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

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Yes but they don't give DNA. Do they?

a reply to: flanimal4114

Yes but they don't give DNA. Do they?

It's pretty rare but it happens.

please take into account all the water frozen having flooded the world when carbon dating

I am sorry I haven't read the whole thread but do you believe in the Biblical flood?

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Yes and no, yes to I believe in biblical flood and no to that's all I was meaning which was your real question.

There is many accounts of a goal flood in most cultures and also theory's of a extra layer in our atmosphere that contained water, this fell or was destroyed and the water is now on earth. If you read bible or not you can look at this and take it not as a plain biblical matter, this atmosphere would have kept dinosaur climates etc running if proved true.

a reply to: flanimal4114

But that's more an other thread

a reply to: flanimal4114

Oh ok then I am out of league on this one LOL. The global flood as described in the Bible and various cultures didn't happen. But if you are talking about HUGE local floods then ok.

I will let others answer your questions because I am not qualified to show you evidence that it didn't happen.

As to the fossils there are different ways that the DNA can be preserved perfectly. I am sure you already know this. But that doesn't matter. You can see the changes in them.

I'll yield to the experts LOL.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Mate I'm no expert lol and no one else is.

The flood I'm talking about is not as such a mythical story but a factional, possibly the extinction and start of the rule of common animals. You see it will explain lots of accerences that have happened.

Tell me what you think and my I'm curious for real.

a reply to: flanimal4114

Well there is no evidence for the global flood. It would be impossible. Believe me I know all about it. I am an ex-Christian and I have been taught all about the flood. I took a required class at Liberty University on Creationism vs. Evolution. I've heard it all and I am tired of it LOL. It has been a long time since I've studied.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Yeah mate I know how you feel. Can I ask what religion you where from, just asking. And why would global flood be impossible, wait before we do this in a evolution vs creation page should I creat a new one or is that for the high ups?

a reply to: flanimal4114

Can I ask what religion you where from, just asking.

Yes you can and you would have guessed the answer correctly LOL. Fundamental Christianity.

And why would global flood be impossible, wait before we do this in a evolution vs creation page should I creat a new one or is that for the high ups?

No you don't have to do that. It's just that you said this:

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

We can't move past that LOL because I am no expert showing evidence that it didn't happen or show that it would be impossible.

The global flood would be a HUGE event. Where would all the water go? Etc. etc. Blech I'll just let others answer lol. Basically we can't go beyond this when we are discussing the OP's topic.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Ok I'll continue here when some els answers but I did make a topic page thing to as it's an itesting subject.
And wher the water went... Look at the ice then at the under ground waters, now bring that into a flood and there you have a global flood.

a reply to: flanimal4114

All right. It is interesting indeed. Apparently there is a good thread on the global flood last year www.abovetopsecret.com...

Anyway the fossils have been consistent in showing the changes over time. And yes depending how it was preserved DNA can be extracted.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

So if we witness small changes accumulating to become a new species, why couldn't those changes keep adding up?

I've tried to explain this on several occasions, I'll give it one more go. A fruit fly will always be a fruit fly. The evidence for speciation supports this point of view and proves nothing more than this point of view.

Although I do find it curious that I'm required to show scientific evidence and proof of everything and you're yet to give one example of speciation creating something as simple as a new Genus.

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?

Simple. All of the genetic material in fruit fly's relates to how fruit fly's are formed and function. No amount of speciation will cause fruit fly's to be anything more than a fruit fly.

How do I know this?

The same way that you can know that specition is responsible for entirety of biodiversity without actually ever giving an example in which speciation has carried an organism into a new or different Genus.

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).

This is a good example of one issue with mutation causing Macroevolution

1. Natural Environment Byles's first condition is: "Natural selection must be inconsequential at the locus or loci under investigation." This is because natural selection tends to work against fixation of mutations--in other words, it tends to prevent their becoming a permanent part of the gene pool of a population. Natural selection keeps things stable rather than helping them to change. B. Clarke points out that even so-called advantageous mutations are harmful in that, because of increased competition, they can reduce population size, making their fixation nearly impossible. He adds that they will almost certainly lead to extinction of the mutant gene or organism, and possibly even the entire population. 2 The effect of Byles's first condition is that the environment must be selectively neutral, or else the mutant gene will never be retained in the population, preventing even slight change. But according to J.T. Giesel, most locations are almost certainly not selectively neutral. 3 Thus, in the vast majority of cases, Byles's first condition will not be met.

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.

