It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
2) If, say, two populations of bear are separated into different environments, the selective pressures needed for the different populations to survive will give rise to different genetic changes (mutations, etc) beneficial to survival and reproduction being selected
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Thecakeisalie
I hate applying the KISS method to science. It allows for people to misinterpret what it is. People should just accept that science is difficult and complicated. Dumbing it down for someone creates opportunities for people like YECers to create their stupid strawmans against evolution.
Besides, there is nothing wrong with having a large vocabulary and not being adverse to using it. I enjoy being able to use more uncommon words in favor of common ones. The more uncommon ones allow me to be more specific with what I am saying. For instance, I didn't need a thesaurus or a dictionary to understand your first post in this thread. I knew every word.
originally posted by: GetHyped
Furthermore, "species" is nothing more than a man-made construct. It's not a tangible "thing". We could define species in any way we please so this barrier that stops genetic change in populations from accumulating to the arbitrary point of speciation needs to be defined and supported with evidence. Otherwise, the argument is baseless.
originally posted by: GetHyped
Can you describe and present evidence for the mechanism that stops genetic differences in populations from accumulating to the point of speciation?
(The OP's) is not a valid question within the context which (the OP has) described speciation.
originally posted by: Titen-Sxull
a reply to: Pistoche
Actually you raise a very good point. The definition of a species is, to some extent, still arbitrary, however most scientists agree that it has to do with infertility between the two populations. As you point out though sometimes species that are still related but would seem on the surface to be quite different can produce hybrids such as the beefalo or liger.
I think the point of this thread, though, is that there is no built-in mechanism that would STOP animals from crossing the species boundary and thus no mechanism that would prevent the tree of life from expanding out further and further branches given long enough. Even if we don't agree 100% on what a species is there is no genetic boundary built in to stop incremental changes from adding up over generations to produce something new and, if that new population is driven far enough it will become a new species.
The fact that we can disagree on where that species line lies shows how long evolution often takes. For example dogs are now a subspecies of wolves while some used to think they were a separate species but either way the variety of breeds is evidence of evolution.
Creationists often reference the Biblical passage that says God created animals after their "kind" which some argue means that animals can evolve but not outside their Genus, they had to admit this after it was shown that new species could emerge. The goalposts of creationism are constantly moving.