Give 2 examples why Microevolution creates a new species.?

Both disagree and agree: the problem is the statement itself.

DISAGREE: The statement can be taken to imply that microevolution must produce a new species: anything less than that is not microevolution. That's false. Microevolution may lead the creation of a new species, but it doesn't have to. Microevolution is a change in allele and/or genotype frequencies in a population over time: that's it. There's no requirement for speciation to occur in order for microevolution to occur.

DISAGREE: The origin of a new species is called speciation and is an example of MACROevolution, not microevolution. Microevolution occurs in populations, below the species level. Evolution at or above the species level is macroevolution, and speciation is evolution at the species level.

AGREE: The origin of a new species is an example of macroevolution, but the process that led up to the origin of the new species is microevolution. Macroevolution is the accumulated effects of microevolution over time.

AGREE: Ring species show how a new species can arise through microevolution.

-----------------

"Ring Species: Salamanders

The various Ensatina salamanders of the Pacific coast all descended from a common ancestral population. As the species spread southward from Oregon and Washington, subpopulations adapted to their local environments on either side of the San Joaquin Valley. From one population to the next, in a circular pattern, these salamanders are still able to interbreed successfully. However, where the circle closes -- in the black zone on the map in Southern California -- the salamanders no longer interbreed successfully. The variation within a single species has produced differences as large as those between two separate species."

(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_0...

-----------------

It is a completely nonsensical argument to suggest that small changes over vast time frames don't create new species. It is in fact so mindless that it doesn't really deserve you responding to except to point out that consistent change over a longer period has the same as a faster change over a smaller time frame. When enough change builds up, two animals can no longer breed and aren't genetically compatible. That is new species forming and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see it. It takes someone with an agenda to not see something that basic and obvious.

2. as nicely, for micro organism(cytoplasm) being waiting to metabolize nylon shows even this suffered a genetic loss because of the mutation you keep asserting this yet you haven't any longer any help of that. If what you assert happens then micro organism does no longer exist after a pair of dozen mutations. humorous, the different seems real. undemanding amoebas have greater then 20 situations the genome of human beings. you keep "asserting" many stuff and ask for web sites to coach you incorrect, yet you have on no account placed forward ANY internet site/information that proves what you "say". as an occasion a frog can no longer produce a dogs, cat, snake, etc you're unquestionably ultimate because of the fact if that have been to ensue it would disprove evolution in its entirety. attempt rather interpreting something scientific extremely than only fundie captions.