quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

Ligers and tigons, oh my...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger

And don't forget the Liliger!

These are examples that different species being incompatible isn't a hard fast rule.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

If I understand this it looks like genome doubling occurred and that may be rare but not unheard of. But, Ken, does the above tell us anymore than I found a lion and a tiger and could not mate them to produce fertile progeny? New species are frequently identified. But the discovery of new species is not evidence in itself of evolution. It is just information we did not have before. There is plenty of evidence for evolution otherwise.

Of course it is evidence of evolution. At one point the there was one population of evening primrose, one with 14 chromosomes. Then a mutation occurred and an individual was born with 28 chromosomes making it a new species born from the old species.

I will concede this one to you, Ken. ATM I just don't have the resources to dispute it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Genetic drift is microevolution and is prelude to speciation. However, if the variants can still mate and produce fertile progeny they are still the same species despite their differences. If some become isolated in a different environment in which their variation is better adapted the new variants will eventually continue to undergo modification that will inhibit reproduction with the original variant, or so goes the Theory.

Only in the very rarest of cases would there be a bright line between species. like the polyploidy plant discussed above. More usually it will be a slow build up of differences over many generations.

The primates seem clearly distinguishable. But they are unlikely to mate or if so produce fertile progeny. Somewhere along the way there must have been clear separation. Maybe there are no 'bright lines' because they are lost to history. Maybe they will be identified or have been identified by comparative genome study. I will try to search that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

Ligers and tigons, oh my...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger

And don't forget the Liliger!

These are examples that different species being incompatible isn't a hard fast rule.

But no living examples in nature. Also there would be no lineage because only the females were found to be fertile. So, a freak. Not a new species.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

What the hell does that have to do with what I posted? The question was 'what are they called'? I gave the fucking answer, period.

Could you stop this childish strawman bullshit for even a second?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

Ligers and tigons, oh my...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger

And don't forget the Liliger!

These are examples that different species being incompatible isn't a hard fast rule.

But no living examples in nature. Also there would be no lineage because only the females were found to be fertile. So, a freak. Not a new species.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Genetic drift is microevolution and is prelude to speciation. However, if the variants can still mate and produce fertile progeny they are still the same species despite their differences. If some become isolated in a different environment in which their variation is better adapted the new variants will eventually continue to undergo modification that will inhibit reproduction with the original variant, or so goes the Theory.

Only in the very rarest of cases would there be a bright line between species. like the polyploidy plant discussed above. More usually it will be a slow build up of differences over many generations.

There has been a debate between paleontologists who argue that catastrophic environmental events are required to promote evolutionary change (punctuated equilibrium) and biologists who argued that change took place gradually over long periods of time (microevolution) The rock guys see five major extinctions in the fossil record and long periods of equilibrium between. The compromise between the two is that micro-evolutionary changes occur during the flat step of equilibrium and that macro-evolutionary changes occur when there is a catastrophic event (the riser in the staircase) It is difficult to deny the rock evidence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

If I understand this it looks like genome doubling occurred and that may be rare but not unheard of. But, Ken, does the above tell us anymore than I found a lion and a tiger and could not mate them to produce fertile progeny? New species are frequently identified. But the discovery of new species is not evidence in itself of evolution. It is just information we did not have before. There is plenty of evidence for evolution otherwise.

Of course it is evidence of evolution. At one point the there was one population of evening primrose, one with 14 chromosomes. Then a mutation occurred and an individual was born with 28 chromosomes making it a new species born from the old species.

I will concede this one to you, Ken. ATM I just don't have the resources to dispute it.

Okay, went to Dairy Queen for a cheeseburger and thought about this. I don't know what would cause a random mutation resulting in a doubling of the genome. Do you? As far as I can tell there is no environmental pressure involved. No environmental pressure, no natural selection. So, not Darwinian evolution. Obviously an example of Divine Creation.

quote:

Okay, went to Dairy Queen for a cheeseburger and thought about this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Genetic drift is microevolution and is prelude to speciation. However, if the variants can still mate and produce fertile progeny they are still the same species despite their differences. If some become isolated in a different environment in which their variation is better adapted the new variants will eventually continue to undergo modification that will inhibit reproduction with the original variant, or so goes the Theory.

Only in the very rarest of cases would there be a bright line between species. like the polyploidy plant discussed above. More usually it will be a slow build up of differences over many generations.

The primates seem clearly distinguishable. But they are unlikely to mate or if so produce fertile progeny. Somewhere along the way there must have been clear separation. Maybe there are no 'bright lines' because they are lost to history. Maybe they will be identified or have been identified by comparative genome study. I will try to search that.

