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

a reply to: GetHyped

originally posted by: flanimal4114
This is getting very personal, so I'm gonna leave this for u guys bye

i men't against the others, not me, im fine, i didnt want bracs or the others getting, well, overboard. ill come back happily.

a reply to: Barcs

Ok, so by "information" you do not mean the genetic code.

Yes and No. The information in DNA is tied to the genetic code just like the information in a book is tide to the words. Also i already told you that I think IC applies to entire systems rather than just one select point. As DNA on its own is pretty worthless

a reply to: GetHyped

Making it up? My, that was a profound response. Explain then why deer are increasingly eating birds. Evolution has all the answers, doesn't it? Haven't deer evolved to eat plants? Should't that provide it with the nutrients it requires? Deer shouldn't be able to process meat according to Evolution after millions of years as herbivores. And how have they suddenly acquired the skill to hunt a flying prey? Shouldn't that have evolved?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Yes and No. The information in DNA is tied to the genetic code just like the information in a book is tide to the words. Also i already told you that I think IC applies to entire systems rather than just one select point. As DNA on its own is pretty worthless

So which part or system is irreducibly complex? I'm still not sure what you are getting at. Information does not apply since it is human data that comes from genetic code. Everybody I've heard argue for irreducible complexity claims it is about biological traits. Some people say that flagellum applies, some folks argue that the eye is IC, but both can be explained by incremental changes. To get this back on topic, where do you see IC in regards to evolutionary mechanisms and accumulation of traits?

originally posted by: flanimal4114
a reply to: GetHyped

originally posted by: flanimal4114
This is getting very personal, so I'm gonna leave this for u guys bye

i men't against the others, not me, im fine, i didnt want bracs or the others getting, well, overboard. ill come back happily.

That's strange. I haven't really seen anything personal yet. I see posts that go into details and thoroughly explain people's views on this. Just because people disagree and post a large amount doesn't make it personal. I try to keep it professional and don't attack people personally, I focus on the claim or viewpoint itself. Some people think because I type in large quantities that it means I am angry or upset. It just means I'm trying to cover all bases and explain things as detailed as I can. I admit I do go "overboard" many times and over explain things.

originally posted by: TheLamb
Explain then why deer are increasingly eating birds. Evolution has all the answers, doesn't it? Haven't deer evolved to eat plants? Should't that provide it with the nutrients it requires? Deer shouldn't be able to process meat according to Evolution after millions of years as herbivores. And how have they suddenly acquired the skill to hunt a flying prey? Shouldn't that have evolved?

Can you explain how a deer eating a bird goes against evolution? Many carnivores occasionally eat plants, why couldn't the inverse be true? If anything deer eating birds shows that they HAVE EVOLVED to consume meat as well. It doesn't go against evolution, it just means we were wrong in classifying them as complete herbivores. I highly doubt that deer eating birds is anything new. We just hadn't observed it much until recently, when scientists began studying certain birds with nest cams.

Also they do not actively hunt flying prey. They eat baby birds directly out of nests that they can reach. Quite frankly it means that deer are actually omnivores like us, not strict herbivores. Cats are classified as carnivores but eat grass and other plants to help them digest and process hairballs. If anything your argument supports evolution.

a reply to: Barcs

So which part or system is irreducibly complex

The cell is irreducibly complex. A cell membrane on its own cannot replicate, and as such is not alive . It on its own cannot work and without it you have no cell structure for organelles and cytoplasm and all that fun stuff in the membrane isn't container so no function cell. Any organelle including the mitochondria removed is worthless on its own. The mitochondria's structure and functioning is governed by the nucleus and they cannot exist in a cell-free culture nor can they reproduce without nuclear participation. Then you have a ribosome. Remove this you have no proteins. A ribosome in and of itself is an incredibly complex structure.

Some people say that flagellum applies, some folks argue that the eye is IC, but both can be explained by incremental changes.

Well your talking about a science not a philosophy. Show me evidence that these supposed incremental changes can occur, but as of right now I would disagree with this statement.

Information does not apply since it is human data that comes from genetic code

How exactly is the information for building a protein human information? A protein functions based on its shape. Its shape is determined by the sequence of amino acids which is determined by the sequence of nucleotide bases in the mRNA template of DNA. Then somewhere hidden in there is also the information for the correct protein structure or fold.

Abstract
Four decades ago, several scientists suggested that the impossibility of any evolutionary process sampling anything
but a miniscule fraction of the possible protein sequences posed a problem for the evolution of new proteins. This
potential problem—the sampling problem—was largely ignored, in part because those who raised it had to rely on
guesswork to fill some key gaps in their understanding of proteins. The huge advances since that time call for a careful
reassessment of the issue they raised. Focusing specifically on the origin of new protein folds, I argue here that
the sampling problem remains. The difficulty stems from the fact that new protein functions, when analyzed at the
level of new beneficial phenotypes, typically require multiple new protein folds, which in turn require long stretches
of new protein sequence. Two conceivable ways for this not to pose an insurmountable barrier to Darwinian searches
exist. One is that protein function might generally be largely indifferent to protein sequence. The other is that relatively
simple manipulations of existing genes, such as shuffling of genetic modules, might be able to produce the
necessary new folds. I argue that these ideas now stand at odds both with known principles of protein structure and
with direct experimental evidence. If this is correct, the sampling problem is here to stay, and we should be looking
well outside the Darwinian framework for an adequate explanation of fold origins.

Source: bio-complexity.org...

Now its important to note that there are a vast amount of ways that a protein is physically capable of folding.

Same Source:

Since there are
n^ℓ
possible ways to construct a polymer chain of length ℓ from n
distinct monomer types, amino acid chains a mere twelve residues
long (residue being the term for an amino acid monomer that has
been incorporated into a protein polymer) can be built in four quadrillion
ways (20^12 = 4 × 10^15). The gene sequences that encode
these short chains are even more numerous as a consequence of
the many-to-one mapping of codons (the n

So in order for a new protein function to be analyzed at the level of phenotype such as something evolving a flagellum which is made up of at least 50 different protein structures it has to go thru what this article calls the search problem. As you can see if a new protein fold requires 12 amino acid chains there are four quadrillion possible ways that structure could be physically put together. But 12 amino acid chains is small in the biology world. Lets look at the well studied E. coli bacteria.

The simple relationship between gene sequences and protein
sequences in bacteria allows protein sizes to be determined directly
from genomic data. This, in combination with abundant
data on protein structures and functions, makes the well studied
gut bacterium Escherichia coli an excellent model system
for examining a simple proteome.
The size of E. coli proteins with known functions can be assessed by analyzing the data files
provided by EcoCyc , a comprehensive database for this organism.
Figure 1 shows the distribution of protein chain lengths
for all proteins known to be involved in enzymatic functions in
E. coli, either alone or in combination with other proteins. From
the mode of the distribution we see that the most common length
of these proteins is around 300 amino acid residues, with the
higher mean and median lengths reflecting the existence of numerous
protein chains that are much longer than this.
If we take 300 residues as a typical chain length for functional
proteins, then the corresponding set of amino acid sequence possibilities
is unimaginably large, having 20^300 ( = 10^390) members.

Now it is also mentioned in this article that
"the maximum number of distinct physical
events that could have occurred within the visible universe,
including all particles throughout the time since the Big Bang, is
10^150 "

Do you see the problem here? For just one functioning E. coli protein you have to search thru more physical possibilities then there are physical events in the universe most of which had nothing to do with protein folding. A flagellum has way more than just one functioning protein part. So you have to go thru this search problem for 50 different function proteins. If its trial and error of random mutation you have to much trial an error to go thru for it to be considered a plausible theory.

Then you run into the another problem. Proteins have some form of self-correcting themselves when artificial mutations are exposed upon them and they return the chain to working order. Darwinian mechanisms can't explain the origin of new protein folds and therefore are incapable of explaining the origin of new species which inevitably requires a vast amount of new protein folds.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
The cell is irreducibly complex. A cell membrane on its own cannot replicate, and as such is not alive . It on its own cannot work and without it you have no cell structure for organelles and cytoplasm and all that fun stuff in the membrane isn't container so no function cell. Any organelle including the mitochondria removed is worthless on its own. The mitochondria's structure and functioning is governed by the nucleus and they cannot exist in a cell-free culture nor can they reproduce without nuclear participation. Then you have a ribosome. Remove this you have no proteins. A ribosome in and of itself is an incredibly complex structure.

That is not irreducible complexity and it's already been said. Look it up. Nobody claims that a cell membrane can replicate without DNA or that pieces of a cell could function on their own. The doesn't mean the cell couldn't have arisen from it's basic components over time. This is a common fallacy because it assumes that the modern cell is exactly like the original cell, when it is obviously not, and also because removing modern structures does not bear any indication on how those features emerged. It's not like you go from no flagellum to a fully functioning one over night. This seems to be the position you are coming from.

Irreducible complexity means that something could not emerge in incremental stages leading to what we have now, not that if you remove a major component that it will continue to function. That's like arguing that humans are irreducibly complex because if you remove the heart or lungs they will die.

Irreducible complexity (IC) is a pseudoscientific argument that postulates that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler or "less complete" predecessors through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring chance mutations.

Sorry but your argument is way off base, and you can't prove that ANYTHING is irreducibly complex as it is an assumption.

www.millerandlevine.com...

Here's a good article that explains it.

Well your talking about a science not a philosophy. Show me evidence that these supposed incremental changes can occur, but as of right now I would disagree with this statement.

For which phenomenon? The eye is easy, just do a search for evolution eye and you'll find it. It starts with photosensitive cells and then slowly improves over time. Obviously you can't take an eye, remove the pupil and they expect it to function.

How exactly is the information for building a protein human information? A protein functions based on its shape. Its shape is determined by the sequence of amino acids which is determined by the sequence of nucleotide bases in the mRNA template of DNA. Then somewhere hidden in there is also the information for the correct protein structure or fold.

You just posted a video that explained how information is determined by what humans can understand and determine from it. You can't just say that information is hidden in there somewhere and call it a day. It goes against what you previously defined as information and relying on what people do NOT know, rather than what they DO know.

I'm not addressing protein folds, it has not been a problem for evolution thus far and I see no reason for it to be now when we have observed speciation in only 50 years and protein folds did not stop it. Let's focus on one subject at a time. IC first. Besides you might debate that topic with Phantom and I wouldn't want to spoil it for her. I think your math and conclusions from what you quoted are flat out wrong, but one topic at time.

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

Brilliant, didn't see this thread before.

Glad to see it, thanks. And great phrasing if I may say so.

a reply to: wisvol

I see you discovered the search engine. It comes in handy.

a reply to: wisvol

How exactly is this great phrasing?

Interbreeding stops speciation.

Two populations that never interbreed will eventually become different species. They will become different species faster if their respective environments have different stresses, that is different predators, different climate, different food sources, different competing organisms, different diseases. A population that is so close to extinction that it is inbreeding for several (hundreds?) generations will mutate fastest.

To answer the title question:

Genetic differences accumulate endlessly.


Speciation is another bowl of wax, and isn't a point to be reached by accumulated genetic difference.

Mendel's genetics shows this so elegantly, Darwin had to take it from meaning "peas that taste better or resist mold better do so because they're coded differently through their generations" into "peas become mangoes if you wait longer than possible to wait", and that was an error still repeated today for its psychosocial implications.

So the mechanism would be there isn't one: genetic difference isn't speciation.

originally posted by: wisvol
To answer the title question:

Genetic differences accumulate endlessly.


Speciation is another bowl of wax, and isn't a point to be reached by accumulated genetic difference.

Mendel's genetics shows this so elegantly, Darwin had to take it from meaning "peas that taste better or resist mold better do so because they're coded differently through their generations" into "peas become mangoes if you wait longer than possible to wait", and that was an error still repeated today for its psychosocial implications.

So the mechanism would be there isn't one: genetic difference isn't speciation.

Genetic difference is evolution. Speciation is not a separate process. The op is in reference to the incorrect assertion from the creationists claiming micro evolution is somehow a separate process from macro evolution (as opposed to taxonomic terminology). In order for that claim to be accurate, there must be an identifiable mechanism. There isn't one and in fact the cross breeding of species such as the liger proves this point.

Mendel was not going to get separate species from a few generations of peas. His was a test of gene expression, there was no mutation or significant change to the genome that would force a split in species classification. The gene selected by Mendel was a phenotype that had no impact on the ability to reproduce under those conditions. Secondly Mendle showed that selective pressures could weed out genetic traits. Bees selecting the plants to pollunate, birds and animals spreading nuts and seeds, they all work on the same principles Mendel observed.

Regardless of how a person tries to spin, at the end of the day, all life on earth is defined by the genetic makeup. The building blocks are the same, the only defing difference is the amout and order of those blocks. The mechanisms that change the genetic code are very well understood, far beyond Darwin and Mendel. Those changes are what we use as a classification system.

a reply to: Cypress

Genetic difference is evolution. Speciation is not a separate process. The op is in reference to the incorrect assertion from the creationists claiming micro evolution is somehow a separate process from macro evolution (as opposed to taxonomic terminology). In order for that claim to be accurate, there must be an identifiable mechanism.

