Mayr said that speciation is microevolution. Period. End of story.
You lose
“Speciation” as a process must ALWAYS start WITHIN a single population.
The end result can eventually BECOME 2 species… but the PROCESS STARTS within a single species.
You don’t get this point. YOU lose.
So what? It ends with two or more species. If it didn’t it wouldn’t be speciation. And it isn’t macroevolution. Even Jerry Coyne accepts the definition I use.
Mayr says that speciation = microevolution. I will side with the experts over you. And I own the book “What Evolution Is” along with Futuyma’s textbook “Evolution”. Both agree with what I said.
The point is that those changes would have to be quantified somehow. Comparing the magnitude of change in radically different systems would be very tricky.
While I admit I was wrong in my initial comments about speciation absolutely being macroevolution, I wouldn’t quite say that you were right. One thing this discussion has shown is that different people use the term “macroevolution” differently, and it doesn’t have a single “correct” definition. So if you want to use it in such a way that speciation is not macroevolution, that’s fine, as long as everyone is on the same page about how you’re using the term.
3 Likes
You said Ernst agreed with you… and it turns out he doesnt.