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

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

No, you didn't.

Your first "scientific reason" was an argument against any and all mutation. This has two problems:

- it's demonstrably false. Trivially so.
- it implies that even "microevolution" within a "kind" is impossible, so it's addressing something other than the claim from other creationists that the OP is talking about: that evolution is possible within "kinds", but not from one "kind" to another.

The other two "scientific reasons" are vague collections of wild, unsubstantiated claims that range from being merely wrong to irrelevant and wrong, and can't be reasonbly called "scientific", let alone scientific reasons for why evolution is wrong.

 

[Pegg]

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

define mutation.

Shall we discuss ring species again?

i dont think that is well enough understood to make the claim that new families are emerging based on ring species. Being genetically incompatible does not mean a new biological 'kind' has arisen for the simple fact that breeding can still take place between some of the isolated populations.

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

yeah, thats the good thing about theories...you dont need to see it in reality, you just need to calculate it mathematically and apparently that makes it real. Well not to everyone it doesnt.

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

dna replication does not prevent microevolution....it prevents macroevolution.

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?

dna.

 

[Zoe Doidge]

yeah, thats the good thing about theories...you dont need to see it in reality, you just need to calculate it mathematically and apparently that makes it real. Well not to everyone it doesnt.

So despite the fact that a very simple equation proves a species can split and change to the point of us and chimps in roughly the time proposed by scientists you still claim:

dna replication does not prevent microevolution....it prevents macroevolution

There is simply no means for DNA to do this. Errors in replication are obviously going to build up over time, I don't see a basis for anyone to claim otherwise.

 

[Pegg]

So despite the fact that a very simple equation proves a species can split and change to the point of us and chimps in roughly the time proposed by scientists you still claim:

There is simply no means for DNA to do this. Errors in replication are obviously going to build up over time, I don't see a basis for anyone to claim otherwise.

yes i do because its still 'theoretical'

Until it is actually witnessed to occur, then it is nothing more then speculation, assumption and imagination....thats what a theory is.

 

[Zoe Doidge]

yes i do because its still 'theoretical'

Until it is actually witnessed to occur, then it is nothing more then speculation, assumption and imagination....thats what a theory is.

So you don't accept extrapolation of what we know happens, but you do accept that something in DNA that has never been identified or even hinted at exists and works to restrict long term accumulation of changes?

Why?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Until it is actually witnessed to occur, then it is nothing more then speculation, assumption and imagination....thats what a theory is.

Wrong. That is not what a theory is. This has all been explained to you before, Pegg.

 

[Pegg]

So you don't accept extrapolation of what we know happens, but you do accept that something in DNA that has never been identified or even hinted at exists and works to restrict long term accumulation of changes?

Why?

because the big changes that are supposed to give rise to entirely new families cannot be demonstrated, it cannot be reproduced, it cannot be witnessed

So why believe something that cannot be proved?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Observed Speciation

 

[Pegg]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Observed Speciation

speciation does not prove that new families come into existence

Its a phenomenon to do with breeding...not with new families emerging.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Jesus Christ why do we even bother?

 

[camanintx]

define mutation.

Mutations are simply changes in an organisms genetic sequence. While DNA has mechanisms for correcting errors, we know they are not perfect. A simple comparison of the genetic sequence of identical twins proves this.

i dont think that is well enough understood to make the claim that new families are emerging based on ring species. Being genetically incompatible does not mean a new biological 'kind' has arisen for the simple fact that breeding can still take place between some of the isolated populations.

Ring species demonstrate how through small changes which don't affect fertility, two groups of organisms can become different enough that they can no longer interbreed. This is exactly the level of macroevolution you claim cannot be observed yet we can see it all at one time.

dna replication does not prevent microevolution....it prevents macroevolution.

