It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 11
15
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

The irreducible complexity argument is a fallacy and a terrible one at that. Dna is the same regardless of the organism. So there is no difference in complexity.




posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
Let's face it.

Even if one disagrees with the previous argument that macroevolution is impossible because of specified and irreducible complexity, at best, it is highly improbable.


Show us your math, then.

Also, show us an example of irreducible complexity.



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Who is Shawn Nelson and what are you quoting all of his quotes from?

Personal opinions are not scientific fact. You have done nothing but argue fallacies. You are using quote mining, equivocation, appeal to ignorance, appeal to authority and straw mans to justify your view. Yeah good luck with that, I am not going to argue with nonsense. You have failed completely to address the topic. You haven't described ANY mechanism that prevents mutations from adding up and accumulating. You are just using the same ol' tireless arguments against evolution that your camp has been arguing for decades and are long debunked.


Irreducible complexity is an issue all of it's own...


Can you empirically prove that anything is irreducibly complex? Do some research, stop spewing off topic ignorance, and source your quotes. Stop breaking the ATS terms of service.

Perhaps you'd like to address the topic now instead of copy-pasting everything you see that doesn't agree with evolution.


originally posted by: Barcs
hopefully it can bypass the phase where nobody understands what is actually being asked.


So much for that idea...
edit on 25-9-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   
This is getting very personal, so I'm gonna leave this for u guys bye



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   

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


Another creationist hit and run. Why not stay and defend the positions you've been arguing for? No one has been insulted personal, only ideas have been criticized. If people cannot handle such criticism then perhaps a public forum is not the best place to air them.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 06:34 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped




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


Its not a mechanism that stops genetic differences. Its that the proposed mechanism of random mutation and selection is not an adequate mechanism for explaining the observed morphological changes in the fossil record. For example, the alotted time frame based on the fossil record for human chimp divergence is about 5 and a half million years. Durrett and Schmidt wrote a paper refuting some of michael behe's claims in one of his books. However, their findings weren't good for evolutionary theory either.




Results of Nowak and collaborators concerning the onset of cancer due to the inactivation of tumor suppressor genes give the distribution of the time until some individual in a population has experienced two prespecified mutations and the time until this mutant phenotype becomes fixed in the population. In this article we apply these results to obtain insights into regulatory sequence evolution in Drosophila and humans. In particular, we examine the waiting time for a pair of mutations, the first of which inactivates an existing transcription factor binding site and the second of which creates a new one. Consistent with recent experimental observations for Drosophila, we find that a few million years is sufficient, but for humans with a much smaller effective population size, this type of change would take >100 million years


Source: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The quoted section is the Abstract. Now, what I would like to point out to you is that these are the results of the time it would take for an individual to undergo two pre-specified mutations and the time until it becomes fixed(the norm) in the population. You can read the paper for the math, but as you can tell from the Abstract they found that for just 2 mutations to become fixed in a population it would take more than 100 million years. The problem is you only have 5 and a half. So as I said the issue is not that something stops neo-darwinian mechanisms from functioning its that what we observe and the needed amount of time for it to take place just aren't there. This problem can be seen across the fossil record. I believe with whales you 9 million years based on the fossil record needed time for neo-darwinian mechanisms is about 43 million years. So there is your answer bud



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 06:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Cypress




The irreducible complexity argument is a fallacy and a terrible one at that. Dna is the same regardless of the organism. So there is no difference in complexity.


DNA is the same material regardless of the organism but the information available in each genome is incredibly different and according to Craig Venter we have found 17 unique gene sets. Just to give an example of a difference in gene sets. In a human gene set the codon UGA would code for "stop". In Mycroplasmas, UGA codes for tryptophan. Mycoplasma dna would not work in human cells are vice versa. This shows that there is a difference in the way the information is exchanged thru out the cell and also shows that a common ancestor is not likely.

Craig Venter - ""The tree of life is an artifact of some early scientific studies that aren't really holding up...So there is not a tree of life."



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Unless you can show that DNA does not follow chemical principals it is a fallacy. Gene expression or gene sets does not matter. The basic principles and material are the same, regardless of how the information is expressed.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Cypress




Unless you can show that DNA does not follow chemical principals it is a fallacy.


Thats like saying show me words that aren't written in language. I gave you an example of what I was talking. So i don't know why you are acting like I just made some blanket statement without clarifying.




. Gene expression or gene sets does not matter. The basic principles and material are the same, regardless of how the information is expressed.



Wrong. If you wanna talk about DNA and Irreducible complexity then they do matter. If the same chemicals carry a different message then their is a difference in their complexity. Just like each language follows different rules of grammar. My point here is simply that there is a difference. And so far we have found seventeen different cell "languages"



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Nothing you said proves DNA is irreducibly complex. There's a big difference between being complex and being irreducibly complex. Irreducible complexity indicates that no matter what, DNA could not have emerged from a simpler molecule. Can you prove that? Thus far I've never seen any evidence to suggest this is the case for anything in the universe.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

The information encoded in DNA is irreducibly complex. If you remove any of the necessary information or change that information it no longer works. Like my previous example. Replacing human DNA with Mycoplasma DNA wouldn't work. Not because of the chemicals being irreducibly complex, but the information within it. Also just talking about DNA is kind of a strawman. Irreducible complexity is really meant to be applied to an entire system. DNA on its own is pretty worthless. Its like having a book without someone to read it. You need mRNA and ribosomes and the enzymes in the ribosomes and the gene regulatory network for that specific animal. Even if you had DNA mRNA and ribosomes all you may get from selection and mutation is a new amino acid, you would still need the correct protein fold and a heap of other things to get it going.
edit on 28-9-2015 by ServantOfTheLamb because: typo



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Barcs
If you remove any of the necessary information or change that information it no longer works.


That's not irreducible complexity means.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   
There is one major factor that stops the divergence of a population into new species. That is the constant flux of the food chain which goes in cycles. Mutations and some natural selection (microevolution) takes place when the food chain is in a relatively stable state but as soon as the swing comes the changelings are the first to succumb. The purer of the breed are genetically able to cope and so they remain in situ. The net effect is that we keep the animals that were created in the beginning unless the change is so severe that the species dies out completely to make way for larger populations of the more successful varieties. This is God's creation improving upon itself which pleases God as it reflects on His skill as a Creator. There are less species now than when they were created. Man is supposed to intervene by altering the balance of food supply and demand through farming and husbandry. We are now seeing a change in the food chain, the first major one for a few hundred years at least. We are seeing deer eating birds and becoming carnivorous, tits eating bats and no longer insects, small plentiful birds eating more bees, killer whales eating sharks, dogs eating grass and vegetables and so forth. We're already seeing huge changes in native populations as nature prepares itself for a reset. Species divergence might appear to be a technical possibility but in Creationism it never gets a chance to happen thanks to God's design. We've only just begun to understand how nature operates and we will see that Evolution theory was a bit premature.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: TheLamb

You are literally making stuff up now.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Irreducible complexity is a term coined by Micahel Behe and its meant to be applied to a system. I already said that in the post above, but your so eager to be right that you seem to have ignored the rest of the post.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Your post is nothing new. I asked for the mechanism and the scientific evidence backing it up. There are no examples of biological irreducible complexity.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

My post to you was not on irreducible complexity. My post to you answered the question in the OP. You jumped in on an entirely different conversation.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
The information encoded in DNA is irreducibly complex. If you remove any of the necessary information or change that information it no longer works.


That is not always the case. Genetic mutations show us that the code can indeed change, and parts of it can be removed via deleterious mutations, without destroying the functionality.
edit on 28-9-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Again your confusing information with the form it takes. I didn't say if you changed some of the nucleotides it wouldn't work. I said if you changed the information. Maybe this 2 minute video will give you more of an idea on what information is:




posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Ok, so by "information" you do not mean the genetic code. It sounds like you are trying to invoke information theory into an idea that has nothing to do with it. If you are arguing based on the information that humans have acquired from DNA, then you are not arguing about DNA itself, which makes your point about IC moot.
edit on 28-9-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
15
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join