Again we have discussed this before. If you read the article carefully you will see that the program rewrites it's own code and physically changes the configuration of the chip. Yes the the chip was programmed for a specific purpose, Just like fruit fly DNA is programmed to make fruit fly's.
Genetic mutations are incredibly limited by an enormous lack of success. They are also limited by a number of other factors including the manner in which mutation occurs, Not to mention the fact they can only build on what information DNA provides them with.
The principles involved in speciation and the self learning self programming computer chip/program are the same.
The evidence that supports speciation in no way indicates that anything I've said is wrong.

And why are you on this thread anyway?

When The OP has specifically asked...

Can you describe and present evidence for the mechanism that stops genetic differences in populations from accumulating to the point of speciation?

If you cannot answer the question at hand then why are you here posting off topic posts?

The OP even specifically said...

PSA: This is not a thread for discussing any other aspect of creationism or evolution, it's a thread that's asking a very specific question so please do not derail this thread by dragging the discussion away from the topic outlined above.

I only raise the issue out of concern for your reputation. You are a well known fountain of knowledge and a pillar of truth within the deny ignorance community but not everyone is as enlightened as you or I. I am concerned that given your complete inability to stay on topic in spite of very clearly laid out requests by the OP that others may begin to think that you are nothing more than an argumentative Troll and that would be an unfortunate shame. Appearances can be so important in such small communities.

a reply to: hudsonhawk69

That was Ng and well said but the last part, well I got nothing against anyone here, so yeah.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

No fossils do not give DNA. DNA has a rather short half-life.

Ok so I take everyone has run away now I am posing real questions and resurchng, ok I win then???

a reply to: flanimal4114

enzymes stop mutations from happening and remove them over generations

No, you are completely misrepresenting the action of DNA repair enzymes. Not a great start to your argument.

So we know that some mutations like cancer are not stop by this

Mutations are not cancer. Mutations are permanent changes to the nucleotide sequence in an organism. Cancer is abnormal cell growth. Mutations may cause cancer, but they're not interchangeable concepts.

So to answer a question with a question, which is needed to carry on, what makes the cells/ genomes "security" fail.

The short answer is because the chemical reactions that are occurring in the replication of DNA, like most organic reactions, are defined by probabilities.

You should try to more fully understand the concepts you're seeking to use to support your "theory". You're making some very basic mistakes about what mutations are and how they occur. If your fundamentals aren't sound, the foundation for your "theory" is going to be shaky at best.

a reply to: iterationzero

Ok so what I was saying is enzymes repair the DNA, so do they not stop damage turning to mutations, any way the cancer thing was to show that some mutations do have consequences like cancer that get past, and the last part I couldn't read what it said.

a reply to: flanimal4114

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 )

The length of a generation varies from organism to organism. That's why scientists tend to use single-celled organisms as model for evolutionary processes. The Lenski experiment has been running since 1988 and reached generation 60,000 in 2014. Humans typically have a generation span of 20-30 years right now, depending on several factors. Evolution doesn't occur in a single generation or in a single organism, which is what people arguing against evolution seem to demand. It occurs over many generations and within entire populations.

a reply to: flanimal4114

Yes and no, yes to I believe in biblical flood and no to that's all I was meaning which was your real question.

There's no evidence to support the Biblical account of a global flood.

There is many accounts of a goal flood in most cultures

No, there are accounts of local floods. Given that most cultures arose near water, this makes sense. There's no objective evidence supporting a global flood as described in the Bible.

and also theory's of a extra layer in our atmosphere that contained water, this fell or was destroyed and the water is now on earth. If you read bible or not you can look at this and take it not as a plain biblical matter, this atmosphere would have kept dinosaur climates etc running if proved true.

Wow. It's been a while since someone tried to bring out canopy theory. What's next? Baraminology?

a reply to: flanimal4114

Ok so what I was saying is enzymes repair the DNA, so do they not stop damage turning to mutations,

No, they do not stop mutations, they minimize mutations. Did you read the information I linked? It's explained in further detail there, complete with bibliography.

any way the cancer thing was to show that some mutations do have consequences like cancer that get past,

Except that's not what you said. You didn't say "some mutations have consequences", you said "so we know that some mutations like cancer are not stop by this". You equated mutations with cancer, which is simply not correct. I appreciate that you're trying to simplify things for the sake of explanation, but when you oversimplify to the point of being wrong, it doesn't serve you or your audience.

and the last part I couldn't read what it said.

You didn't understand what it said or you literally couldn't read it for some reason?