can never re-fight it, exactly as it happened).
In a manner of speaking.
For example, studies of beak lengths of Galapagos Island finches showed that their distribution changed as climactic conditions (droughts and wet periods that altered the availability of certain types of food) changed.
This “natural experiment” can certainly be replicated.
Additionally, antibiotic resistance in bacteria can be replicated quite easily.
The principles are arguably kind of the same, but not exactly. While micro evolution certainly plays the major role in macroevolution, macroevolution isn’t the same process and the principles aren’t exactly the same. Once species develop we then get processes associated strictly with the species. As someone who can put it a lot more clearly than me said: “Recent development in comparative developmental biology suggest a need to reconsider the possibility that some macroevolutionary discontinuities may be associated with the origination of evolutionary innovation.” Quote taken form Erwin, D.H., 2000 ‘Macroevolution is more then repeated rounds of microevolution’, Evolution and Development 2:2. If you’re interested in the subject the paper is well worth the read. Similar sentiments are expressed by Shubin, N.H. &. Marshall, C.R.2000,.’Fossils, genes, and the origin of novelty’ Paleobiology. 26. “This implies that it is not new genes, per se, that underlie much of morphological innovation, but that it is changes in when and where these and other genes are expressed that constitute the underlying mechanistic basis of morphological innovation. Gene duplication is also a source of developmental innovation, but it is possible that it is not the increased number of genes (and their subsequent divergence) that is most important in the evolution of new morphologies; rather it may be the duplication of their regulatory regions that provides the raw material for morphological novelty. Bridging the gap between microevolution and macroevolution will involve understanding the mechanisms behind the production of morphological variation.”
If you’re really interested in the fundamental differences between micro and macro evolution I can suggest quite a bit more reading. The point is that microevolution and macroeveloution, while related, are not the same and not all the underlying principles are the same. The two terms exist to describe two different though interlinked processes.
To answer the OP, yes, there have been replicable experiments that prove evolution and natural selection exists. The problem is that with most species these experiments would take millenia to run. However bacteria and other microorganisms reproduce so fast that it is possible for biologists to induce evolution and actually observe it occurring under labratory conditions.
'twas.
E.g. “Recent History of Melanism in American Peppered Moths”, Grant & Wiseman, Journal of Heredity 93:86-90.
Interesting overviews: Fine Tuning the Peppered Moth paradigm, Peppered Moths - round 2 (part 1 of 2), Peppered Moths - round 2 (part 2 of 2).
I’ve done quiet a bit of reading, and have been unable to detect any difference in kind between micro and macro evolution; i.e. I haven’t been able to find any non-Biblical evidence that the processes are not the same.
Got any pointers to such evidence?
The two papers I cited are very good starting points. The quotes I took
I might also recommend 'Micro- and macroevolution: scale and hierarchy in evolutionary biology and paleobiology ’ Jablonski, D.Paleobiology 26:4.
Those 3 should get you off to a really good start on some of the more current thinking on the diffences between micro and macro evolution.