KEN ~~~

I couldn't find any clarity in the discussion of comparative genome studies except estimates of when the various primate species diverged. But it stands to reason at some point one group or other went off on its own or one group was decimated leaving a variant to survive and undergo further micro-evolutionary changes. In other words the only reason there are no bright lines is because we don't see them. They are obscured to us in the history of speciation but there had to come a time of separation.

quote:

No.
PE postulates that in most cases populations adapt to their environments and then enter into "stasis" in which as long as their environment is stable they do not change appreciably. Then when their environment does change the population changes quite rapidly. If it survives at all it would then enter into another period of stasis after again adapting to the new environment. It is not tied to the mass extinction cycle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puncuated_equilibrium

quote:

It is just a random mutation. It happens in plants all the time. Polyploidy is fairly common in plants. It even happens occasionally in animals, IIRC there is a species of mouse with some very large number of chromosomes.
here it is 102 chromosomes

quote:

But there were no bright lines between parent and child species. It just can't work that way. What you have is populations of organisms adapting to changing environments with shifting allele pools.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
It is just a random mutation. It happens in plants all the time. Polyploidy is fairly common in plants. It even happens occasionally in animals, IIRC there is a species of mouse with some very large number of chromosomes.
here it is 102 chromosomes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Vizcacha_Rat

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

It is just a random mutation. It happens in plants all the time. Polyploidy is fairly common in plants. It even happens occasionally in animals, IIRC there is a species of mouse with some very large number of chromosomes.
here it is 102 chromosomes

in the case of the plant it was not Darwinian evolution; just a mutation. We don't know if it would have survived and propagated in the wild.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

It is just a random mutation. It happens in plants all the time. Polyploidy is fairly common in plants. It even happens occasionally in animals, IIRC there is a species of mouse with some very large number of chromosomes.
here it is 102 chromosomes

in the case of the plant it was not Darwinian evolution; just a mutation. We don't know if it would have survived and propagated in the wild.

It was in the wild. Polyploidism happens in the wild all the time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

It is just a random mutation. It happens in plants all the time. Polyploidy is fairly common in plants. It even happens occasionally in animals, IIRC there is a species of mouse with some very large number of chromosomes.
here it is 102 chromosomes

in the case of the plant it was not Darwinian evolution; just a mutation. We don't know if it would have survived and propagated in the wild.

It was in the wild. Polyploidism happens in the wild all the time.

Sorry. I thought it was in his garden. Didn't say it was in the wild. In any event polyploidy contributes to microevolution. Speciation requires reproductive isolation. How else can the gene pool become distinct?

Speciation is distinct from microevolution in that speciation usually requires an isolating factor to keep the new species distinct. The isolating factor need not be biological; a new mountain range or the changed course of a river can qualify. Other than that, speciation requires no processes other than microevolution. Some processes such as disruptive selection (natural selection that drives two states of the same feature further apart) and polyploidy (a mutation that creates copies of the entire genome), may be involved more often in speciation, but they are not substantively different from microevolution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Artisculation2

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

I doubt it would have been worth it even if you had had the patience. Evolution/Creation debates seem invariably to descend into one side proclaiming theology as fact and the other side proclaiming theory as fact. In short, a pissing contest between priests.

Evolution is observable and has been observed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
Frankly, the notion that all life evolved from a single common ancestor has always struck me as likely to be no less a made up story than Genesis. If life arose once, why not more than once, in different forms in different niches? I could see all plants having a common ancestor, for example, but while natural selection works fine to explain speciation it seems increasingly inadequate when called upon to account for the phyla and kingdoms.

And if you actually understood biochemistry you would have no doubt that there was a single origin for all life on earth. For instance all life on Earth shares essentially the same DNA to amino acid codon correspondence which is not something that would occur with separate origins.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
Frankly, the notion that all life evolved from a single common ancestor has always struck me as likely to be no less a made up story than Genesis. If life arose once, why not more than once, in different forms in different niches? I could see all plants having a common ancestor, for example, but while natural selection works fine to explain speciation it seems increasingly inadequate when called upon to account for the phyla and kingdoms.

And if you actually understood biochemistry you would have no doubt that there was a single origin for all life on earth. For instance all life on Earth shares essentially the same DNA to amino acid codon correspondence which is not something that would occur with separate origins.

Must have missed one species there Dom (koff) Ken: http://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news/545/DNA-Analysis-Of-Paracas-Elongated-Skulls-Released-The-Results-Prove-They-Were-Not-Human

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie
Ligers and tigons, oh my...

And don't forget the Liliger!

These are examples that different species being incompatible isn't a hard fast rule.

So, a freak. Not a new species.