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

[I r Baboon]

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.

That is not what a theory is at all. It seems that there is a general misconception that there is some hierarchical ladder from hypothesis to theory to law that scientists follow. This is not true. A theory is:

"a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena". (from dictionary dot com) Like the theory of gravity and Einstein's theories of relativity.

This is exactly what I was referring to in my previous post. This argument does not add anything to the question and instead detracts from the debate because a basic scientific concept must be explained appropriately rather than focusing on the meat of the question. Science is not infallible, in fact that is one of its strengths. It would do wonders for everyone to have a remedial grasp of the concepts so that we could press on in an invigorating fashion.

I also wonder if fundamentalists have an issue with quarks? Quarks have never been observed (to date) and are only inferred from their characteristics and modeling (exactly like the mechanism of evolution). Due to quantum mechanics we have an amazing lifestyle and due to our knowledge of evolution more of us are alive (i.e. comprehension of the mechanisms of antibiotic resistance). To shrug off our knowledge of resistance as an example of adaptation rather that evolution (or micro vs macro) is just a game of semantics--and games of semantics do not get us anywhere. Since I am not familiar with endless Christian arguments refuting the validity of subatomic particle physics I am left to assume that the "never has been observed" argument is a flaccid attempt at denying a natural phenomena due to a narrow interpretation of Biblical prose. But, I could be mistaken.

 

[I r Baboon]

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?

Great example

 

[Father Heathen]

That is not what a theory is at all.

Yeah, this is something we've repeatedly explained to the exact same members over and over. Unfortunately that's willful ignorance for you.

 

[PolyHedral]

I also wonder if fundamentalists have an issue with quarks? Quarks have never been observed (to date) and are only inferred from their characteristics and modeling (exactly like the mechanism of evolution). Due to quantum mechanics we have an amazing lifestyle and due to our knowledge of evolution more of us are alive (i.e. comprehension of the mechanisms of antibiotic resistance). To shrug off our knowledge of resistance as an example of adaptation rather that evolution (or micro vs macro) is just a game of semantics--and games of semantics do not get us anywhere. Since I am not familiar with endless Christian arguments refuting the validity of subatomic particle physics I am left to assume that the "never has been observed" argument is a flaccid attempt at denying a natural phenomena due to a narrow interpretation of Biblical prose. But, I could be mistaken.

In fact, due to the specific forces involved, individual quarks cannot be observed. Pegg should be attacking particle physics, which is clearly far more faith-based than the libraries of biology we have available.

 

[idav]

In fact, due to the specific forces involved, individual quarks cannot be observed. Pegg should be attacking particle physics, which is clearly far more faith-based than the libraries of biology we have available.

A faith-based system relying on mathematics. The horror!

 

[Zoe Doidge]

A faith-based system relying on mathematics. The horror!

And mine is far simpler in comparison. It's like if I give someone a tennis ball each year, after ten years they'd have ten tennis balls right?

Wrong says the creationist. Although there's no argument against the maths, and the maths is really just multiplying two figures together, it's still not possible!

 

[I r Baboon]

I think fundamentalists just cannot get past the perception that evolutionary theory is a direct attack against their beliefs. I personally believe that a little historical knowledge and a sprinkle of logic actually do more damage to what is asserted by fundamentalists than evolution but, they seem to ignore much of that. I have read some of the comments made by the fundamentalists and it seems that they think creation by a creative powerful entity is a veritable nightmare for "evolutionists"--a revolting and vile concept that our twisted souls cannot fathom to be true. This is inanely silly. I think this ideological propagation, both consciously and unconsciously, helps to partition mankind into good and evil categories and functions to buttress this underlying dichotomy found in fundamentalist rhetoric.

Listen fundamentalists of this forum--I do not mind the idea of a creative all powerful being. I am not the spawn of the devil nor am I misguided by the devil's impure trickery just because I adhere to the notion of evolving lifeforms and ask for some proof of the existence of an all powerful god. I would think that an omnipotent and omniscient being would encourage a little critical thinking and speculation--hell, what do they have to lose? It seems that you think the thought of a god is revolting to me--but you could not be more wrong. It is the thought of unquestioning ignorant dogma, in all aspects of life, that truly revolts me.