Microevolution and macroevolution are the same mechanism, just with different time spans. It's like saying you can walk across the street but you can't walk from LA to New York. You can't prevent macroevolution without preventing microevolution.

because the big changes that are supposed to give rise to entirely new families cannot be demonstrated, it cannot be reproduced, it cannot be witnessed

So why believe something that cannot be proved?

Comming from a theist, this is just rich.

 

[Zoe Doidge]

because the big changes that are supposed to give rise to entirely new families cannot be demonstrated, it cannot be reproduced, it cannot be witnessed

So why believe something that cannot be proved?

Scientific theories cannot be proven in the mathematical sense. Such a theory is an explanation of a phenomenon, one that is backed by evidence.

So to answer your question, I believe it is the most likely explanation for what we see. Evolution happens, and assuming the laws of physics don't just change of their own accord it makes logical sense that if you have species undergoing small changes every generation then the more generations you go through the greater the total change would be.

Incidentally, even if species could only evolve within their Families that wouldn't stop us being related to Chimps. Both our species are members of the Hominidae family.

 

[Curious George]

because the big changes that are supposed to give rise to entirely new families cannot be demonstrated, it cannot be reproduced, it cannot be witnessed

So why believe something that cannot be proved?

I wonder if science were to observe change at the family level, would the bar then be moved to order? would it jump to phylum? kingdom?

The concept is that if species can change; so too, genus can change; so too, family can change; so too, order can change, so too, class can change. Why one and not the others? Speciation to the degree of reproductive incompatibility can occur why cannot genus change also? The differences between these are simply genetic. I would assume that you might suggest the biological information exists within a genus and therefore no new information can be obtained. But that is wrong. I am not trying to argue God didn't create Adam and Eve; I am not trying to say Marduk did not create humans as slaves; Nor, am I suggesting that human kind did not come from a sexual relationship between a bird and a sea shell. I am stating that evolution exists. There are no barriers which prevent "macroevolution" This need not be the whole story. Perhaps, the world was created 6000 years ago by the Abrahmic God who many suggest some sort of plan. Is it possible then that evolution is part of that plan? I certainly don't believe this to be the case, but evolution and creationism can both exist. Evolution does not disprove anything.

My friend's kid just went camping with his neighbors. He came back and, at one point, told me one of the older kids suggested that Evolution disproves God. Now I know my friend is not religious. I could have let my friend's kid go on believing this. but I still explained to him that this is simply not true: We don't get off that easy. The "Great Question" cannot be answered by evolution. Thus, this young man will have to search elsewhere for his answers.

I would suggest also that nowhere in the bible does it suggest evolution cannot exist. No where in any religion of those that I am aware is there a suggestion that evolution cannot exist. However, religious followers have throughout history continually made the mistake of asserting that science is wrong despite evidence.

My friend, there is evidence for evolution. I would not think that the theory is complete or the whole story. But, religions persistently fighting with science will only serve to alienate followers when science eventually overcomes whatever barriers to proof that are required to convince the few remaining skeptics. Should you be skeptical of evolution? Yes. Even I am skeptical of evolution. There are many questions involved in evolution that still remain unanswered. Ask questions? In the process you might find out a lot about the subject. However, to make statements such as:

dna replication does not prevent microevolution....it prevents macroevolution.

is simply not true. Rather, you do not see how DNA or RNA replication can produce macro evolution.

I am simply suggesting that if you change your stance from "evolution doesn't happen" to "I am not so sure that evolution, as I understand it, can happen" you might get more out of discussions about evolution than just butting heads.

 

[johnhanks]

... dna replication does not prevent microevolution....it prevents macroevolution.

I've asked you this several times before, and have little more hope of an answer this time; but, here goes.

The fertilised egg of, say, a lungfish develops into a lungfish body under the direction of its genome - a long string of A,T,C,G nucleotides. A different sequence of those same A,T,C,G nucleotides directs the development of an amphibian's fertilised egg into an amphibian body. Although you clearly admit that DNA sequences change from generation to generation, you have asserted above that some aspect of DNA replication will prevent the fish nucleotide sequence from changing, however gradually and over however long a period of time, into the amphibian one.

