What mechanism prevents evolution above species level / "kind"?

[camanintx]

Assuming 200 mutations per generation you should expect to see up to a 1.563% (rounded to 3dp) change from the original genome, purely based on random mutations.

So two populations evolving in different directions could differ by up to 3%. Sounds about right, doesn't it?

 

[Zoe Doidge]

So two populations evolving in different directions could differ by up to 3%. Sounds about right, doesn't it?

Quite right, they'd still only each be 1.563% different from the original, but they could be up to double that difference from each other.

 

[Zoe Doidge]

Incidentally, after 400,000 generations the difference between current and original would be 2.5% (exact). Take a generation to be 20 years and that makes for an 8,000,000 year period to make a species that had split into two as different from each other as us and Chimps.

That's a little off because 200 mutations per generation is probably a bit much (so more time needed) and there are other factors beyond simple random mutation in base pairs we haven't accounted for (so less time needed).

But it does show that even with just random base pair mutations you would inevitably get plenty of genetic change to meet the challenge of macroevolution no matter what level you define it at.

 

[averageJOE]

Still, no one is answering the OP. Which is asking what is the genetic barrier? What causes evolution within a species to stop? What prevents "microevolution" from becoming "macroevolution"?

 

[fantome profane]

Still, no one is answering the OP. Which is asking what is the genetic barrier? What causes evolution within a species to stop? What prevents "microevolution" from becoming "macroevolution"?

God provides each gene with its own guardian angel which stops it from mutating once the limit is reached.

 

[Man of Faith]

- what causes evolution to stop at the limits of a "kind"?

You are asking what can stop your imagination from coming true. If you can imagine and believe that a frog can become a Prince over billions of years, yet not know exactly how it happened, why are you allowed to ask what can stop it from coming true? What can stop an invisible teapot from being in the sky? The real question is what can make evolution come true? We don't know.

Here are three things that prevents evolution from being true.
1) Codes as defined as having a sender and a receiver using agreed upon symbols don't create themselves, and it takes new code in order to create new forms. You can say mutation, mutation all day long, but no mutation that has been able to change the morphology of any creature has ever been observed. That is because of the correcting factor of the genetic code where it throws out bad data when it can.
2) Science prevents evolution from coming true. All the observable sciences hate evolution. Mathematics hates evolution with the difficult probability of it being true, the creation of life hates evolution so chemistry is against it, the lack of mutations that change the morphology of a creature hate evolution so biology is against it, it cannot be repeated in any experiments.
3) The reality that we find ourselves in where creatures only reproduce with like kinds of creatures prevents evolution from being true. Evolutionists accept that the present is the key to the past, well in the present we don’t have evolution.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are asking what can stop your imagination from coming true. If you can imagine and believe that a frog can become a Prince over billions of years, yet not know exactly how it happened, why are you allowed to ask what can stop it from coming true? What can stop an invisible teapot from being in the sky? The real question is what can make evolution come true? We don't know.

I think you've chosen the wrong analogy. If you allow for "micro evolution", then you do agree that small incremental changes are possible. If you then claim that "macroevolution" is impossible, then you're arguing that many small changes in succession can't add up to a large change.

As the old saying goes, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. What you're arguing, effectively, is that we can walk all we want, but we can never get a certain distance from our starting point. So again: why?

 

[mycorrhiza]

Here are three things that prevents evolution from being true.
1) Codes as defined as having a sender and a receiver using agreed upon symbols don't create themselves, and it takes new code in order to create new forms. You can say mutation, mutation all day long, but no mutation that has been able to change the morphology of any creature has ever been observed. That is because of the correcting factor of the genetic code where it throws out bad data when it can.

We have pretty good examples of mutations changing the morphology. Do you believe that a chihuahua has the same exact same morphology as a grand danois? Could you provide me with evidence of your stance?