 

[Jared Jammer]

The question in the thread title is fallacious. There need be no "mechanism" to prevent Darwinian evolution from producing macroevolution, as the mechanisms behind Darwinian evolution are, themselves, insufficient at producing such changes. It's like asking what mechanism prevents a tornado in a junkyard from producing a space shuttle -- it's completely nonsensical.

The reason why Darwinian processes can't produce significant novel changes, as required for macroevolution, is that random mutations altering DNA sequences can't produce the new functional proteins required for the formation of said significant novel changes.

It's a failed hypothesis, and only those people stuck in the ignorance of the past still accept it.

Evolve beyond Darwin.

 

[tumbleweed41]

The question in the thread title is fallacious. There need be no "mechanism" to prevent Darwinian evolution from producing macroevolution, as the mechanisms behind Darwinian evolution are, themselves, insufficient at producing such changes. It's like asking what mechanism prevents a tornado in a junkyard from producing a space shuttle -- it's completely nonsensical.

The reason why Darwinian processes can't produce significant novel changes, as required for macroevolution, is that random mutations altering DNA sequences can't produce the new functional proteins required for the formation of said significant novel changes.

It's a failed hypothesis, and only those people stuck in the ignorance of the past still accept it.

Evolve beyond Darwin.

You make a lot of claims there. I am assuming that you are aware that knowledge of biological evolution has advanced pretty far in the 150 years since Darwin.
Can you provide teir-1 peer reviewed biological papers to back up your claims?

 

[mycorrhiza]

The question in the thread title is fallacious. There need be no "mechanism" to prevent Darwinian evolution from producing macroevolution, as the mechanisms behind Darwinian evolution are, themselves, insufficient at producing such changes. It's like asking what mechanism prevents a tornado in a junkyard from producing a space shuttle -- it's completely nonsensical.

The reason why Darwinian processes can't produce significant novel changes, as required for macroevolution, is that random mutations altering DNA sequences can't produce the new functional proteins required for the formation of said significant novel changes.

It's a failed hypothesis, and only those people stuck in the ignorance of the past still accept it.

Evolve beyond Darwin.

Please follow the instructions in the first post when presenting an argument. If we don't have the terms right it will be impossible to debate, and you should present evidence for your stance, not just claims.

I guess "those people stuck in the ignorance of the past" are 99,9% of all biologists..

 

[McBell]

The question in the thread title is fallacious. There need be no "mechanism" to prevent Darwinian evolution from producing macroevolution, as the mechanisms behind Darwinian evolution are, themselves, insufficient at producing such changes. It's like asking what mechanism prevents a tornado in a junkyard from producing a space shuttle -- it's completely nonsensical.

The reason why Darwinian processes can't produce significant novel changes, as required for macroevolution, is that random mutations altering DNA sequences can't produce the new functional proteins required for the formation of said significant novel changes.

It's a failed hypothesis, and only those people stuck in the ignorance of the past still accept it.

Evolve beyond Darwin.

A rather interesting strawman.

praytell, why did you feel the need to insert the word "darwinian"?

I mean, I understand that you think you have some sort of ace in the hole when it comes to "Darwinian evolution", but given the FACT that the word "darwinian" is not in the thread title...
Interesting that you would be so dishonest...

 

[Me Myself]

macroevolution presumes that small changes accumulated slowly over billions of years and produced the big changes needed to make fish into amphibians and apelike creatures into men. So macroevolution is about the 'assumed' big changes that take place.

While the small changes that take place over short periods of time, such as the selective breeding of dogs which can produce descendants with shorter legs or longer hair, describes “microevolution.”.

So you are saying:

You have 100, you can add "+1" all you want for an unlimited span of time, but you will never get a "big" change?

Hav eyou thought it through?


If I gave you a list of 100000 attributes and you could only change ONE at the time, but were given an unlimited amount of time and some kind of drug so you don`t get bored (sorry went too into the analogy ) I can garantee you there will be 100 000 completely different attributes in that list in 2 thousand years (did I mention this drug made you immortal? )

 

[camanintx]

The question in the thread title is fallacious. There need be no "mechanism" to prevent Darwinian evolution from producing macroevolution, as the mechanisms behind Darwinian evolution are, themselves, insufficient at producing such changes. It's like asking what mechanism prevents a tornado in a junkyard from producing a space shuttle -- it's completely nonsensical.

No, it's more like asking if we can walk across town in a day, how far can we walk in a year? If mutations can change 100 base pairs in each individual, how many base pairs can change over 250,000 generations?

The reason why Darwinian processes can't produce significant novel changes, as required for macroevolution, is that random mutations altering DNA sequences can't produce the new functional proteins required for the formation of said significant novel changes.

Except that it can.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3227873/

It's a failed hypothesis, and only those people stuck in the ignorance of the past still accept it.

Evolve beyond Darwin.

The only failure is your ability to understand what Darwin really means.

 

[secret2]

The question in the thread title is fallacious. There need be no "mechanism" to prevent Darwinian evolution from producing macroevolution, as the mechanisms behind Darwinian evolution are, themselves, insufficient at producing such changes. It's like asking what mechanism prevents a tornado in a junkyard from producing a space shuttle -- it's completely nonsensical.

The mentioning of the infamous tornado-through-a-junkyard thought experiment demonstrates once and for all your lack of proper understanding. Mutation is random but selection is not.

 

[johnhanks]

The question in the thread title is fallacious. There need be no "mechanism" to prevent Darwinian evolution from producing macroevolution, as the mechanisms behind Darwinian evolution are, themselves, insufficient at producing such changes. It's like asking what mechanism prevents a tornado in a junkyard from producing a space shuttle -- it's completely nonsensical.

We are not asking for a mechanism that prevents the random rearrangement of scrap into a spacecraft, we are asking for a mechanism that prevents one specific sequence of DNA nucleotides being rearranged, in small steps and over a very large number of generations, into a different sequence of those same nucleotides.

Evolve beyond Darwin.

Biology has; you, it seems, have not.

 

[I r Baboon]

You make a lot of claims there. I am assuming that you are aware that knowledge of biological evolution has advanced pretty far in the 150 years since Darwin.
Can you provide teir-1 peer reviewed biological papers to back up your claims?

I can't wait to see what we get.:sarcastic

 

[Looncall]

The question in the thread title is fallacious. There need be no "mechanism" to prevent Darwinian evolution from producing macroevolution, as the mechanisms behind Darwinian evolution are, themselves, insufficient at producing such changes. It's like asking what mechanism prevents a tornado in a junkyard from producing a space shuttle -- it's completely nonsensical.

The reason why Darwinian processes can't produce significant novel changes, as required for macroevolution, is that random mutations altering DNA sequences can't produce the new functional proteins required for the formation of said significant novel changes.

It's a failed hypothesis, and only those people stuck in the ignorance of the past still accept it.

Evolve beyond Darwin.

It almost seems that religion inhibits truthfulness. You are pretending that there is no ratcheting effect in evolution by which changes are retained and added to over time. Your comment about mutations is simply false, as I suspect you are aware.

It's a very well-supported theory. Only those stuck in ancient superstitions of the past reject it.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Anyone else want to give it a go?

 

[Shermana]

Anyone else want to give it a go?

The question itself cannot be answered because there is no evidence of a specific mechanism which is, as defined as '"Mechanism" specifically engineered to stop the greater structural changes that would render it to go beyond "Micro" into a truly, wholly different species. There may be some evidence depending on how you view it, we know that virtually all mutations are neutral or harmful, and any major changes even in a survivable direction usually result in a hindrance elsewhere. Logically it can be argued there's simply not enough time for some extremely lucky specimens to propagate and not be hunted down or starve out from various circumstances. Can it be proven that such radical changes would result in such a short time frame? Would monkeys transition to men within just a few ten millions of years? Do we have evidence of how quickly such radical transitions can be made? Can we mathetmatically estimate it with reasonable accuracy based on prior samples?

However, perhaps I should make a thread on "What mechanism ALLOWS radical changes in animals such as bat wings, Cocooning, acid-kamikazing, arched feet, and opposable thumbs"? If the answer is "Random mutation!" well then, back to square 1. What allows fish to completely transition gills to lungs?

 

[idav]

The question itself cannot be answered because there is no evidence of a specific mechanism which is, as defined as '"Mechanism" specifically engineered to stop the greater structural changes that would render it to go beyond "Micro" into a truly, wholly different species.

However, perhaps I should make a thread on "What mechanism ALLOWS radical changes in animals such as bat wings, Cocooning, acid-kamikazing, arched feet, and opposable thumbs"? If the answer is "Random mutation!" well then, back to square 1. What allows fish to completely transition gills to lungs?

Which radical changes would be prevented given enough time? These things didn't evolve over one generation.

edit: see transitional fossils, all fossils are transitional