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

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 )

I had one dog that lived 12 years and another that lived 22 years they were both fixed so if they were breeding then I do not know how long they could continue and absent of vaccines and good care in a human enviroment I have no idea how long they could have lived.

You can make a guess on the amount of generations it would take for speciation, but if you did it wouldn't even be an educated guess.

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.

Are you asking about domestic dogs or are you asking about the species that could possibly breed with each other?

Oh well there seems there isn't a clear definition for those things so if you really care and want to know instead of asking questions you think are smart then check out this link. It is sort of basic information on the subject but it can help you get a grasp on the subject.

40 Million Years of Dog Evolution, from Amphicyon to the Labradoodle

a reply to: Grimpachi

thanks i will look at the link

originally posted by: flanimal4114
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.

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned, but there is no evidence of a global flood ever happening. Geologists would be able to find evidence in the sedimentary layers dating to the same period, anywhere on earth that they dug if this were the case. Geologists have discovered evidence of numerous floods in the past, but they are not dated to the same time period and the science doesn't add up when you consider how much water would be needed to flood the whole planet. There would also be evidence in the genomes of most life on each, since they would have been reduced to just a few breeding individuals for each type of creature.

Also, if there was a global flood, how would this affect carbon dating or radiometric dating? Keep in mind that the last glacial period (some call it ice age) ended around 12,000 years ago, and there were isolated local floods all over the planet at different times as the planet started warming up. I'm pretty confident that the large majority of flood myths come from this period. BUT, the entire planet was not flooded at once in recent times. It may have been in the past, before the majority of mountains were created by uplift, but certainly not while humans were around.

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
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.

No it doesn't and I've already explained it. You have no evidence whatsoever that a fruit fly will always be a fruit fly. You just keep saying it as if it is true. I already explained to you exactly why. You are limiting what genes can mutate. Any gene is subject to mutation. That means any feature of the fruit fly can change over time. Do you deny this? Instead of just repeating the mantra of young earth creationism, please give us a reason why it can't change?

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.

Did you not read the OP and title of the thread? You aren't addressing the topic. You are just arbitrarily stating things as facts. I'm asking WHY. I'm asking for you to justify your position. Why would the changes stop adding up. Why couldn't a certain gene experience mutations that eventually lead to a different genus or family? That's what the thread is about. You aren't explaining what causes it to stop or what genes are exempt from mutations.

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.

So basically you just make stuff up and then claim it's true with no tangible evidence or even a basic explanation of WHY this is the case. The truth is you DON'T know that and your failure to back it up or even explain why the gene pool is limited despite dozens to hundreds of mutations per generation per individual. We know that A can get to Z because we've observed creatures go from A to B to C and have fossils for D, E, F, etc.

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

EVOLUTION, not MACRO evolution.

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.

Source needed.

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 software configuration of the chip, NOT the hardware. DNA changes the hardware. You are dead wrong.

Just like fruit fly DNA is programmed to make fruit fly's.

The fruit fly was programmed? Proof please.

Genetic mutations are incredibly limited by an enormous lack of success.

Huh? Making stuff up again are we?

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.

Citation needed. Mutations can change the genetic make up and morphology of a creature. Mutations CHANGE the information. Why is that so difficult for you to grasp? There is no limit. Any living organism can experience genetic mutations that change certain features or traits of their morphology. Mutations change the genetic material. If you don't understand this basic concept, you are in the wrong thread.

The principles involved in speciation and the self learning self programming computer chip/program are the same.

They are not and I explained why 3 times now.

And why are you on this thread anyway?

I'm here because I understand the science and the way folks like you bastardize it. I wouldn't post here if you argued using legitimate facts and evidence instead of arbitrarily stating things as true for which you have no evidence for.

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

Look in the mirror. You haven't answered the question, you have avoided it. Basic logic suggests that if a car can drive 2 hours that it can drive 20 hours unless it breaks down. Your logic suggests that watching a car drive 2 hours can't prove that it could drive 20 if need be.

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.

I'm not the one dragging things off topic. I'm correcting people's misunderstandings about how evolution works. Why won't you answer the question about the mechanism that prevents changes from adding up? You still haven't done it, which makes your posts off topic as well. I appreciate the concern for my e-rep, but I don't honestly care about that. I care about the legitimacy of science and the methods involved. I see folks like you making statements of fact, when you don't actually know it. I see invalid comparisons of computer chips to DNA when it's not even close. I'm just trying to keep people honest, and keep them on topic.

