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

Just for the record: speciation isn't even a word. The term is made up and using it states there is a process seperate from evolution. Species is merely a taxonomic classification.

a reply to: flanimal4114

Theory in science does not have the same definition as how it is used in laymans terms. Evolution is a proven process.

a reply to: Barcs

Who's attacking evolution?

Perhaps you should read your own suggested material...

Due to the damaging effects that mutations can have on genes, organisms have mechanisms such as DNA repair to prevent or correct mutations by reverting the mutated sequence back to its original state.

These truncated proteins frequently are unable to function properly or at all and can possibly result in any number of genetic disorders depending on the gene in which the insertion occurs.

Where is the creation of properly functioning genetic material?

a reply to: Cypress

prove it.

so everyone is saying, oh no evolution is a "proven fact" well then prove it with a bit better than: its umm um proven? umm. if you think evolution is right then PROVE it! so far i have given real info and you just push it aside and say, na i just made this post for the people who just like to disagree not prove anything or progress.

thnak you

a reply to: flanimal4114

we need a chat room on this so we can "talk" with out long replies that take for ever...

Given the amount of misunderstandings about evolution you're displaying in the rest of this post alone, you should try and focus on understanding the facts about evolution before wishing for a real-time conversation via chat on the subject.

any ways: it is true that all it is doing is editing existing info, not adding new info.

Define "genetic information" in an objective and meaningful way. Until you do, you're just moving the goalposts whenever anyone tries to show that new "information" is added.

so it would never change into something new.

What would never change into something new?

and if you can study and show me evolution happening, not adaption or mutation, because mutation is not changing for the better and adaption is just changing,

This statement is one of the big red flags that you either don't really understand the facts of evolution, or you don't care to. Mutations filtered by natural selection is one of the mechanisms for evolution; your statement that "mutation is not changing for the better" is simply false -- mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful. The vast majority of mutations are actually neutral i.e. they have no net effect on the organism. As far as trying to differentiate evolution from your concept of adaptation, evolution is simply defined as a change in allele frequency within a given population over successive generations. Can you explain how that's different from adaptation?

take eye colour, just because i have adapted blue eyes because thousands of years ago people lived in ice areas where blue eyes helped (or something) is not changing me, or evolving me if that were so i would be superior... so am i???

Common misconception about evolution from people who like to try to argue against it without understanding the facts. There is no endpoint or pinnacle to evolution, no final goal or form that evolution is trying to reach. There are only species that are more or less suited to survive and thrive in their respective environments.

The THEORY of evolution is just a THEORY.

Gravitational theory is just a theory. Germ theory is just a theory. Circuit theory is just a theory. Atomic theory is just a theory. Heliocentric theory is just a theory. Tectonic theory is just a theory. Any issues with all of these other things that are "just theories", or is you're only issue with evolution? Or do you not understand that a theory is a framework by which observable phenomena are explained? Just like the theory of gravity seeks to explain the observable phenomenon of gravity, the theory of evolution seeks to explain the observable phenomenon of evolution. Or do you not understand what the word "theory" means in a scientific context rather than a colloquial one?

From the US National Academy of Sciences:

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.

And from the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

Thank you.

You're welcome. Hope you learned something.

originally posted by: flanimal4114
a reply to: Krazysh0t

look at my real other post

This post? The one that was debunked by Astyanax right here? I'm just going to piggy back off of that great debunking.

Though, I find it funny that your silly analogy was destroyed so thoroughly that you abandoned even defending it, instead opting to deflect to a post that wasn't in response to anything I said.

originally posted by: flanimal4114
so everyone is saying, oh no evolution is a "proven fact" well then prove it with a bit better than: its umm um proven? umm. if you think evolution is right then PROVE it! so far i have given real info and you just push it aside and say, na i just made this post for the people who just like to disagree not prove anything or progress.

thnak you

Real information? Real information requires you to post links to sources that verify what you are saying. You declaring something is true doesn't make it so. You are on an internet forum; that means your credibility is non-existent. Plus you are a new member so it's not like any of us can vouch for you either. So no, you didn't post ANY real information.

Yes, obviously this discussion would be better suited for you in a chat room, because all you have is one liners and lies that have nothing to do with evolution or are flat out false. I don't see anything in your post that addresses the topic of the thread, only the same misinformed nonsense about evolution.

so everyone is saying, oh no evolution is a "proven fact" well then prove it with a bit better than: its umm um proven? umm. if you think evolution is right then PROVE it! so far i have given real info and you just push it aside and say, na i just made this post for the people who just like to disagree not prove anything or progress.

This thread isn't for debating evolution. There are like 20 other threads in the section you can use to spread your creationist propaganda. Try addressing the topic, or post in the "evidence for evolution" thread, where numerous examples and proofs of evolution have been provided. Since you obviously know more than scientists about the matter, it should be easy for you to go in there and debunk all of that evidence.

a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Of course not all mutations are functional. They are essentially random. The majority of mutations are neutral, but multiple neutral mutations can add up over time leading to a new functional gene sequence. Anything to say that's on topic?

ok i have come up with my proposal against evolution and laid it out in a way you "higher ups" can understand (ironic lol).

here is the THEORIES of evolution.
1) mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species.

if you don't what simple then here is a test that was conducted in the late 1930s. they where trying to prove that fact above and failed. Lonnig was one of the scientists who had spent 30 years studying mutations. they used a number of techniques in order to show the sped up evolution in they way of mutations accumulating. the result was that after 40 years of research almost all results where fails and the number of new mutations declined and the same one began to occur with no new types of mutations proving my point that you can only use the already there genetic genes etc.

if you want me to unprove the second please ask

thank you.

a reply to: flanimal4114

see "mutation breeding evolution and the law of recurrent variation" by wolf ekkehard lonnig (pg 48 i think???)

a reply to: Barcs

ps: i am a learning scientist so lay off, i don't have time for this but i do it anyways. I have points and have researched this a bit but i am in chemistry and physics not biology but still know enough to know what i know (i'm not good at english though)

a reply to: Krazysh0t

sorry mate i would spend more time on this kinda stuff but i have ALOT of school work to do and cant have long replies for everyone. My analogies are week but are made up on the spot and i don't spend time on my replies as much as some. i just hope that you get the over all meaning of what i am saying.

oh and im not one of those guys who think the world was made in 6 real 24 hr days and all that, i simply think, as a scientist, at the possibility of intelligent design.

thank you

a reply to: Krazysh0t

ok if i dont post any real evidence whats my newest post???

