It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Thecakeisalie
This thread is about the specific creationist claim: "That is adaptation/microevolution, not [macro]evolution".
Thus, the question posed is: Can you describe and present evidence for the mechanism that stops genetic differences in populations from accumulating to the point of speciation?
The entire creationist argument hinges on this supposed barrier. The purpose of this thread is to try and get creationists to support this claim in some scientific way.
Do you have anything to add that is on-topic?
originally posted by: ParasuvO
originally posted by: Titen-Sxull
a reply to: Pistoche
Actually you raise a very good point. The definition of a species is, to some extent, still arbitrary, however most scientists agree that it has to do with infertility between the two populations. As you point out though sometimes species that are still related but would seem on the surface to be quite different can produce hybrids such as the beefalo or liger.
I think the point of this thread, though, is that there is no built-in mechanism that would STOP animals from crossing the species boundary and thus no mechanism that would prevent the tree of life from expanding out further and further branches given long enough. Even if we don't agree 100% on what a species is there is no genetic boundary built in to stop incremental changes from adding up over generations to produce something new and, if that new population is driven far enough it will become a new species.
The fact that we can disagree on where that species line lies shows how long evolution often takes. For example dogs are now a subspecies of wolves while some used to think they were a separate species but either way the variety of breeds is evidence of evolution.
Creationists often reference the Biblical passage that says God created animals after their "kind" which some argue means that animals can evolve but not outside their Genus, they had to admit this after it was shown that new species could emerge. The goalposts of creationism are constantly moving.
Sure they aSure they are.eaking admit that both of them are a COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME.
I often wonder what part of the brain is it, that gets all wrapped up in processes that are designed to never actually find the truth, but just go on infinitely, and that somehow knowing a flawed useless process is somehow going to tell you something ; but never does,
Exists in the most everyone but not myself ??
Oh, I bet I am just crazy with the full easy realization that science in this matter is so incredibly lacking and controlled that it interests me as much as sitting staring at a blank wall.
I often wonder what part of the brain is it, that gets all wrapped up in processes that are designed to never actually find the truth, but just go on infinitely, and that somehow knowing a flawed useless process is somehow going to tell you something ; but never does,
Exists in the most everyone but not myself ??
Oh, I bet I am just crazy with the full easy realization that science in this matter is so incredibly lacking and controlled that it interests me as much as sitting staring at a blank wall.
originally posted by: Astyanax
It seems as if, for once, I agree with PhotonEffect, who says
(The OP's) is not a valid question within the context which (the OP has) described speciation.
But I have a question. If 'speciation' cannot be rigidly defined, how does one distinguish 'microevolution' from 'macroevolution'?
originally posted by: flanimal4114
a reply to: Krazysh0t
the same thing that stops a pile of wood turning into a house... everything!!!!
but here is the real proof: there is no type of mutation that adds new genetic information into the genome.
All mutations take the existing genome and sift it around. This means that a mutation always loses the information that it sifts.
Micro is change within a species/population. Macro is change above that species level.
originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: GetHyped
Speciation, is a glorified version of Natural selection. It is simply a refinement of the genetic material available. There is no new genetic material being created. It's not like a fish walked out of the sea and became a chicken. Althuogh all arguments are essentially pointless when the definition a species cannot even be defined.
Congratulations on posing an unanswerable question.
originally posted by: flanimal4114
a reply to: GetHyped
but here is the real proof: there is no type of mutation that adds new genetic information into the genome.