Evolution: New Species and Old Species?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pctopgs
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Evolution
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the complexities of evolution and taxonomy, particularly regarding how species classification might change if humans were to evolve into a new species. It emphasizes that evolution operates on populations rather than individuals, with allele frequencies shifting over time rather than a single organism giving rise to a new species. The conversation explores whether humans would retain their classification as a species or be reclassified as a genus if they evolved into a new species. It highlights that taxonomic ranks are arbitrary and depend on conventions established by biologists, with the potential for new classifications to emerge as species evolve. The concept of anagenesis is also mentioned, suggesting that existing species can still be recognized even as new forms arise. Overall, the dialogue reflects on the fluid nature of taxonomic classification in the context of evolutionary biology.
pctopgs
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
OK so we all know that when (for example) a population of mammals evolves into something else, whatever it evolves into it will still be a mammal, but it won't be able to produce viable offspring...

This is well understood for taxonomic classes (like mammals) but what about species? What if humans evolved into something else? The new species will still be classified as human, but will the "human" species become a family? if so then will the family "hominidae" become a taxonomic order? Then what about Primates, Mammalia etc?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
pctopgs said:
OK so we all know that when (for example) a population of mammals evolves into something else, whatever it evolves into it will still be a mammal, but it won't be able to produce viable offspring...

That's because you are thinking about it wrong. Evolution doesn't work by some organism becoming the "first" of a new species. It works on populations. Specifically the allele frequencies of populations changing over time. No organism is going to give birth to something so different that it will be a new species over night, nor will it not be able to interbreed with the rest of the population. Its a population that evolves: not individuals. Very important concept for understanding evolution.

pctopgs said:
This is well understood for taxonomic classes (like mammals) but what about species? What if humans evolved into something else? The new species will still be classified as human, but will the "human" species become a family? if so then will the family "hominidae" become a taxonomic order? Then what about Primates, Mammalia etc?

"Class, family, mammal" etc, these are meaningless names given to something real. What is real is the coalescent node it describes.

So like you mentioned above, whatever "it" evolves into will till belong to the "kind" mammal. This is because mammal describes a node, or "parent" populations if you will of all extant populations which descend from that one.

The ancestral population of "mammal" occurs in the past, so any descendents of extant members will always and forever belong to that "kind" no mater what new nodes they create through branching of their lineage and no matter what we decide to name said nodes. Remember the rank is arbitrary, its simply to make it possible for us to converse on the issue. What mattered was that coalescent point--That shared ancestral population who is no longer a live.
 
bobze said:
That's because you are thinking about it wrong. Evolution doesn't work by some organism becoming the "first" of a new species. It works on populations. Specifically the allele frequencies of populations changing over time. No organism is going to give birth to something so different that it will be a new species over night, nor will it not be able to interbreed with the rest of the population. Its a population that evolves: not individuals. Very important concept for understanding evolution.
Thanks for the response, but I did say population of mammals. This is besides the point and I thought elaborating on it would be unnecessary since we all know it. :)
"Class, family, mammal" etc, these are meaningless names given to something real. What is real is the coalescent node it describes.

So like you mentioned above, whatever "it" evolves into will till belong to the "kind" mammal. This is because mammal describes a node, or "parent" populations if you will of all extant populations which descend from that one.

The ancestral population of "mammal" occurs in the past, so any descendents of extant members will always and forever belong to that "kind" no mater what new nodes they create through branching of their lineage and no matter what we decide to name said nodes. Remember the rank is arbitrary, its simply to make it possible for us to converse on the issue. What mattered was that coalescent point--That shared ancestral population who is no longer a live.

Yeah thanks again for the reply, but if the human species was to evolve into a new species then does "Human" get reclassified as a genus and whatever humans evolved into will then be classified as "species", or does "human" stay classified as species and whatever the humans evolved into gets a new taxonomic rank? I guess this is more of a taxonomy question..
 
pctopgs said:
...but if the human species was to evolve into a new species then does "Human" get reclassified as a genus and whatever humans evolved into will then be classified as "species", or does "human" stay classified as species and whatever the humans evolved into gets a new taxonomic rank?...

Are you referring to anagenesis? In that case the 'old humans' are still a species.Check en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anagenesis
 
Last edited:
pctopgs said:
Yeah thanks again for the reply, but if the human species was to evolve into a new species then does "Human" get reclassified as a genus and whatever humans evolved into will then be classified as "species", or does "human" stay classified as species and whatever the humans evolved into gets a new taxonomic rank? I guess this is more of a taxonomy question..

I suppose it depends on who is doing the naming. Conventionally the "discovering" biologist gets to name it. In the case of a new taxonomic rank it would probably have to be agreed upon by ICZN (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature).

If Homo sapiens sapiens split into new "species" they'd probably be classed as new subspecies and eventually we'd vet some new kind of rank (remember though, ranks are arbitrary). Such that their new names would Homo sapiens sapiens new name 1 and Homo sapiens sapiens new name 2
 
bobze said:
If Homo sapiens sapiens split into new "species" they'd probably be classed as new subspecies and eventually we'd vet some new kind of rank (remember though, ranks are arbitrary). Such that their new names would Homo sapiens sapiens new name 1 and Homo sapiens sapiens new name 2

Homo superior
In my interior
But from the skin out I'm
Homo sapiens too
I'm Homo sapiens like you
- Pete Shelley

omg, I've been singing that song at the top of my lungs for decades and only today I discover it is all about homosexuality. :smile:
 
Chagas disease, long considered only a threat abroad, is established in California and the Southern U.S. According to articles in the Los Angeles Times, "Chagas disease, long considered only a threat abroad, is established in California and the Southern U.S.", and "Kissing bugs bring deadly disease to California". LA Times requires a subscription. Related article -...
I am reading Nicholas Wade's book A Troublesome Inheritance. Please let's not make this thread a critique about the merits or demerits of the book. This thread is my attempt to understanding the evidence that Natural Selection in the human genome was recent and regional. On Page 103 of A Troublesome Inheritance, Wade writes the following: "The regional nature of selection was first made evident in a genomewide scan undertaken by Jonathan Pritchard, a population geneticist at the...
Back
Top