Does Natural Selection Evolution Explain Speciation?

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is possible all species are only capable of natural selection for characteristics but not to produce a new species.

So we can have natural selection constantly operating upon a species over a period of millennia od successive episodes of geographic isolation and yet the result never differs in "kind." Just what magic curtails this 'micro-evolution'?

This could happen if a process of abiogenesis or front loaded evolution produced many organisms all with different DNA that prevented crossbreeding.

Front-loading!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If you can not backup your claims with that math for "rates" I will not entertain further discussions with you on this discussion.

Just in case you missed them, here are the videos again:

 

[Dante Writer]

And the rest of the list?

You dismiss all of them? The whole list? Based on what?

The "list" is just identifying species that have some similar DNA and trying to make assumptions from fossil records that "this" species looks similar to "this" and has some similar DNA so it is possibly an ancestor.

That whole theory revolves around speciation occurring and the evidence we have shows speciation does not follow the simplest mechanism of isolation and the evidence does show that mutations that are not good for survival such as don syndorme have a natural resistance to reproduction built in.

Therefore, the "list" is just assumptions and not scientifically verified and there may be no speciation occurring,

 

[Willamena]

I stated that GEOGRAPHIC isolation is a mechanism that can create those conditions. Geographic isolation is a known mechanism of geographic drift also called continental drift.

I don't know what else to tell you. Tectonic plates moving over each other is a mechanism.

Tectonic plate movement is a mechanism for bringing about geographic isolation. Geographic isolation is a condition.

 

[Ouroboros]

The "list" is just identifying species that have some similar DNA and trying to make assumptions from fossil records that "this" species looks similar to "this" and has some similar DNA so it is possibly an ancestor.

That whole theory revolves around speciation occurring and the evidence we have shows speciation does not follow the simplest mechanism of isolation and the evidence does show that mutations that are not good for survival such as don syndorme have a natural resistance to reproduction built in.

Therefore, the "list" is just assumptions and not scientifically verified and there may be no speciation occurring,

So basically, you're rejecting that list completely. Speciation cannot happen ever.

Well, I don't think we can find a middle ground then. There's no compromise to be had since to you, speciation can never happen. All species are only explained through biogenesis (pan/transpermia).

I don't have a problem with pan/tran, and I do think it's possible, but I do know that the evidence for speciation is there, and it is strong, for anyone who's willing to look into it.

So, we're at a point where there's nothing more to discuss I think. You be well. Until next thread...

 

[Dante Writer]

So we can have natural selection constantly operating upon a species over a period of millennia od successive episodes of geographic isolation and yet the result never differs in "kind." Just what magic curtails this 'micro-evolution'?

Front-loading!

"Just what magic curtails this 'micro-evolution'"

What "magic" prevents a down syndrome male from reproducing?

There seems to be some code in organisms DNA that prevents hybrid mutations from reproducing and is evident throughout nature. Horses and donkeys produce sterile mules. Male Ligers are sterile. Now if you go back and read my OP and the work of the scientists they suggest that any hybrid that would result in a new species line would instead be reabsorbed back into the existing line and characteristics not valuable to survival would return to the characteristics of the parent species or that the mutation would not breed and die out.

 

[Dante Writer]

Tectonic plate movement is a mechanism for bringing about geographic isolation. Geographic isolation is a condition.

Yes. which is what I said in my OP.

 

[Dante Writer]

So basically, you're rejecting that list completely. Speciation cannot happen ever.

Well, I don't think we can find a middle ground then. There's no compromise to be had since to you, speciation can never happen. All species are only explained through biogenesis (pan/transpermia).

I don't have a problem with pan/tran, and I do think it's possible, but I do know that the evidence for speciation is there, and it is strong, for anyone who's willing to look into it.

So, we're at a point where there's nothing more to discuss I think. You be well. Until next thread...

"]So basically, you're rejecting that list completely. Speciation cannot happen ever."

Hyperbole. I did not say speciation could not occur I said the evidence that it is or has happened is not verified as many evolutionists would have us believe.

That then allows us to look at other possibilities including the possibility that speciation does not occur.

