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

originally posted by: flanimal4114
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 know you guys may not like it, but sometimes the truth isn't teddy bears and rainbows. If somebody is flat out wrong, they are flat out wrong and I'm going to call it out. I don't use that phrase unless what they say goes against the facts. I haven't seen any counter arguments to what I've said, either.

HudsonHawk tried to poke holes in evolution using a simple computer chip saying that it didn't turn into a stereo or radio. The problem with his argument is that the code inside the chip does not alter the physical chip itself, so it cannot be compared with how genetic mutations change a genome and affect a creature's morphology. It is straw grasping to the extreme.

Also, I almost never mention spelling errors or grammar problems. I look at the content of their argument, everyone makes mistakes with spelling. I don't care unless it's unreadable.

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.

What sort of common ground are you looking for? I've already said that evolution could have been created by god. How is that not common ground?

Are you like this to everyone with an opinion differing to your own???

It's not an opinion based debate. It is a fact based debate. Differing opinion would be a personal preference choice. For example, one person likes blue, the other likes green. Both are their favorite colors, but neither can prove that their color is the best color. Coffee vs Tea, Pepsi vs coke, Summer vs Winter, etc.. These are all opinions and folks should respect each other's opinions and not talk down to them as a result.

Evolution is not an opinion, it is a comprehensive scientific study based on evidence and facts. So when people blatantly misrepresent those facts, or go on propaganda sites to find arguments against it that don't even apply, I'm going to say something about it. Intellectual dishonesty is plaguing this section on ATS right now. I'm just trying to keep people honest and I hoping somebody will answer the question in the OP.

a reply to: Barcs
Word.
The problem is I try to go through all the comments to me at once and reply to one before I read others. That was the problem with the misunder stand. Look mate I see what you said at the end, there isn't a clear scientific conclusion... Yet.

Ok so before we just keep chucking stuff out there we don't we all put our heads together to see what the DNA genes codons and quarks ( not really but just trying to say everything on topic of the debate) all do to help make mutations.

So can I make that a mission just to gather reserch of the cell, and from the we can all start to form conclusions???

I know this might seem like a silly idea but that's why I said a chat room would be nice.

a reply to: Astyanax
Oh and to you. Stop pushing me! I'm still doing it on paper and reading, sorry but I'm not a walking dictionary of science theory's, it's hard work and that's on top of my real life ( hard by its self )

I will get it out right now me and some friends are all working on it in the same way that you do things on ATS.

a reply to: flanimal4114

Oh, that's all right, take your time. Post another thread when you're ready to spill the beans.

a reply to: Astyanax

Thank you 😀😀
Oh and whilst I'm here how do you get a picture on your user ???

a reply to: flanimal4114

Oh and is there a common chit chat thing so I can ask questions like that etc?

a reply to: Astyanax

I apologize. It has not been my intention to brow beat you, only to show a simple a yet remarkably different point of view.

One might consider this...

So what is speciation? It is a process that occurs when a group of living things that originally were freely interbreeding, become divided into subgroups that sooner or later no longer breed with one another. The newly formed non-interbreeding groups are technically a new species. But note carefully: After this happens the squirrels on either side of the Grand Canyon are still squirrels, Chichlid fish are still chiclid fish, Larus gulls remain gulls, Drosophila are still fruit flies, etc. So this is not evolution. The plants and animals are still actually within the one kind.

Or this...

Galapagos finches are a well-known example of non-evolutionary variation. They have been represented as the classic example of speciation, with birds on the different Galapagos Islands being classified into different species according to their beak shapes. However, when circumstances have caused a change in available food and many of those with the wrong shaped beak shape have died out, some have survived by breeding with different beaked species, thus proving they are still the same ‘kind’ of finch no matter what shape their beak was, and regardless of what species we have labelled them. Genome studies have shown there is a gene flow between the different finch species, confirming they do breed with one another.

Or this example in plants...

In some plants, speciation occurs due to genetic polyploidy, i.e. incorporating two complete sets of chromosomes into a hybrid offspring between two parent plants. The offspring can no longer breed with the parent plants, so technically are a new species. This is not evolution. No new genes were produced. Existing genes have just become mixed. Sometimes this process can be deliberately done by plant breeders.

Here is an example in Butterflies...

