Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: kinsman redeemer
I'd hate to bet that man will be around long enough to speciate. Actually, we're going the other way right now, remelding a lot of geographically isolated varieties into a single global population.

Species is most easily defined in extant sexual populations, since you can observe reproductive compatibility. Two populations that cannot or will not breed are considered separate species. Just in the last few months I've noticed that most creationists have punted on claiming that this does not occur, quietly moving the goalpost for macroevolution to the genus level.

In asexual species, you have molecular and anatomical evidence, but it's not so clear as for sexuals. For fossil species, all you have to go on are anatomical clues. That's fuzzier yet. You can picture future paleontologists arguing over St. Bernard and chihuahua skeletons.

238 posted on 04/05/2002 6:14:37 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies ]


To: VadeRetro
"future paleontologists arguing over St. Bernard and chihuahua skeletons"

LOL

240 posted on 04/05/2002 6:22:27 AM PST by kinsman redeemer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies ]

To: VadeRetro
"Two populations that cannot or will not breed are considered separate species.

I know you did not mean to imply this, but the first thing I thought was, "This means that homosexuals are a separate species."

242 posted on 04/05/2002 6:24:35 AM PST by kinsman redeemer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies ]

To: VadeRetro
Species is most easily defined in extant sexual populations, since you can observe reproductive compatibility. Two populations that cannot or will not breed are considered separate species. Just in the last few months I've noticed that most creationists have punted on claiming that this does not occur, quietly moving the goalpost for macroevolution to the genus level.

That WHAT does not occur? Reproductive compatibility?

Yours is the classic definition of "species." That answers #3 above. On this, there is no dispute.

245 posted on 04/05/2002 6:48:52 AM PST by kinsman redeemer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies ]

To: VadeRetro
Two populations that cannot or will not breed are considered separate species.

That's not evolution, that's not even speciation. A human in Los Angeles cannot breed with a human in New York City, but that does not mean that they are different species. You make up such nonsense because you know your theory cannot give proof of a species ever transforming itself into a new, more complex organism.

459 posted on 04/05/2002 6:30:41 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson