What is the mechanism that stops genetic differences from accumulating to the point of speciation?

a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Please explain how a computer chip is based on Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. Darwin didn't even know DNA existed and it isn't even remotely close to how genetic mutations change code. People are so desperate to disprove evolution they make all kinds of irrelevant comparisons and strawmans. Will the junkyard tornado argument be next?

Hay all I would love to debate with you (sarcastic) but I'm on holiday right now and will be back with so science stuff in about 5 days. I have just started my science courses and am not yet very into it but my saying : evolution is a theory is true but lots of things are a theory, my using that term States that it's understandment etc could change allowing room for Eva for you, yet you did not take it.

Going on, I do not believe in evolution and would be happy to explain everything on a page that is broader but this is for a specific question and I do not wish to go off topic.

My case against macro evolution is this, in any way or form things do not become anything new through evolution and tests back this up as they have never been able to see macro evolution in progress.

My thing about "ant" was not stating how it is but just giving an over view of my theory (scientific term theory 😂😂😂) that things can not be from what is not there, simply saying that the information must already be possible inside the cell/gene/DNA making it imposible to change into something not there.

Enzymes prevent the building up of mutations any way as they over generations bring back to the base of what the first creature was as shown in the fruit flys. This means that all there is left is natural selection with mutation that is possible, but that is not the subject of the article.

I know I'm new and my opinions and theory's are not credible by others on this forum but I do reserch and work hard on what I do.

a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Why?

If the logical absurdity of the idea isn't patent to you from the words themselves, I don't think any explanation I can add will make it any clearer.

I think the link that KrazyshOt provided outlined some significant difficulties with speciation?

The link was to the paper mentioned by flanimal4114. I have already discussed it above. One correction: the author is not attached to an Indian institution, but the 'paper' (it's really more of an essay, a 'think-piece', not a scientific study) appears in an Indian journal. Specifically, a journal from Kerala, that hotbed of Fortean hijinx and pseudoscientific theories.

originally posted by: flanimal4114
My case against macro evolution is this, in any way or form things do not become anything new through evolution and tests back this up as they have never been able to see macro evolution in progress.

That isn't a case against evolution. It is you saying stuff that is completely wrong. There is no such thing as "seeing macro evolution in progress". Micro and macro evolution are exactly the same mechanisms, one just requires more time and accumulations of mutations and/or traits. If we can observe and prove the process in a lab today, why couldn't that happen for longer periods of time leading to bigger change? Technically, observing "micro" evolution IS observing macro evolution in progress.

My thing about "ant" was not stating how it is but just giving an over view of my theory (scientific term theory 😂😂😂) that things can not be from what is not there, simply saying that the information must already be possible inside the cell/gene/DNA making it imposible to change into something not there.

You have no clue what a scientific theory is. Finish up your science courses, then come back and try again. Your argument makes no sense in a scientific context. You can't call evolution a scientific theory and then claim you don't believe it if you are trying to become a scientist. That is counter intuitive.

Enzymes prevent the building up of mutations any way as they over generations bring back to the base of what the first creature was as shown in the fruit flys.

Can you provide something to back this up?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well that yes. Though the real barrier is changing too much too fast, and then being able to pass them on. You might not find a willing or viable mate if you are mutant who is very different. After all a couple of nucleotide changes in the wrong gene can be drastic in expression (just look at the haemoglobin mutations that are a single nucleotide different, and can screw you over)

a reply to: GetHyped

We barely have mapped a few 100 genomes of our species, and that is the genome, the epigemome is a black box compared to that.

a reply to: GetHyped

It would help if people stopped using macro and micro evolution as separate things. Think of it like calling light a particle or a wave, it is BOTH, it is about scale. Up close a single change resulting in a viable (or at least not lethal) mutation is just that a single change. Over time, these build up and result in a species split. However people (creationists, lay persons etc) forget ... OVER time is a long time. We have seen groups of mutations occur in viruses and bacteria (specifically the ability to resist antibiotics for the latter), we also see the influenza virus requiring different vaccines each year (hello mutations). We look at these fast mutating things long enough we may see a speciation event. It is hard, as at this point we've only really been able to study the DNA of anything, for a decade or two (less affordably). Before this we looked at expression of the genes (ie the physical characteristics) to assume a species. The rules have changed, and we need time to gather information.

IF the creationists don't like this, they can provide scientific evidence to support their claims, oh and it has to be following scientific principal, NOT their own game. I'm deeply spiritual (not Abrahamic in any way shape or form) yet I can cope with science and evolution. Yet my spiritual path is "pagan and barbaric" *shrug*

a reply to: sycomix

"Evolutionnism" is a misnomer. Evolution is a theory (in the scientific sense) in Science. Thus if you want to imply it is a "philosophical" school, you need to add "Gravetism", "Quantism", "SN1ism" and a whole bunch of isms. This is a mistake man people make. But no, it is not appropriate to use that ism on the end of evolution.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Please explain how a computer chip is based on Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. Darwin didn't even know DNA existed and it isn't even remotely close to how genetic mutations change code. People are so desperate to disprove evolution they make all kinds of irrelevant comparisons and strawmans. Will the junkyard tornado argument be next?

