KIND = GENUS

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So what's the problem, then?

The problem is with people who think evolution doesn't work that way and that many small changes can't result in a new species; e.g. people who don't think a whale could evolve from a terrestrial quadruped.

 

[AV1611VET]

The problem is with people who think evolution doesn't work that way and that many small changes can't result in a new species;

What about those who think many small changes can't result in a new genus?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What about those who think many small changes can't result in a new genus?

They would have to provide some evidence for that belief. Otherwise it is no different than believing that people cannot walk across town. Sure a person can walk to the convenience store and back. Or even to the nearest supermarket, but walking all the way across town? Not possible.

 

[Speedwell]

What about those who think many small changes can't result in a new genus?

Same thing. new genera result from new species.

 

[AV1611VET]

Same thing. new genera result from new species.

Nope.

 

[pitabread]

Nope.

Given that a genus is just an arbitrarily assigned human classification, there is no reason we can't assign a new genus accordingly.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What about those who think many small changes can't result in a new genus?

A genus is just a convenient taxonomic rank - as I already mentioned, I don't know what the ranking procedure would be if one species gives rise to a whole new branching lineage of other species; but if it was thought necessary to re-rank the hierarchy in some way so that new genera are introduced below the original genus (which would, presumably, be promoted), why should that be a problem? It would just be a question of adjusting the taxonomy to accommodate the new members; the ancestral relationships between the species don't change, just their labelling.