Maybe you'd like to answer the question now instead of just saying it can't happen?

a reply to: Barcs

The "evidence" of a global flood, is usually the "wide spread" mythology of one. What constitutes "wide spread" is a group of Semitic speaking cultures having the mythology. That is not really that shocking, given the Indo-European speaking peoples shared common mythological ideas prior to Christianity. Dumezil made a career from that fact

What this implies is that there was an event, which was catastrophic to these proto-Semitic peoples, and that worked its way into their mythological frame work. Clearly there is zero evidence of a "world wide flood" in the geological record, where it would be evident. However this challenges many of the creationists out there, and they thus challenge geological science as being "wrong".

What this misses is there are events which cause genetic bottle necks, and those best adapted to the cause of the bottle neck tend to be the ones who live to reproduce. I return to the idea, that the only thing which stops genetic differences from passing on, is not breeding. Thus if you had a creature suddenly acquire a group of adaptations, it would probably be less likely to pass them on. However we are talking the gradual change of a species, the key word being gradual.

We also need to remember that many mutations do not lead to an outward change of appearance. Small mutations in the genetic sequence for haemoglobin can have massive repercussions. Changing from a polar to non-polar (or vica versa) amino acid in a sensitive position, could change the way haemoglobin functions. Sickle Cell is one example, as are HbC (same amino acid changed, different changes).

originally posted by: Barcs

Did you not read the OP and title of the thread? You aren't addressing the topic.

Yes I am.

The question asked was...

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

Which is the question that I have been answering.

The OP also 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.

Which once again highlights my point that you are nothing more than an argumentative troll! I'm still waiting to see your explanation as to why genetic difference cannot accumulate to the point of evolution as requested by the OP.

You are just arbitrarily stating things as facts.

Just like this statement from you...

You don't have to watch something in real time to know it happened when you have the entire fossil record

Which is proof of nothing.

Or this one also by you

The fruit fly experiment DID produce a new species

Which is also untrue. Weather or not the fruit fly experiment produced a new species is entirely dependent on the definition of new species...

We know that A can get to Z because we've observed creatures go from A to B to C and have fossils for D, E, F, etc.

No we don't. There is no evidence to support that argument. All we have witnessed in speciation is fruit flys mating with other fruit flys and your interpretation of the fossil record without any actual proof is only speculation.

EVOLUTION, not MACRO evolution.

That again is an assumption or your part. One we happen to be debating here in this thread... Perhaps you didn't realize that?!

YES, the software configuration of the chip, NOT the hardware. DNA changes the hardware. You are dead wrong.

Wrong again

Text The plucky chip was utilizing only thirty-seven of its one hundred logic gates, and most of them were arranged in a curious collection of feedback loops. Five individual logic cells were functionally disconnected from the rest— with no pathways that would allow them to influence the output— yet when the researcher disabled any one of them the chip lost its ability to discriminate the tones.

The configuration of the logic gates is caused by the software literally changing the chip itself.

Here again is a study on fruit flys out lining the poor success rate of mutations.

One study on genetic variations between different species of Drosophila suggests that if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, the result is likely to be harmful, with an estimated 70 percent of amino acid polymorphisms having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial. Due to the damaging effects that mutations can have on genes, organisms have mechanisms such as DNA repair to prevent mutations.

You haven't answered the question, you have avoided it. Basic logic suggests that if a car can drive 2 hours that it can drive 20 hours unless it breaks down. Your logic suggests that watching a car drive 2 hours can't prove that it could drive 20 if need be.

Bahahahahahahaha! Well said! If no one is driving the car then it ain't gunna go very far is it?!

I'm not the one dragging things off topic.

Yes you are. We are still waiting with baited breath for your answer to the OP's question

I'm correcting people's misunderstandings about how evolution works.

No your not. Your just going around saying that evolution is true because science said so without providing any real evidence to support your view point.

Why won't you answer the question about the mechanism that prevents changes from adding up? You still haven't done it

I've tried however the answer seems to be beyond your understanding.

I care about the legitimacy of science and the methods involved.

