speciation and macroevolution

Willtor · Jul 14, 2006

xpiotosaves said:
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

Because I don't need to know everything to know something. Specifically, I have a pretty good idea of what a species is and what macroevolution is (for any scientifically meaningful definition of the word). If you mean something besides speciation for macroevolution, why don't you tell me what that is. Be specific. How can we identify a boundary?

gluadys · Jul 14, 2006

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

As I said, you have an incorrect definition of macroevolution. As far as science is concerned speciation is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution at and above the level of species.

Whether information is increased or decreased or merely changed is irrelevant. Where you have speciation, you have macroevolution.

Microevolution is evolution within the species.

gluadys · Jul 14, 2006

relspace said:
From the study introduced by gluadys, speciation can come about from all kinds of genetic change including increase, decrease, and change without increase or increase in the information.

That's correct. Speciation is a different matter than information. They have little to do with each other.

But you are correct that the formula is not speciation=macroevolution

The formulas are

microevolution + time* = macroevolution for a species

and

microevolution + time* + speciation = macroevolution of many new species

* (how much time depend on the amount of environmental change and mortality during that time)

No he is not correct. Of course it takes time for a population to speciate. But time is not an "ingredient" that makes speciation happen. The only things needed to make speciation happen are mutation + natural selection + sexual isolation.

Sexual isolation may be a consequence of geographical isolation (allopatric speciation) or it may occur without geographic separation (sympatric speciation).

Furthermore, the sexual isolation is a consequence of mutation + natural selection occurring independently in the divided population. So actually all you need for speciation is micro-evolution occurring independently in two different segments of the population.

Hence macro-evolution is speciation.

gluadys · Jul 14, 2006

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

Yes it is. That is if you really mean species. If you just mean a new breed of dog, that is microevolution. But a new species is defined scientifically as macroevolution.

gluadys · Jul 14, 2006

xpiotosaves said:
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

And the domestic dog is a descendant of a species of wolf. Speciation. Macroevolution. The various species in the genus Canis came about through macroevolution aka speciation. This is what all macroevolution is: speciation after speciation after speciation.

gluadys · Jul 14, 2006

xpiotosaves said:
Dog kind do correspond to Canidae. It is possible that many species of dog could arise in 5000 years (more or less) because a new species of mosquito have risen in about 60 years which is about 1/83 of that time.

That is just one new species of mosquito. There are many more than one species of Canidae. And, as pointed out, canids have a longer generation span.

btw---this topic is not appropriate to this thread which is simply for indicating where one is on the spectrum of origins beliefs. Shall we ask a mod to put this part of the discussion in the OT forum where it can continue without taking this thread off track?

Melethiel · Jul 14, 2006

*bows* As you wish, master.

Dannager · Jul 14, 2006

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

Macroevolution is speciation. There's no way around that. That's the way it was originally defined, that's the way scientists continue to use it today. From the Wikipedia.org article on macroevolution:

Wikipedia.org said:
Macroevolution refers to evolution that occurs above the level of species, which is microevolution over long periods of time that leads to speciation.

You can say it's not speciation all day long, but as long as you accept that speciation happens, you accept that macroevolution happens. Heck, as long as you accept microevolution, you accept macroevolution.

Smidlee · Jul 14, 2006

vossler said:
I keep hearing you say this, but I've yet to see you prove it. Please show us the observed macroevolution you elude to.

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. 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.

theFijian · Jul 14, 2006

If there's one things that is truely futile on this forum it's expecting a Creationist to properly analyse the evidence for speciation. They cannot accept it without abandoning special creation, so they aint about to change their position anytime soon.

rmwilliamsll · Jul 14, 2006

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 · Jul 15, 2006

xpiotosaves said:
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 · Jul 15, 2006

xpiotosaves said:
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 · Jul 15, 2006

xpiotosaves said:
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 · Jul 15, 2006

Smidlee said:
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 · Jul 15, 2006

steen said:
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 · Jul 15, 2006

steen said:
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 · Jul 15, 2006

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 · Jul 15, 2006

steen said:
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.e..._lupus_familiaris.html#Canis lupus familiaris

steen · Jul 15, 2006

gluadys said:
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.

speciation and macroevolution

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Miserere mei, Domine

Back in Town

Veteran

Well-Known Member

avid reader

Lie Detector

Lie Detector

Lie Detector

Lie Detector

Active Member

Legend

Lie Detector

Legend

Lie Detector

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency