Imported weed diversification supports macro-evolution

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 selectionThe 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 originalThis 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}

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 possibleEvolution, 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.

Ah, but speciation is the first step towards macro-evolution, as predicted by ToE 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

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?

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

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.

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

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.