Genetic difference is actual evolution, and the semantically drifted term "evolution" referring to the origin of species as other species is an incorrect notion.

Speciation is a distinct process that despite claims to the contrary isn't observed, because of the unexperimentable amount of time required for theoretical speciaton.

Micro and Macro don't apply to genetic difference. Macro genetic difference such as an extra chromosome is either lethal or gives birth to severely impaired individuals.

The barren nature of the ligers you mention is a hint as to the very narrow nature of genetic compatibility.

If you need a mechanism as phrased by the OP, name the mechanism by which small changes in temperature according to seasons do not accumulate to below zero Kelvin or above sun temperature.
Same here

Offspring are different from their parents in ways not inclusive of their species.
Speciation is a failed theory, as demonstrated through several attempts to speciate creatures with a short generational period such as drosophilia, who decades after being separated from their main population are still interfertile although they may be irradiated and maybe albino.

Regardless of how a person tries to spin, at the end of the day, all life on earth is defined by the genetic makeup. The building blocks are the same, the only defing difference is the amout and order of those blocks.

Indeed, now replace "genetic" with "elemental", as all life if made mostly of coal and water.
Those building blocks are the same, and leaving a lump of coal in a glass of water for a million years will not yield fish any more than leaving fish in a pond for a billion years yield another species.

The mechanisms that change the genetic code are very well understood, far beyond Darwin and Mendel. Those changes are what we use as a classification system.

And still, a creature as simple and rapidly breeding as drosophilia cannot be observed to produce another species because the origin of species, despite popular belief, is not other species.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Cypress


Genetic difference is actual evolution, and the semantically drifted term "evolution" referring to the origin of species as other species is an incorrect notion.

The term Evolution has not "semantically drifted", in terms of biological evolution, it is a specificly defined process. To ignore and disregard the proper use of the definition would be ignorance as is evidenced in your post.

Speciation is a distinct process that despite claims to the contrary isn't observed, because of the unexperimentable amount of time required for theoretical speciaton.

Speciation is not a process. If it was it would have a specific mechanism. It does not. There is only evolution. It's not even technically a true term because there is no process of speciation.

Micro and Macro don't apply to genetic difference. Macro genetic difference such as an extra chromosome is either lethal or gives birth to severely impaired individuals.

This is incorrect. Micro and Macro are taxanomic terms used for classification. Adding a chromosome such as in down syndrome is not Macro evolution. That is a misuse of the term. They are the same process. Macro is essentially the plural of Micro.

The barren nature of the ligers you mention is a hint as to the very narrow nature of genetic compatibility.

Actually, ligers are not barren. Only under extreme conditions would species interbreed if a close enough relation exists but it is possible.

If you need a mechanism as phrased by the OP, name the mechanism by which small changes in temperature according to seasons do not accumulate to below zero Kelvin or above sun temperature.
Same here

First of all you do not understand what the OP is asking. I will repeat from my last post; The Op is addressing the issue brought up by creationist claims stating that adaptation occurs in populations but that there is no divergence in populations. They separate evolution into 2 separate processes. In order to do this there must be a mechanism that prevents or would be required to get a divergence. The OP was asking for for identification of that mechanism and evidence of supporting that claim.

Also, the temperature question is a red herring and has no basis for this discussion.

Offspring are different from their parents in ways not inclusive of their species.
Speciation is a failed theory, as demonstrated through several attempts to speciate creatures with a short generational period such as drosophilia, who decades after being separated from their main population are still interfertile although they may be irradiated and maybe albino.

Speciation is not a theory because there is no process of speciation. There is only evolution. The term species is only a classification term for organizing relationships. Speciation is a slang term used to denote an approximate range of when we see two species diverge from a common ancestor. As for genetic differences, you claim they do not leave their parent species yet we share a majority of our DNA with all life on earth and the changes in DNA can be directly correlated with known processes in genetics. So your claim is bogus with all the evidence showing the contrary.

Regardless of how a person tries to spin, at the end of the day, all life on earth is defined by the genetic makeup. The building blocks are the same, the only defing difference is the amout and order of those blocks.

Indeed, now replace "genetic" with "elemental", as all life if made mostly of coal and water.
Those building blocks are the same, and leaving a lump of coal in a glass of water for a million years will not yield fish any more than leaving fish in a pond for a billion years yield another species.

While the atoms may largely be the same, the chemical processes involved in biochemistry =/= mixing coal in water. It's not an appropriate chemical reaction and is an absurd claim.

This is a straw man.

The mechanisms that change the genetic code are very well understood, far beyond Darwin and Mendel. Those changes are what we use as a classification system.

And still, a creature as simple and rapidly breeding as drosophilia cannot be observed to produce another species because the origin of species, despite popular belief, is not other species.

Life has been on Earth for upwards of 3 billion years and you expect us to watch single celled organisms morph into multicellular organisms in just a few years.

a reply to: Cypress

The term Evolution has not "semantically drifted", in terms of biological evolution, it is a specificly defined process. To ignore and disregard the proper use of the definition would be ignorance as is evidenced in your post.

Demonstrably wrong: "evolution" is found in texts published before the introduction of the concept that the origin of species would be other species. Since my word apparently carries little weight in your eye, hear it from professionals here. Therefore it is effectively semantically drifted.

Speciation is not a process. If it was it would have a specific mechanism. It does not. There is only evolution. It's not even technically a true term because there is no process of speciation.

Speciation is clearly not a process, we agree.

Actually, ligers are not barren. Only under extreme conditions would species interbreed if a close enough relation exists but it is possible.

Hybrids are barren, your link doesn't show otherwise, and any farmer who has mules will confirm this.
Interbreeding is possible within specific conditions yes, and the result being barren shows how hybridization isn't a good source of biological diversity, as in it's unlikely that a horse and a cow would produce narwhals, or a chicken and a snake would produce raptors. A sideline really, and not very important besides denoting that species do seem to have boundaries.

First of all you do not understand what the OP is asking. I will repeat from my last post; The Op is addressing the issue brought up by creationist claims stating that adaptation occurs in populations but that there is no divergence in populations. They separate evolution into 2 separate processes. In order to do this there must be a mechanism that prevents or would be required to get a divergence. The OP was asking for for identification of that mechanism and evidence of supporting that claim

You are also wrong about this. All life differs from its parents in many ways not including species: this is one process. The mechanism has been defined, in this thread.

Speciation is not a theory because there is no process of speciation. There is only evolution. The term species is only a classification term for organizing relationships. Speciation is a slang term used to denote an approximate range of when we see two species diverge from a common ancestor. As for genetic differences, you claim they do not leave their parent species yet we share a majority of our DNA with all life on earth and the changes in DNA can be directly correlated with known processes in genetics. So your claim is bogus with all the evidence showing the contrary.

Speciation is indeed a theory.
The term species is defined clearly by professionals as a group whose offspring is interfertile.
We are made of the same elements as life and all matter, we are coded in the same language as all life, this does not scientifically demonstrably shows or hints at our bloodline including worms and ebola: you are free to believe this, but don't say it is science.
You speak of evidence, yet there is none: links to articles written by the church of scientology are not evidence, the scientific method requires observable reproducible experiment as evidence.

While the atoms may largely be the same, the chemical processes involved in biochemistry =/= mixing coal in water. It's not an appropriate chemical reaction and is an absurd claim. This is a straw man.

Not largely: exactly the same
biochemistry is far more complex than mineral chemistry, this is part of why the "primordial soup" construct is absurd without an organizing intent. A straw man means someone put words in your mouth, which was not done by me, I don't have time for straw men.

"And still, a creature as simple and rapidly breeding as drosophilia cannot be observed to produce another species because the origin of species, despite popular belief, is not other species. "

Life has been on Earth for upwards of 3 billion years and you expect us to watch single celled organisms morph into multicellular organisms in just a few years.

You did not quote that first part as being mine, which it is.
The three billion year life is a desperate attempt to justify the racist immoral and funny notion that the origin of species would be other species by making that claim non observable: this makes your theory religious and not scientific: science requires observable reproducible facts.
No scientist claimed any such thing before Darwinism, and many today still refuse to for lack of credible logic.

You're free to worship soup, but don't call it science, science is important and good, don't mix your faith with it.

a reply to: wisvol

Actually not all hybrids are barren, for example Ligers have been able to breed with lions. Thus this is demonstrably wrong if "all hybrids are barren". Add to this evidence of Neanderthal and Denisovian breeding with each other and Homo sapiens, and your comment holds less water than a sieve.

Katia Andreassi (21 September 2012). ""Liliger" Born in Russia No Boon for Big Cats". National Geographic.