If you believe microevolution occurs but not speciation, I have a question. What mechanism prevents small changes over a very long period of time from differentiating one species into another?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
There is no Micro vs Macro evolution. This is a Creationist myth. No Kangaroo ever gave birth to a panda. Every species to ever evolve was just like its parent species and it was able to procreate with its own kind.
Of course!
The best analogy here is evolution of language. Modern Spanish is derived from Latin, but at no point did a Latin speaking parent raise a Spanish speaking child.
Creationism is a superstitious myth. It has no more validity than the legends of Hercules.
It's not a contest of scientific fact vs superstitious myth. Creationism is nonsense independently of the validity of any scientific facts. In the extremely unlikely event evidence started to be found that indicated evolution were falsified, creationism would remain nonsense, and always will as no objective evidence can be demonstrated for it's hokum mumbo jumbo claims.
The premise is all wrong. It assumes that micro and macro are similar in respect that they aid to change and evolve a species. Microevolution is the same as variations within a species. There is no new information added; it was there all along. Macro, on the other hand, has never been observed nor does information come about randomly.
Numerous instances of speciation have been directly observed.
@Bumble Butt
I do have to question your knowledge of genetics and evolution. And where you get your information from.
If you are referring to some ludicrous event like a chicken laying an egg that produces a crocoduck, then you have strayed into the land of folly.
But for those who study genetics and evolution, macro evolution is a reality. I suggest you start with just this one article.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/macroevolution-example...
The premise makes no assumptions. The question is directed at those who make assumptions.
Bumble butt
@ There is no new information added; it was there all along. @
New information is generated by mutation.The order of base pairs along DNA corresponds to the order of amino acids in the protein products. If the order of base pairs is changed, (by mutation), or if some base pairs are lost, or some base pairs are added, or a section of DNA gets copied back-to-front, or if a section of DNA gets repeated, (where before if was only present singly), then you have new information. The change in the sequence of base pairs along the DNA strand give a different sequence of amino acids in the proteins produced. Those differences can make a big difference in the function or form of the species in question.
You can play games with words in English, (say), to make an analogy. You could try :-
_________________________________________________________________
Inge's Anagram Generator
http://ingesanagram.appspot.com/
Type in a word, ( a longish one is a good idea).
I tried creationism
Under ANAGRAMS, you get a load of anagrams using all of the letters in the original word.
Under WORDS, you will get words made up of just some of the letters in the original word.
You generate lots of words with different meanings, all based on what you put in as your word starting word.
You get new information, just by mutating the letters in the word you start with.
_________________________________________________________________
It's the same with DNA. When DNA is copied, (as cells divide), the copying is not always 100% perfect. Those imperfections contribute to the origin of new information.
You can check what kinds of GENETIC mutations occur here :-
_________________________________________________________________
What kinds of gene mutations are possible?
https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/mutationsanddisorders/possiblemutations
_________________________________________________________________
So how does DNA make protein. Read this for an explanation :-
_________________________________________________________________
DNA, RNA and protein
https://science-explained.com/theory/dna-rna-and-protein/
_________________________________________________________________
So by altering the sequences in the DNA strands, (mutation), you alter the protein product. This protein plays a big role in how a species is formed, (morphology) and how it operates, (functionality). How can mutation occur? I'd say by mis-copying of DNA during cell and thus nuclear division, or by injury to the DNA from chemical influences, (eg. smoking, pollution) or radiation causes, (too much sun exposure), or other influences.
In the anagram generate above, the results have to make sense, by being in the anagram generator's dictionary. When DNA is altered to make new information, (as outlined in the article "What kinds of gene mutations are possible?"), the result does not have to make sense - there is no dictionary of what makes sense. The outcome is pot-luck, but the constraint over what gets passed on to future generations depends on whether or not the result is . . .
1.Harmful;
2. Neutral; or
3. Beneficial.
Nature tends to weed out the harmful, may permit the neutral to persist, and tends to promote the beneficial.