No you don't. You don't display the slightest bit of objectivity in your posts.

Maybe you'd like to answer the question now instead of just saying it can't happen?

Perhaps you should consider this.

Byles's second condition is: "There must be no pleiotropic effect involved with the locus or loci, or, if such effect exists, all the phenotypic structures involved must be selectively neutral." This means that there either must be no changes in physical structure involved, or they must be selectively neutral. If none are involved, then of course evolution does not occur. But if only those occur that are selectively neutral, then they are of no advantage to the mutant and survival of the fittest does not affect it or its non-mutant relatives; again, no evolution. Not only would mutations that met this condition appear to contribute little or nothing to evolution, but also they would appear never to happen--or nearly never, anyway. G. Ledyard Stebbins tells us that within the gene there is no such thing as an inactive site at which a mutation will not affect the adaptive properties of the gene. 4 "Every character of an organism is affected by all genes," writes Ernst Mayr, "and every gene affects all characters. It is this interaction that accounts for the closely knit functional integration of the genotype as a whole." 5 In other words, there may well be no such thing as a mutation having no structural change in the organism. Yet Byles says that a requirement for the fixation of a mutation is that it have none, or that the effect it has must be selectively neutral. Neither case appears ever to happen, and even if the latter did, it would not lead to macro-evolution since it would leave the mutant no more "fit" than any of its relatives. Indeed it would probably be less "fit" because of the tendency of natural selection to weed out rather than preserve mutations in a gene pool.

Given your dedication to science and the scientific process you should understand this perfectly.

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

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

Which is the question that I have been answering.

You described and presented evidence for a mechanism that stops genetic differences? Sorry but you have not. You have only made statements that cannot be verified like, "A fruit fly only contains the genetic makeup to be a fruit fly." or "A fruit fly will always be a fruit fly". That isn't a description of any mechanism, it's a statement that is a complete guess by you.

Which once again highlights my point that you are nothing more than an argumentative troll! I'm still waiting to see your explanation as to why genetic difference cannot accumulate to the point of evolution as requested by the OP.

LMAO. If somebody posts something false and off topic I have every right to correct them. I do not believe such a mechanism exists because there is no logical reason to assume so. If you have a logical reason then stop stalling and be out with it. Otherwise you are off topic.

You don't have to watch something in real time to know it happened when you have the entire fossil record

Which is proof of nothing.

LMAO. The fossil record is proof of nothing. Now I've heard it all.

The fruit fly experiment DID produce a new species

Which is also untrue. Weather or not the fruit fly experiment produced a new species is entirely dependent on the definition of new species...

So you only wish to argue semantics instead of describing and showing evidence of a mechanism as described in the OP?

Speciation
noun, Biology
1.
the formation of new species as a result of geographic, physiological, anatomical, or behavioral factors that prevent previously interbreeding populations from breeding with each other.

dictionary.reference.com...

In the experiment, the new species of fruit fly was unable to breed with the original. It is textbook speciation and my statement was accurate.

No we don't. There is no evidence to support that argument. All we have witnessed in speciation is fruit flys mating with other fruit flys and your interpretation of the fossil record without any actual proof is only speculation.

What do you mean there is no evidence to support that? Evidence isn't up for interpretation. Evolution is clear in both genetics AND the fossil record. And no, the fruit fly experiment is not all there is. There is an ongoing ecoli experiment as well as a recent guppy one, where the same exact things were confirmed.

Text The plucky chip was utilizing only thirty-seven of its one hundred logic gates, and most of them were arranged in a curious collection of feedback loops. Five individual logic cells were functionally disconnected from the rest— with no pathways that would allow them to influence the output— yet when the researcher disabled any one of them the chip lost its ability to discriminate the tones.

Which part of that says that the physical chip gets modified. Sorry, bud. You are comparing apples to oranges here. The chip doesn't change its physical structure, no matter how much the code changes. Again, it is limited to the structure of the chip, DNA is NOT. One hundred logic gates vs 3 billion base pairs. It's not even remotely close.

Here again is a study on fruit flys out lining the poor success rate of mutations.

One study on genetic variations between different species of Drosophila suggests that if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, the result is likely to be harmful, with an estimated 70 percent of amino acid polymorphisms having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial. Due to the damaging effects that mutations can have on genes, organisms have mechanisms such as DNA repair to prevent mutations.

