Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolu
quote:Tangle changed the subject as it is usually discussed, that's why I said what I said.
No he didn’t. He just disagreed with an assertion you made. One that you now say is irrelevant. And I still don’t see why you had to invent that claim about “moving the goalposts” (more accurately I don’t see an honest reason).
Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
So you accept the fact that there has been radical change, even to the change in the number of chromosomes? Even to the extent that a population can diverge so much that it may form multiple groups that cannot interbreed and so are different species? I'd hardly call that "depletion"!
Anyway, I'm surprised you didn't just say that all of this was "unnatural" selection, intelligent interference in the genome by breeders! Is that because you know the natural world can impose selective pressures on populations of living creatures much more stringent (and for far longer) than human breeders?
Over time, of course, there has been enormous change. The first fossil evidence of mammals is from the Triassic Period, when the reptiles still ruled. The early mammals were small (often described by paleontologists as "shrew-like" or "mouse-like" animals) and certainly far different from the horses, whales, elephants and other mammals we see today. So we have evolutionary change over many generations. The most important evidence for evolution is the simplest: go from point A, an ancestor, to point B, a creature living today of much different form than that ancestor.
Unless, of course, you are willing to believe that there have always been horses, whales, elephants and all the other mammals, since the beginning of life on earth. Is that it? Were there kangaroos and aardvarks and lemurs on earth billions of years ago?
I'd probably classify them as a Kind, or perhaps within a larger group of insects if I ever got into that area. Morphologically they are the same, that's the main criterion for the Kind/Species for me. Shape of body, form and number of legs, shape and function of proboscis.
Sorry, I edited my post to add the morphologial data that I forgot to include: they are identical morphologically.
Why don't they interbreed? This is important to the control of malaria.