Spirituality
15 Sep 05
16 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungMaybe it was Coletti. I wish I could find that thread.
Didn't you and I already go over this?
[b]Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybrid ...[text shortened]... ants from which it had evolved."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html[/b]
Here's another case:
In 1905, while studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, H. De Vries discovered among his plants a variant having a different chromosome number. He was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named the new species O. gigas. (De Vries, Species and Varieties, Their Origin By Mutation, 1905)
http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/factfaq.htm
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
16 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThis is a good example of microevolution. There is ample evidence of this.
Didn't you and I already go over this?
[b]Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybrid ...[text shortened]... ants from which it had evolved."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html[/b]
What did you have at the begining?
Flowers.
What did you have at the end?
Flowers.
Its not like the flowers became a butterflies...
I do somehow think that the thread is aimed at discussing macroevolution...
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
16 Sep 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAnother excellent example of microevolution.
Maybe it was Coletti. I wish I could find that thread.
Here's another case:
[b]In 1905, while studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, H. De Vries discovered among his plants a variant having a different chromosome number. He was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named the new species O. gigas. ( ...[text shortened]... rieties, Their Origin By Mutation, 1905)
http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/factfaq.htm[/b]
Do you have any examples of marcoevolution?
16 Sep 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYeah, it was Coletti.
Maybe it was Coletti. I wish I could find that thread.
Here's another case:
[b]In 1905, while studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, H. De Vries discovered among his plants a variant having a different chromosome number. He was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named the new species O. gigas. ( ...[text shortened]... rieties, Their Origin By Mutation, 1905)
http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/factfaq.htm[/b]
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=23080&page=5
16 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerI don't care what you somehow think. I was answering specific questions posed by Halitose.
This is a good example of microevolution. There is ample evidence of this.
What did you have at the begining?
Flowers.
What did you have at the end?
Flowers.
Its not like the flowers became a butterflies...
I do somehow think that the thread is aimed at discussing macroevolution...
16 Sep 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerPlease try to keep up. Halitose is utilizing the Biological Species Concept; this is the operative notion in this discussion regarding speciation. If you would like to start some other discussion that utilizes some alternate notion (like that of a natural kind), then start a new thread. The examples posted above are examples of speciation, they are therefore examples of macroevolution (by definition).
This is a good example of microevolution. There is ample evidence of this.
What did you have at the begining?
Flowers.
What did you have at the end?
Flowers.
Its not like the flowers became a butterflies...
I do somehow think that the thread is aimed at discussing macroevolution...
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
16 Sep 05
Originally posted by bbarrMacroevolution:Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.
Please try to keep up. Halitose is utilizing the Biological Species Concept; this is the operative notion in this discussion regarding speciation. If you would like to start some other discussion that utilizes some alternate notion (like that of a natural kind), then start a new thread. The examples posted above are examples of speciation, they are therefore examples of macroevolution (by definition).
Speciation:The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones.
Has it been observed that speciation results in the formation of new taxonomic groups?
16 Sep 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerAm I missing something here? Do you understand that a new species is a new taxonomic group?
Macroevolution:Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.
Speciation:The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones.
Has it been observed that speciation results in the formation of new taxonomic groups?
16 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerSince 'species' is a type of taxonomic group, and speciation is the evolution of a new species, speciation results in a new taxonomic group (this is straight deduction). In this discussion, the relevant notion of 'species' is provided by the BSC. Speciation has been observed, as pointed out above. So, the evolution of new taxonomic groups has been observed.
Macroevolution:Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.
Speciation:The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones.
Has it been observed that speciation results in the formation of new taxonomic groups?
Seriously, you're in over your head in this thread. We don't care for your nonsense here. If you want to make use of your ill-defined pet notion of a 'natural kind' (which you mistakenly think is synonymous with the term 'taxonomic group'😉, start a new thread and label it clearly, so that those who know a thing or two about evolution can steer clear of it.
EDIT: See Starman's post above. It seems everybody but you is on the same page here, dj2becker.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
16 Sep 05
Originally posted by bbarrAre the 'species' that are produced not of a similar taxonomic group, i.e. you start off with a certain 'specie' of flower and then get a different 'specie' which can still be classified under the larger taxonomic group of 'flowers'?
Since 'species' is a type of taxonomic group, and speciation is the evolution of a new species, speciation results in a new taxonomic group (this is straight deduction). In this discussion, the relevant notion of 'species' is provided by the BSC. Speciation has been observed, as pointed out above. So, the evolution of new taxonomic groups has been obser ...[text shortened]... IT: See Starman's post above. It seems everybody but you is on the same page here, dj2becker.
In simple terms you start off with a flower and you end up with a flower, and thus you only end up with a variation within the same 'kind'.
16 Sep 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerEr, dj2 - "flowers" are not a taxonomic group. They're just the reproductive organs of a large class of plants.
Are the 'species' that are produced not of a similar taxonomic group, i.e. you start off with a certain 'specie' of flower and then get a different 'specie' which can still be classified under the larger taxonomic group of 'flowers'?
In simple terms you start off with a flower and you end up with a flower, and thus you only end up with a variation within the same 'kind'.