New butterfly species made in lab, according to reports in BBC News and ScienceNOW 14 June 2006. Heliconius heurippa is a butterfly with vivid red and yellow patches on its wings that look like a combination of the patterns on two other species of Heliconius butterflies, suggesting that H heurippa was a hybrid of the other two. To test this theory a team of researchers at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama bred the other two species together they produced offspring with the wing patterns of H heurippa. The newly bred butterflies were found to breed true for three generations. This study has led evolutionary biologists to claim that hybridization can be a means of evolving new species. Although it is difficult to prove it happens in the wild, scientists have suggested that the swordtail fish, African cichlid fish, Ragoletis fruit flies and the American red fox are the product of hybrid speciation. BBC Editorial Comment: The fact that two species of butterfly can produce fertile offspring indicates that they and the offspring species are actually all of the one kind, even though they may not breed together in the wild.

And to sum up...

If anything, speciation is the opposite of evolution. Whenever a large and varied group of living creatures has been split into smaller and less variable sub-groups, regardless of the reason, each of the less viable (often called specialised) subgroups is more likely to die out if the environment changes. This is because natural selection, (another real but non-evolutionary process), will eliminate any organism that does not have the appropriate genetic variations needed to survive in the new environment.

As you can see with a slightly different interpretation of the same available data a logical case against speciation being able to be responsible for Macro evolution can be made.

There is no evidence to show that the Hawthorn fly for example will ever be anything more than a Hawthorne fly regardless of how long time has to work on the speciation of the genus.

originally posted by: Barcs

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.

You're an intelligent and perceptive person so I'll try to explain it one more time.

It's a simple concept.

There is no evidence to show that Drosophila paulistorum will ever be more that a fruit fly regardless of speciation...

It's still a fruit fly. The other species of Drosophila paulistorum are still fruit flys. They will always be fruitflys.

They only contain geneitic material pertaining to being a fruitfly.

No matter how much the genes mutate it will still be a fruit fly.

It will never become a moth.

It will never become a butterfly...

See?

Speciation potentially cannot be responsible for macro evolution although all I'm aiming for here is the simple recognition of differing logical point of view about speciation that doesn't actually disagree with the evidence available.

And just so we are clear...

A mechanism is a device designed to transform input forces and movement into a desired set of output forces and movement.

Speciation refers to the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: flanimal4114
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.

HudsonHawk tried to poke holes in evolution using a simple computer chip saying that it didn't turn into a stereo or radio. The problem with his argument is that the code inside the chip does not alter the physical chip itself, so it cannot be compared with how genetic mutations change a genome and affect a creature's morphology. It is straw grasping to the extreme.

Actually you'll find that the code within the chip actually does alter the configuration of the chip itself. So in fact not only does it write it's own code it changes the configuration of the chip as well!

That's why it's such an awesome example to highlight the most likely reason that speciation is unable to effect genetics to the point of creating a new Genus.



The chip is actually able to be used as a modem or any other number of completely differently functioning parts within a computer.

Unfortunately the chip incapable of working outside of the parameters it was programmed with or even creating new parameters.

JUST LIKE SPECIATION!

Yay!

originally posted by: flanimal4114
So can I make that a mission just to gather reserch of the cell, and from the we can all start to form conclusions???

Absolutely. That's the great thing about science. If you are curious about something and have strong ambition, you can become a scientist and study these things for yourself. I highly encourage that kind of thing. Maybe you can be the guy or gal that one day discovers god and wins a Nobel prize.

a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Well, it's a point of view, I suppose. Casuistic and tendentious but undeniably a point of view.

What those examples show is that the term 'species' is not well defined. We already knew that. Doubtless it bears on the OP question -- for if the definition of 'species' is labile, the distinction 'micro/macroevolution' is meaningless. Which, really, was the point.

It is not that we fail to understand you, Hudson, but that you have not yet understood us.

a reply to: GetHyped

Two answers:

(1) Breeding viability. The further away two populations are genetically, the less likely inter group matings are to produce offspring than intra group. This means that those that are at the fringes genetically tend to be able to reproduce as frequently which tends to pull the group towards an average.

