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: 5
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

word.

lol
well said and i part agree with that macro-evolution is a hard topic, it dose't have much info on it yet, and i see what you mean. This dose not mean that i believe in evolution i am mearly saying that it was well said.

thank you. (my now thing i say to show its me lol)




posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: flanimal4114
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.


You're not reading and you're not thinking. Read my post again. New information is added to the genome continually. It is a dynamic process. I don't understand where you get the impression that no "new knowledge" is possible. Information is not regurgitated. You're saying that "it was already there". Where? Like the binary code, new information is created all the time.
Please explain where you came up with this idea. I think we will have to get into the mathematics if you're up to it.
Let me know.



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: flanimal4114
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.


thats why its called a MUTATION



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

it not "there" its in the codes possibility, say you have the letters a,n,t you can spell ant but also nat see, its there, but you cant spell cat. do you see what i mean???

its hard coming up with new analogies all the time, so can you say u at least see where i'm coming from.



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: flanimal4114
a reply to: Phantom423

it not "there" its in the codes possibility, say you have the letters a,n,t you can spell ant but also nat see, its there, but you cant spell cat. do you see what i mean???

its hard coming up with new analogies all the time, so can you say u at least see where i'm coming from.


No I can't see where you're coming from. DNA is not coded like your "ant" analogy. Neither is a computer, simple software or complex software. There are four base pairs but there's no limit to the number of base pairs and how they are configured. The base pairs are not "recycled". They are synthesized as new compounds dynamically - i.e. all the time.
If DNA were restricted to "x" number of base pairs, then you may have a case. But it isn't. It can increase, decrease or remain the same. That's what mutations are.
The definition of new information is something that was not possible prior to the event. As was described in the article I posted (and I hope you read it), DNA coded for a new protein. After the transcription process, you had a brand spanking new protein. That's the definition of "new". Think about it. It shouldn't be a great leap.



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 09:22 PM
link   
The mechanism? Death without breeding, or lack of the genetic difference in sexual transmission. Not every genetic difference is a benefit nor does it always guarantee passage into successive generations.

Counterquestion: what is the mechanism to create speciation, when do the separate populations lose the ability to interbreed? How many more generations of specialty dog breeding, food animal domestication, or horticulture will it take to make truly new species?

edit on 15-9-2015 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
The mechanism? Death without breeding, or lack of the difference in sexual transmission. Not every genetic difference is a benefit nor does it always guarantee passage into successive generations.

Counterquestion: what is the mechanism to create speciation, when do the separate populations lose the ability to interbreed? How many more generations of specialty dog breeding, food animal domestication, or horticulture will it take to make truly new species?


this guy's cool lol.



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 09:34 PM
link   
ok here you are this is my improved with links to books etc way of showing you that evolution is not right and mutations don't make new species.

MUTATION IS A MUTATION OF A ALL READY THERE TRAIT. dose no one get the SIMPLE truth??? EVEN A BAYBE COULD GET THAT! my hair might be a mutation difference BUT ITS STILL HAIR!

IT has been tested in fruit flies! They where mutated but never changed at all and after some generations it went back to normal.
The book Darwin Retried by norman macbeth 1971 pg 33 says " after observing mutations in fruit flies for many years... if a thousand mutations were combined... there would still be no new species"

!!!! DO YOU NOT GET THAT !!!! it is so easy to see there is no evolution proof.

There is things called "enzymes" children!



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: flanimal4114

sorry to harsh sorry, i take back the shouting but the facts are there.



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 11:14 PM
link   
^Typing something in a post doesn't make it fact. Your understanding of evolution is way off. The fruit fly experiment DID produce a new species. It sounds to me like you are getting all of your info from propaganda books rather than legitimate scientific research.

a reply to: flanimal4114

Sorry, but this is dead wrong because you aren't just limited to 3 letters.

It's not just ANT, It's more like ANTS, and there are hundreds of millions of each one.

You aren't limited to STAN, SANT, NATS, etc as codes.

You can also have SATAN, STANSTSSSNAASN, AAAASSSTTSTSTSNNNTT, and millions of other possible combinations.

Get the picture?

