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

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

This thread is about the specific creationist claim: "That is adaptation/microevolution, not [macro]evolution".

Thus, the question posed is: Can you describe and present evidence for the mechanism that stops genetic differences in populations from accumulating to the point of speciation?

The entire creationist argument hinges on this supposed barrier. The purpose of this thread is to try and get creationists to support this claim in some scientific way.

Do you have anything to add that is on-topic?

What in the world are you talking about ??

We need a name for those of us who find the term "creationist" and "evolutionist" are both totally hijacked.

Who decides on what people define as either ???

Apparently some institutions speak for us all, and we must be one or the other.

I bet we could find out dam near anything in a year if the blinders were actually removed....

a reply to: ParasuvO

Do you have anything to say that is on topic?

originally posted by: ParasuvO

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.

Sure they aSure they are.eaking admit that both of them are a COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME.

I often wonder what part of the brain is it, that gets all wrapped up in processes that are designed to never actually find the truth, but just go on infinitely, and that somehow knowing a flawed useless process is somehow going to tell you something ; but never does,

Exists in the most everyone but not myself ??

Oh, I bet I am just crazy with the full easy realization that science in this matter is so incredibly lacking and controlled that it interests me as much as sitting staring at a blank wall.

Here's the substantive difference: Scientist have hard evidence. They have data. They've done research which is repeatable. Science has a statistically reliable body of evidence that says yes, the evolution phenomenon is real and part of nature. What do you have? That's the question the OP is posing.

You come back with the same answer every time "neither one has evidence". Well, the problem here is that you're dead wrong but won't admit it. Once again, none of you picks up the ball and runs with it. You make believe the ball doesn't exist. In the meantime, in the library alone there is a growing collection of hard evidence that you could access in a microsecond. But do any of you do it? Hell no - that would require work and critical thinking.

So why not address the OP's question? As the lady said about the famous hamburger: "Where's the beef?"

I'm creating a new classification in the library for threads like this. BARC's original thread and others will be linked as discussions which continually challenge the anti-science crowd but never get an answer.

a reply to: ParasuvO

I often wonder what part of the brain is it, that gets all wrapped up in processes that are designed to never actually find the truth, but just go on infinitely, and that somehow knowing a flawed useless process is somehow going to tell you something ; but never does,

Exists in the most everyone but not myself ??

That's what you think.

Oh, I bet I am just crazy with the full easy realization that science in this matter is so incredibly lacking and controlled that it interests me as much as sitting staring at a blank wall.

Or maybe just crazy. Though I'm more likely to put my money on 'young, naive and conceited'.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

the same thing that stops a pile of wood turning into a house... everything!!!!

originally posted by: Astyanax
It seems as if, for once, I agree with PhotonEffect, who says

(The OP's) is not a valid question within the context which (the OP has) described speciation.

But I have a question. If 'speciation' cannot be rigidly defined, how does one distinguish 'microevolution' from 'macroevolution'?

Micro is change within a species/population. Macro is change above that species level. So at what point along the divergent paths between species does this line becomes less ambiguous?

What is evolution? Is it change within species or without?

Lets refer to everyone's favorite proof of evolution - Lenski's long-term experiment with E-coli. We know these are bacteria that evolve differently than eukaryotes. We can only ever look at this as micro because these e -coli are still e-coli. Yes, I know what you're going to say. But that's a fact Jack. What is it now - into it's 65,000th generation? Do we know if these experiments have shown evolution from one genera to another?

Are there any experiments that show evolution from one genera to another, or one family to another?

a reply to: GetHyped

Doesn't this ambiguity undermine everyone's argument about evolution?

a reply to: GetHyped

Speciation, is a glorified version of Natural selection. It is simply a refinement of the genetic material available. There is no new genetic material being created. It's not like a fish walked out of the sea and became a chicken. Althuogh all arguments are essentially pointless when the definition a species cannot even be defined.
Congratulations on posing an unanswerable question.

a reply to: GetHyped

but here is the real proof: there is no type of mutation that adds new genetic information into the genome. All mutations take the existing genome and sift it around. This means that a mutation always loses the information that it sifts. The Human genome is 3 billion characters long. Lets equate that to a computer program that is 3 billion lines of code. If I give you that code and tell you that you can't type anything new all you can do is take whats there and move it around in anyway you like. You could never create a new piece of the program without destroying what was there.

thank you.

originally posted by: flanimal4114
a reply to: Krazysh0t

the same thing that stops a pile of wood turning into a house... everything!!!!

