feline cats are a kind for exaple..
That would put kind at the suborder level if you go by cats being feliformia, before family which would be a split in the order carnivera with caniforma.
Seeing as this would include mongooses and hyena's it may also be that you would consider it at the level of family similarly to felidae. This would put it at just above genus species.
However the human family is hominadae which would include the great apes. So perhaps you mean at the genus level, which for humans would be Homo.
Homo contain's several species such as hablis, erectus, ergaster, neanderthal, etc.
So perhaps you mean species, but you said species is different than kind earlier saying that a change in species is not a change in kind.
Thus we run into the problem of you using an example instead of a rigorous definition to define kinds. It is rather difficult to apply the concept.
for the change....lets assume there is a certain group of a given animal ...and it grow and spread on a very large geographic area where each part of this species is going under different events-environment-etc....
I'm going to assume that these groups cannot interbreed with one another and are isolated separate populations.
each part will start adopting over a long period of time to its environment .....eventually ....while both groups will be practically simillar ..each will basically present a different species ..correct ?
Yes, as long as those populations aren't interbreeding.
but in general ..both groups will remain within the same kind ...
It's rather difficult to say what you mean by kind. But if they can change a little in a given amount of time, then they can change a little more in more time, and they can change a whole lot in quite a long time. If they are all changing in different ways then you will end up with more than a little difference between them. You are focused very much on the result of a single change which by definitions isn't much of a change. But they can change again, and then again, and they will keep changing till the difference is quite large.
an example is dogs coming from wolves in the articale you posted....both have differences ....and considered different species
We aren't entirely sure when we domesticated dogs, but the large estimate is 40,000 years ago. That's about 3000-5000 or so generations of them give or take. In experiments with E. coli speciation required 30,000 generations. Diploid organisms like humans and dogs evolve faster because of sex mixing up our genes, but 3000-5000 generations is not very long at all for evolution to be taking place. You wouldn't really expect an enormous amount of difference between dogs and wolves give the short time we've been at it.
but in whole. ...they're one kind and they come from one place
All evolution "comes from one place". That's what common ancestors are, the one place that two divergent groups came from on their different paths.
but with humans and apes...if they both did come from the same ancestry ...
-why did one evolve much more intelligent than the other??
Evolution selects for one thing and one thing only, ability to out reproduce other members of your population. Chimps survive quite well in their natural environment and a slightly smarter chimp wont survive any better than a stupider chimp. So evolution doesn't select for intelligence in chimps.
The environment humans evolved in was in a region that went through several climactic shifts, this changing environment selected for adaptability. It selected for the ability to find ways to survive in new environments under new conditions. In that case it selected for intelligence.
Intelligence requires quite a lot of energy devoted to growing the brain, and in humans the brain capacity required meant that babies had to be born less developed and require quite a lot of energy to raise compared to a chimp baby. It also increased rates of death during child birth compared to chimps.
There is quite a lot of pressure against intelligence evolving and it is only in very specific conditions that the value of intelligence would outweigh it's developmental cost.
-the theory says that 6 million years ago the line of great apes split resulting in both humans and modern apes ....
6-7 million years, yes.
but all the former speciations had shorter terms...but in the final 6 million years nothing happened
This is not true. We did not evolve from great apes, we evolved from a common ancestor with the great apes. Our common ancestor could be fairly unlike a chimp.
asically speciation practically stopped and evolution as well took much slower pace and almost practically stopped in apes ...but not in humans ......?
If a species is already well adapted to it's environment it will not change as quickly. It when a species encounters a new environment that it tends to change.
The split between humans and chimps occurred when the climate of the region of part of the population of our common ancestor was living in changed.
speciation happens mostly due to outside factors effecting a certain animal
Speciation is usually caused by a change in living conditions. These are called selection pressures.
basically adoption
We have observed speciation in natural environments outside of human beings doing anything in particular to the animals in question.
for humans....they started in africa...so what caused great apes while being in the environment and effected by nearly the same elemts to split in way that one part will go into much more rapid evolution while the other practically set still ?
Africa is an enormous continent. It could contain the united states, India, China, the UK, Japan, and eastern europe and would still have quite a lot of unfilled space. It's 11.67 million square miles big. It has a ton of variation in it's enviroments between east, west, north, south, and central Africa. We evolved on the opposite side of the continent from chimps in vastly different environments.
My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders.
- By JohnRawls
- By skinster