Either there's a really bad language barrier here, or you REALLY need to get better understanding of evolution. If you are learning to become a scientist, it's pretty important to understand the methods and experiments we use to study it, because you will be using those same methods in your work eventually. I don't know what wonky german experiment from the 30s you are referencing that didn't show evolution, but there are multiple ones that are ongoing now that DO show it, in multiple types of organisms. We have come a long way since then in regards to our understanding of genetic code and genomes.


edit on 15-9-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 05:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: flanimal4114
ok here you are this is my improved with links to books etc way of showing you that evolution is not right and mutations don't make new species.

MUTATION IS A MUTATION OF A ALL READY THERE TRAIT. dose no one get the SIMPLE truth??? EVEN A BAYBE COULD GET THAT! my hair might be a mutation difference BUT ITS STILL HAIR!

IT has been tested in fruit flies! They where mutated but never changed at all and after some generations it went back to normal.
The book Darwin Retried by norman macbeth 1971 pg 33 says " after observing mutations in fruit flies for many years... if a thousand mutations were combined... there would still be no new species"

!!!! DO YOU NOT GET THAT !!!! it is so easy to see there is no evolution proof.

There is things called "enzymes" children!


You didn't provide any links to citations. You didn't watch the videos or read the papers. That's your problem, not mine.

Come back when you have citations that endorse your position - whatever that is because it's incoherent at the moment.
BTW, enzymes are proteins.



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 05:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: flanimal4114
a reply to: flanimal4114

sorry to harsh sorry, i take back the shouting but the facts are there.



No they are not. You haven't provided facts. You've provided your opinion backed up by absolutely nothing.



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 06:40 AM
link   
a reply to: flanimal4114

I really could care less if you think intelligent design is real or not. Belief in it has nothing to do with evolution (granted, I think it is highly unlikely that intelligent design is true for various reasons that are offtopic since this isn't an intelligent design thread). Evolution and ID can work together. For instance, the Intelligent Designer could be using evolution as a tool to develop life throughout the universe.

By the way, as a scientist (or one going through classes to become one), you are making some GRAVE errors in regards to the scientific method. You even uttered the phrase "it's only a theory". Are you sure you are studying science correctly? I'm not even a scientist and I know not to use that phrase because it makes you look ignorant as to how science works and that you don't know what the scientific definition of theory means (which is a bad sign for a supposed scientist since that is grade school science there).
edit on 16-9-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 06:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: flanimal4114
a reply to: Krazysh0t

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


I have no clue. I looked up that paper and I'm not sure what you are trying to express with it. How about posting an excerpt from it and explaining why it is relevant to your position?

Mutation breeding, evolution, and the law of recurrent variation
edit on 16-9-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 07:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: flanimal4114

I really could care less...


[Pulls own hair out]




posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Thanks for derailing the thread grammar police. You contributed SOOOO much to it... /sarc

I could care less about your video.

edit on 16-9-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 07:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm sorry but it's the one thing that drives me round the twist..



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

A quick and dirty summary of the paper: not original research but commentary on work in plant breeding done about 70 years ago. Written by a German plant biologist attached to an Indian agricultural research institute. No original research was done.

He claims that the optimism over the potentialities of induced mutation and selective breeding to fix the mutation (what the original 1940s research was about) has not been justified by 70 years of results. From this he concludes that speciation requires a more potent mechanism than natural selection among mutants.

I am not competent to pass judgement on this thesis; few here would be. But if it presented a serious objection to the Modern Synthesis, it would be taken far more seriously by the evo-bio community than it seems to be.

Trying to deny evolution by insisting that natural selection is not the only avenue by which it proceeds is a bit stupid, though. I'm certainly competent to pronounce on that.


edit on 16/9/15 by Astyanax because: of clarity.



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 11:55 PM
link   
Look at it this way...

Link

Dude creates a learning chip with learning software that can rewrite it's own code. It's actually based upon Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.
Just like speciation it can perform small changes to it's own coding... However, no matter how much it changes it's own coding it will never be more that program that differentiates between two audio tones.
It will never become a stereo, a radio or anything else. It will always be some form of a program that differentiates between two audio tones.

Understand? It's not a difficult concept.



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 12:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Trying to deny evolution by insisting that natural selection is not the only avenue by which it proceeds is a bit stupid, though. .



Why? Under the terms of the thread in which the only question posed was



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


Then I think the link that KrazyshOt provided outlined some significant difficulties with speciation?



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join