Sorry, but this analogy is silly. First, you need more than just wood to build a house. Second, a house has to be built in a VERY specific way.

My analogy of stones piling up into a mountain as well as the thing it is comparing it to, microevolution becoming macroevolution, only require to keep adding the smaller element in no particular pattern until you create the larger element.

a reply to: flanimal4114

Define "genetic information" in an objective and meaningful way.

a reply to: flanimal4114

but here is the real proof: there is no type of mutation that adds new genetic information into the genome.

Heh heh.

You mean, apart from gene duplication, transposition and chimerics?

Well, guess what. Mysterious new genes arise from “junk” DNA

All mutations take the existing genome and sift it around. This means that a mutation always loses the information that it sifts.

I have here — you may examine them yourself, see — the ten digits of the numeric code. I can arrange them in any combination (just like genes) and every combination is a different number. I can duplicate the numbers of the code as many times as I like (just like genes) and every resulting combination is also a different number. I can take bits of these different numbers and add them together in different sequences (just like genes) and get even more numbers. Every number is a new piece of information, assembled from the same old ten digits.

What were you saying, again?

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Please don't try to derail this thread like you did with mine. Evolution is descent with modification, mostly caused by genetic mutations and the environment. If you aren't explaining why small changes cannot accumulate over time to show large changes, you are off topic. You don't have to watch something in real time to know it happened when you have the entire fossil record and direct observations in real time of small changes. Ecoli are still ecoli? I thought we were beyond such old outdated arguments. If ecoli can speciate, what prevents it from speciating hundreds or thousands of time showing a bigger difference when compared with the original bacteria? You will never see an organism suddenly change it's family / genus classification in one speciation event, but each time this happens, the changes accumulate, and this concept is largely ignored by you and the loads of creationists and science deniers on here.

Micro is change within a species/population. Macro is change above that species level.

Not true. Macro is not a change above the species level. That cannot happen. Macro is simply the accumulation of numerous small changes into what can be observed as a bigger change. You don't have changes to family or genus happening suddenly. Micro and macro evolution are the exact same process, with the same mechanisms. The only difference is the amount of time that passes.

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: GetHyped

Speciation, is a glorified version of Natural selection. It is simply a refinement of the genetic material available. There is no new genetic material being created. It's not like a fish walked out of the sea and became a chicken. Althuogh all arguments are essentially pointless when the definition a species cannot even be defined.
Congratulations on posing an unanswerable question.

You should probably learn how evolution actually works before attacking it. No new genetic material? That's a flat out lie and googling genetic mutations will clearly show you that, but I know it's easier to blindly attack something you've never researched and do not understand.

originally posted by: flanimal4114
a reply to: GetHyped

but here is the real proof: there is no type of mutation that adds new genetic information into the genome.

A flat out lie that has nothing to do with the topic. Search google for "insertion mutation". What good does it do to lie about it?

sorry double post

A species can reproduce offspring from sex with other members of the same species, which is something close to the definition of species.

A species like dogs can have many breeds, but all dogs can make puppies with any other dog.

Different species have some fundamental difference in their genome. Speciation is caused by isolation, such as splitting continents, or maybe a growing continental ice sheet, which divides populations of the same species for a large number of generations. The differences in environmental conditions lead to differences in genes selected for.

Also, a species that is down to its last members is forced to do a lot of inbreeding. Inbreeding speeds up genetic "gambling" and causes more mutations per generation.

Isolation and inbreeding are most of what makes new species.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Not in the slightest slightest. Evolution is agnostic to the concept if species.

BTW, I haven't abandoned this thread, I am currently abroad so will be checking in and reading people's replies when I get back.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

look at my real other post

a reply to: Barcs

we need a chat room on this so we can "talk" with out long replies that take for ever... any ways: it is true that all it is doing is editing existing info, not adding new info. so it 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, 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???

The THEORY of evolution is just a THEORY.

Thank you.