Why is it macroevolution?
- From: pdunkel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Dunk)
- Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 17:44:42 GMT
By definition it seems. In t.o. microevolution is defined as
population - level processes, or it is defined as only changes in
allele frequencies in a single population, or it is defined as
population genetics. These are not quite the same things, but each
leaves much left over to be macroevolution. In addition,
macroevolution seems to be, per various threads with 'rev. Goetz',
sometimes not a process but the reason(s) for various processes even
though they are population-level.
Elsewhere, macroevolution is defined as including any noticeable
Sticking with the t.o. version: suppose a species subdivides into two
populations, A and B. Perhaps B is a relect group left behind as the
species' range shrinks. B's environment changes. If population B
evolves into a distinct species, that's cladogenesis, or
macroevolution, unless A (the rest of the species) dies out first.
Then the change in B is anagenesis, or microevolution. It depends on
- Prev by Date: Re: FACTS SHOCKING BUT TRUE!
- Next by Date: Re: Chez Watt? (Was: New Creationist Claim: Possible to alter radioactive decay rates)
- Previous by thread: Re: What are the most interesting or useful things you have learned from
- Next by thread: Re: Why is it macroevolution?