speciation and macroevolution

rmwilliamsll · #31 15th July 2006, 01:42 AM

We know there are limit on mutations in the early development of the embryos which where the major changes in forms. So there's scientific reason to believe these limits are very real.

i am unaware of this research, would you post the relevant links to read to understand what these limits are. thanks.

steen · #32 15th July 2006, 02:21 AM

Originally Posted by xpiotosaves

Speciation and Macroevolution are not the same! Macroevolution is caused by "NEW" genetic information, where as speciation is caused by a decrease information.

How do you tell when "new" information has arisen? How do you measure it?

And what do you then mean that speciation has a decrease in "information"? How do you tell, and are you saying that some mutations, the ones that lead to new species, have a loss of information?

This all seems rather bogus, as if it is all made-up. Could you provide some scientific evidence for any of this?

steen · #33 15th July 2006, 02:23 AM

Originally Posted by xpiotosaves

I don't know what evolutionists you've been talking to. When we get a new species of dog it isn't macroevolution!

COuld you give an example of a new species of a dog?

steen · #34 15th July 2006, 02:24 AM

Originally Posted by xpiotosaves

Well why are you trying to tell me about species when I seem to know info that you don't. Dogs are of the Genus "Canis" but are different species. In binomial nomenclature the name is made by putting Genus before Species. Here are examples of two dogs species.
Domestic Dog-Canis familiaris
Wolf-Canis lupus

If you had kept up in reading on taxonomy, you would know that dogs and wolves are the same species.

steen · #35 15th July 2006, 02:39 AM

Originally Posted by Smidlee

You should be more careful not to get into "definition" arguments. Basicly evolutionist believes there's no limit what evolution can produce while creationists argues there are.

But you seem unable to actually tell us what those limits are in any meaningful fashion that can be correlated with biology.

We know there are limit on mutations in the early development of the embryos which where the major changes in forms.

Please provide your evidence for this claim.

So there's scientific reason to believe these limits are very real.

The changes are in the germ cells, not in the individual organisms. Didn't you know?

xpiotosaves · #36 15th July 2006, 03:58 AM

Originally Posted by steen

If you had kept up in reading on taxonomy, you would know that dogs and wolves are the same species.

In binomial nomenclature the name goes Genus species. wolves are Canis lupus and Domestic Dogs are Canis familiaris. lupus and familiaris are different therefore the species are different

gluadys · #37 15th July 2006, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by steen

If you had kept up in reading on taxonomy, you would know that dogs and wolves are the same species.

No they are not. They are the same genus, but not the same species.

The domestic dog is Canis familiaris. One species.

There are several species of wolves including Canis lupus (gray wolf), Canis rufus (red wolf) and Canis simensis (Ethiopian wolf).

And that is just in the genus Canis. There are several species of wild dogs and wolves that are part of the canid family but not in the same genus as those listed above e.g. Chrysocyon brachyurus (maned wolf) and Speothos venaticus (bush dog). Coyotes, jackels and foxes are also Canidae.

steen · #38 15th July 2006, 10:45 AM

http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/annd2.htm
...After having slept together for 14,000 years, wolves and dogs are now joined together in scientific matrimony. Quietly, without fanfare in September 1993, wolves and dogs were recognized as the same species. Per the American Society of Mammalogists' Mammal Species of the World, adhering to the Code of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, Canis lupus is the official species of both dogs and wolves. If you have a 'dog', your dog's classification is Canis lupus familiaris, where familiaris is the subspecies of wolf. If you have a 'wolf', your wolf's classification is Canis lupus X, where X is the subspecies of wolf....

gluadys · #39 15th July 2006, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by steen

http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/annd2.htm
...After having slept together for 14,000 years, wolves and dogs are now joined together in scientific matrimony. Quietly, without fanfare in September 1993, wolves and dogs were recognized as the same species. Per the American Society of Mammalogists' Mammal Species of the World, adhering to the Code of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, Canis lupus is the official species of both dogs and wolves. If you have a 'dog', your dog's classification is Canis lupus familiaris, where familiaris is the subspecies of wolf. If you have a 'wolf', your wolf's classification is Canis lupus X, where X is the subspecies of wolf....

Looks like the NCBI site I was using is out of date on this. The University of Michigan's Animal Diversity site has it right. Canis lupus familiaris it is.

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.ed...s%20familiaris

steen · #40 16th July 2006, 12:05 AM

Originally Posted by gluadys

Looks like the NCBI site I was using is out of date on this. The University of Michigan's Animal Diversity site has it right. Canis lupus familiaris it is.

Well, outside of esoteric discussions, it doesn't matter much.