Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Evolutionary debate
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="lucaspa" data-source="post: 54639706" data-attributes="member: 4882"><p>But it's the only one that matters. The only biological <strong>reality</strong> is species. Any taxonomic group "above" species are simply <strong>groups of species</strong>. So once you have speciation, formation of genera, families, orders, classes, etc. are inevitable. See the diagram (the only one) in <em>Origin of Species</em>: <a href="http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F391&viewtype=text&pageseq=1" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F391&viewtype=text&pageseq=1</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"> pg 90</span></p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p><img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite5" alt=":confused:" title="Confused :confused:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":confused:" /> What fish? </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Quote us some definitions of macroevolution from the <em>evolutionary biology</em> literature that do not.</p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">"But we must ask, what exactly are these genera, families, orders, and so on? It was clear to Darwin, and it should be obvious to all today, that they are simply ever larger categories used to give names to <em>ever larger clusters of related species.</em> That's all these clusters, these higher taxa, really are: simply clusters of related species.</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">Thus, in priniciple the evolution of a family should be no different in its basic nature, and should involve no different processes, from the evolution of a genus, since a family is nothing more than a collection of related genera. And genera are just collections of related species. The triumph of evolutionary biology in the 1930s and 1940s was the conclusion that the same principles of adaptive divergence just described -- primarily the processes of mutation and natural selection -- going on within species, accumulate to produce the differences we see between closely related species -- i.e., within genera. Q.E.D.: <em>If adaptive modification within species explains the evolutionary differences between species within a genus, logically it must explain all the evolutionary change we see between families, orders, classes, phyla, and the kingdoms of life.</em> Niles Eldredge, The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism. pgs 76-77.</span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="lucaspa, post: 54639706, member: 4882"] But it's the only one that matters. The only biological [B]reality[/B] is species. Any taxonomic group "above" species are simply [B]groups of species[/B]. So once you have speciation, formation of genera, families, orders, classes, etc. are inevitable. See the diagram (the only one) in [I]Origin of Species[/I]: [URL="http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F391&viewtype=text&pageseq=1"][FONT=Arial]http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F391&viewtype=text&pageseq=1[/FONT][/URL][FONT=Arial] pg 90[/FONT] :confused: What fish? Quote us some definitions of macroevolution from the [I]evolutionary biology[/I] literature that do not. [FONT=Arial]"But we must ask, what exactly are these genera, families, orders, and so on? It was clear to Darwin, and it should be obvious to all today, that they are simply ever larger categories used to give names to [I]ever larger clusters of related species.[/I] That's all these clusters, these higher taxa, really are: simply clusters of related species.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial]Thus, in priniciple the evolution of a family should be no different in its basic nature, and should involve no different processes, from the evolution of a genus, since a family is nothing more than a collection of related genera. And genera are just collections of related species. The triumph of evolutionary biology in the 1930s and 1940s was the conclusion that the same principles of adaptive divergence just described -- primarily the processes of mutation and natural selection -- going on within species, accumulate to produce the differences we see between closely related species -- i.e., within genera. Q.E.D.: [I]If adaptive modification within species explains the evolutionary differences between species within a genus, logically it must explain all the evolutionary change we see between families, orders, classes, phyla, and the kingdoms of life.[/I] Niles Eldredge, The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism. pgs 76-77.[/FONT] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Evolutionary debate
Top
Bottom