2) Science prevents evolution from coming true. All the observable sciences hate evolution. Mathematics hates evolution with the difficult probability of it being true, the creation of life hates evolution so chemistry is against it, the lack of mutations that change the morphology of a creature hate evolution so biology is against it, it cannot be repeated in any experiments.

I think you're assuming that evolution had a goal, that you mean that the odds that everything became the exact way it is are very low. Well, evolution has no goal and thus it didn't have to become this exact way, which means that that argument doesn't work. If you saw earlier in the thread, mathematics was actually used to show that evolution is highly probable.

The creation of life has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is true regardless if it was abiogenesis or God that created the first life. At the moment the evidence for abiogenesis are becoming more and more convincing, though.

A change in morphology has been observed, both in the fossil record and in live animals. If biology didn't favor evolution I would find it quite weird that 99,9% of all biologists support evolution.

3) The reality that we find ourselves in where creatures only reproduce with like kinds of creatures prevents evolution from being true. Evolutionists accept that the present is the key to the past, well in the present we don’t have evolution.

Populations evolve, not individuals, so the creatures would all be similar to eachother. Evolution never stops, which is why we see changes in the height of humans or in the color of insects.



You can't step around answering the topic by just claiming that evolution is wrong. What you need to do is to show that small changes can't, over millions of years, become larger changes. You need to provide us with this genetic barrier and explain how much change is possible, and as I said in the first post you will also need to explain what a "kind" is.

 

[Pegg]

Fair enough. It's not the scientific definition, but I'll accept it.

you could also look at it this way, micro (small) evolution are the little changes that are visible and that we can see occuring. Dog breeds are a good example of how little changes take place to produce new varieties of dog all in a short space of time.
But macroevolution is a completely different phenomenon said to happen over long stretches of time so that we will never personally witness it happening. We just have to imagine that it really did happen and that is why there are so many different family of animals in the world.

Do you have any evidence to support this?

How much change is possible? How would we genetically define kind?

Cells Can Replicate Their DNA Precisely | Learn Science at Scitable There are obviously man sources on the net you can find info about the dna and how it replicates... this link is fairly well explained in laymans terms.
It states at the outset: "Each time a cell divides, the two resulting daughter cells must contain exactly the same genetic information, or DNA, as the parent cell. To accomplish this, each strand of existing DNA acts as a template for replication.

genetically, a kind would be any pair of animals that an reproduce together...the fact that they can reproduce would make them of the same 'kind' or 'family'

but reproduction does have its limitations within a family and this is seen when two animals produce a hybrid and that hybrid is the end of the genetic ladder so to speak. A horse and donkey are of the same kind, but their genetic structure has got to the point where their offspring are the end of the line. Mules wont reproduce, probably because the dna is no longer capable of reproducing.

 

[Pegg]

And yet each of us carries between 100 and 200 mutations in our DNA. With that many changes in each individual, how much change would you expect after 250,000 generations?

you would have to use your imagination for the answer to that.

I dont disagree that changes occur, but i dont agree that they are the big changes that changed a chimp into an ape man then into a human

The changes i think we see are very clear....every nation on earth has its peculiar features for example, chinese have slanted eyes, polynesians have large round eyes.

 

[camanintx]

Cells Can Replicate Their DNA Precisely | Learn Science at Scitable There are obviously man sources on the net you can find info about the dna and how it replicates... this link is fairly well explained in laymans terms.
It states at the outset: "Each time a cell divides, the two resulting daughter cells must contain exactly the same genetic information, or DNA, as the parent cell. To accomplish this, each strand of existing DNA acts as a template for replication.

But we know that exactly in this case is not perfect, otherwise we wouldn't have any mutations at all.

genetically, a kind would be any pair of animals that an reproduce together...the fact that they can reproduce would make them of the same 'kind' or 'family'

Shall we discuss ring species again?

you would have to use your imagination for the answer to that.

No, I don't. As demonstrated by Zoe Doidge, we can actually estimate mathematically how long it would take.

