Evolution

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Didn't you and I already go over this?

[b]Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybrid ...[text shortened]... ants from which it had evolved."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html[/b]

Maybe it was Coletti. I wish I could find that thread.

Here's another case:

In 1905, while studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, H. De Vries discovered among his plants a variant having a different chromosome number. He was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named the new species O. gigas. (De Vries, Species and Varieties, Their Origin By Mutation, 1905)

http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/factfaq.htm

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Didn't you and I already go over this?

[b]Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybrid ...[text shortened]... ants from which it had evolved."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html[/b]

This is a good example of microevolution. There is ample evidence of this.

What did you have at the begining?
Flowers.

What did you have at the end?
Flowers.

Its not like the flowers became a butterflies...

I do somehow think that the thread is aimed at discussing macroevolution...

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Maybe it was Coletti. I wish I could find that thread.

Here's another case:

[b]In 1905, while studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, H. De Vries discovered among his plants a variant having a different chromosome number. He was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named the new species O. gigas. ( ...[text shortened]... rieties, Their Origin By Mutation, 1905)

http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/factfaq.htm[/b]

Another excellent example of microevolution.

Do you have any examples of marcoevolution?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Maybe it was Coletti. I wish I could find that thread.

Here's another case:

[b]In 1905, while studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, H. De Vries discovered among his plants a variant having a different chromosome number. He was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named the new species O. gigas. ( ...[text shortened]... rieties, Their Origin By Mutation, 1905)

http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/factfaq.htm[/b]

Yeah, it was Coletti.

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=23080&page=5

Originally posted by dj2becker
This is a good example of microevolution. There is ample evidence of this.

What did you have at the begining?
Flowers.

What did you have at the end?
Flowers.

Its not like the flowers became a butterflies...

I do somehow think that the thread is aimed at discussing macroevolution...

I don't care what you somehow think. I was answering specific questions posed by Halitose.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I don't care what you somehow think. I was answering specific questions posed by Halitose.

Good thing that the proper response mechanism to dj has evolved in the forum.

lol

btw ,, may I quote you?

Originally posted by dj2becker
This is a good example of microevolution. There is ample evidence of this.

What did you have at the begining?
Flowers.

What did you have at the end?
Flowers.

Its not like the flowers became a butterflies...

I do somehow think that the thread is aimed at discussing macroevolution...

Please try to keep up. Halitose is utilizing the Biological Species Concept; this is the operative notion in this discussion regarding speciation. If you would like to start some other discussion that utilizes some alternate notion (like that of a natural kind), then start a new thread. The examples posted above are examples of speciation, they are therefore examples of macroevolution (by definition).

Originally posted by bbarr
Please try to keep up. Halitose is utilizing the Biological Species Concept; this is the operative notion in this discussion regarding speciation. If you would like to start some other discussion that utilizes some alternate notion (like that of a natural kind), then start a new thread. The examples posted above are examples of speciation, they are therefore examples of macroevolution (by definition).

Macroevolution:Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.

Speciation:The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones.

Has it been observed that speciation results in the formation of new taxonomic groups?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Macroevolution:Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.

Speciation:The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones.

Has it been observed that speciation results in the formation of new taxonomic groups?

Am I missing something here? Do you understand that a new species is a new taxonomic group?

Originally posted by Starrman
Am I missing something here? Do you understand that a new species is a new taxonomic group?

wanna bet bbarr already knew the definitions lol

Originally posted by dj2becker
Macroevolution:Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.

Speciation:The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones.

Has it been observed that speciation results in the formation of new taxonomic groups?

Since 'species' is a type of taxonomic group, and speciation is the evolution of a new species, speciation results in a new taxonomic group (this is straight deduction). In this discussion, the relevant notion of 'species' is provided by the BSC. Speciation has been observed, as pointed out above. So, the evolution of new taxonomic groups has been observed.

Seriously, you're in over your head in this thread. We don't care for your nonsense here. If you want to make use of your ill-defined pet notion of a 'natural kind' (which you mistakenly think is synonymous with the term 'taxonomic group'😉, start a new thread and label it clearly, so that those who know a thing or two about evolution can steer clear of it.

EDIT: See Starman's post above. It seems everybody but you is on the same page here, dj2becker.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
You forget the sun has been pouring free energy on the Earth for billions of years, making it all happen.

Exactly! All hail our creator...giving its' life so that we may live.

Originally posted by bbarr
Since 'species' is a type of taxonomic group, and speciation is the evolution of a new species, speciation results in a new taxonomic group (this is straight deduction). In this discussion, the relevant notion of 'species' is provided by the BSC. Speciation has been observed, as pointed out above. So, the evolution of new taxonomic groups has been obser ...[text shortened]... IT: See Starman's post above. It seems everybody but you is on the same page here, dj2becker.

Are the 'species' that are produced not of a similar taxonomic group, i.e. you start off with a certain 'specie' of flower and then get a different 'specie' which can still be classified under the larger taxonomic group of 'flowers'?

In simple terms you start off with a flower and you end up with a flower, and thus you only end up with a variation within the same 'kind'.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Are the 'species' that are produced not of a similar taxonomic group, i.e. you start off with a certain 'specie' of flower and then get a different 'specie' which can still be classified under the larger taxonomic group of 'flowers'?

In simple terms you start off with a flower and you end up with a flower, and thus you only end up with a variation within the same 'kind'.

Er, dj2 - "flowers" are not a taxonomic group. They're just the reproductive organs of a large class of plants.

Originally posted by Halitose
Yes. But I'm more interested in examining mutations as I'm sure most would agree they are the mechanism behind evolution.

no, mutations are only part of the story