What's your point and why won't you source what you are quoting? That came from a wiki page, not a scientific study. Nobody claims that all mutations are beneficial. We know they are rare. The majority of mutations are neutral. Your quote above has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

The rest of your post is just drivel. You haven't described or provided evidence of any mechanism to prevent genetic mutations from accumulating over time, nor have you even given a reason aside from "a fruit fly is always a fruit fly". There is no evidence for such a statement. You also failed to provided any of the citations that I requested in my previous post. This isn't a thread for proving or disproving evolution. It's a specific question about the accumulation of mutations, and you have completely failed to address it with anything beyond assumptions and invalid comparisons.

Given your dedication to science and the scientific process you should understand this perfectly.

When you source external content, you need to cite your source. Pretty sure this is required in terms of service for ATS. I googled one sentence from your paragraph and the first result was ICR. So any evidence of the mechanism that prevents the accumulation of mutations? Also the condescending attitude is not necessary.

a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Neighbour, it pains me to see a fellow countryman, be so obliviously insular, and closed minded.

(a) Barcs does not troll. He speaks plainly and clearly. If these words are at odds with your own personal beliefs, that really is your own problem.
(b)You accuse him of a lack of objectivity, yet you have demonstrated none of that yourself. If you had read any of what was typed by Barcs, you would know he means what he says about only caring about the science. To dispute that? Well that hints at some rather foolish levels of logical fallacy on your part.
(c) Barcs "interpretation" of the fossil record is in step with the rest of that of the scientific community. A Community which consists of people with and without faith. I'm a member of that community, I've got a strong spiritual life, yet I manage to not have conniptions over things. Perhaps you could try that one day? Similarly if we have seen speciation in fruit flies, then we have seen speciation.

What is evident from your replies (yes I've read them) is that you are hostile to a side of this discussion, and that you would rather attack the person, not the evidence. Oh well, game on neighbour game on

a reply to: Noinden
It's not the first time that Barcs and I have disagreed and as much as I recognize that Barcs and I are saying largely the same kinds of things from opposite sides of the argument the irony seems to completely evade him.
To be perfectly fair I am not a creationist although I recognize that the issue between creation and evolution has never been lack of evidence, it has always been how that evidence it interpreted.
I can make the most level and logical argument in the entire thread and it will just go ignored, leaving Barcs to pass of his beliefs as irrefutable fact with any opposing point of view.
At the and of the day evolution is a flawed theory and science has become the new religion.

Science said it therefore it MUST be TRUE!

Science is NEVER WRONG!

Bollocks.

I fail to see why speciation should be credited with causing evolution when the evidence doesn't clearly uphold only that theory.

Why should "it's true because science said it was true" hold any more credibility than saying"god did it"? What a ridiculous concept! On both accounts.

Evidence of speciation is not evidence of macro evolution.

a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Barcs has never said science is never wrong. Now I know I go quiet on here for a while, on and off. But Barcs will constantly remind people that "science re-evaluates its theories, when new evidence is available". I've seen him have to remind Creationists, IDers, Antivaxers etc this over and over. Just as I have (Hi, scientist, pagan, skeptic, and open minded conspiracy nut).

Your points about speciation and the fossil record however, have more in common with IDers and Old Earth Creationists, than Science. Sorry but they do.

Now go ahead, state what the theory of evolution is. Because If I see the original, by Darwin (not the first with ideas, but people think he was), you are well out of date. Feel free to use big technical words accurately, I will cope, I've got a bunch of scientific qualifications.

a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Here's the problem.

You are largely ignoring my counter points, instead of justifying your view. I have brought up numerous inconsistencies with your argument, but you refuse to defend your points. If I'm wrong about any of this, I'm happy to eat crow, but you haven't even argued against what I brought up. Instead, you just repeated your original argument and now you have regressed to speaking in generalities that have nothing to do with the conversation we were having.

I'm also not arguing that science is never wrong. I'm arguing that evolution is backed by solid evidence and TONS of it. Arguing against it is like arguing against gravity. Care to point out the irony that completely evaded me?

I can make the most level and logical argument in the entire thread and it will just go ignored, leaving Barcs to pass of his beliefs as irrefutable fact with any opposing point of view.