I dont disagree that changes occur, but i dont agree that they are the big changes that changed a chimp into an ape man then into a human

The changes i think we see are very clear....every nation on earth has its peculiar features for example, chinese have slanted eyes, polynesians have large round eyes.

Wait, didn't you just argue that the perfection of DNA replication prevents such changes?

Besides, you're talking about different time scales. If we can get the diversity humans exhibit in just a few thousand years, what prevents this change from becoming even greater over a few million years?

 

[averageJOE]

God provides each gene with its own guardian angel which stops it from mutating once the limit is reached.

Sadly, this is the only post which addresses the OP.

 

[painted wolf]

Pegg... it would be good for you to read the whole thing. At the bottom is a link: DNA Replication and Causes of Mutation | Learn Science at Scitable

Errors Are a Natural Part of DNA Replication

They put it in big bold letters and everything.


wa:do

 

[averageJOE]

you could also look at it this way, micro (small) evolution are the little changes that are visible and that we can see occuring. Dog breeds are a good example of how little changes take place to produce new varieties of dog all in a short space of time.

Dog breeds are a terrible example. Dog breeds are a product of artificial reproduction by means of human interaction. They are not the product of life, nature, or the environment. If every single domestic dog in the world were to be left to the wild every single dog breed that you know of would quickly die off.

But macroevolution is a completely different phenomenon said to happen over long stretches of time so that we will never personally witness it happening. We just have to imagine that it really did happen and that is why there are so many different family of animals in the world.

Cells Can Replicate Their DNA Precisely | Learn Science at Scitable There are obviously man sources on the net you can find info about the dna and how it replicates... this link is fairly well explained in laymans terms.
It states at the outset: "Each time a cell divides, the two resulting daughter cells must contain exactly the same genetic information, or DNA, as the parent cell. To accomplish this, each strand of existing DNA acts as a template for replication.

genetically, a kind would be any pair of animals that an reproduce together...the fact that they can reproduce would make them of the same 'kind' or 'family'

but reproduction does have its limitations within a family and this is seen when two animals produce a hybrid and that hybrid is the end of the genetic ladder so to speak. A horse and donkey are of the same kind, but their genetic structure has got to the point where their offspring are the end of the line. Mules wont reproduce, probably because the dna is no longer capable of reproducing.

But you still have not addressed the OP. What is the gentic barrier that prevents evolution within a species? What prevents micro evolution from becoming macro evolution?

You seem to admit that small changes occur over a short amount of time, but seem to disagree that small changes occur over a LONG period of time, like say 50,000 years.

 

[Man of Faith]

You can't step around answering the topic by just claiming that evolution is wrong. What you need to do is to show that small changes can't, over millions of years, become larger changes. You need to provide us with this genetic barrier and explain how much change is possible, and as I said in the first post you will also need to explain what a "kind" is.

I'm not sure why you are saying that I am stepping around the answer. I showed you three scientific reasons why small changes don't become big changes. I understand that you won't accept that but I have provided it. There also is no peer reviewed document that says that small changes become big changes in evoluton which validates my posts.

I'm really just trying to educate you and hopefully down the road you can eventually see that what I am saying fits what we observe in reality better than a frog can eventually become a prince.

 

[camanintx]

Here are three things that prevents evolution from being true.
1) Codes as defined as having a sender and a receiver using agreed upon symbols don't create themselves, and it takes new code in order to create new forms. You can say mutation, mutation all day long, but no mutation that has been able to change the morphology of any creature has ever been observed. That is because of the correcting factor of the genetic code where it throws out bad data when it can.

The only code is the one we use to represent DNA. DNA itself is a process, not a message.

2) Science prevents evolution from coming true. All the observable sciences hate evolution. Mathematics hates evolution with the difficult probability of it being true, the creation of life hates evolution so chemistry is against it, the lack of mutations that change the morphology of a creature hate evolution so biology is against it, it cannot be repeated in any experiments.

Science is a process for describing how the world works. It cannot allow or prevent anything.

3) The reality that we find ourselves in where creatures only reproduce with like kinds of creatures prevents evolution from being true. Evolutionists accept that the present is the key to the past, well in the present we don’t have evolution.

Evolution does not require that organisms can reproduce with organisms even moderately different than themselves.

I'm not sure why you are saying that I am stepping around the answer. I showed you three scientific reasons why small changes don't become big changes. I understand that you won't accept that but I have provided it. There also is no peer reviewed document that says that small changes become big changes in evoluton which validates my posts.

I'm really just trying to educate you and hopefully down the road you can eventually see that what I am saying fits what we observe in reality better than a frog can eventually become a prince.

You were saying?

 

[Zoe Doidge]

No, I don't. As demonstrated by Zoe Doidge, we can actually estimate mathematically how long it would take.

They do seem determined to ignore this little fact. Even without the maths it seems patently obvious to me that if you have lots of little changes they're going to build up over time.

 

[idav]

Creationist often state that while microevolution is possible, macroevolution is not. What mechanism prevents it? Why can't a species evolve past it's "kind"? There must be some kind of genetic barrier or similar to prevent this, so could you provide evidence of it?

So, here's what I want you to do:

1. Define what you mean with micro- and macroevolution and subsequently how you define species or "kind", whichever of those are brought up.
2. Show, preferably with peer-reviewed material (and preferably containing original research), why macroevolution, as you define it, is not possible while microevolution, as you define it, is.

Simply stating that it has never been observed is not evidence as I'm looking for the mechanism itself that prevents it from happening.


I'm doing this so you get a chance to present the evidence for your side, and I'm willing to change my opinion about evolution if you do provide convincing scientific evidence that evolution above species or "kind" is not possible.

One of the mechanisms for speciation is chromosomal speciation, which is possible, and explains the most of the speciation of chimps and humans.

 

[mycorrhiza]

I'm not sure why you are saying that I am stepping around the answer. I showed you three scientific reasons why small changes don't become big changes. I understand that you won't accept that but I have provided it. There also is no peer reviewed document that says that small changes become big changes in evoluton which validates my posts.

I'm really just trying to educate you and hopefully down the road you can eventually see that what I am saying fits what we observe in reality better than a frog can eventually become a prince.

None of them contained evidence, just claims, and we have shown you that those claims were wrong. There are plenty of peer-reviewed papers that say that small changes over a long time result in larger changes (well, all the changes are still small, but since there would be many of them, over a large time span the change would look big). It's accepted by 99,9% of all biologists.

What I see fits evolution, but if you're willing to provide compelling evidence for creationism, I will consider changing my views. I've yet to be provided any evidence that there is any form of genetic barrier that prevents macroevolution, though. That you say "a frog will become a prince" is an intentional misrepresentation of evolution.

Could you provide me with a paper, peer-reviewed or not, that contains original research on the subject?
How much change is possible, according to you?

 

[mycorrhiza]

genetically, a kind would be any pair of animals that an reproduce together...the fact that they can reproduce would make them of the same 'kind' or 'family'

but reproduction does have its limitations within a family and this is seen when two animals produce a hybrid and that hybrid is the end of the genetic ladder so to speak. A horse and donkey are of the same kind, but their genetic structure has got to the point where their offspring are the end of the line. Mules wont reproduce, probably because the dna is no longer capable of reproducing.

Does this apply to plants too? If so, are garden strawberries and wild strawberries of the same kind? They cannot reproduce naturally (though, they have been bred in a lab using colchicine to induce polyploidy in the wild strawberries). Granted, garden strawberry is a hybrid, but it isn't infertile.

All animals in the canid family can't breed together, so can we say that we have a "dog kind" or do we have to divide the canid family into several kinds?


That most mules are infertile has to do with their chromosomes and that somehow leads to embryos not forming properly (wikipedia is a lifesaver). Some mules are actually fertile, though.