This idea that evolution theories somehow have been made facts and is verified always amuses me as all science is a progressive process with many ideas thrown in that are later disproved and much of what man thinks it understands now about that process will be disproved by future scientists. Throw in that man is barely in their development of intelligence and anyone should be completely skeptical of any theory claiming to know how things happen.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What "magic" prevents a down syndrome male from reproducing?

Nothing, for around 50% of women with Down's syndrome:

SOURCES: http://www.ndss.org/Resources/Wellness/Sexuality/Sexuality-and-Down-Syndrome/ http://americanpregnancy.org/birth-defects/down-syndrome/

As for men, there's a variety of reasons including hormonal and physiological problems:

SOURCE: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21806650

Also, are you suggesting that Down's syndrome is what prevents speciation?

There seems to be some code in organisms DNA that prevents hybrid mutations from reproducing and is evident throughout nature. Horses and donkeys produce sterile mules. Male Ligers are sterile. Now if you go back and read my OP and the work of the scientists they suggest that any hybrid that would result in a new species line would instead be reabsorbed back into the existing line and characteristics not valuable to survival would return to the characteristics of the parent species or that the mutation would not breed and die out.

Do you understand that speciation doesn't require hybridization? They're two completely different things.

 

[Dante Writer]

I know I pointed that out in another one of these threads.

Were you here you just get his approval or did you have something to add to the discussion?

 

[Dante Writer]

Nothing, for around 50% of women with Down's syndrome:

SOURCES: http://www.ndss.org/Resources/Wellness/Sexuality/Sexuality-and-Down-Syndrome/ http://americanpregnancy.org/birth-defects/down-syndrome/

As for men, there's a variety of reasons including hormonal and physiological problems:

SOURCE: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21806650

Also, are you suggesting that Down's syndrome is what prevents speciation?


Do you understand that speciation doesn't require hybridization? They're two completely different things.

You have claimed you could prove through "rates" that it is human's slow reproduction that speciations is not seen.

You have not shown your MATH that I said you must have for that claim.

You will be ignored until you back up your math claims or admit you are just guessing and making unverified statements in this forum.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Were you here you just get his approval or did you have something to add to the discussion?

I'm here to do or say whatever I feel like. Thanks.

 

[Sunstone]

If isolation is not the answer then maybe the answer is that speciation from one species to another does not happen.

Respectful question: How does that differ from an argument from ignorance?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I did not say speciation could not occur I said the evidence that it is or has happened is not verified as many evolutionists would have us believe.

That then allows us to look at other possibilities including the possibility that speciation does not occur.

<yawn>

"The other problem, of course, is that no one has ever found an organism that has all of the genes needed for later developments (feathers, wings, lungs, flagella, etc); that is, no organism actuallyhas a fully complete genome front-loaded with all the goodies to be used later. If front loading was true, then the prokaryotes – the earliest existing life form on Earth – should have all of those genes. They don’t, of course. The bottom line is that the evolutionary hypothesis, exaptation, predicts the evidence perfectly; the ID hypothesis is flatly contradicted by it and can only try to explain it away or invent mystical and unknown processes to circumvent the evidence." [ibid]​

</yawn>

 

[Ouroboros]

"So basically, you're rejecting that list completely. Speciation cannot happen ever."

Hyperbole. I did not say speciation could not occur I said the evidence that it is or has happened is not verified as many evolutionists would have us believe.

Don't think so, since you're rejecting all evidence as well as questioning that validity of it. It's not far from your view when you repeatedly argue that it's a false theory. For instance, "If isolation is not the answer then maybe the answer is that speciation from one species to another does not happen" was one of your statements, which suggests that you're strongly against it.

But, you can correct me on this. Are you in support of speciation, even without evidence to convince you?

That then allows us to look at other possibilities including the possibility that speciation does not occur.

Sure. That I have no problem with. And I actually think there are scientists who do it. Do all of them do it? No. Why would they all focus on a single research anymore that they should only focus on the other?

This idea that evolution theories somehow have been made facts and is verified always amuses me as all science is a progressive process with many ideas thrown in that are later disproved and much of what man thinks it understands now about that process will be disproved by future scientists. Throw in that man is barely in their development of intelligence and anyone should be completely skeptical of any theory claiming to know how things happen.