If you can make this kind of argument, why haven't you? You have compared the genetic mutations of DNA to a limited computer chip and make baseless assertions like "a fruit fly is always a fruit fly". Where is your justification for that or for any other statement you have made? Where are your citations I asked for? I'd be happy to provide any for my claims.

I fail to see why speciation should be credited with causing evolution when the evidence doesn't clearly uphold only that theory

For the last time, speciation does not CAUSE evolution. Genetic mutations cause evolution. Natural selection causes evolution. Speciation is biologists' description of the point where the species barrier is crossed as shown in my 3 examples. You fail to understand that evolution is evolution. There are no differences in the mechanisms from micro to macro. Macro is just the accumulation of numerous "micro" evolutionary changes and you still haven't explained how or why these accumulations would be limited when any gene could mutate.

Why should "it's true because science said it was true" hold any more credibility than saying"god did it"?

One has tangible evidence. The other does not. Science doesn't say anything. It's a method that helps us understand how nature works.

Separating micro and macro evolution is a complete straw man.

If you can get past the fact that it is a creationist website here is a Geneticist point of view

LINK

For those of us who can think for ourselves and challenge the commonly accepted science there are perfectly logical and rational arguments here...

link

a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Oh look no citations from the period of time when we could sequence DNA meaningfully. I will say what I have said in another thread today, and repeatedly. A single opinion does NOT make a scientific theory, nor invalidate it. Science does not work in that manner. The site is also a problem, it is not going to be open and honest, and follow scientific methodology, unless the result agrees with them. Creationist (pseudo)Science cherry picks, and refuses to change with evidence. Science changes with the evidence.

a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Logicial, you keep using that word, I do not think it means, what you think it means....

Sorry, but Micro and macro evolution ARE the same. The only ones who insist otherwise are creationists. They are on the same scale, just at different levels of magnification. Much like taking your telescope, and zooming in on the moon. Same moon, different levels of detail observed.

Or you could just say that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity

a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Bollocks. Look at those old chestnuts coming out.

Mutations are not always harmful. We have good evidence that the mutation for Lactose tolerance dates to around the time, and place cattle herding was starting. Its complex but validated methods of genomics that allow us to do that. If you can program R, and talk Bioinformatics, I'll explain it.

You want to know why the second law of thermodynamic is not to be used? Because we are not in a closed system. That law only applies to simple closed systems. Nothing Simple or closed about evolution.

So stop with the old gambits. They did not work the first time. Next Crocoduck will be brought out.

Byles also said.

I expect that a position on micro-evolution (evolution by micro-mutations) might be more difficult to prove, so I'll state my case here…. Micro-mutations will fail to provide the extent of variation required to enable natural selection to rank fitness. (Let us distinguish here between micro-mutations as random processes - mini mutations - versus the more gradual processes suggestive of Lamarckian type mechanisms). An organism’s will to survive will off-set micro variations and render them statistically insignificant. Not to mention genetic plasticity further complexifying matters. The bottom line is, if mutations played a significant role in life processes, shouldn’t we expect our ecologies to be comprised of grotesquely deformed mutants - if they can live long enough - tending towards the disorganized formlessness of cancer, rather than the efficiencies and varieties ensuring survival, that we observe around us?

a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Oh good you can quote with a cut and past. Can you explain it in your own words? Barcs and I are doing that. I am pretty sure you can only parrot, cut and paste, and try strawpeople.

Let me make it easy for you. Mr "thread killer". You have proven nothing in these last 4 posts. Indeed you have provided zero evidence to support your point of view. Show proof. Lets start with mutations being "only harmful". Bacteria with their resistance to antibiotics, not harmful for them. Lactose tolerance, not harmful. Even hemoglobin mutations can be helpful. HbC allows greater resistance to Malaria, hell Sickle Cell in Maleria infested regions allowed for survival, its how it became established and inheritable.

Harmful mutations, tend not to be inherited, unless it involves humans, and well we think about things, and make bad choices

Proof evolution is false by Shawn nelson states the obvious...

The Scientific Method Requires Observation Science is founded on the scientific method which involves “systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.”[37] Many are under the impression that macroevolution has been proven by this method, that is, by direct observation and experimentation—but it has not. Macroevolution still remains an unproven theory.[38]