So NEW INFORMATION arises in nature, and new species and forms can eventually come about as the number of such variations is laid one upon another. Macro-evolution, if it is a thing, only exists as loads of micro-evolutionary steps, laid one upon another, until a new morphology may result, and an inability to breed with the ancestral form happens.
You can get something of a grasp of this speciation, by studying the concept of "ring species" :-
_________________________________________________________________
Google: Ring species
https://www.google.com.au/search?ei=ZuX8WsrZFcL38gWKgqu4Bw&q=ring+specie...
_________________________________________________________________
Of course, to fully understand all of the aspects, implications and intricacies of evolutionary change, you need to do a lot of study, in areas I've not covered, or only skimmed over. I can't do a good job in a single posting on this website, but for someone to declare that evolution of new species can't happen, because @ no new information added @, tends to show me that the person has not done much of that studying at all.
Adios,
Mutorc.
Play the blues! If you don't have the grooves.....!
@ Mutorc
Should have seen some of the anagrams I was getting for "antidisestablishmentarianism."
Almost 3000 and still had not gotten out the A's...
rmfr
That would be like saying there is no new information in anything written in on this website, since we've seen all the letters of the alphabet before we came to this website. It is ridiculously incorrect.
Complete nonsense, duplicitous creationist mumbo jumbo. Go away and educate yourself because you are embarrassing yourself.
@Bumble butt: Microevolution is the same as variations within a species.
So what happens when two populations of the same species are somehow isolated from each other? That can occur, for example, when rising sea levels turn peninsulas into islands. Variations would continue to occur in both populations, but without interbreeding those variations would move in different directions. After a certain number of generations, you'd have two distinct species.
Didn't I and half the forum spend 10+ pages discussing this last week? You were there too.
This is a less congested page. To be quite honest, I saw the evolution forum topic and that it had 80 comments and said fuck it. I haven't looked at it, because it's useless at this point. All just a jumbled mess. A new thread, albeit repetitive, can help hit on specific points of a larger whole for those like me who couldn't be bothered to wade through the quagmire.
True, but it normally stays uncongested until I comment. That's when ten different people respond to me, and it spirals into chaos. Perhaps I should sit this thread out and let those who weren't in the other thread have their say.
This thread is asking specifically for a mechanism which prevents speciation?
David Killins,
I read the article you linked to; interesting.
You asked about my knowledge of genetics and evolution. I admit, I’m no scientist, however I do work in wastewater treatment. We have an 8 basin SBR plant, two satellite plants and a fully functioning laboratory. I spend many hours identifying numerous microorganisms; perform many tests, and even grow certain bacteria in the lab. We identify and work with 3 kingdoms of life and their environment. We rely heavily on evolution not being fact. If it were, you and I would not be here texting back and forth.
In a post further down someone mentioned variations Accumulating to the point where interbreeding is impossible. This is true, however, if we’re talking birds, it’s still a bird. If we’re talking rotifers, it’s still a rotifer. It then becomes an argument over terms and definitions.
I joined this group in hopes someone could help me see the atheist point of view and to help me understand why people believe in evolution, because I just can’t rap my head around it.
You just endorsed the theory of evolution; probably without realizing it.
@Bumble butt
If these variations accumulate to the point where interbreeding is impossible, what boundary is there to keep those from continuing to accumulate until the bird becomes not-a-bird? If you give it enough time, doesn't that seem inevitable? At what point would you no longer consider it a bird?
A species is defined as a group of organisms that can successfully reproduce and create viable offspring. Different breeds of dogs can interbreed and still create dogs. But a horse and donkey make a mule, which is sterile.
There's a family of Finches that originated south of the Himalayas and migrated north, but some went east around the mountains, and some went west. Change occurred in that species due to natural selection, but it occurred in different ways to each party. When the resulting species met back at the North side of the mountains, they could not interbreed. They were different species. Macroevolution occurred. Case closed.
Atheism is nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is a scientific fact, but even in the highly unlikely event it were falsified tomorrow I'd remain an atheist as no one can demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity.
I don't understand why religious apologists keep making this straw man argument?