new ant species evolved from original species while living in the same colony

Originally posted by sonhouse
I think we are quibbling about semantics and the theological implications, a new species is one that cannot reproduce with another, like these two. They are still ants, sure, but the insistence of theologians to reproduce kind for kind is only an argument that will have a limited lifespan, since geneticists I am quite sure will at some point in the future, ...[text shortened]... ious stance.

Bob, how much more of my musical posts have you listened to? Hear any Bernt yet?

Originally posted by sonhouse
"I think we are quibbling about semantics and the theological implications, a new species is one that cannot reproduce with another, like these two. They are still ants, sure, but the insistence of theologians to reproduce kind for kind is only an argument that will have a limited lifespan, since geneticists I am quite sure will at some point in the future, 10 years, 100 years, whatever, be able to take a tree and turn it into a rose, or take a frog and turn it into a lizard." [Still future?]

"At that point religious arguments will take a nosedive." [Not here to argue nor teach scientists biblical views but to learn.]

"All the anti-science stance given by YEC's especially, will have to change eventually. No doubt at that point, a frog becomes a lizard or some such, YEC's would simply move the goalpost and say something like 'this is the work of the devil' or some such." [The age of the earth is unknown; there may not even be an accurate unit of measure word in the English Language. YEC crusader speculations are a sad farce. There's space in eternity past between Genesis 1:1 creation and 1:2 restoration.]

"Using the word 'kind' is a give away to a religious stance." [I'm also aware of Genesis 1:11 but have no desire to assume any "stance" in this forum. Questions: a) Has Science discovered any examples which offer proof of the transmutation of species theory in the plant or animal kingdoms? b) Are there any scientific laws which science developed or enforces?]

"Bob, how much more of my musical posts have you listened to? Hear any Bernt yet?" [Replied to three; eighteen to go.]

Originally posted by twhitehead
They also develop via selective breeding (a very different thing from cross breeding).

[b]...but to the best of my knowledge dogs don't produce cats nor maple trees produce oranges.
The possibilities for life is so vast that it is so highly improbable that a species would evolve into a previously existing species that it has probably never happene ...[text shortened]... hich includes dogs, wolves and dingos. Whereas 'ant' is a family with over 12,000 known species.[/b]

twhitehead, please see my reply to sonhouse.

Originally posted by forkedknight
Wait, so after months of trolling and bickering, you guys still want to talk about YECs and how dumb they are, but you don't want any YECs in the thread?

Off Topic Sidebar: Your threads and posts to the Posers and Puzzles Forum are fascinating.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I think we are quibbling about semantics and the theological implications, a new species is one that cannot reproduce with another, like these two. They are still ants, sure, but the insistence of theologians to reproduce kind for kind is only an argument that will have a limited lifespan, since geneticists I am quite sure will at some point in the future, ...[text shortened]... ious stance.

Bob, how much more of my musical posts have you listened to? Hear any Bernt yet?

...a new species is one that cannot reproduce with another

up to a point. I doubt that anyone would regard lions and tigers as the same species, but it is possible for them to reproduce, although the offspring are not really viable. I think it is enough that there is behavioural suppression of reproduction for a new species to arise. As it happens when testing donor sperm, they use a mouse egg cell to see if the donor sperm can fertilize it. They stop the resultant murman (or whatever they call it) from further development at the 8 (or so) cell stage. I doubt the resultant organism would be viable, but the division between species isn't quite as clean as your statement implies.

Originally posted by humy
In that contrived narrow sense, yes. But its still macroevolution because it still involves the evolution of a new species of ant that doesn't cross breed with its original species.

If a species of bacteria evolved into a mammal (like it once did a very long time ago via a large series of transitional species including fish and reptiles ) you could ask "Wou ...[text shortened]... ontrived and insist that it is macroevolution, not microevolution, by any reasonable definition.

On a point of extreme pedantry - mammals (probably) didn't evolve from bacteria, which are prokaryotes, the eukaryotic line will have evolved from an earlier common ancestor of the two kingdoms (archeota?). My evidence for this is that Eukaryotes have linear DNA capped with telomeres, whereas prokaryotes (eubacteria) have circular DNA.

