Comments on: Deadbeat ant species branched off as parasite inside its own colony http://smithsonianscience.org/2014/08/new-species-ant-offers-compelling-evidence-controversial-theory-species-formation/ News about the Smithsonian’s research in the fields of anthropology, astrophysics, conservation biology, geology, materials science, paleontology, zoology, and global climate change. Mon, 08 Dec 2014 08:04:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1 By: Joe http://smithsonianscience.org/2014/08/new-species-ant-offers-compelling-evidence-controversial-theory-species-formation/#comment-26310 Wed, 03 Dec 2014 00:32:00 +0000 http://smithsonianscience.org/?p=32070#comment-26310 It might be naive not to think so, but you need proof to demonstrate it. I think that’s what the article is pointing out. We now have some evidence to support the logic of the theory.

]]> By: karlt6 http://smithsonianscience.org/2014/08/new-species-ant-offers-compelling-evidence-controversial-theory-species-formation/#comment-26029 Fri, 22 Aug 2014 16:17:00 +0000 http://smithsonianscience.org/?p=32070#comment-26029 You must be tired if you think geographic separation cannot lead to evolution. It was a major point in Darwin’s theory of evolution….. Finches who evolved to possess different beaks based-on the type of food available in their location.

Further, a very interesting study on the Amazon a few years ago showed species of fish separated by the fast moving waters of the river were genetically different from each other. In other words one population of a specific species on one shore was genetically different from a population of the same species living on the opposite shore. The fast-moving waters have kept them separated long enough for this diversion to occur.

]]> By: George http://smithsonianscience.org/2014/08/new-species-ant-offers-compelling-evidence-controversial-theory-species-formation/#comment-26027 Thu, 21 Aug 2014 21:37:00 +0000 http://smithsonianscience.org/?p=32070#comment-26027 I have many problems with this article. Suggesting that evolution is caused by geographic isolation is, well, nieve. And then firther suggesting that evolution from within a species is something new? Where else could a species evolve from? Maybe I am just tired.

]]>