I'm not tying to disprove evolution. I'm trying to highlight a simple concept as to why speciation can potentially never be solely responsible for the diversity that we see in the biological tree of life. It's a simple concept that would appear to be supported by the evidence at hand. All proofs of speciation depending on your stand point are not significantly different from the previous generations. The simple example that I provided gives an understandable explanation as to potentially why this is true.

a reply to: Astyanax

You seem to misunderstand me. Evolution is not on trial here, Speciation is and more specifically speciation as a mechanism being able to produce all of the biological diversity that we see around us. A number of times throughout this tread solid scientific evidence has been presented highlighting the difficulties surrounding the potential of speciation to be able to achieve this goal.
I don't see why that is so difficult to understand.
Few things in science are definitively certain, yet in spite of a the clearly defined difficulties associated with speciation being able to produce all varieties of biological diversity people still spout it off as irrefutable fact. That logic simply doesn't make sense.

a reply to: Noinden

That's what makes the random part so interesting. A bunch of benign changes can stack up that don't push you over the threshold, then BAM! A few critical ones and you are suddenly a new species. Now before any Creationist gets any bright ideas, what I just said there takes place over many many years and over many many generations.

a reply to: hudsonhawk69

You seem to misunderstand me.

I wasn't responding to you, Hudson. I was discussing a paper originally cited by flanimal4114 and linked to by Krazysh0t.

Evolution is not on trial here, Speciation is and more specifically speciation as a mechanism being able to produce all of the biological diversity that we see around us. A number of times throughout this tread solid scientific evidence has been presented highlighting the difficulties surrounding the potential of speciation to be able to achieve this goal. I don't see why that is so difficult to understand.

It's quite easy to understand, but it's wrong.

Neither evolution nor speciation are on trial here. We are examining the Creationist claim that there exists a distinction between 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution', conceding that the latter is possible but the former has never been observed and is therefore mere speculation. The opening post is a challenge to Creationists: show us the mechanism that prevents microevolutionary changes from accumulating over time into speciation, i.e. macroevolutionary change. The OP will endorse this; if you don't believe me, u2u him/her. It's been explained a few times in the thread, anyway.

You say 'solid scientific evidence' of barriers to speciation has been presented 'a number of times throughout this thread.' I say you are wrong. The only actual material presented was the paper I refer to above. I'm sorry to say I do not regard it as evidence, since all it presents is an hypothesis based on a survey of the literature; I didn't notice any substantive evidence presented to support the hypothesis.

Few things in science are definitively certain, yet in spite of a the clearly defined difficulties associated with speciation being able to produce all varieties of biological diversity people still spout it off as irrefutable fact. That logic simply doesn't make sense.

Nothing in science is certain, because the game is set up to make absolute certainty impossible.

I don't know who spouts scientific statements off as irrefutable facts; certainly not I, so I don't know why you've chosen me to browbeat. As for whether the 'logic' does or doesn't make sense, I venture to suggest that you are not in a position — no more am I — to pronounce an opinion on that. I really don't know who is; it's the sort of thing even the world's most eminent experts in the field argue over. Frankly, I think the parameters of the concept are much too vaguely defined for anyone to even formulate an opinion.

But I'll tell you this: flanimal's paper is scientific evidence of nothing.

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
I'm not tying to disprove evolution. I'm trying to highlight a simple concept as to why speciation can potentially never be solely responsible for the diversity that we see in the biological tree of life. It's a simple concept that would appear to be supported by the evidence at hand. All proofs of speciation depending on your stand point are not significantly different from the previous generations. The simple example that I provided gives an understandable explanation as to potentially why this is true.

You cited a very poor example that has nothing to do with evolution. Saying that a computer chip, programmed for a specific function doesn't change into a stereo is beyond bogus. That isn't even remotely close to how genetic mutations change a genome. Try using a relevant example or how about this; actually answer the question of why the accumulation stops at a certain point. Irrelevant metaphors aren't related to science, sorry. Speciation isn't a mechanism, it's an observation of change that is enough to result in a new species, something that has been done numerous times in a lab. The mechanism is genetic mutations and natural selection.

a reply to: Barcs

Hello my friends " friends" any who I have a nice scripture for you today's 😀😀😀😃😂😂😂

It's at Mathew 7:6 it says:do not give what is holy to dogs nor throw pearls before swine...

That s speaking of people's attitude to what you say, if they put there noses up and are mean and don't want to find common ground and are only swine, then there is no point wasting your time on them.

Yet I do not believe you all to be swine... Yet

a reply to: Astyanax

I would not like to be considered " fighting for creationism " but I as what I have learned am what a scientist should be: open minded. A scientist is not one who copy's, when they said the earth was round, who was the scintists??? The teachers or the ones who looked at everything and came to there conclusion.

Thank you

a reply to: Barcs
Are you like this to everyone with an opinion differing to your own???

a reply to: flanimal4114

Like what? Barcs does a grand job of helping deny ignorance by actually attempting to show and teach others when they are wrong.
He is correcting people who do not have a clue.

a reply to: boymonkey74
He dose a good job but on debates like this it some time will not end, that's why I'm thinking of leaving this thing to some one els to defend. Any how, saying " this is out right wrong " and " this is not correct at all " with out taking into account misspells and with out getting the idea of what some one is saying, ignorance to common sense.

I see what he is saying and have tried to find common ground on which we can both come to a conclusion but he dose not want to find it and is argumentative instead. That is why I would like a live chat room n order to come to an agreement.

I have nothing against anyone here nor do I want to change what they believe I was simply showing and answering a question.

Thank you.

a reply to: flanimal4114

I have not even gotten to my theory yet nor have I used any solid reasoning, I have used common reasoning and simple things. I have only tried to get people to listen and that has worked. I would like to find common ground with these people before will try to explain what I believe.

a reply to: flanimal4114

I have not even gotten to my theory yet

Out with it, then.