1. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    30 Aug '14 12:44
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    [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 produ ...[text shortened]... t being conversant with the Latin designations. humy has commented further on the original post.
    Would this unique development be viewed as microevolution within the ant species in which ants produce ants?"

    No, because, since the new ant is still of a different species, it is macroevolution, not microevolution (if I recall correctly, I said the exact opposite earlier on but, now I think about it, I was in complete error i.e. wrong ) and the fact that it happenned within ant-kind is irrelevant + it isn't evolution within the “ant species” because there are not one but many species of ants and this new species evolved from a different species of ant other than its own species.

    Taking that a bit further: if one ant species can evolve into another ant species, then there is no special reason to think a non-ant species (a non-ant insect in this case ) could not have evolved into an ant species that was the first ant species and thus the ancestor of all current ant species. And, going back further, a non-insect species evolved into an insect species. And, going back further, a non-arthropod species evolved into an arthropod species. ...And so on right down to the first protocell.
  2. Standard memberGrampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    USA
    Joined
    14 Jul '07
    Moves
    43012
    04 Sep '14 04:28
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    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'?
    "And what did you mean by 'transmutation of species theory'?" -twhitehead

    The scientific theory of altering one animal or plant species into another, unlike change or cross breeding within a species.
  3. Standard memberGrampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    USA
    Joined
    14 Jul '07
    Moves
    43012
    04 Sep '14 04:33
    Originally posted by humy
    Would this unique development be viewed as microevolution within the ant species in which ants produce ants?"

    No, because, since the new ant is still of a different species, it is macroevolution, not microevolution (if I recall correctly, I said the exact opposite earlier on but, now I think about it, I was in complete error i.e. wrong ) ...[text shortened]... ropod species evolved into an arthropod species. ...And so on right down to the first protocell.
    Originally posted by humy
    "No, because, since the new ant is still of a different species, it is macroevolution, not microevolution..."

    If "the new ant" is of a different species, wouldn't "the new ant" be known by a name different from "ant"?
  4. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    04 Sep '14 06:45
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    Originally posted by humy
    "No, because, since the new ant is still of a different species, it is macroevolution, not microevolution..."

    If "the new ant" is of a different species, wouldn't "the new ant" be known by a name different from "ant"?
    No.
    It is a different ant species and just one of many ant species.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree