Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9180 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,259 Year: 5,516/9,624 Month: 541/323 Week: 38/143 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Imported weed diversification supports macro-evolution
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2630 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 1 of 59 (298081)
03-25-2006 2:17 PM


In the early 1900s, three plant species native to Europe were brought to america. These three belong to the goatsbeard genus, Tragopogon, and are T. dubius, T. pratensis, and T. porrifolius. These weeds are now common in urban wastelands. In the 1950s, botanists discovered something absolutely amazing. There were two new species in Idaho and eastern Washington. Keep in mind, the original three are also there. The new ones are T. miscellus and T. mirus.
Those familiar with the Hardy-Weinberg equation know that it states five conditions that must be met for no evolution to occur.
1) An infinately large population
2) No preferential mating
3) No differential migration
4) No mutation
5) No natural selection
The goatsbeard is not native to America, but to Europe. It migrated here, even though it had no choice (I don't think many migrations that lead to speciation are truly by choice). Also, the weeds did not migrate back to Europe. The weeds did not have an infinately large population. Because of being placed into a new environment, new pressures would be placed on the weeds. The two new species are also not found in Europe.
i don't know about you, but this looks an awful lot like speciation and macro-evolution.
Reference: Biology, Sixth Edition. Campbell and Reece (Authors). Published by Benjamin Cummings. Copyright 2002.
this has been edited from the original
This message has been edited by kuresu, 03-25-2006 01:12 PM
{Topic promoted from one more piece of evidence supporting macro-evolution PNT. - Adminnemooseus}

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Faith, posted 03-25-2006 4:00 PM kuresu has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2630 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 5 of 59 (298106)
03-25-2006 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Faith
03-25-2006 4:00 PM


you apparently don't understand the definition of macro-evolution. According to the same source I puuled that information, it is: evolutionary change on a grand scale, encompassing the origin of new taxonomic gprous, evolutionary trends, adaptive radiation, and mass extinction. The biggest difference between it and micro-evolution is the amount of time needed. Like the next poster says, these new species do not interbreed and produce fertile offspring. They are new to biology and this earth.
By the way, you do know that there is no biological basis for race, right.
The other false assumption you have about macro-evolution is that it regquires a species to stop being that species entirely. Which suggests you do not understand the evolutionary process. What you used to disprove this being macro is what is actually in support of macro, except the race part. Oh, and Mednellian inheritance, thanks to Hardy and Weinberg, makes evolution possible
Evolution, such as macro, happens on a population scale. A single organism becoming a different one will die off, and that much is true. The thing is, one mutation does not reproductively isolate that organism from breeding with the others. The mutation gets passed on. In the case of the plants, they ended up with double the normal chromosomes, effectively isolating them from the parent species. Plants are able to do this because they can breed with themselves, having both male and female parts and being capable of zsexual reproduction. Animals will not be able to do this.
Having double the normal chromosome makes you a different goatsbeard, and I bet you a million dollars that several millions of years later, goatsbeard will be something different.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Faith, posted 03-25-2006 4:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by mark24, posted 03-25-2006 4:43 PM kuresu has replied
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 03-25-2006 5:01 PM kuresu has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2630 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 7 of 59 (298109)
03-25-2006 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by mark24
03-25-2006 4:43 PM


Ah, but speciation is the first step towards macro-evolution, as predicted by ToE
Speciation is at the boundary between microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution is a change over the generations in a populations's alle frequencies, mainly by genetic drift and natural selection. Speciation occurs when a population's genetic divergence from its ancestral population results in reproductive isolation. . . .Yet the cumulative change during millions of speciation episodes over vast tracts of time must account for macroevolution, the level of change that is evident over the time scale of the fossil record.
Now then, coming from a college biology book that has as one of its central themes evolution, that's pretty convicing evidence.

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by mark24, posted 03-25-2006 4:43 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by mark24, posted 03-25-2006 7:49 PM kuresu has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2630 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 9 of 59 (298113)
03-25-2006 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
03-25-2006 5:01 PM


The only difference between Great Danes and Chihuahaua are which genes are expressed. The only difference between white, black, asian, indian, whatever is that there are varying amounts of melantonin (I think that's the skin color pigment) in these "races". They are not different kinds or species.
If you don't accept the standard definitions, it would be pointless to debate with you because then all you have to say is
"I don't believe that, and since my definition is true you can't prove anything to me becasue I'll just change it so thay you'll never be right so that I can believe what I want and not accept the logical outcome of events"
how can you argue with that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 03-25-2006 5:01 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 03-25-2006 5:32 PM kuresu has not replied
 Message 12 by Belfry, posted 03-25-2006 7:12 PM kuresu has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2630 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 18 of 59 (298133)
03-25-2006 8:33 PM


right, so speciation isn't macroevolution immediately, but following the definition I gave of macro evolution, which the other defintion given by Levinton appears to agree with, then this speciation will eventually result in macro-evolution.
I must stress again that race is a social, not biological concept. If there was enough differences between the races in their genetics then they should be classified as sub-species. There is not enough difference to actually distinguish separate biological races in man.
i need to pay attention to posts. I posted this thinking there was but a single page. Wake up!
This message has been edited by kuresu, 03-25-2006 08:35 PM

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Faith, posted 03-25-2006 8:57 PM kuresu has not replied
 Message 31 by mark24, posted 03-26-2006 4:05 AM kuresu has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2630 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 21 of 59 (298145)
03-25-2006 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Faith
03-25-2006 8:54 PM


that specific reply button. I'll learn to use it, eventually. I have a question. Have you taken a college biology course? I just want to know why you insist that race is biological when there is no real definition. Actually, let me clarify a bit before getting massacred. By biological I mean that there is enough genetic difference to have separate biological races for mankind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Faith, posted 03-25-2006 8:54 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 03-25-2006 10:05 PM kuresu has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2630 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 23 of 59 (298155)
03-25-2006 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Faith
03-25-2006 10:05 PM


but speciation, as far as sexually reproducing species are concerned, involves the reproductive isolation. If those two populations of chipmunks differentiate enough so that when they crossbreed the offspring are infertile, then two species are where one used to be. All human races can crossbreed and produce fertile offsrping, with the occasional exception of a mutation or accident that causes the fetus to not develop properly or abort or die. Of course, H. neadertalensis may have been a subspecies of H. sapiens because there are fossils that show H. sapiens and H. neandertalensis characteristics. However, we can't know that we actually crossbred with them and had viable, fertile offspring. Keep in mind I'm not stating that H. neandertalensis contribuited to H. sapiens evolution because the mtDNA of the neandertals is not found in our mtDNA.

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 03-25-2006 10:05 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 03-25-2006 10:22 PM kuresu has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2630 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 25 of 59 (298165)
03-25-2006 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Faith
03-25-2006 10:22 PM


as far as I know, there is no fallen world in the scientific community. Extinctions do not happen becasue of reduced genetic variability. Since life has been on earth for about 3.5 billion years, I would guess that there should be no genetic diversity if your case exists. Species go extinct because they cannot adapt quickly enough to changing pressures.
The dinos went extinct because they could not adapt quickly enough to survive the drastically new climate. The tiny mammals, having endothermy and being capable of surviving in the new climate found a pretty empty world to explore.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 03-25-2006 10:22 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Faith, posted 03-25-2006 11:50 PM kuresu has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024