What, precisely, is this mechanism?

 

[I r Baboon]

I don't think this is going to go anywhere. As our current understanding of nature stands, evolution is quite real and ultimately a relatively understood mechanism that when truly comprehended makes elegant sense. Anyone who denies the observable facts to support evolution either does not fully understand the encompassing theory of evolution or they simply choose to deny its legitimacy for whatever personal reason they have.

I would suggest to the fundamentalists here that a single semester intro course on genetics, or current evolutionary theory, at your local college would do wonders for your arguments. So far you have only shown a complete lack of comprehension in regards to some fundamental aspects of genetic theory and basic evolutionary mechanics. We are not having an intelligent discussion with relevant contentions of these theories. Instead we are witnessing individuals attempting to impart a grade school level of comprehension of genetics and evolution to others who obviously are not proficient in these arenas. I understand that these are two burgeoning aspects of science and therefore not everyone is, or has been, exposed to the same degree of schooling in these areas. Being versed in the basics of genetics and/or evolution will help you to posit the intelligent questions as they relate to the field(s) and instead of undermining the integrity of your debate, as is the case now, you will instead bolster the underlying contentions you have with our current knowledge that we, as a species, have of these subjects. None of our scientific knowledge is perfect but it is sure a hell of a lot more accurate and comprehensive than any ancient books primarily filled with ontological philosophies. There lies the major difference--the spiritual books of the majority religions of the world are not scientific manuals, they are philosophical treatise on life and its meaning. This being said, stop trying to use them in a manner that is obviously inconsistent with their content. Enjoy their verse and prose as you wish but do not rely upon them to intimately describe the material character of the natural world--it is pointless.

 

[Zoe Doidge]

I've been having a go at working out a formula for the likely accumulated mutations in any given generation, and this is what I've come up with:

Where P = Previous Generation's Accumulated Mutations, M = Mutations Per Generation, B = Base Pairs

=P+M-4MP/(3B)

Of course, since P is based on the previous generations result you can only run this through iteration. My reasoning here is that you’d need to account for the odds that a new generation’s mutation would affect a base pair that had already mutated in a previous generation. If it did, it would either do nothing (2/3 chance) or revert back to what it was originally (1/3 chance).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

dna replication does not prevent microevolution....it prevents macroevolution.

What you said here speaks against any and all mutation, including "microevolution":

The reason why DNA is so stable is because before it can reproduce, it must replicate itself...the process of replication is always the same. The four chemical bases A, T, G, and C always pair in the same way: A with T, and G with C. If one side of a rung is A, the other side is always T; G always meets C.

So which is it? Is replication perfect? If yes, then you're arguing against "microevolution", which you yourself say can be confirmed by observation. If no, then you lose your basis for your claim that "macroevolution" is impossible.

Edit: I think the real answer lies in the fact that your explanation of DNA replication overly simplifies things to the point where you gloss over the ways that mutations - and "macroevolution - happen.

 

[painted wolf]

I think the problem is that creationists thinks that macroevolution happens as a single giant change rather than as several small changes over a longer period of time.

wa:do

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I think the problem is that creationists thinks that macroevolution happens as a single giant change rather than as several small changes over a longer period of time.

wa:do

There are probably some who do think that way, but the bigger problem is that macroevolution is more likely to be seen as something which contradicts their own established beliefs... ((while microevolution is really inarguable given the sheer amount of evidence for it we see about us in our daily lives e.g. types of dogs, families who look similar etc)) So long as it is considered incompatible it is a perceived threat - that is what happens if you are unwilling to consider the sources from which you derive your position as being intended to be taken metaphorically rather than literally.

 

[McBell]

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.

So basically, your argument is that because we have not seen it happen, it cannot happen?

Do you apply this same logic to your belief that god created?
What did you see god create?