(2) A single breeding population may split and drift into different breeding populations which than then, often through isolation from each other, become so different that cross breeding is no longer possible, or if it is, off spring are sterile. We tend to consider a species as one that can breed and produce viable offspring. And species to not have nice clear but boundaries, they tend to be clusters, not boxes. Horses and donkeys are species, a hybrid mule is not either species. Horses and donkeys are closer genetically than horses moose so it suggests they came from a common ancestral species but have drifted apart since.

a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Speciation is not a mechanism. Genetic mutations and natural selection are the mechanisms of evolutionary change. Speciation is our description of the point where one species changes enough genetically from the original to be classified as a new species (usually based on whether it can reproduce with the original species). So if we witness small changes accumulating to become a new species, why couldn't those changes keep adding up?

Your understanding of genetic mutations is off. There are no exempt genes. This means a genetic code change could affect any part of any organism each time it happens. You guys create this imaginary barrier, but still have not yet explained what it is or why it exists. You make arbitrary unproven statements like "No matter how much the genes mutate it will still be a fruit fly."

How do you know this?

What part of the fruit fly is not subject to mutation?

Obviously a fruit fly will not turn into a wasp in one speciation event, but isn't unrealistic in the least if you give it enough generations, and the environment changes in ways that favor this for fruit flies. Remember, from single cell to human took something like 3.8 billion years. We have witnessed speciation in just around 50 years. Do the math.

Speciation is something that takes multiple generations, sometimes hundreds or even thousands. Now think about a thousand speciation events. We've seen the small difference from A to B. Why wouldn't there be a substantially larger difference from A to Z? You seem to think that the only way to get from A to Z is for A to give birth to Z, but that isn't how evolution works. A fruit fly becomes a slightly different fruit fly, that becomes a slightly different fruit fly, that becomes a slightly different fly, and repeat this enough times, you'll eventually have something much different that the original species. Your claim that it only has genetic material for a fruit fly is dead wrong, because genetic mutations CHANGE that genetic material (which is a code).

The computer chip example is wrong because the programming does not change the physical chip itself each time the code is changed. Plus the chip was coded for a specific purpose. Genetic mutations are not. They are usually random. The chip is limited, DNA is not, there are billions of base pairs and potential code combinations.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Counterquestion: what is the mechanism to create speciation, when do the separate populations lose the ability to interbreed? How many more generations of specialty dog breeding, food animal domestication, or horticulture will it take to make truly new species?

Still waiting. Anyone, anyone... Bueller, Bueller...

a reply to: Teikiatsu

How many more generations of specialty dog breeding, food animal domestication, or horticulture will it take to make truly new species?

How many generations you ask..hmmm.

Hard to say because thinking in generations is hard to put a number on. If you want to know how many years I can estimate based on previous archeological history that it will take millions or at the very least hundreds of thousands.

Humans have only been around a couple 100k but we didn't keep very good records for most of that period.


So back to the question of what is the mechanism that stops genetic differences from accumulating to the point of speciation? Still waiting. Anyone, anyone... Bueller, Bueller...

a reply to: Barcs

I'm a guy 😀😀 and thanks I'll keep trying to work things out in my theory, do you know a site that I can get scientific minds to help out in this, this isn't really a science site.. Is it?

And thanks mate I'm understanding the way in which to try to advance my theory now.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Ok let's get this going then, let's define a species by not being able to inter bread, let's define a mutation as a mutation. Ok now the facts are this, enzymes stop mutations from happening and remove them over generations as proven in the fruit fly experiment, more or less that was a out side of objective discovery.
I'm not shore if it is the enzymes that did it with fruit flys or not, some one correct me please.
So we know that some mutations like cancer are not stop by this, so to find what stops this turning to change in species as difined above, we need to know why the system fails first to get a full understanding before we move on.
So to answer a question with a question, which is needed to carry on, what makes the cells/ genomes "security" fail.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Ok so the generations thing, well let's think about this. How long is one generation in terms of what we are speaking ( average ) and how long has dogs been around ( by dogs been around I mean created but you may take this as " evolved " if you don't believe in itelligent design ) so if we answer this I can start to either come up with an answer or prove it wrong ( controversial )

Thank you.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Humans have only been around a couple 100k but we didn't keep very good records for most of that period.

Fossils make for good records don't they?

a reply to: flanimal4114

Oh and when finding earliest dog fossils or wolf etc, please take into account all the water frozen having flooded the world when carbon dating 😀😀

If anyone cares why please ask, but I can't be bothered to explain other wise.