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
Creation & Evolution
You've Probably Seen a Fish with Lungs in Person
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="FrumiousBandersnatch" data-source="post: 73770107" data-attributes="member: 241055"><p>True; but speciation requires a population of individuals to be sufficiently different from the ancestor species; unless you immediately exterminate the population at the point of speciation, there will be descendant individuals; one might even argue that you need a few generations to confirm speciation...</p><p></p><p>When you discover an unknown species at, or close to, the point of its extinction (e.g. fossils at the K-T boundary, or the last individuals of an unknown extant species), you've almost certainly found a species that has changed (transitioned) somewhat since its speciation, but you may not be able to say when that speciation occurred. In both situations, you typically have very few individuals to assess, and for fossils, little chance of genetic analysis.</p><p></p><p>But, as I said, it's really a semantic argument that depends on the particular definition of (or criteria for) 'species' and 'speciation'.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="FrumiousBandersnatch, post: 73770107, member: 241055"] True; but speciation requires a population of individuals to be sufficiently different from the ancestor species; unless you immediately exterminate the population at the point of speciation, there will be descendant individuals; one might even argue that you need a few generations to confirm speciation... When you discover an unknown species at, or close to, the point of its extinction (e.g. fossils at the K-T boundary, or the last individuals of an unknown extant species), you've almost certainly found a species that has changed (transitioned) somewhat since its speciation, but you may not be able to say when that speciation occurred. In both situations, you typically have very few individuals to assess, and for fossils, little chance of genetic analysis. But, as I said, it's really a semantic argument that depends on the particular definition of (or criteria for) 'species' and 'speciation'. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
You've Probably Seen a Fish with Lungs in Person
Top
Bottom