Evolution: New Species and Old Species?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pctopgs
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Evolution
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the evolutionary process and its implications for species classification, particularly concerning humans. Participants explore how evolutionary changes might affect taxonomic ranks and the definitions of species, genera, and families within the context of both theoretical and practical taxonomy.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that evolution operates on populations rather than individuals, emphasizing that new species arise from gradual changes in allele frequencies over time.
  • There is a question about whether humans, if they evolve into a new species, would retain the classification of "human" as a species or be reclassified at a different taxonomic rank.
  • One participant introduces the concept of anagenesis, suggesting that the original species would still exist alongside any new species that evolved.
  • Another participant notes that the naming of new species or taxonomic ranks is subject to the conventions of the scientific community, particularly the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN).
  • There is a discussion about the arbitrary nature of taxonomic ranks and how they may change based on new discoveries or classifications.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of evolutionary changes for species classification, with no consensus reached on how humans would be classified if they evolved into a new species. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the specifics of taxonomic reclassification.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the arbitrary nature of taxonomic ranks and the potential for changes in classification based on evolutionary developments. There is also an acknowledgment of the complexities involved in naming conventions within the scientific community.

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:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
9K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
14K
Replies
14
Views
8K