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Of course not all mutations are functional. They are essentially random. The majority of mutations are neutral, but multiple neutral mutations can add up over time leading to a new functional gene sequence. Anything to say that's on topic?

that is not true there is only so many mutations that can become about. its like the codons that make amino acids in deoxyribonucleic acid, lots of different sequences but only so many proteins that can end up being made in the end. And no new proteins are ever made over time is there???

a reply to: flanimal4114

Can you provide a few citations on this work? In the 1930's, the only scientists doing any molecular biology were in Germany. I think you may have your facts wrong.

In any case, I don't understand why this "new information" argument is so difficult to understand. The genome is a code, like a piece of software. If you modify or add code to the software, new information is added and the program generates something new.

The nucleotides are synthesized continuously through a biochemical pathway. The configuration of the genome including mutations changes all the time. It's a dynamic process. When a mutation "sticks", it's a new piece of information, including a new code in the genome, constructed with new nucleotide pairs. So what's the big question here? Of course it's new information. If it was just recycled code with no changes, there would be severe limitations as to how many configurations could exist. This is a mathematical certainty.
Also think of this: binary code is made up of 1 and 0. Does that fact limit the variability of information? Is it always old information and never new information being added to a system constructed in binary? Of course not. I think it's a good analogy.

Here's a video explaining how a mutation is engineered in DNA.



Here's another one describing how insertions and deletions are engineered in DNA:



This is an excerpt from an example of why a mutation is new information:

TRIMming the genome.

Some monkeys have a mutation in a protein called TRIM5 that results in a piece of another, defunct protein being tacked onto TRIM5. The result is a hybrid protein called TRIM5-CypA, which can protect cells from infection with retroviruses such as HIV. Here, a single mutation has resulted in a new protein with a new and potentially vital function. New protein, new function, new information.

Although such an event might seem highly unlikely, it turns out that the TRIM5-CypA protein has evolved independently in two separate groups of monkeys. In general, though, the evolution of a new gene usually involves far more than one mutation. The most common way for a new gene to evolve is for an existing gene to be duplicated. Once there are two or more copies, each can evolve in separate directions.

The duplication of genes or even entire genomes is turning out to be ubiquitous. Without a duplication of the entire genome in the ancestor of modern-day brewer’s yeast, for instance, there would be no wine or beer. It is becoming clear that every one of us has extra copies of some genes, a phenomenon called copy number variation.

The evolution of more complex body plans appears to have been at least partly a result of repeated duplications of the Hox genes that play a fundamental role in embryonic development. Biologists are slowly working out how successive mutations turned a pair of protoHox genes in the simple ancestors of jellyfish and anemones into the 39 Hox genes of more complex mammals.

www.newscientist.com...

Note: New protein, new function, new information.

I don't see why this is so hard to understand. Maybe I don't understand the question. If I got it wrong, let me know.

Videos are cool though - hope you learned something.

originally posted by: flanimal4114

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Of course not all mutations are functional. They are essentially random. The majority of mutations are neutral, but multiple neutral mutations can add up over time leading to a new functional gene sequence. Anything to say that's on topic?

that is not true there is only so many mutations that can become about. its like the codons that make amino acids in deoxyribonucleic acid, lots of different sequences but only so many proteins that can end up being made in the end. And no new proteins are ever made over time is there???

You're dead wrong about that. Read the post above. New proteins are made all the time.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Of course not all mutations are functional. They are essentially random. The majority of mutations are neutral, but multiple neutral mutations can add up over time leading to a new functional gene sequence. Anything to say that's on topic?

This Link shows some of the proofs of speciation and outlines some of the difficulties with speciation although I doubt that it will tell you anything that you don't already know.
I would tend to say that even within the observed proofs of speciation that the new species has not moved very far from the original species. While this may explain the variation that we find within a given species it doesn't show that speciation is the mechanism with which all the varieties of species across the biological tree have evolved. It is perchance true that things like speciation, genetic drift and horizontal gene transference are in fact the mechanisms that are responsible for the entirety of the biological tree. I however at this point feel that such an extrapolation of the data available would be a premature hypothesis. I feel that speciation does not show an adequate level of creating new functioning healthy genetic material to have have been responsible for creating the entirety of the biological tree...
I would say that macro-evolution has not been observed and remains unproveable... Yet this is in reality a straw man agruement that perhaps is pointless except to point out that in the absence of irrefutable proof other mechanism are still plausible and/or possible.

a reply to: Phantom423

yes it was in germany look at the book.
i cant watch vids on my computer sorry. look mate im not trying to be a pain or anything, i see where your coming from and just before this goes to far: friends???

any way this is what i have tried to say genetic mutations can only happen with in he boundaries of the already there material. it is not adding anything new but activating what is already there (to put it extremely simply) just like a recessive gene is there but dose not show.
Same with mutations, look at some of my other posts now and you will see what i have tryed to say. there is no "new information" in a mutation but a MUTATION of the old info!!!

come on some one must be able to understand this i have worded it for a 5 year old!!!

ok thats all.
thank you.