Actually, there are enough facts in the theory of evolution to support it from here and to the moon. It's just very difficult to share it many times. Some of the things we look at in one of the anthropology classes took a couple of weeks to build the foundation for (reading and understanding bones and comparing them). The facts in ToE are built from many other sciences, so it's not like you can just pick it up. You have to learn bits and pieces of many other sciences to get the understanding. Just like astronomy, you have to understand some physics to appreciate the nature of light when it comes to telescopes and the study of stars.

 

[Dante Writer]

Apparently once in a while, some men with Down Syndrome have been able to reproduce:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1015594/pdf/jmedgene00055-0006.pdf
http://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(06)03067-6/fulltext

You need to read that study closer. The produced offspring from a male with DS was ended by abortion and would have most likely ended by spontaneous miscarriage or resulted in a severely disabled organism incapable of reproduction or survival as the genetic material was not sufficient for survival.

That seems to be built into the mother's DNA to naturally abort though miscarriage any severely mutated genetics.

That is more evidence that speciation through natural selection and mutation is not likely to occur.

 

[Ouroboros]

That is more evidence that speciation through natural selection and mutation is not likely to occur.

However, shared genes do. When different species share genetic code that is not random but hereditary, then it shows shared ancestry.

 

[Dante Writer]

Your

<yawn>

"The other problem, of course, is that no one has ever found an organism that has all of the genes needed for later developments (feathers, wings, lungs, flagella, etc); that is, no organism actuallyhas a fully complete genome front-loaded with all the goodies to be used later. If front loading was true, then the prokaryotes – the earliest existing life form on Earth – should have all of those genes. They don’t, of course. The bottom line is that the evolutionary hypothesis, exaptation, predicts the evidence perfectly; the ID hypothesis is flatly contradicted by it and can only try to explain it away or invent mystical and unknown processes to circumvent the evidence." [ibid]​

</yawn>

"yawning" is only evidenceof immaturity that you somehow believe you are more intellectual and above this discussion and yet you keep coming back.


"no organism actuallyhas a fully complete genome front-loaded with all the goodies to be used later."

Evidence and links to support that statement?

"the ID hypothesis is flatly contradicted by it"

Now think real hard- if we do not have characteristics in our DNA from the species we are supposed to have evolved from all the way back that would be evidence that speciation does not occur.

What you are claiming is evidence for an ID theory not against.

 

[Dante Writer]

However, shared genes do. When different species share genetic code that is not random but hereditary, then it shows shared ancestry.

That again is an assumption. You are assuming that because a banana has 50% of the same DNA as a human they must be an ancestor.

DNA is common to all living organisms but is also specific to that organism. There is no evidence those come from the same source unless you are convinced abiogenesis produced only one organism and all others came from that source.

 

[Dante Writer]

Don't think so, since you're rejecting all evidence as well as questioning that validity of it. It's not far from your view when you repeatedly argue that it's a false theory. For instance, "If isolation is not the answer then maybe the answer is that speciation from one species to another does not happen" was one of your statements, which suggests that you're strongly against it.

But, you can correct me on this. Are you in support of speciation, even without evidence to convince you?


Sure. That I have no problem with. And I actually think there are scientists who do it. Do all of them do it? No. Why would they all focus on a single research anymore that they should only focus on the other?


Actually, there are enough facts in the theory of evolution to support it from here and to the moon. It's just very difficult to share it many times. Some of the things we look at in one of the anthropology classes took a couple of weeks to build the foundation for (reading and understanding bones and comparing them). The facts in ToE are built from many other sciences, so it's not like you can just pick it up. You have to learn bits and pieces of many other sciences to get the understanding. Just like astronomy, you have to understand some physics to appreciate the nature of light when it comes to telescopes and the study of stars.

Here again you are trying to analyze me which is not the subject of this discussion.

"But, you can correct me on this. Are you in support of speciation, even without evidence to convince you?"

I am open minded enough to question the current theory and see if a more reasonable answer exists.

"Actually, there are enough facts in the theory of evolution to support it from here and to the moon."

No- that is the direction science leans because funding and pressures by Universities wants conclusions and that is what the masses will accept if you keep saying it loud and long enough.