Having said that I do have to admit that mitochondria have circular DNA and are probably prokaryotes which were absorbed into an ancient symbiosis.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Questions: a) Has Science discovered any examples which offer proof of the transmutation of species theory in the plant or animal kingdoms?
b) Are there any scientific laws which science developed or enforces?]

I don't think I understand either question. What is the 'transmutation of species theory'?
In b) are you asking whether or not scientists force nature to behave in certain ways via the discovery of laws? If that is the question, then the answer is no. And that is one reason why your earlier claim is flawed as it uses man made classification systems and demands that nature obeys some rule based on that classification.

Would you care to explain what you meant by 'kind' in your earlier post?

Originally posted by DeepThought
Good spot, this is a big story. It changes how we think about evolution. I wonder if this can happen in humans?

It's already happening in humans, there is a large population of these parasitic humans in the United States. ( i.e. the welfare population).

I wonder what the check is on the parasite ants' population?

It would seem that their population growth
would result in the destruction of both species.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I wonder what the check is on the parasite ants' population?

It would seem that their population growth
would result in the destruction of both species.

Although, strictly speaking, this doesn't answer your question:-

Just like it isn't in the actual 'interest' (reproductive interest ) for a flue virus to kill its human host (a dead human cannot continue to spread the virus ) , it wouldn't be in the interest of a parasite ant colony to kill off its host ant colony. If you are a parasite and you do such a good job of parasitizing your host that you kill your host before having a chance to move onto another host, you would have shot your own foot by eradicating your own only food supply thus dooming yourself to starve to death without the chance of further reproduction. This is why parasites that start off lethal often evolve to come less lethal with time and this is what might have happened with the evolution of this parasitic ant.

Originally posted by humy
Although, strictly speaking, this doesn't answer your question:-

Just like it isn't in the actual 'interest' (reproductive interest ) for a flue virus to kill its human host (a dead human cannot continue to spread the virus ) , it wouldn't be in the interest of a parasite ant colony to kill off its host ant colony. If you are a parasite and you do such a goo ...[text shortened]... lethal with time and this is what might have happened with the evolution of this parasitic ant.

Yes I agree. Just wondering what the check is on the parasite colony.
Any chance there is some symbiosis going on? What could these parasite ants supply?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Yes I agree. Just wondering what the check is on the parasite colony.
Any chance there is some symbiosis going on? What could these parasite ants supply?

I guess it is too early to say. This species has only just been discovered and much more research will have to be done before we know these things.

For we know, the parasitic ant colonies can sense when it is close to placing too much burden on its host colony and, to stop it shooting its own foot, react by delaying reproducing its own kind until less and more sustainable strain is being put on the host colony. This is currently just pure speculation of course.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't think I understand either question. What is the 'transmutation of species theory'?
In b) are you asking whether or not scientists force nature to behave in certain ways via the discovery of laws? If that is the question, then the answer is no. And that is one reason why your earlier claim is flawed as it uses man made classification systems and d ...[text shortened]... that classification.

Would you care to explain what you meant by 'kind' in your earlier post?

Same species.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Same species.

But neither 'ant' nor 'dog' is a species name. And you asked 'am I wrong' when the thread title clearly states that new species do evolve.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But neither 'ant' nor 'dog' is a species name. And you asked 'am I wrong' when the thread title clearly states that new species [b]do evolve.[/b]

[1]"new ant species evolved from original species while living in the same colony" (humy's thread title)

Would this unique development be viewed as microevolution within the ant species in which ants produce ants?"

[2]"With cross breeding different breeds of dogs develop but to the best of my knowledge dogs don't produce cats nor maple trees produce oranges. Each species bears its own kind. Whether it's called micro, macro or humyevolution ants still produce ants. At least this would be my perspective. Am I wrong? By the way, thanks for an interesting and informative thread."

[1] My reply to humy; [2] One of my replies to sonhouse.

Originally posted by twhitehead
"But neither 'ant' nor 'dog' is a species name. And you asked 'am I wrong' when the thread title clearly states that new species do evolve."

My apology for not being conversant with the Latin designations. humy has commented further on the original post.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
My apology for not being conversant with the Latin designations. humy has commented further on the original post.

Its not about Latin designations, but rather the fact that 'ant' refers to a group of creatures including over 12,000 species whereas 'dog' refers to a subspecies.
'Ant' is more comparable to 'mammal' than to 'dog'.

And what did you mean by 'transmutation of species theory'?