In article <58505p$oi7 at sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>, jbsimon at ix.netcom.com says...
>Fascinating Ed, but tell me, what is the name of this new species that has "evolved?" These
>appear to be examples of microevolution. These examples cannot be used to extrapolate from E
>coli to man. An organism adapting to its environment is a great example of natural selection,
>but natural selection is just as compatible with creation. With the billions of years of
>evolution, there should be better examples of evolution, both in the present and in the past.
>Back to your hypothesizing Ed.....
Problem is the definition of what a species is ! as I recall correctly from
biology 107: aspecies is defined as an organism that can produce fertile
offspring if mated with an organism of the same species.
With E.coli (a-sexual multiplication) or a virus, the definition of a species is almost
impossible, and thus talking about observing actual evolution taking place may
be difficult. Even though IMHO opinion micro-evolution (sounds like a creationist
invention, such an un-word) does point towards evolution taking place.
We humans may simply live too short to observe the actual evolution taking place ?
But certainly there must be numerous breeds of cattle or other animals that have
been bred to such an extend, that they can't be mated with their forefathers anymore ?
Anybody seen the production of a novel species of sheep or anything ?