What prevents evolution?

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At some point inthe future either population A or poulation B will constitute 100% of the population. This is genetic drift due to randomness in the environment, as long as there is a differnece in reproductive success there will be change, it requires a mechanism to stop what would otherwise become a mathenmatical certainty given enough permeations.

[/ QUOTE ]

One mechanism that stops this completely hypothetical process from occurring in the real world is the increasing infertility among the members of the genetically drifting population that accompanies their individual divergence from the original stock.

[/ QUOTE ]

So...speciation prevents evolution?
Extinction prevents evolution?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At some point inthe future either population A or poulation B will constitute 100% of the population. This is genetic drift due to randomness in the environment, as long as there is a differnece in reproductive success there will be change, it requires a mechanism to stop what would otherwise become a mathenmatical certainty given enough permeations.

[/ QUOTE ]

One mechanism that stops this completely hypothetical process from occurring in the real world is the increasing infertility among the members of the genetically drifting population that accompanies their individual divergence from the original stock.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure you are not right about how evolution occurs WRT reproduction...

I'm going to a class, but if no one else chimes in, I'll try to elaborate when I get back

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At some point inthe future either population A or poulation B will constitute 100% of the population. This is genetic drift due to randomness in the environment, as long as there is a differnece in reproductive success there will be change, it requires a mechanism to stop what would otherwise become a mathenmatical certainty given enough permeations.

[/ QUOTE ]

One mechanism that stops this completely hypothetical process from occurring in the real world is the increasing infertility among the members of the genetically drifting population that accompanies their individual divergence from the original stock.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? In the hypothetical there is 0 change from the original stock no change in fertility rates, the only change is in which turtles make it back to reproduce. As long as the organisms are not reproducing on a 1:1 level there will be evolution due to genetic drift as long as there is variation within the population. Your "increasing infertility" would have to be directly applied to counteract the drift, owhterwise you would be relying on random chance to direct this in a perfect inverse relationship to the drift. Basically what your argument is
"god created a system that will inevitable lead to evolution, but actively prevents it from happening".

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
No, Borodog's post is about the inevitability of evolution, not the inevitability of man arising from bacteria.

[/ QUOTE ]
Virtually no one debates that something called "micro-evolution" occurs. I think Borodog's point was larger than this. If not, it's a trite comment, and Borodog's grand sweeping vision of truth doesn't include trite comments.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

Virtually no one debates that something called "micro-evolution" occurs

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the differnece between micro and macro evolution? If micro evolution produces changes within populations what prevents macro evolution?

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At some point inthe future either population A or poulation B will constitute 100% of the population. This is genetic drift due to randomness in the environment, as long as there is a differnece in reproductive success there will be change, it requires a mechanism to stop what would otherwise become a mathenmatical certainty given enough permeations.

[/ QUOTE ]

One mechanism that stops this completely hypothetical process from occurring in the real world is the increasing infertility among the members of the genetically drifting population that accompanies their individual divergence from the original stock.

[/ QUOTE ]

So...speciation prevents evolution?
Extinction prevents evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

Speciation causes infertility.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
What is the differnece between micro and macro evolution? If micro evolution produces changes within populations what prevents macro evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's partly a matter of scale. Larger changes become exponentially (that one's for you, borodog) more difficult to achieve that miniscule changes, especially when multiple concurrent changes in structure or function are required.

Also, in your example, all that changed was the frequency of already existing alleles. You'll need a more insightful example than that to convince anyone.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is the differnece between micro and macro evolution? If micro evolution produces changes within populations what prevents macro evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's partly a matter of scale. Larger changes become exponentially (that one's for you, borodog) more difficult to achieve that miniscule changes,

[/ QUOTE ]

Large changes are simply accumulations of small changes.

[ QUOTE ]
especially when multiple concurrent changes in structure or function are required.

[/ QUOTE ]

Required by whom?

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At some point inthe future either population A or poulation B will constitute 100% of the population. This is genetic drift due to randomness in the environment, as long as there is a differnece in reproductive success there will be change, it requires a mechanism to stop what would otherwise become a mathenmatical certainty given enough permeations.

[/ QUOTE ]

One mechanism that stops this completely hypothetical process from occurring in the real world is the increasing infertility among the members of the genetically drifting population that accompanies their individual divergence from the original stock.

[/ QUOTE ]

So...speciation prevents evolution?
Extinction prevents evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

Speciation causes infertility.

[/ QUOTE ]

You, my friend, are not just stupid. You are REALLY, REALLY stupid. And this isn't even ignorance; it's flat out, clear cut, no bones about it, stupidity.

Your post makes absolute zero sense. none. There is NO SPECIATION IN THIS EXAMPLE. I don't know where you see it. In fact, I don't really believe you do. I think you operate a lot like the poker site support centers. You see a few key words, you find the closest match to one of your set repertoire of responses, and you fire off your reply regardless of whether it has any bearing whatsoever on the subject at hand.

I've seen AI conversation programs that can carry on a discussion SIGNIFICANTLY better than you.

I'd like to think that your responses have provided some insight into the minds of the average creationist, but I don't think they do. I have to believe (for the sake of sanity, if nothing else) that you are significantly less discerning than most creationists. Even most YEC's. Christ, at least many of them take positions like 'god is testing us'.

I mean, you're just certifiable. It's like Bizarro world. It's like trolling.

Glad I got that off my chest.
If only there were some way to block a poster AND replies...

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

It's partly a matter of scale. Larger changes become exponentially (that one's for you, borodog) more difficult to achieve that miniscule changes, especially when multiple concurrent changes in structure or function are required.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is to much here that is based on poor assumptions.
1. Large changes can come from the accumlation of small changes. Much as i cannot run a amrathon in one step that does not prevent me from taking many steps to reach that destination.
2. More difficult =! impossible. Flax genome undergoes rapid change. From the paper
[ QUOTE ]
In one plant species, Linum usitatissimum (flax) rapid changes in the genome occur that are associated with the environment in which the plant is growing, and these nuclear DNA variants can be stably or unstably inherited. In addition, the magnitude of the variation that occurs in flax has enabled the phenomenon to be identified.

[/ QUOTE ]

Large scale, non fatal genomic changes are certainly possible within pants and bacteria.

3. Miltiple concurrent changes are not always required. Because a mutation can be nutral, or its disadvantages are not negative enough to immediately remove the new allel from the population there is the possiblity for a building block effect even if one mutation alone provides an immediate disadvantage.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, in your example, all that changed was the frequency of already existing alleles. You'll need a more insightful example than that to convince anyone.


[/ QUOTE ]

My example was merely to refute NotReady's statement that Borodog's list of requirements for evolution is incomplete - this one here
[ QUOTE ]


I don't think your premises establish this. You would need another one, somthing like - Some genetic differences produce advantageous survival characteristics in the phenotype.

[/ QUOTE ]

Differences in the phenotype do NOT have to be advantageous as long as there is not a 1:1 relationship. Thats all, merely a technical point.

Edit: i meant to say Differences in the phenotype do not have to be advantageous as long is there is not a 1:1 relationship in reproduction (ie each generation is 1 parent to one offspring).